Racial motive

If we want to prove that we really condemn racism and that justice is paramount for us, we must first be to abolish the provisions of laws that are racist and unjust in themselves. A racial motive is above all a motive, a consequence of an opinion, just like any other motive. If we punish him more severely than other acts, we punish opinion, not deed. Let's punish everyone equally. This is equality before the law and justice, which perhaps we should all demand.


Can someone be punished for thinking something?

In my opinion he has everyone has the right to think what they want. It is up to each individual to believe what thoughts he is preaching and what he is thinking. A communist has the right to believe his thoughts, just as I have the right to think of his views as completely wrong.

As well as the racist has an absolute right to his opinion, his view of the world - Like me, I can think of him as a primitive.

What neither a communist nor a racist has the right to do is go and murder someone. It doesn't matter what the motives are, what the motive is. No one has the right to murder as such, everyone has the right to maximum self - defense.

Unfortunately, we live in a special time. If we kill someone because they are rich, we don't like them, we think anything about them, we get a certain punishment. However, if we kill someone because the person is a member of a certain race, I will receive a harsher punishment, because it is a so-called "racial motive".

Crimes committed with a racial motive are disgusting. If I kill someone just for their race, I am worthy of maximum contempt. But am I not worthy of the same contempt for killing someone for their property, opinions, appearance, behavior, or anything else?

Why, by law, is one particular type of motive worse than any other type?

In other words, why is there any motive - out of racial - mitigating circumstances for the law?

Punishment of thoughts

The fact is that any criminal offense is committed on the basis of opinion. I think I have a right to someone else's property - so I'll kill him to get his property. I don't think the person is worthy of their life - and I will commit murder.

What is judged in the case of racially motivated murder is not an act - murder is not judged. The opinion is judged, worldview.

If I go to prison for 20 years for the murder of a child, and at the time when the murder is committed on the basis of a racial motive, I "get" 25 years, we get into a situation where I get 20 years for the act - for the murder - and I will receive the remaining 5 years as punishment for my opinion, for my convictions.

No one should be punished just for their opinion. Everyone should "get" 25 years old. Without difference.

That is called "equality before the law".

Undeservedly by the victims

If a communist kills the owner of the factory, will we judge the act as murder on the basis of a "class motive"? If a son kills his father, will we judge it as murder based on a "family motive"? After all, it's absurd. Behind every murder is a motive and there is no reason for their castration.

It's not for us every human life is just as important? Isn't every human life just as rare? Equally expensive? Isn't everyone a unique and important individual for us?

Putting people in prison based on their views and beliefs is political oppression. If we judge racially motivated crimes harder than other crimes, we are giving racists a powerful weapon, the label "political prisoners ", which they actually do.

We make them victims, which they become completely undeservedly, and from the Roma, blacks and others we make - for their misfortune - in the eyes of other members of society a "protected cream". The sound of the whole situation is so completely inverted. The one who should be dismissed as an outcast - the murderer - is given the label of the victim, while those who are the real victims - the Roma, the blacks and others - are given the label of the perpetrators.

Equality before the law

Judge a to punish are deeds, not opinions. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but everyone can also think about it. If all the motives of crimes are mitigating circumstances for us and only racists are punished "with full force", we cannot be surprised that the circle of people is expanding, who either directly or at least deep down see the racial motive of crimes as a mitigating circumstance.

It is precisely such laws that divide opinions into right and wrong, which divide which motive for murder is "right" and which is "wrong." They are racist template, sowing racism among us, dividing into "black" and "white".

If we want to prove that we really condemn racism and that justice is paramount for us, we must first be to abolish the provisions of laws that are racist and unjust in themselves. A racial motive is above all a motive, a consequence of an opinion, just like any other motive. If we punish him more severely than other acts, we punish opinion, not deed. Let's punish everyone equally. It is equality before the law and the justice that we should all demand.

And just in the end - unequivocal self-defense is not murder.


  1. Still one ass on two chairs.

    You claim that even racists have the right to spread their hatred, but in the background you deny the right to express personal opinions to those in opposition.

    When will you stop blocking the IP addresses of people who disagree with you, Jakub?

    PS: As you can see, it still leads nowhere. If I decide to comment on your populist propaganda, your censorship is not an obstacle.

  2. Sampis:
    Can you explain to me why an attack on a person because of his property is less socially dangerous than an attack on a person because of his race?
    The very notion of "social danger" seems misleading to me. A criminal is not to be punished for social danger, but for a crime he has committed against innocent victims.

  3. Václav Šír: Thanks for the relevant argument. However, you did not notice one thing. The fact that racial motive, or property motive, is an aggravating circumstance does not preclude that this case will be seen as such (without anyone examining the political affiliation of the attacker). And that's the main thing I contradict.
    By the way, there are many aggravating circumstances. For example, if the victim is a person under the age of fifteen. Again, the rate increases, similarly to racially motivated TC. Well, practically we are still talking about TCs with high social danger, which are also evaluated at an increased rate, or are the reason for punishment in the upper half of the rate.
    The case you mentioned is exactly what racist people do. In other words, it is an attack on a stranger unknown, selected only on the basis of some characters. For example, alleged belonging to Jews. In the example you gave, not even the reason was needed. Or do you think that it is possible to excuse reprehensible acts from reprehensible motives just because there can be a worse motive?
    In general, violence is unacceptable. Violence justified by ideology is even worse because it gives the perpetrator an alleged excuse for committing the crap for moral reasons. Therefore, it is a much more dangerous variant of violence.

  4. By the way, the reference to the alleged insult under the article calling for "freedom of speech for racists" is really spicy ;-))

  5. Sampis: I'm sorry. I felt like you were human. But from swearing and rudeness, I can now see that you are just an idiot. Possibly. troll. So I won't bother with another answer. 🙂

  6. Chorozone, do you have any reason to stay dull? For property murder, it is not considered whether the perpetrator is a racist or not. Flash. Your whole post is nonsensical nonsense.
    The only thing that can be agreed with is that the attacks of the anarchists are motivated by the class struggle, that is, it is a reprehensible motive. However, an attack on property is always disproportionately less socially dangerous than an attack on a person for stupid reasons such as racism or property gain. You and the author work with a caricature of our rule of law and a caricature of moral values.

  7. Sampis: murders out of jealousy, outrage or affect differ because of their different ability to control themselves. Not because of a different motive. the degree of necessity of the defense or the degree of validity of the act is assessed. But perhaps never (except for the racial ones) is the worldview orientation of the culprit assessed.
    If it were, as you claim, anarchists destroying MC donalds, for example, would have to receive higher penalties as well, because they do so with the conviction that the group that is harming deserves it. And you will surely come up with a thousand other cases yourself.

    That social danger is based precisely on the covetousness or affectation of the performed act. Not from the ideological conviction of the perpetrator.

  8. Demagogy of the highest degree. You have deliberately chosen two particularly reprehensible motives and are generalizing on the basis of them. But it's not that simple, is it. We have murders "out of wickedness," that is, sexual deviance. We have murders out of jealousy. We have murders in response to long-term victim abuse. Murders as the culmination of family disputes and the like. But it's not just murders. Do you really think that beating someone because bothering my wife is the same as beating someone, just because I don't like the color of their skin? Do you think that a conflict between two quarrelsome neighbors is as serious as a sudden attack on a stranger only for racial reasons?
    An idea is not punished, but a motive. That is, the reason that led to the act. In other words, a brawl at entertainment is not as socially dangerous as an "unreasonable" attack on strangers just by labeling a group.

Comments are off.