Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hate-crime = Thought crime?
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 316 of 376 (540791)
12-29-2009 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 315 by Legend
12-28-2009 6:14 AM


Legend responds to me:
quote:
it is indeed "intends.". Like I said, the word "Intent" appears exactly 0 times. Which is TRUE. What is your problem? We're doing word counts here, aren't we?
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? You really are arguing that because the specific letter sequence is i-n-t-e-n-d-s rather than i-n-t-e-n-t, then the law isn't talking about intent but is instead talking about motive.
And you're the only one who has figured this out.
My god, Legend, what the hell are you waiting for? Hie the to your local defense attorney's and let them know that they can get all of their clients off! The law isn't about intent because it says, "intends," not "intent"! So all they need to do is point out that the prosecution hasn't proven intent but rather motive and thus, they haven't met the standard of proof to justify the charges. Immediate dismissal!
quote:
You're claiming it's disingenuous to state that "intends to" doesn't refer to "Intent" in the context of Criminal Law but at the same time you're supporting that the presence of "intends to" in reference to a follow-on action to the primary Act means "Intent to commit the Act". Who's really being disingenuous here?
Do you really have to ask? Again, get your ass down to the local attorney and let them know you have found the gaping flaw in the law. "Intends" isn't a reference to intent but to motive!
By this logic, we should also do away with all laws referencing fraud because they, too, are in "reference to a follow-on action to the primary act" which specifically mean "intent to commit the act."
What you are failing to understand is that "stirring up religious hatred" is a crime. Certain acts when committed with the intent to stir up religious hatred are, therefore, a crime. The crime isn't "Use of words or behaviour or display of written material" or "Publishing or distributing written material" or "Public performance of play." The crime is the intent associated with those acts.
It's what allows us to distinguish a horrible accident from an actual crime. It's what allows us to distinguish self-defense from assault.
To quote someone: Why don't you come back once you understand what motive and intent are.
quote:
"Intending to" achieve a specific goal after the Act is not the same as the *design or deliberation to commit the Act*, which is what the definiton of general Intent is.
And if that were what the law said, you might have a point. But alas, that isn't what the law says.
quote:
I'm quoting you Criminal Law
No, you're not. You're tossing around definitions you don't understand from secondary and tertiary sources. At no time in this entire discussion have you ever quoted actual criminal law.
I'm the one quoting criminal law to you. You will notice that I am the only one who has in this entire thread. And the law says intent, not motive.
quote:
If you think that the definitions of Motive and Intent I'm supplying are invalid then now's the time to explain why and how.
I already have. The law does not use the word "motive" anywhere. I challenge you to find me a single reference in actual law where it does.
Hint: Wikipedia references and dictionary lookups are insufficient. You need to quote actual criminal law.
That said, the problem is not with your definitions of motive and/or intent. The problem is that the law specifically mentions intent. The very discussion of the law you are complaining about by the people who wrote the law was specifically over intent. It was done to ensure that it is only criminal when deliberately and purposefully done.
quote:
If you think that the "intends to" bit refers to the primary Act in the paragraph then now's the time to explain why and how.
Um, you did read the law, yes? I've quoted it to you a half dozen times. The intent is the crime. What you are failing to understand is that "stirring up religious hatred" is the crime. Certain acts when committed with the intent to stir up religious hatred are, therefore, a crime. The crime isn't "Use of words or behaviour or display of written material" or "Publishing or distributing written material" or "Public performance of play." The crime is the intent associated with those acts.
It's what allows us to distinguish a horrible accident from an actual crime. It's what allows us to distinguish self-defense from assault.
To quote someone: Why don't you come back once you understand what motive and intent are.
quote:
I'm claiming that "acting with intent to achieve X" is different to "acting with purpose or deliberation to act", i.e. 'Intent' in the legal sense.
Those are the same thing. X is the crime. If you act to achieve X, then you are acting with "intent." That's the definition of "intent." It's what allows us to separate accident from crime, self-defense from assault, etc.
By your logic, we should be getting away with all fraud legislation because those laws are the exact same thing: "Intent" to defraud. The crime is fraud, and thus certain actions carried out with intent to commit fraud are crimes. Taking money from a person is not, in and of itself, a crime just as performing a play is not, in and of itself, a crime.
It is the intent of those actions that makes it a crime. If you intend to defraud someone through a monetary scheme, then it's a crime. If you intend to stir up religious hatred through the performance of a play, then it's a crime.
quote:
I'm also arguing that "acting intending to achieve X" is conceptually and effectively akin to "acting because of a desire to achieve X", i.e. 'Motive' in the legal sense.
Which means your argument is that when a law written by lawyers for lawyers refers to "intent," it doesn't really mean "intent" but instead means "motive."
Exactly what context is a law supposed to be interpreted in which allows us to read "intent" and come away with "motive"?
My god, Legend, what the hell are you waiting for? Hie the to your local defense attorney's and let them know that they can get all of their clients off! The law isn't about intent because it says, "intends," not "intent"! So all they need to do is point out that the prosecution hasn't proven intent but rather motive and thus, they haven't met the standard of proof to justify the charges. Immediate dismissal!
quote:
Further down in this post I'm showing you why this is a correct interpretation and that respectable lawmen, as well as me, also think along these lines.
Except you're not. I really mean it, Legend: Get yourself to your local defense attorney's office and let them know that the prosecution has completely misread the law, only providing evidence of motive, and thus have not met the standard of proof and therefore the only solution is immediate dismissal of all charges.
quote:
My argument is that when the law says "intends to", it isn't referring to the primary Act
And you'd be wrong. The stirring up of religious hatred is the specific crime. None of these things are crimes in and of themselves:
Use of words or behaviour or display of written material
Publishing or distributing written material
Public performance of play
Distributing, showing or playing a recording
Broadcasting or including programme in programme service
Possession of inflammatory material
The only thing that makes them a crime is if they are carried out with intent to commit the actual punishable act: Stirring up religious hatred.
Since you have gone on and on about the "primary act," perhaps you would be so good as to define just what it is you think you are talking about. What is the actual crime?
quote:
If you think that the "intends to" bit refers to the primary Act in the paragraph then now's the time to explain why and how.
Um, you did read the law, yes? I've quoted it to you a half dozen times. The intent is the crime. What you are failing to understand is that "stirring up religious hatred" is the crime. Certain acts when committed with the intent to stir up religious hatred are, therefore, a crime. The crime isn't "Use of words or behaviour or display of written material" or "Publishing or distributing written material" or "Public performance of play." The crime is the intent associated with those acts.
It's what allows us to distinguish a horrible accident from an actual crime. It's what allows us to distinguish self-defense from assault.
To quote someone: Why don't you come back once you understand what motive and intent are.
quote:
the Home Office are the people who *made* the law.
Incorrect. Parliament are the people who made the law. The Home Office is, in a broad sense, the police enforcement agency. That's why the discussion of how this law came into being and the specific text of the law in question is an act of Parliament through the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The law was originally introduced in the House of Commons on June 21, 2005, had various readings and debates, went to the House of Lords on October 25, 2005, and then back to the House of Commons on January 31, 2006.
But this still doesn't get to the heart of the matter: You are confusing a press release with the actual law. You are trying to say that because a press release says something, then that has a legal precedent.
Then what the hell are you waiting for, Legend? Hie the to your local defense attorney's and let them know that they can get all of their clients off! The law isn't about intent because a press release says "motivated," rather than "intent"! So all they need to do is point out that the prosecution hasn't proven intent but rather motive and thus, they haven't met the standard of proof to justify the charges. Immediate dismissal!
quote:
They are the people responsible for the enforcement the law. Are you seriously suggesting that they don't know what their very own laws are all about!?!.
Of course not. That's your argument.
My argument is that they know the difference between intent and motive and thus, when actually prosecuting the law, provide evidence of intent since that is specifically what the law describes. My argument is that when providing a press release to people who are not versed in the intricacies of legalese, they use language that can be understood by those laymen.
quote:
That *YOU* know better?
No, that they know better. I think the Home Office is smart enough to know that when the law mentions intent, it really means intent, not motive.
Otherwise, why aren't you banging down the doors of the legal departments, pointing out that they have a sure-fire way to get their clients off? The prosecutors are providing evidence of motive, not intent, and thus they haven't met the standard of proof because the law refers to intent, not motive, and thus there is no case!
quote:
If the Home Office web-site says "motivated" you can be pretty sure that it's used in the colloquial sense as that's the web-site's intended audience. It's not for lawyers, it's for the general public. The same also goes for the FBI site I linked to. Not that it matters much in this case as the legal usage of "Motive" doesn't differ from the colloquial one anyway.
Of course. But since when is a legal case carried out via web site? It is irrelevant what a press release says. The audience of a press release is the general audience who doesn't understand the fineries of legal minutiae. Since the vernacular meanings of "intent" and "motive" overlap, we should not be surprised to find them substitute one for the other.
But in the courtroom, that's a very different story. In the courtroom, words have very specific meanings and the distinctions between motive and intent are clear. And thus, when the law refers to intent, then the prosecution must provide evidence of intent, not motive. Otherwise, the defense would be all over it, pointing out that the law requires evidence of intent but the prosecution has only provided evidence of motive. Thus, the prosecution hasn't met the standard of proof, immediate dismissal.
What are you waiting for, Legend? Hie thee to the legal department and let them know!
quote:
So yes, when the people who made the law tell you what their law is all about, you choose to not believe them and latch onto a technicality in the letter of the law that you think supports your interpretation. Right......!
So no, when the people who made the law tell me what their law is about in colloquial terms, I choose to believe that they are trying to explain to a layman what the law is about. I fully expect that when we get into a courtroom, more exacting standards will be employed.
