Legend responds to me:
quote:
It's just that famous people are even more vulnerable to defamation than you or I as they make their living out of their popularity.
Right, because the entire legal system has become incompetent where judges and defense attorneys have all forgotten about the rules of evidence and how to dismiss charges with prejudice.
And because we need to have a special set of laws for famous people.
quote:
The 'evidence' was that the victim (belatedly) said so.
So? It's still evidence.
quote:
Which is why the jury didn't convict her of a hate-crime!
Which is what they're supposed to do when they don't find evidence convincing. What's the problem?
quote:
No, the attorney must have surely pointed out that his client never called the victim a racial epithet, that she had no reason for doing so and that there was no evidence that she did.
So why did that charge make it to the jury at all? It's called a "motion to dismiss" and is made before it even gets to trial. Why did the defense not do this? Because the judge was in on the conspiracy? Or was it because there was enough evidence to warrant going to trial over this charge and thus, that was a question for the jury to decide, not a simple matter of law that the judge decides?
If there truly was no evidence, then how on earth did it manage to get as far as it did? Unless you're going to assume incompetence or conpsiracy on the part of the defense/judiciary, then there must have been something else going on.
quote:
That's *your logic*, not mine!
You're the one complaining about reputations being destroyed by inappropriate charges being filed. Well, that's the case for every single law out there. The McMartins had their lives destroyed in one of the worst miscarriages of justice seen. And yet, I wouldn't dare call for a repeal of the laws involved. The reasons you are bringing forward as reasons to repeal the hate crimes laws can be applied to every single law out there. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If the use of statements as evidence and the threat to personal reputation are sufficient to strike hate crimes laws from the books, then every other law has to go to because all crimes use statements as evidence and all prosecutions result in loss of personal reputation.
quote:
I'm just asking that the same standard of evidence and investigative standards are applied across the board of criminal cases.
And they are. That's why we keep bringing up the murder statutes: What you say determines whether you get manslaughter or murder.
quote:
If no-one is charged with murder, manslaughter, robbery, assault, etc purely on someone's word then neither should they be charged with hate-crimes based on someone's word.
Except they are. People are charged with them purely on someone's word. What you say lets us know what your intent is.
quote:
If no-one is charged with murder unless there is evidence that they planned to kill
Which your statements most decidely are. What you say in the commission of a crime helps us know what crime you actually committed.
quote:
then neither should anyone be charged with hate-crimes unless there is the same standard of evidence that they planned to "terrorise" or "subjugate" the whole community, instead of just uterring a stupid, hurtful epithet during a drunken fight.
You act as if a drunken fight can't be an act of terrorism. The crime isn't the utterance. It's the fight. The utterance lets us know if the fight was just a simple crime or something more than that.
"Oh, my god! No! My brakes!" That's manslaughter.
"Take that, you bastard!" That's murder.
Same act. The only thing that makes it different is your statement during the act.
quote:
For you, this is evidently too much to ask.
No, for me it is precisely what we do with every other crime out there. That you seem to want to complain about it is indicative that it's not about the crime or the prosecution of it.
quote:
I never suggested or implied that we shouldn't.
Did you or did you not say:
It's just that famous people are even more vulnerable to defamation than you or I as they make their living out of their popularity.
quote:
I never suggested or implied that there aren't.
Did you or did you not say:
If no-one is charged with murder, manslaughter, robbery, assault, etc purely on someone's word
quote:
What does it matter?
Because one is an actual crime for which you can be prosecuted and convicted while the other is just the police paying attention to what is going on in the neighborhood since things that aren't crimes now might escalate into crimes later. Don't tell me you want the police to maintain a perpetual state of naivete, are you?
quote:
The point is that they are both based on what is "perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by
prejudice or hate." (quoting from source).
No, they're not. An incident is only about perception. A crime requires evidence. If they were both the same thing, why do you think the police don't arrest those who are only involved in an "incident"? Yes, that's right: Because they haven't committed a crime.
quote:
Why are you even asking?
Because you have confused an "incident" with a "crime." You are complaining that what is used to justify the police recording a hate "incident" is the same level of evidence required to prosecute a hate "crime." And that is not the case. Your own sources indicate the difference between the two. This is why I keep asking if you have bothered to read your sources before you post them because they literally do not say what you claim they do.
quote:
Unlike hate crimes, murder is judged and punished on the accused's actions and deliberation to act, *NOT* on their thoughts/feelings/words and their ulterior intents and motives.
Incorrect:
"Oh, my god! No! My brakes!" That's manslaughter.
"Take that, you bastard!" That's murder.
Same act. The only thing that makes it different is your statement during your act.
This is why I pointed out that you are arguing that there is no difference among reckless endangerment, manslaughter, and murder and the various degrees thereof. You are arguing that a person's statements aren't used in prosecution of these crimes but they are. They are often why a crime is being prosecuted as murder rather than manslaughter.
quote:
Hence, I'm not complaining about the murder statute. Is this finally clear?
