Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
And I don't think that people suffering from equivalent crimes should receive less justice than others because of legal policies based on social and cultural trends.
That is the difference, you see them as "equivalent", but not everyone does. Judges almost always consider possible intent when considering punishment. They want to know if the person is likely to do it again or if this was just a one time mistake.
Factors Considered in Determining Sentences - FindLaw
Common factors considered by judges include:
- whether the offender is a "first-time" or repeat offender,
- whether the offender was an accessory (helping the main offender) or the main offender,
- whether the offender committed the crime under great personal stress or duress,
- whether anyone was hurt, and whether the crime was committed in a manner that was unlikely to result in anyone being hurt,
- whether the offender was particularly cruel to a victim, or particularly destructive, vindictive, etc.
(sometimes) whether the offender is genuinely contrite or remorseful.
The idea is to assess how much of a danger the person is to society, and to fit the punishment to the crime. If someone just made a bad choice then they may not be as much as a danger to society, but if someone hates a group of people so much that they actively seek to hurt those people, then they are a greater threat to society.
I am saying I necessarily agree with hate crime laws, but I get the reasoning behind them.