After all, that's what we do in science all the time. Popular press explanations of things do not use the same standard as what you would find in the peer reviewed press. It's what allows us, even scientists, to use the word "theory" to refer to speculations and educated guesses when talking to people but then tighten things up when actually publishing.
quote:
Oh really? Then why do you think the law feels the need to give definitions of common terms and words that are used in the text?
Because the law, being the law, knows that it is better to be pedantic rather than leave things to chance. But certain terms are so pervasive throughout the law that it would be ridiculous to require definitions of them every single time. "Intent" is just such a term. It shows up in so many criminal definitions that to define it every single time would be ludicrous. Thus, it is defined once and everybody understands what it means.
Since the law is criminalizing an intent when carried out in specific practices, it is important to define what those practices are and what the specific crime is. "Intent" is understood.
quote:
If such a term as "publish" can only be understood in a legal context then what's the point of clarifying it's usage here when the term is already well used and understood in a legal context?
Um, did you bother to read your own source? It's making reference to another piece of law. It isn't re-inventing the wheel. It is letting the legal system know that this instance of "publish" is only what is written and thus is not creating anything new. By your logic, the law is clearly defective because it doesn't define what "guilty" means.
quote:
Could it be because the term has a specific meaning here besides its colloquial sense?
No. Instead, it is because they want to be certain that this law is understood within the context of the specific law and does not introduce any new definitions. We are, after all, dealing with the law and colloquial definitions are never to be considered the default interpretation. We must always look to legal definitions.
quote:
And why is the term "intend to" not defined here?
For the same reason that "guilty" is not defined here. It is part and parcel of criminal legalese and is understood from that context.
quote:
Could it because it's just used in it's old-fashioned colloquial sense.
No. We are dealing with the law and colloquial interpretations are never to be assumed. Instead, legal interpretations are the only ones allowed.
You seriously are claiming that in a law written by lawyers for lawyers, it is not to be interpreted in a legal context.
quote:
Not that it matters much as "intend to" here is not referring to the primary Act in the first place
Incorrect. The "primary act" (and you don't even know what you're talking about when you reference that, do you?) is the very thing that is being intended: Stirring up of religious hatred. The crime is not publishing, performing, or speaking. Those are merely methods by which the crime takes place.
quote:
It's meant to be understood in the context it's written in.
And in exactly what context is a law supposed to be understood if not a legal one? Do you know of any other law that is intended to be interpreted colloquially?
quote:
If the law refers to threatening behaviour aiming to stir up religious hatred then the "stir up hatred" bit is describing what in legal terms is called a 'specific Intent', which is the state of mind causing the accused to act in that specific way in order to achieve something beyond the primary Act.
Incorrect. The "stir up hatred" is the "primary act" (and you don't even know what that means, do you?) The actual crime is the stirring up of religious hatred. Everything else is simply the means to that end.
By your logic, all laws criminalizing fraud need to be stricken from the books because fraud is all about intent. The crime is the intent. Taking money from someone is not a crime in and of itself. It's only when you intend to do so fraudulently that you run afoul of the law.
quote:
What causes the accused to act, (i.e. the Motive) is the desire to "stir up hatred".
Incorrect. The actual act is "stirring up hatred." The means by which that is carried out are merely incidental. The specific crime is the intent: Stirring up religious hatred.
quote:
Even distinguished lawmen admit that laws sometimes single out certain motives merely on the basis of practicality and ease of application. But not you, you 've just seen the phrase "intends to" and are hanging on to it as if it was the last life-raft on Titanic!
Um, did you even bother to read your own source? You even quoted the part that shows you to be completely wrong:
In criminal law, it is generally convenient to use the term intention with reference to intention as to the constituents of the actus reus, and the term motive with reference to the intention with which these constituents were brought about.
The actus reus is stirring up religious hatred. It is not the motive. The actus reus is not publishing or speaking or performing or broadcasting or distributing or possessing. Instead, the crime is the act of stirring up religious hatred. All the rest is just the means by which the act can be carried out. That's why the law is written as it is: If you publish/use/perform/broadcast/distribute/possess something with the "intent" to stir up religious hatred, then you have committed a crime. That isn't motive. Your motive can be anything under the sun from desire for monetary gain to plain boredom. It is irrelevant why you stirred up religious hatred. The crime is specifically the stirring up of religious hatred.
But let's go on. Your own source, specifically referring to hate crimes legislation, makes the same points we've been pointing out to you:
Both courts accepted the argument that hate crime liability impermissibly punishes thought alone, in violation of the First Amendment. Such an argument confronts two difficulties. First, the crimes in question were crimes of violence (assault in Wisconsin, menacing in Ohio, involving a death threat). Thus, they didn’t punish thought alone, but a combination of action and thought. Second, all offenses conditioned on culpability criminalize otherwise innocent action on the basis of mental states. Moreover, many offenses, like homicide, are graded on the basis of different culpable states attending the same conduct. Sentencing laws also often condition the degree of punishment on mental states. Thus, if conditioning the level of punishment on thought is unconstitutional, it would seem that much of the criminal law must be.
That last sentence is the kicker: If your argument regarding hate crimes is true, then we need to toss out much of the criminal law. The fact that you aren't complaining about the distinctions regarding homicide shows that your complaint has very little to do with the actual threat of "thoughtcrime" and everything to do with the people who are being protected by the law.
There's more in that section that demolishes your argument, but I will leave it to you to read your own source. It directly contradicts you:
Any effort to apply the irrelevance of motive maxim to the hate-crimes controversy stumbles over the logical and descriptive objections explored above.
You did read your source before you referenced it, yes?
quote:
quote:
Oh, my god. You really are arguing that. You really are arguing that in an actual law written by lawyers for lawyers and can only be understood in a legal context, the word "intent" doesn't really mean "intent" but actually means "motive," even though every defense lawyer would jump upon this as failure of the prosecution to meet its burden, that they have only provided evidence of motive, not intent, and thus demand an immediate dismissal of all charges due to failure to meet the standard of proof.
Which is exactly why the law is written the way it's written. The lawyers have to prove or disprove 'specific intent' which is fine and dandy as there are already other laws setting such a precedent.
The law was specifically written to say "intent" because everybody knows that "intent" really means "motive."
Yeah, sure.
No, the law was written the way it is written because legal words actually mean what they mean in a legal context, not a colloquial context, where "intent" really means "intent."
The actual crime is the stirring up of religious hatred. Speaking, publishing, performing, broadcasting, distributing, possessing, none of those are crime. It is only when the intent of stirring up religious hatred comes along for the ride do we run afoul of the law. That's why the law talks about "intent." That's why the House of Lords had their discussion to ensure that the law targetted "intent" rather than subjective interpretation.
quote:
Of course what is actually being punished is the motive of the accused
Incorrect. What is being punished is the actual act: Stirring up of religious hatred. The means by which this act is carried it is incidental.
quote:
Whether the lawyers believe the law to punish motive or intent is completely irrelevant.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? A law that specifically refers to "intent" but has the prosecutors only providing evidence for motive won't have the defense immediately asking for dismissal? Why on earth not? Because they're in on the scam? It's all one vast conspiracy?
quote:
The law clearly says that threatening with intent to stir hatred is illegal.
That's because the crime is the stirring up of religious hatred, not the means by which that act is carried out.
quote:
The lawyers will try to prove or disprove that the accused's aim was to achieve the "stirring up of hatred" they won't stand up and claim "M'lawd, this law clearly punishes Motive and therefore I refuse to prosecute the defendant!".
Of course the prosecution isn't going to say that, but the defense had better. The law says the crime is based upon intent. If the only thing the prosecution can provide is evidence of motive, then there is no evidence of a crime because the crime is the intent.
quote:
After all *you* are the person suggesting that the Home Office and FBI really don't know what the laws they are making/enforcing are all about!
This from the person who says that a law isn't to be interpreted in a legal context, that because the sequence is i-n-t-e-n-d-s rather than i-n-t-e-n-t then it doesn't actually mean intent, that a press release has legal precedent.
That's precious.
No, I'm the one saying that the Home Office and the FBI actually do know what the laws they enforce are all about. That's why they provide evidence of intent, not motive, because the laws reference intent, not motive.
I'm the one saying that hte Home Office and the FBI understand the difference between speaking to a general audience who doesn't understand legalese and actually going into a courtroom and having to follow the strictures of the law.
I'm the one who understands that when the Parliament has a full discussion to ensure that the law is punishing intent rather than incidental activity, then the law really does refer to intent.
I'm the one who understands that neither the Home Office nor the FBI make laws. Parliament and Congress make laws. The Home Office and the FBI merely enforce them.
quote:
You are the one suggesting that countless legal dictionaries and web-sites are wrong
Incorrect. I'm the one suggesting that you don't understand the legal dictionary. It does, indeed, define intent and motive correctly. However, you have confused the two words as witnessed by your claim that a law that says "intent," really means "motive."
And the most precious thing is that your justification of this is that the letter sequence is i-n-t-e-n-d-s rather than i-n-t-e-n-t.
I'm the one suggesting not that the web sites are wrong but that you are misinterpreting them. A press release to the general public is not a legal precedent and cannot be understood as such.
quote:
You are the one claiming that something worded as a secondary aim and subsequent to the Act itself is the actual Intent of the Act, despite what the legal definition of Intent is.
Incorrect. I am the one claiming that the actual crime is the intent. Nobody is punished simply for speaking, publishing, performing, broadcasting, distributing, or possessing. Instead, the actual crime is stirring up religious hatred. Those methods by which it is carried out are incidental.
The law says, "intent." Do you have any evidence that it doesn't?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Legend, posted 12-28-2009 6:14 AM Legend has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 317 of 376 (540820)
12-29-2009 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Straggler
12-17-2009 1:26 PM


