There was a thread within the past year or two which asked us to address a hypothetical situation.

I'm probably butchering it, but I think it went something like this:

Which is worse?

Criminal man in the city decides to kill the first person he sees.

or

Criminal man in the city decides to kill the first black person he sees.

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/crime/2013/09/10/nr-candiotti-nyc-man-killed-possible-hate-crime.cnn.html

A black man allegedly claimed that he was going to punch the first white person he saw. He then saw a white man, punched him so hard that he fell over, hit his head on the concrete, and eventually died without ever regaining consciousness.

Is the crime (of killing a man at random) worse because his target was determined solely based on race?

I don't remember the outcome of the original thread, but it didn't have an example case. I can't find it either.

Correct me if I missed anything.

Their crimes are the same. Both are equally dangerous to society. The second man is more messed up than the first, but it hardly matters.

I think that's a pretty fair and accurate assessment.

Would you agree that they shouldn't try this man (or anyone) with "hate crime" and just give him a murder charge?

A hate crime should only be applied when intentional malice towards a being was based on race rather than a personal reason such as him sleeping with your wife.

Murder is murder, but if you do it out of hate for a race, I think more sting should be put on the collar. It's fine to hate someone based on some personal opinion you hold, but to act out on it and commit an act of hate or violence is just out of the question.

Yes.

I kind of see what you mean.

But on the other hand, race seems to be seen as arbitrary in a lot of situations and in a case like this it almost seems like special pleading.

Is race the only motive for killing that is worth extra punishment? What about six? If the criminal said he was going to hit/kill the next man he saw, he probably wouldn't get charged with being sixist.

Now, if he said it would be the next woman he saw, he probably would be charged with a hate crime based on six. Maybe.

It just seems like when they give extra charges for arbitrary reasons, it implies that those reasons were important. Like, he's being charged with killing a white man instead of just killing a man.