Lots of burglars are people who comit such crimes out of desperation for getting money to fed their families. Others are part of criminal organisations, and actually would have the possibility to earn an honest living, but don't.

You can use the motives of a crime to establish whether or not a criminal can be rehabilitated. The guy who robbed someone to feed his kids, and out of panic stabbed someoen could be rehabilitated more easily than the guy who was part of the criminal organisation, and who probably no longer has any notion of right and wrong.

A racist/homophobe is hard to rehabilitate. They don't beleive taht they have a problem, they beleive that their victims are their problem, and that they're acting justly by harassing/hurting/killing them. They're almost no different than psychopaths.

The poor guy who acted out of desperation can be rehabilitated, if programs to help such individuals are established (like Joelcool said).

You don't just throw a criminal in jail to offer revenge to the victims, you throw him in jail to protect all of society, and some criminals are certainly more dangerous than others.

A for the Hitler/Stalin comparison, well Godwin's law certainly prooves to be true once more. I personally view Hitler to be more terrible than Stalin. His motves were worse than those of Stalin (who was really just a politician who wanted to have a powerfull country and was willing to go the distance to achieve that - in other words the mentality that State > the people  , which many political leaders even today have - considering all the wars going on now who aren't beneficial to citizens of any country).

Hitler however was killing people (jews, gypsies, gays) for no other reason than the fact that he thought they shouldn't exist.

It's not the quanitity that matters, it's the "quality".

Not a fan of hate crime legislation. An idea that is full of fallacies and can easily be refuted can and will be refuted in public discourse, art, papers, journalims etc. A person that thinks in a bigoted way may be annoying and distressing to society, but until he or she acts on such impulses I think discourse should be maintained by both sides since it would be a gross hypocricy to not do so. If he or she acts on it then they should of course be gaoled for the crime they committed, with the sentence being based on the severity of their actions and on the possibility of them being reformed and re-entering society so they can be of benefit and not a drain.

You do actually know that's not what Godwin's law is right?

The actual Godwin's law is "The longer a thread continues the more likely it is someone will be compaired to hitler."

It has actually nothing to do with winning an arugement.

And even in the context of "winning" and arguement which came later it's about making a dumb comparison to hilter.

IE Bush is Hitler, Obama is Hitler, etc.

Comparing Hitler to Stalin isn't ridiculious.

Simply bringing up hitler constituting losing an arguement would be quite hilarious for people who start threads like "I think Hitler sucked."

That aside, so quite literally you actually do believe someone who kills 2 people isn't as bad as someone who kills 1 person because they were a racist.

Also, any actual proof that their is a higher reoffense rate for hate crimes then non hate crimes?  Or just speculation?

Alright lets use your scenerio.

A man is walking down the street accidently bumps into a man and stabs him

Why did the individual stab the man?

A) Because he suffers froma mental disorder and is off his medication. He has a very hard time controlling his anger and flips out stabbing the man

B) He bumps into the man notices the mans black. He decides because he hates black people to stab the man

C) The man bumps into the man while looking for a victim to stab, being a serial offender he has stabbed many people and chooses to stab again. The wrong place at the wrong time.

D) The man bumps into another man with an unsheathed knife and accidently stabs him (Graises him)

E) The man accidently bumps into another man, thinking the man has money he pulls and knife and tries to rob the individual. The man resists so he is stabbed.

Four different motives. Should all of them be treated the same? All four situations are identicle. Their are different reasons. Should the man who is mentally unstable be treated the same as the repeate offender? Should the racist be treated the same as the robber? Should the accidental stabbing be treated the same as the Racist?

No all four the exact same crime carried out in the exact same or pretty much same fashion. But all four have different reasons.

Now what are you going to suggest.

The exact same crime carried out the exact same way for the exact same reasons. Should they be treated all the same?

A)  Being off of his meds makes it a different crime.  Reckless endangerment.  Facts of the crime are different... so Invalid.  The actual crime started well before this happened when he went off his meds knowing he'd be a danger.  Reckless Endangerment.

B) Same punishment as any other stabbing.

C) Different facts of the crime.   He had premdiatated stabbing someone.

Unless

C2) He planned to stab someone in particular then decided this guy would do.  In which case, same punishment if he has stabbed as many people as person B.   If not, again... facts of the crime are different and would be reflected in sentencing.

Though if he was dumb enough to actually let people know he was going to stab someone else, i'm pretty sure there are other charges he could be brought up on.

D) He's not intentionally stabbing him then is he?  So.... different facts of the crime?

E) Again, different facts of the crime.   Either way he should be punished MORE serverly.  He is committing two crimes instead of one.    Either he's premeditated stabbing someone... or he had the exact same stabbing someone reflex, but this time while trying to comit a crime.

I know what Goodwin's Law is. It was just an observation, I didn't say that you were using Hitler to try and win any arguments. Plus, I thought this was just a friendly conversation, when did it turn into an argument that needed winning? I don't think I've ever seen a topic on this site where a person ever officially won (most of the time people just forget about a certain thread, and it dies out). If I knew it was I would've skipped classes and done some research. )

Yes, it's speculation at this point, if I have time later today I'll try doing some research and see if I find something more concrete.

Let me help you out.  Property crimes have the largest rate of recidivism.

http://www.sgc.wa.gov/PUBS/Recidivism/Adult_Recidivism_CY04.pdf

Crimes done for economic benefit are done so because... well economic benefit.  So if you beat someone up for their money... you have good incentive to do so again.

If you beat someone up because they are a different race for fun... and you go to jail for a while.

What is your benefit to do so again?

Racists aren't mentally ill or anything... (well some are)

They beat people up of another race by actual choice.  Not compulsion or need.

Therefore rcidivism SHOULD be lower then people of compulsion (crazy) or need (poor).

So let me get this straight your saying a single crime.

Someone is walking down the street bumps into a man and then intentionally kills him

Then isn't a man walking down the street accidently bumps into a man, notices the man is black so he then kills him a different crime?

You said it, different facts of the crime. You can't say the same crime happening differently should have the same punishment or out come.

Again I will say motive is the drive behind sentencing and motive is what helps prisons know how to deal with the criminal. Rehabilititation likelyness to re-offend etc...etc...

No.  It's not a different crime.

The man is black in every case... the person notices he is black in every case.

The person stabs him every case.  The person is sane in every case.

Everything is the same except why they stabbed.

Exactly, why they stabbed. Making it different and again different motive. So it shouldn't be judged to be the same crime as it wasn't their was a different motive.