Re: Apparently........
I've been gone for a minute...
CS writes:
Do you have any examples of any non-homocide crimes where the criminal's specific intentions we're used as an element of that crime?
Intent to defraud.
Lurking with intent.
Breaking and entering with intent.
Assault with intent to rape
Possession of drugs with intent to supply.
Grevious bodily harm (see GBH link below)
I could go on if you want me to?
I didn't know that specific intent was an actual legal term. Did you know that all along or did you look it up after I mentioned it?
It seems that some crimes do require looking into the criminal's motive to determine a specific intent. Are you proposing that this is what hate crimes are doing?
Because I don't think they are. Usually specific intent makes a non-crime a crime, ie stealing requires that you spefically intended to rid the person of their property otherwise you didn't steal. Also, the specification is usually illegal on its own, ie intending to rape.
With hate crimes, it isn't a crime to just hate people and also there's a crime already without the need for the specific intentions.
The exception I see is possession of drugs with intent to supply, but I think that one belongs in the thought crime pile as well. Although, supplying illegal drugs is illegal on its own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Straggler, posted 12-17-2009 1:26 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by Straggler, posted 12-29-2009 12:52 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 324 by Rrhain, posted 12-29-2009 8:11 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 318 of 376 (540836)
12-29-2009 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by New Cat's Eye
12-29-2009 11:29 AM


