Hate Crimes? Thought Crimes? Crimethink?

You are confusing motive with intent. Motive only has one purpose... and that's to determine why someone committed the crime, and often knowing it helps to establish guilt. Intent determines what their, well, intent was.If you punch someone, did mean for them to die? That probably was not your intent, in which case you're still charged with a 3rd degree murder or first degree manslaughter.The motive is, I killed him because he was Asian, and I hate Asian people. The motive is, I killed him during the robbery because he saw my face and I didn't want to leave a living witness who could testify against me.As to Hate Crimes, what relevance does the motive have once you've determined their actions and their intent? If it is not a crime to be racist or homophobic, then why is it an enhancer if murder and their intent is already a crime? You therefore are criminalizing thought, which leads to a slippery slope that potentially jeopardizes the freedom of speech and thought.

Agreed. So then aren't we charging them for their actions and deeds above their motive? The motive doesn't kill, the action does. Is it worse to shoot someone in the face for anti-Semetic reasons versus someone motivated by greed? The net result is still two innocent people shot in the face, is it not? So should the perpetrator that shot the Jew necessarily be tried more severely than the one who shot the 7-11 clerk?We are charging them based on their ACTIONS, not their thoughts, and the net result in both actions is premeditated homicide with malice aforethought, in which case both should be tried based on the extent and intent of their respective crime(s).

Is murder a crime and was murder a crime before the introduction of Hate Crime laws? Yes.Is it a crime to hate someone because they are black? No.Is it a crime to murder someone because they are black? Yes.Is it a crime to murder anyone for any reason at all? Yes.So why is it extra bad to murder someone for racist reasons versus murdering them for ANY reason? You're inadvertently placing the motive in higher regard than the act itself.Any aggravating circumstances are reviewed in court already and have been used in the past quite vigorously. The problem with Hate Crime laws is not that they aren't well-intentioned. We all understand the purpose of them and can appreciate what they are attempting to do, however, it potentially leads to a slippery slope where it criminalizes racism or whatever other ism exists. And to be sure, this isn't about protecting racists or any other 'ists' out there, it's about protecting Freedom of Thought and Expression, regardless of how repulsive it might be. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

The reason 'hate crime' has a higher sentence is because society has decided that racism and other isms are something that needs special treatment. It's a signal that society disaproves of it and is taking it seriously. In theory, the extra sentence is also a deterrence, though I doubt that it has any additional effect.

Then it criminalizes something that isn't a crime and trivializes other heinous crimes of similar actions.

That's a contradiction. Something becomes a crime when a law is enacted. But I don't understand the point in any case. Society has agreed that discrimination against vulnerable people for religious, sexual and racist reasons is a wrong that they wish to put right and created laws to help them do that. It doesn't trivialise anything, murder is still atrocious. If you assault someone just because he's a homosexual it simply adds a further element of nastiness to the act which requires further punishment.

I'm referring to the Freedom of Thought and Expression. It's not a crime to be a racist. I understand that it's a law, we are just arguing the theoretical implications of it. This is more a philosophical argument. It trivializes the murder victim and their families who is murdered for other motives that don't fall under the purview of hate crime laws. Again, if you have two identical murders in terms of intent (both executed by being shot in the face), and the only thing that changes is the motive (one killed because of racist ideology and the other for greed) should the racist murderer be tried for Life while the one who murdered for greed be charged for 25 years? Remember, the murder itself was identical. That sounds like a miscarriage of justice to me, not righting a wrong.

That's why no-one is punished for simply being a racist, it has to be associated with a physical act - punching someone just because they're black as an example. And I'm giving you the reasons why it was introduced - it was to combat things that we as a society believe to be wrongs that need to be specifically addressed. A very practical thing. Are you talking about a real case or an imaginary one? It seems to me that in both cases of deliberate, planned murder, both would get the maximum sentence.The race/religion/sex motivated offences are generally stand alone and judged on their own circumstances, the main sentence is calculated based on harm and seriousness plus the circumstances of the crime, victim and perpetrator. They're all different you'd find it hard to find a way of having your own crime 'trivialised'.But in any case, it makes no sense to say that it trivialises one offence by treating another one in a different way. That happens as a matter of course every day. A man stealing food to prevent starvation is not treated the same as one who steals purely to deprive.

Punching someone in the face for any reason is already a crime, that's the point. You punish for the act and the intent, you don't punish the motive. Hate Crimes seem to be the only crime where the motive factors in whatsoever. Purely theoretical, although it wouldn't surprise me if I could find a few case studies to support it. I might look for some tonight. I agree, so what is the need or purpose of the hate crime other than to punish people for their social ills that, by themselves, are not crimes at all? Agreed, which is why there is the judicial difference between Intent and Motive -- something people think are synonymous and often conflate.

I don't see much point simply repeating myself so I'll stop after this.Punching someone in the face is a crime. The punishment for that crime will depend on it's circumstances which vary enormously. There are mitigating an aggravating factors that are weighed up by the judge from punching in self-defence - where the offender will be found not guilty - to multiple punches causing large injury done to a vulnerable victim with premeditation in front of children etc. One such aggravating factor is a racist motivation. The reason that has been identified as an additional aggravating factor is because we know that racism and its consequences are something that we as a society want erradicated or at least reduced. One way is to point out that it will be treated more harshly. It's also a more general signal that we disapprove. Laws both relect and guide the values of our society.

Do you feel the same way about our special laws concerning violence against law enforcement officers?How about kids? Rape is rape--do you also reject laws on pedophlic crimes?

In those cases there are legally recognised distinctions between the victims.But what is the distinction, under the law, between a black man and a white, an atheist and a Jew, a homosexual and a heterosexual?

Oh! Oh! I know!Legally recognized distinctions. Race, religion and sexual orientation!Do I get a cookie?

Answer my questions before asking yours. That's just manners.

On the other hand, since it is not actually possible to read minds, what "factors in" in practice is whether the perpetrators go out of their way to make it clear that they are committing a hate crime.