ReligiousLiberty.TV / Founders' First Freedom®  – News and Updates on Religious Liberty and Freedom
Menu
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Church and State
  • In the News
  • In the News
  • Supreme Court
  • Free Speech
  • Legislation
Menu

Thought and Crime

Posted on March 1, 2008 by ReligiousLiberty.TV
Thought and Crime - Michael D. Peabody
NOTE:  This story has been updated.  Read the update.

Published in Liberty Magazine – March / April 2008

On July 1, 2007, Satendar Singh, a 26-year-old Sikh American was attacked by a group of six men while enjoying an early Independence Day picnic with friends at a park in Folsom, California. According to news reports, the attackers noticed that Singh was dancing with both men and women and did not appear to have a female date. The attackers began hurling racist and anti-gay invectives.

When Singh and his group attempted to leave, the attackers blocked Singh’s path and one of them struck Singh in the head. Singh fell to the ground unconscious, his head bleeding profusely. On July 5 his life support was removed. Two men with alleged ties to an extremist “Christian” group are standing trial, and some believe that they were spurred on to an act of violence by the rhetoric of the group.

The U.S. Department of Justice defines a “hate crime” as “an offense motivated by hatred against a victim based on his or her race, religion, sexual orientation, handicap, ethnicity, or national origin.” The definition may be simple, but it is difficult to determine whether the evidence of hatred is actually related to the crime or is instead a protected form of expression.

Read the full article at http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/view/710

Category: Civil Rights, Legal Issues

12 thoughts on “Thought and Crime”

  1. MacGyver says:
    April 4, 2008 at 5:40 am

    It would really be scary to be punished for your thoughts, especially if the thought is only in fleeting. Actions speak louder than words or thoughts. People should be able to think what they want to as long as they don’t act on it in a way that can hurt people.

  2. MacGyver says:
    April 3, 2008 at 10:40 pm

    It would really be scary to be punished for your thoughts, especially if the thought is only in fleeting. Actions speak louder than words or thoughts. People should be able to think what they want to as long as they don’t act on it in a way that can hurt people.

  3. Steve says:
    April 5, 2008 at 12:32 am

    Having certain thoughts might not be criminalized in the U.S., but you can still have consequences if you have certain beliefs. For example, if you were a known white supremecist, you’re going to have a hard time getting hired by many people. Also, scientists that don’t, for example, believe in global warming are unduly ostracized by their peers.

  4. Steve says:
    April 4, 2008 at 5:32 pm

    Having certain thoughts might not be criminalized in the U.S., but you can still have consequences if you have certain beliefs. For example, if you were a known white supremecist, you’re going to have a hard time getting hired by many people. Also, scientists that don’t, for example, believe in global warming are unduly ostracized by their peers.

  5. Stephanie says:
    April 5, 2008 at 2:09 pm

    It’s too bad that people hide behind their beliefs in order to do other people harm. We are all human beings and all deserve to live and live peacefully. It is never right to hurt another human being. All wrongs will have consequences at the end.

  6. Stephanie says:
    April 5, 2008 at 7:09 am

    It’s too bad that people hide behind their beliefs in order to do other people harm. We are all human beings and all deserve to live and live peacefully. It is never right to hurt another human being. All wrongs will have consequences at the end.

  7. D.Shankar says:
    April 5, 2008 at 3:17 pm

    this is a really cruel act.Any person has the right to follow any religion/select his friend for company.After all human life is short, we never know how short it is, so let us live a full life without any restrictions.

  8. D.Shankar says:
    April 5, 2008 at 8:17 am

    this is a really cruel act.Any person has the right to follow any religion/select his friend for company.After all human life is short, we never know how short it is, so let us live a full life without any restrictions.

  9. Angela says:
    June 8, 2008 at 4:42 am

    This is a tough issue. It instinctively “feels” wrong that someone should get an extra punishment for what they were thinking when they committed a crime — should they get a lesser sentence if they were just jerks attacking someone at random with the same results? I would hope not. I can see the logic behind the concept of “hate crimes”, but in practice something just seems off about it.

  10. Angela says:
    June 7, 2008 at 9:42 pm

    This is a tough issue. It instinctively “feels” wrong that someone should get an extra punishment for what they were thinking when they committed a crime — should they get a lesser sentence if they were just jerks attacking someone at random with the same results? I would hope not. I can see the logic behind the concept of “hate crimes”, but in practice something just seems off about it.

  11. Sylvia says:
    June 8, 2008 at 4:37 pm

    How can someone who murders another human being because they dance with men and women call themselves Christian? Talk about giving Christianity a very bad name. WWJD? Would Jesus be okay with that? Come on!

  12. Sylvia says:
    June 8, 2008 at 9:37 am

    How can someone who murders another human being because they dance with men and women call themselves Christian? Talk about giving Christianity a very bad name. WWJD? Would Jesus be okay with that? Come on!

Comments are closed.

©2025 ReligiousLiberty.TV / Founders' First Freedom® – News and Updates on Religious Liberty and Freedom
Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experience, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage {vendor_count} vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}