Re: Apparently........
CS writes:
Did you know that all along or did you look it up after I mentioned it?
In all honesty I started this thread ignorant and uncaring about what the actual laws are. Instead I came at it from the angle of whether or not there was a valid argument in favour of such laws in principle. Regardless of how well or badly such laws had been implemented around the world. I was interested in whether or not an argument could be made where evidenced intent rather than "thought crimes" lay at the foundation.
But having looked into it a bit here - As far as I can ascertain the actual law (in the US and Britain) seems fairly consistent with what I was arguing anyway. Certainly evidenced intent rather than "thought crimes" on the basis of motivation seems to be the reality. AbE - And if this were not the case I would be advocating that the laws be changed to "evidenced intent".
CS writes:
It seems that some crimes do require looking into the criminal's motive to determine a specific intent. Are you proposing that this is what hate crimes are doing?
I don't think so. I think I am arguing that if there is evidenced intent to have an effect beyond that of the direct crime committed then that should be taken into account.
CS writes:
With hate crimes, it isn't a crime to just hate people and also there's a crime already without the need for the specific intentions.
I think you like so many other are getting caught up in the name "hate crime", putting two and two together and coming up with 9. Hate is "thought" therefore they must be thought crimes right? Making it illegal to hate people right? But we are talking about evidenced intent to have an effect beyond that of the same crime committed randomly in an isolated situation. In essence wider evidenced context. If it were called "with intent to intimidate" or "with intent to subjugate" or some other such better phrased legal nomencalture would that make things clearer?
I gave the example of graffitiing "DIE" all over a synagogue in pigs blood. Is this the same as spray-painting "I love fluffy rabbits" on the side of an abandoned house? Surely not. So what is the evidenced contextual difference here? And why would we pretend it doesn't exist?
Evidenced beyond all reasonable doubt is all I am advocating here. Why is that so contentious?
CS writes:
The exception I see is possession of drugs with intent to supply, but I think that one belongs in the thought crime pile as well.
Surely you can see that intent to supply can be evidenced beyond reasonable doubt? Why cannot vandalism (for example) with intent to intimidate a certain group in society be equally evidenced beyond reasonable doubt? And if it is why would we not take that into account?
CS writes:
Although, supplying illegal drugs is illegal on its own.
As is intimidation I believe. The difference here is that the intended target is not an individual.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-29-2009 11:29 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-29-2009 2:00 PM Straggler has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 319 of 376 (540837)
12-29-2009 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by Straggler
12-28-2009 5:09 AM


