Should cutting someone's hair be considered a hate crime?

It's an assault in my state, if the boy didn't want his hair cut. I think it's appropriate.

Your issue is should it be a hate crime. And I say a crime is a crime. I know of no motive for violence that isn't hateful.

7 years seems excessive for a teen. He won't get that. But if youth crime is taken seriously, the odds are better that he won't re-offend.

ADDED: He will get probation as a first time offender. And it is a crime. Change the victim if you don't like his characteristics. Say it is your 14 year old daughter. It's a crime. School violence MUST be taken seriously.

You are not a lawyer, and unless I am a lawyer, I can't offer an educated answer. But, off the top of my head I would say that by cutting that boy's hair the first boy did indeed perform a hate crime. One would have to prove that the first boy did it in full knowledge of the Sikh boy's religion, and he would be sentenced to the same amount of years in prison.

I find it unbelievable that a seventeen-year-old can get seven years in jail for cutting someone's hair. That said, it was a hate crime as it was clearly an attack on the other boy's religion. Such display of intolerance towards any religion in the U.S. should be unacceptable, but it would be fairer, perhaps, for the courts to administer a punishment less severe for such a young offender.

That's a pretty complicated case. The offender was a juvenile, 17 years old; therefore, he should be treated as a minor. Only in today's PC world can violent minors be put back on the street with clean records and this poor chap faces 7 years.

Now for the twist. When I read your question, I thought it was a case of boys being boys and the world was treating a minor incident too seriously. The offender was Pakistani (and I assume Muslim). The victim was Sikh (Hindu). There is a long history of violence and hatred between Hindus and Muslims. This wasn't just a case of boyish mischief; the offender absolutely knew how his actions would be received. Cutting a Sikh's hair is regarded very differently from cutting a passed-out NASCAR fan's hair.

Nevertheless, it is not the business of U.S. law to consider tribal hatreds from the antipodes. In my opinion, the boy should be charged with battery and the appropriate sentence given.

One of the problems with "hate crimes" is that they encourage the pusillanimous victim mentality.

Did the boy jokingly reach out and snip off only a lock, or did he hold the kid down and give him a chop job?

There would be a big difference in how I'd handle those two different cases.

Sikhs generally wear turbans, so the latter scenario seems more likely. If that is in fact the case, then the crime is akin to rape, in that it is a crime of power and not passion. This would merit some serious judicial sanction.

If (as we would like to hope) he just randomly snipped off a lock of a schoolmate's hair, he should be made to understand the error of his ways, and go about his life.

If it was cut because of religion or ethic beliefs, it is absolutely a hate crime. It should be punished to the full extent of the law. Religious rights must be protected. Look up Missouri religious massacres for reasons why - hate crimes over religion become vicious & more easily repeated.

We can not tolerate hate crimes.

No, I am white, middle class & Republican, Just not a hatemoger.

The kid committed a hate crime. I hope they throw the book at him.

To attack someone because he is different or because you don't like his religious affiliation and rituals is considered a hate crime.

Suppose someone stripped a nun, or pulled a face veil off, or cut off a Buddhist knot...would you also think it was OK?

The teenager is a thug and deserves exactly what he gets. He is a bum. And so are the parents who raised him.

he "faces" seven years in prison, or he "got" seven years? I think he should definitely go to prison, but he won't be there seven yrs. And I think the whole concept of "hate crime" is crap; all crime is hate crime.

Prison IS extreme. You're right-it should only be in the civil courts.

In this case, yes. But 7 years seems pretty extreme.