Show of HandsShow of Hands

spicysteve October 17th, 2013 7:38pm

Person A spray paints a swastika on the side of a synagogue. Person B spray paints a swastika on the side of a grocery store. Should Persons A and B both receive the same punishment?

40 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

isusd5
10/17/13 8:45 pm

Both are inappropriate. One is focusing opposition to a certain group. One is stating an opinion to the general public.

SaintAnger sumkindamonster
10/17/13 8:35 pm

One is probably defined as a hate crime.

Zod Above Pugetropolis
10/17/13 8:19 pm

It depends. Does person B own the grocery store? Because if it's his store, sure, it's cool.

elianastar Gab.ai FreeSpeech
10/17/13 4:47 pm

Act is same regardless object upon which it is performed. Same response to act warranted.

kermie gaytopia
10/17/13 5:15 pm

It's not the same act at all.

MaryMallory Mrs. Sherlock Holmes
10/17/13 4:46 pm

Yes. It's vandalism either way.

Reply
moonshot More often I know nothing
10/17/13 3:49 pm

What if person B was just some dumb kid that didn't know it was a synagogue? Intent matters.

ThePhlegm The Lone Star State
10/17/13 3:45 pm

What if person A is a Hindu and the swastika is a peaceful symbol to them? Does that change anything?

elianastar Gab.ai FreeSpeech
10/17/13 4:48 pm

No. It is still defacing someone else's property. Intent to deface property of another.

CorblaKhan Team Skynet
10/17/13 3:20 pm

No. Person a spray painted a building housing an institution that is not expected to pay taxes. Person b should be more severely punished, as they actually contribute to the system that is responsible for administration of justice.

lipgloss Fort Riley, Ks
10/17/13 3:17 pm

Both are vandalism, both are crimes.

Reply
rickvee Living the dream
10/17/13 3:02 pm

Both are vandalism. Both are done out of hate. One was just planned better...

Zealizabeth Probably the hospital
10/17/13 2:42 pm

Yes but I would probably think less of the person who did it on the synagogue.

FIAT2LUX On Planet Earth
10/17/13 2:33 pm

Both vandalized property. But Person A might have committed a hate crime.

Reply
rickvee Living the dream
10/17/13 3:01 pm

Would someone spray paint a swastika on a grocery store out of love?

presrvd Phoenix
10/17/13 2:27 pm

To validate a hate crime, the prosecution would have to prove it to a court. With the context provided, all that can be proven is that both individuals vandalized buildings.

Reply
Liberty 4,032,064
10/17/13 2:07 pm

Both are vandalism. The punishment should be the same.

Reply
osouless Whats Next
10/17/13 1:24 pm

Yes. Its called Vandalism.

Reply
BeachSt Coastal Virginia
10/17/13 1:20 pm

Exactly what Rlands said. Ones a hate crime. The other is just vandalism, I think.

Reply
rlands
10/17/13 1:05 pm

I think the former is much more likely to be a hate crime targeted at a specific group than the latter, which is just vandalism. There's a meaning behind it that everybody understands and it clearly aimed at a certain group of people.

Reply
rickvee Living the dream
10/17/13 2:40 pm

It's aimed at the same people. It's just seen by more of the intended targets at the former...

rlands
10/17/13 2:44 pm

If it's on a synagogue, we know who it's aimed at. There's a specific group of people that attend synagogue: Jewish people. In a grocery store, it's not a targeted attack. Unless it was a kosher grocery store or something like that...

rickvee Living the dream
10/17/13 2:49 pm

That's just targeted demographics... A swastika spray painted anywhere is aimed at the same people. Any non-white.

rlands
10/17/13 2:56 pm

To paint a swastika on a synagogue is a clear, targeted attack at the people using the synagogue. The same cannot be said of a swastika on a grocery store used by many different races, ethnicities, and religions.

rickvee Living the dream
10/17/13 3:00 pm

So going after one group is worse than going after several?

rlands
10/17/13 3:06 pm

Yes. Non-discriminate hate is far more tolerable than targeted hate.

rickvee Living the dream
10/17/13 3:15 pm

I'm trying not to get into the quagmire of "thought crimes", I just don't see that the same crime should be punished or treated worse because of location. Regardless of motive, the action should be judged.

rickvee Living the dream
10/17/13 3:17 pm

I was just about to follow you when I saw I already was :)

rlands
10/17/13 3:24 pm

To me it's just a different classification of crime, not that the intentions are the sole basis upon which the crime should be judged.
And consider yourself followed as well :)

rickvee Living the dream
10/17/13 3:27 pm

I can see that there would be more restitution on the synagogue, they're usually a little fancier than the typical grocery store.

rlands
10/17/13 3:29 pm

Well, that's true too.

FemmeAdamWest in the Tardis library
10/17/13 12:46 pm

Can people who said no explain why they should get different punishments and possibly which one they think deserves a harsher one?

Reply
Posco BBQ Enthusiast
10/17/13 2:17 pm

Rlands did a pretty good job above. While I don't agree with it, I see her point.

Mattwall1
10/17/13 4:29 pm

Roland's probably explained it best

jakecrs905 New York, NY
10/17/13 12:40 pm

Same crime so you do the same time.

Reply
spicysteve M14D SBS
10/17/13 12:42 pm

I both agree with and appreciate the rhyme of the above statement.