Re: Simply Wrong
Hyro writes:
Pretty soon it will be illegal altogether to merely dislike someone of another race, or gender, or sexual orientation at even the slightest hint of bias. Let the false accusations abound. A simple bar fight could land you in prison for 20-years.
Straggler writes:
I'm sorry this is hyperbolic hysterical drivel straight off the screen of Fox News.
err.....no. this is REALITY!
All it takes is an allegation of a racially-offensive epithet being thrown around while you're having your drunken Saturday night fight. No hard evidence is needed for you to be charged with a hate-crime, just a simple allegation by anyone who's got a stake in seeing your punishment increased, heck they don't even have to be involved in the incident.
And no, it wasn't Fox News, it was the Guardian actually, sorry to burst your bubble! I know the only way for you to deal with the REALITY the laws you support have created is to fantasise that anyone opposing them are ultra-neo-con Fox News readers, but hey let's try to keep some perspective ok?

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by Straggler, posted 12-28-2009 5:09 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by Straggler, posted 12-29-2009 1:16 PM Legend has replied
 Message 325 by Rrhain, posted 12-29-2009 8:25 PM Legend has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 320 of 376 (540841)
12-29-2009 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by Legend
12-29-2009 12:59 PM


Re: Simply Wrong
This yet another example of yours blowing up in your face.
A pissed woman abuses an Asian taxi driver yelling racial abuse as she does so and then attacks the manager of an Indian restaurant. For this she receives:
Link writes:
For racially aggravated criminal damage, she received a 10-week suspended sentence with the same conditions, to be served concurrently.
This was on top of (and concurrent with) the main punishment received for the basic assault:
link writes:
For the assault on the taxi driver, magistrates sentenced Cox to 13 weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months. She must attend a substance-related offending course to address her issues with alcohol.
So in effect (because it runs concurrently) she receives no practical punishment at all for the racially aggaravated component of her crime unless she commits another such crime within the suspension period of 12 months.
Frankly this all sounds eminently sensible and a far cry from your "thought crimes" nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by Legend, posted 12-29-2009 12:59 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by Legend, posted 12-29-2009 1:36 PM Straggler has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 321 of 376 (540844)
12-29-2009 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by Straggler
12-29-2009 1:16 PM


Re: Simply Wrong
Straggler writes:
So in effect (because it runs concurrently) she receives no practical punishment at all for the racially aggaravated component of her crime unless she commits another such crime within the suspension period of 12 months.
Oh, so that makes it all right, does it? If you think so then you're totally missing the point: she was additionally punished because she was assumed to be a racist based on the language she used while under the influence. Her (assumed) opinions on race were punished on top of the actual assault.
Surely even you can see how fucked up and sinister this is.
Surely not even you could think that she was "targeting a whole group" by her behaviour!
Surely not even you could think that she was trying to "subjugate a community" by her actions!
Straggler writes:
Frankly this all sounds eminently sensible and a far cry from your "thought crimes" nonsense.
*Eminently sensible?!* Let's get this straight: the fact that an intoxicated woman was punished and branded a racist because she called someone a racially-abusive epithet during a drunken incident is "eminently sensible" to you ?
The fact that this woman was assumed to have 'bad thoughts' based on her drunken words and was punished for it is perfectly ok to you ?!
If you really believe that then I can only say may Crom save us from people like you.

