Art Fraud Detective: Spot the Difference, Solve the Crime!

Product Description

The Museum of Art has a big problem. Some of the museum’s priceless masterpieces have been stolen and replaced by cunning forgeries! Are your eyes sharp enough to spot the differences between the fake and the real Rousseau? Hone your detective skills and find the tell-tale clues that will help the police track down the master forgers, and bring back the missing masterpieces. This one-of-a-kind book combines a mystery story, fun spot-the-difference puzzles, and a fantastic introduction to some of the world’s greatest art. Guaranteed to enthrall children of all ages, Art Fraud Detective includes historical information on each painting, tips on the techniques of the Old Masters, and a glossary of art terms. Features art by: Rembrandt; Constable; Monet; Picasso; Raphael; Van Gogh; and more!

Art Fraud Detective: Spot the Difference, Solve the Crime!

What should be the difference in the punishment of a crime and a hate crime?

Isn’t every crime, in some way, a hateful act towards the victim? Sure you have the standard definition, which is basically an attack on someone for their identity alone, but do you think that is worse than another reason?

Do you think a person that kills/robs/violates a person for the heck of it should be punished less or the same as a person that did the same to a person because of their race/religion/sexual orientation/etc? Why?

What is the difference between white-collar and street crime?

Why is white-collar crime essentially ignored, while there is such a focus on street crime? Compare and contrast conflict and functional perspectives on this issue.

Why is there a definitive difference between a hate crime and normal crime?

Is crime within races,or against majority races/ethnicities performed out of love? And why should the criminal in a hate crime be punished anymore than a criminal in a non hate crime? Why should the punishment be based upon the victim instead of the crime?
Regarding the first answer, I just can’t imagine the government deciding the way crimes affect people. As a white woman, if I’m raped by a white man, it may ruin my marriage. I may fear men altogether after that, and could never be intimate with another man. Different people are different regarding the way they handle things, and I don’t think it’s fair that just because I’m white, I get passed over as saying, “oh, she’ll be fine”, compared to someone of a different ethnicity. All crime should be looked at as “hate crime”. There should be severe punishment for it all. All crime is committed out of hate, wether it’s racial or personal. From a humane point of view, it’s not fair to the criminals for one to get worse treatment than another just because of who the victim was. And from a moral point of view, criminals need to know there are consequences to their actions, so they should all be punished to the fullest extent of the law dependent upon their actions.

What is the difference between the consequences of a hate crime and a regular crime?

A hate crime is when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.

A crime is the breaking of one or more rules or laws for which some governing authority, may ultimately prescribe a conviction.

My question is, what exactly are the consequences for a hate crime and a crime? Should the consequences for a hate crime be strengthened?