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by Straggler, posted 12-29-2009 1:16 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by Rrhain, posted 12-29-2009 8:34 PM Legend has replied
 Message 328 by Straggler, posted 12-30-2009 10:37 AM Legend has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 322 of 376 (540850)
12-29-2009 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by Straggler
12-29-2009 12:52 PM


Re: Apparently........
I think I am arguing that if there is evidenced intent to have an effect beyond that of the direct crime committed then that should be taken into account.
I don't have a problem with that, in priciple, although I don't see it having much positive effect and understand the opposition, like Onifre's, to the increased divisiveness that results. Still though, that wider effect should be taken into account in the sentacing part of the process rather than creating a whole 'nother type of crime based on motivation, which is improper.
Also, I don't think hate crimes are limited to those that intend to have an effect beyond that of the direct crime committed.
I think you like so many other are getting caught up in the name "hate crime", putting two and two together and coming up with 9. Hate is "thought" therefore they must be thought crimes right? Making it illegal to hate people right?
No, all that isn't a part of my position.
I gave the example of graffitiing "DIE" all over a synagogue in pigs blood. Is this the same as spray-painting "I love fluffy rabbits" on the side of an abandoned house? Surely not.
Althought those are a different actus reus, assuming they're the same I think that coming at it from the angle of the motivation of the former making it a different crime than the latter is the wrong way to do it. If the actus reus is simply graffiti, then the motivation should be taken in account during sentancing and not used to create a new crime.
I think that the example we should be using is the one that inspired the legislation that inspired the OP, the murder of Matthew Shepard:
quote:
Shortly after midnight on October 7, 1998, Shepard met Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson at the Fireside Lounge in Laramie, Wyoming. McKinney and Henderson offered Shepard a ride in their car. After admitting he was gay, Shepard was robbed, pistol whipped, tortured, tied to a fence in a remote, rural area, and left to die. McKinney and Henderson also discovered his address and intended to burglarize his home. Still tied to the fence, Shepard was discovered 18 hours later by Aaron Kreifels, who initially mistook Shepard for a scarecrow. At the time of discovery, Shepard was still alive in a coma.
Do you really think that these guys murdered Shepard in an attempt to effect the entire gay community?
What positive effects do you think would have resulted if these guys were punished for a hate crime instead?
Surely you can see that intent to supply can be evidenced beyond reasonable doubt?
When I was younger and occasionally possessed illegal drugs, I remember that if we bought a large quantity we thought it be smarter to break it down into a few smaller portions, hidden seperately, so that if we got caught it could be for a smaller amount and we might get away with some of it... don't put all your eggs in one bsaket kind of thing. But then we learned that if you do that then you can get 'intent to distribute' and be charged with an even worse crime. The drugs were all for us and we didn't want to distribute them, but that would prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that we did intend to distribute and yet, we never did.
On the other hand, I've seen an episode of Cops where a guy got busted with a huge bag of individually wrapped quarter-grams of crack and a whole wad of $20 bills and it was pretty obvious that he was selling.
I don't know where I'm going with this or if I even had a point. I'm just going to stop typing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Straggler, posted 12-29-2009 12:52 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by Legend, posted 12-29-2009 2:41 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 329 by Straggler, posted 12-30-2009 11:00 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 350 by Rrhain, posted 01-01-2010 4:23 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 323 of 376 (540857)
12-29-2009 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by New Cat's Eye
12-29-2009 2:00 PM


Re: Apparently........
CS writes:
Also, I don't think hate crimes are limited to those that intend to have an effect beyond that of the direct crime committed.
As the real-life cases I've brought-up clearly demonstrate, you're absolutely right.

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-29-2009 2:00 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 324 of 376 (540881)
12-29-2009 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by New Cat's Eye
12-29-2009 11:29 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
With hate crimes, it isn't a crime to just hate people
Surely you aren't complaining that because the word "hate" is used in the title of the law, that means the statute is criminalizing "hate," are you?
Have you read the laws? They've been quoted here multiple times.
Just what is it you think the laws actually criminalize?
quote:
The exception I see is possession of drugs with intent to supply, but I think that one belongs in the thought crime pile as well. Although, supplying illegal drugs is illegal on its own.
You do realize that you just contradicted yourself in two sentences, yes? What do you think "supplying illegal drugs" is? That's right: "Intent to distribute."
The point that is being made is that there is a legal distinction between large-scale and small-scale dealing. The people who are running large amounts of drugs are of one class. When those large lots are broken down into smaller lots that are clearly beyond "personal use" (simple possession) but not so large as to be an enterprise, you get "possession with intent to distribute."
You're not really the big dealer, but you're not a simple user, either. You're in between.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-29-2009 11:29 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 325 of 376 (540882)
12-29-2009 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by Legend
12-29-2009 12:59 PM


Legend writes:
quote:
err.....no. this is REALITY!
Huh? She was found not guilty of a hate crime (but guilty of assault). How does a finding of not guilty lead one to conclude that it is "illegal altogether to merely dislike someone of another race"?
Surely you aren't saying that because somebody was charged with a crime and then found not guilty of it, that makes the entire law that was the basis for the charge illegitimate, are you?
Do you have any evidence of anybody anywhere actually being convicted of "merely disliking someone"?
quote:
All it takes is an allegation of a racially-offensive epithet being thrown around while you're having your drunken Saturday night fight.
Huh? She pled guilty and received a suspended sentence. Note, she assaulted the cab driver. She was not charged merely for disliking the driver.
Do you have any evidence of anybody anywhere actually being convicted of "merely disliking someone"?
quote:
No hard evidence is needed for you to be charged with a hate-crime, just a simple allegation by anyone who's got a stake in seeing your punishment increased, heck they don't even have to be involved in the incident.
Huh? Where on earth do you find that in your source? You did read your source before you posted it, yes? It appears you have once again confused "incident" with "crime."
A hate "incident," as defined by your own sources, is an act that doesn't rise to the level of an actual crime but should be recorded so that police can be aware of the climate in a particular area and not be caught flat-footed should things get out of hand. That's why the guide you referenced was published:
It is essential for all police staff to be aware of the potential for hate crime to escalate into a critical incident. Failure to provide an appropriate and professional response to such reports could cause irreparable damage to future community confidence in the police service.
You did read your source before you posted it, yes?
Have you ever bothered to read your source before you post it?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by Legend, posted 12-29-2009 12:59 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by Legend, posted 12-30-2009 8:05 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 333 by Legend, posted 12-30-2009 1:30 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 326 of 376 (540883)
12-29-2009 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by Legend
12-29-2009 1:36 PM


Legend writes:
quote:
she was additionally punished because she was assumed to be a racist based on the language she used while under the influence.
Incorrect. She was not "assumed" to be anything. She was proven to have engaged in racial abuse. No conclusion was made as to what she was thinking, only what she was doing which was physically assaulting someone while engaging in racial abuse.
And on top of that, she pled guilty to it. So not only is this conclusion the legal one, it's what she agreed to herself.
quote:
Surely even you can see how fucked up and sinister this is.
Not at all. She was charged for her actions, not thoughts, and she pled guilty to her actions, not thoughts.
quote:
Surely not even you could think that she was "targeting a whole group" by her behaviour!
Clearly, she was. Her actions indicated such. That's why she was charged for her actions, not thoughts.
quote:
Surely not even you could think that she was trying to "subjugate a community" by her actions!
Clearly, she was or she wouldn't have done what she did. Surely you aren't saying that the only way to attack an entire group by proxy is to do so via large-scale violence, are you?
quote:
the fact that an intoxicated woman was punished and branded a racist
Huh? Where was she "branded a racist"? There is no such admission anywhere in either the charge levied against her nor in her plea of guilty. If you're going to complain about this, why are you ignoring the fact that she pled guilty to it?
quote:
The fact that this woman was assumed to have 'bad thoughts'
First, there was no assumption. It was proven and she pled guilty to it so even she admits she did it.
Second, there was no conneciton to "bad thoughts." Instead, there was only a connection to bad actions.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Legend, posted 12-29-2009 1:36 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by Legend, posted 12-30-2009 1:51 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 327 of 376 (540944)
12-30-2009 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 325 by Rrhain
12-29-2009 8:25 PM


Rrhain writes:
Huh? She was found not guilty of a hate crime (but guilty of assault). How does a finding of not guilty lead one to conclude that it is "illegal altogether to merely dislike someone of another race"?
I didn't say the above, Catholic Scientist did. What I've been saying all along is that these laws server as a a weapon against free speech and expression of ideas. The fact that a run-of-the-mill club fight ended up with the attacker prosecuted for a racially-motivated crime based on the (alleged and unsupported) utterance of *one word* shows exactly that.
The message is clear: "watch what you're saying, if your beliefs,opinions,thoughts on race/religion/etc can be associated with a criminal offence -even remotely and without supporting evidence- then we'll make sure you get punished far more than your original offence requires or deserves"
That the attacker was eventually found not guilty of a hate crime just makes what would have been a truly horrendous punishment, simply appalling. Even more so for a pop singer who makes a living out of popular appeal, suddenly seeing her name on the papers next to a "racially-aggravated assualt" headline. Just like false-rape-allegataions no court verdict can ever take the slur on the accused's name away, that stays with them for a very long time. The trial is also a punishment in its own right, without even having to prove your innocence against an unsupported allegation.
If that was any other crime other than an alleged 'hate'-crime no added charges would have ever been brought against her. If someone simply accused her of stealing or assault the police/Crown Prosecution Service would have done nothing until there was some *evidence* of theft or assault. But no, because this is an alleged 'hate'-crime then the rules are different. Just like the APCO (Police) guidelines say (and I've quoted them at least three times on this thread) :
quote:
Any hate incident, which constitutes a criminal offence, perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by prejudice or hate.
(emphasis is mine)
So yes, there you have it, if you see someone you dislike having a fight, just tell the police he called the other person an offensive epithet and -hey presto- your enemy will have their name on the papers tagged as a racist/homophobe/whatever and they'll be looking at a few more years added onto their sentence!
quote:
Surely you aren't saying that because somebody was charged with a crime and then found not guilty of it, that makes the entire law that was the basis for the charge illegitimate, are you?
No, I'm saying that because many people are charged with 'hate'-crimes simply because they've been alleged to utter *one wrong word*, that makes the entire law a sinister, totalitarian tool of oppression that has no place in free and fair society.
Is that finally clear now?

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Rrhain, posted 12-29-2009 8:25 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by Rrhain, posted 01-01-2010 4:11 AM Legend has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 328 of 376 (540958)
12-30-2009 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 321 by Legend
12-29-2009 1:36 PM


Re: Simply Wrong
You have so far provided examples of:
  • A policeman who applied the laws so badly that it was suggested that he be disciplined for his stupidity.
  • A woman who was found not guilty.
  • A woman who pleaded guilty and was given a sentence that only had any practical effect if she persisted in committing such crimes.
    Well done Legend. Well done indeed. You have almost saved me the bother of looking up my own examples of the law working as intended. But if on the basis of these examples you want to hide quivering under your duvet with an aluminium saucepan on your head terrified that those thought police might detect your hateful brainwaves then you carry on mate.
    Meanwhile those of us that live in the real world, and the most socially diverse parts of the real world at that, will continue on our merry way unconcerned by your ridiculous fears and assertions as we go about our business thinking whatever we damn well please unhindered by insane notions of "thought crimes".

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 321 by Legend, posted 12-29-2009 1:36 PM Legend has not replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 329 of 376 (540965)
    12-30-2009 11:00 AM
    Reply to: Message 322 by New Cat's Eye
    12-29-2009 2:00 PM


    Re: Apparently........
    CS writes:
    Do you really think that these guys murdered Shepard in an attempt to effect the entire gay community?
    I don't know the details of that case at all but if you were gay would you go and live in that town? If you already lived there would you come out? I know let's open a gay bar there and see how that goes down? I dare ya!! Do you really think that the very public nature of this display had no intent beyond simply torturing this individual for being gay? You don't think there was a "we don't want no fags round these parts" element to it?
    Like I say I don't know the case. At face value the message seems pretty fucking clear to me. But I don't know the details and I am only going on what you have told me. A jury could make a more informed decision. And if they concluded that there was such intent "beyond all reasonable doubt" then I have little doubt that this wider intent should be taken into account by the law.
    CS writes:
    What positive effects do you think would have resulted if these guys were punished for a hate crime instead?
    Once people are so full of prejudice that they are willing to conduct acts as abhorrant as this they are probably beyond much deterrent in truth. This barbaric act should result in very severe punishment regardless of any wider intent as these guys are frankly dangerous. But if the sentence of those who were involved in this is increased because of wider intent and they are kept out of harms way for longer then I personally have little problem with that.
    But ultimately I think laws and social attitudes go hand in hand. The message that it is not socially acceptable to criminally target people because of their sexuality (in this case) goes hand in hand with the stigma of discriminating against people on this basis more generally. But now I am waffling nearly as much as you were at the end of your post.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 322 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-29-2009 2:00 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 330 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-30-2009 11:37 AM Straggler has replied

      
    New Cat's Eye
    Inactive Member


    Message 330 of 376 (540967)
    12-30-2009 11:37 AM
    Reply to: Message 329 by Straggler
    12-30-2009 11:00 AM


    Re: Apparently........
    I don't know the details of that case at all but if you were gay would you go and live in that town?
    I dunno, but I'm white and I wouldn't dare step foot in East St. Louis. There's places where I know that I just shouldn't be going. Being a gay in Hickville is just one of them (not that it makes it acceptable or anything).
    But what happened to your point that the intentions of the criminal are important here? Now you seem to be at: 'well, if they didn't intend it but it happened anyways...'
    Do you really think that the very public nature of this display had no intent beyond simply torturing this individual for being gay?
    quote:
    After admitting he was gay, Shepard was robbed, pistol whipped, tortured, tied to a fence in a remote, rural area, and left to die.
    ...
    Shepard was discovered 18 hours later by Aaron Kreifels, who initially mistook Shepard for a scarecrow.
    Very public?
    I suspect that their hatred allowed them to simply enjoy the torturing without any intentions of sending any kind of message, but speculating on their motive is a fruitless effort (which might have something to do with it not supposing to be an element of the crime).
    At face value the message seems pretty fucking clear to me.
    I think your clarity is unfounded.
    And if they concluded that there was such intent "beyond all reasonable doubt" then I have little doubt that this wider intent should be taken into account by the law.
    Like in the sentencing portion and not as a way to create a new crime, or not?
    Once people are so full of prejudice that they are willing to conduct acts as abhorrant as this they are probably beyond much deterrent in truth. This barbaric act should result in very severe punishment regardless of any wider intent as these guys are frankly dangerous. But if the sentence of those who were involved in this is increased because of wider intent and they are kept out of harms way for longer then I personally have little problem with that.
    They both have life in prison. What more do you want?
    But ultimately I think laws and social attitudes go hand in hand. The message that it is not socially acceptable to criminally target people because of their sexuality (in this case) goes hand in hand with the stigma of discriminating against people on this basis more generally.
    And that could be accomplished with harsher sentences. I still don't think we need to create a whole 'nother crime and I still think its improper to do it the way it has been done (by using a non-criminal motive, or specific intent, to create a whole new crime that's on top of something that already criminal).
    On top of that there's the negative aspects that have been brought up by others.
    But now I am waffling nearly as much as you were at the end of your post.
    I kinda like it. It makes the discussions more intimate.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 329 by Straggler, posted 12-30-2009 11:00 AM Straggler has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 331 by Straggler, posted 12-30-2009 11:59 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024