No, because murder is prosecuted in exactly the same way. What you say is what let's us know that what you did was murder, not manslaughter.
So if it isn't problematic with regard to murder, why does it suddenly become a problem with regard to hate crime? You aren't being charged with what you said. You're being charged with what you did. What you said simply lets us know the extent of what you were doing.
quote:
And that's yet another reason why we should be campaigning for equal standard of evidence across the criminal board and *against* moral-crusade legislation like hate-crime and sex-offence laws which justify some sinister and dubious means towards a well-intended end.
But I'm not arguing against the crimes against sexual molestation of children. I want them to stay on the books. And while the McMartin case was a travesty, that wasn't the law's fault. It was the human beings who let the case get away from them. It happens all the time and for every single crime. Have you read up on the history of Fatty Arbuckle? A woman died and he was charged with first-degree murder on the basis of a single witness saying that the victim said, "Roscoe hurt me." This was after their primary witness wasn't put on the stand due to her horrendous background involving racketeering, fraud, and extortion made her an incredibly unreliable witness. The case was almost thrown out until the new witness made the claim. The first trial deadlocked and in the second trial, she testified that the prosecuting attorney subborned perjury from her.
The third trial resulted in a unanimous verdict of not guilty after only six minutes of deliberation. The jury even apologized to Arbuckle. And yet despite all this, his career was ruined.
But I'm not going to complain about the murder laws just because some human beings made a mistake in prosecuting them.
quote:
Just because someone has a black cat doesn't mean that they're a witch.
Just because someone has painful bowel movements doesn't mean that they've been sexually abused.
Just because someone drunkenly and mid-fight calls a cab driver a 'Paki' doesn't mean that they're a racist, out to subgugate the whole community.
And just because somebody says they didn't do it doesn't mean they didn't.
quote:
I don't know the precise wording of the child abuse laws or guidance but if they're anything like hate-crime laws whereby anyone can be culpable based merely on the "perception of the victim or any other person", then yes, damn right we need to do away with them.
But hate crimes laws don't make you culpable based merely on perception. You have confused an "incident" with a "crime" again.
quote:
After all, your good self brought up an excellent example (McMartins) of what can happen when all it takes to charge and prosecute is someone's 'perception'!
No, not "perception." Actual statements. Whom the prosecutors thought they had managed to get corroborated through other statements. The problem was the method by which these statements were being gathered. Children are easily convinced to say things that aren't true. The law needs to stay. The people charged with carrying out the law need to learn how to carry it out.
quote:
What does it matter?
Because an "incident" is not a "crime." The standards for having the police record an "incident" are not the same as those required for prosecuting a "crime." One is something that gets people arrested and possible sent to jail. The other is just the police paying attention to what's going on in the neighborhood. Are you saying that police shouldn't be paying attention to things that, while not crimes right now, might escalate into crimes in the future? Your own sources made the distinction between "incidents" and "crimes." It's a shame that you still haven't read them.
quote:
What matters is that all you have to do to get even with your enemies is to report to police that they did something "motivated by
prejudice or hate."
All that'll do is get an "incident" filed. For a crime, you need more. You did read your own sources before you posted them, yes?
quote:
If it's a non-criminal incident then they're going to get a police record with the tag "POTENTIAL HATE CRIMINAL" on it!
No, it won't. It just gets an incident report.
quote:
If it's a criminal offence then they're going to get a few more months/years added onto their sentence. It's a win-win situation, don't you agree?
Huh? If it's a hate crime, then yes: It should be prosecuted differently than if it were a simple crime. Just like grand larceny should be prosecuted differently from petty theft; that reckless endangerment, manslaughter, and murder and the various degrees thereof should all be prosecuted differently, and sometimes based upon the statements made by the accused during the act that is being charged:
"Oh, my god! No! My brakes!" That's manslaughter.
"Take that, you bastard!" That's murder.
quote:
Ahhh, but I forget: You refuse to accept that hate-crimes punish perceived motive.
It's not a question of "refuse." It's a question of the law specifically saying it punishes intent. Of course, you're the one that is claiming that when a law that was written by lawyers, for lawyers, and is carried out by lawyers says, "intent," what they really mean is "motive." And your justification for this is that the sequence of letters is "i-n-t-e-n-d-s" rather than "i-n-t-e-n-t."
quote:
Despite what the Police says.
The police say that an "incident" is not a "crime." You did read your own source, yes?
quote:
Despite what the Home Office says. Despite what the FBI says.
No, specifically because a press release is not the same as the law. Ah, but in your mind, a law written by lawyers for lawyers and is carried out by lawyers really didn't mean "intent" when it said "intent" and the entire legal profession has gone insane.
quote:
Despite what most legal web-sites and dictionaries say.
(*chuckle*) Nice try but when it comes to the law, the law trumps what everybody else says. If the law says, "intent," it doesn't mean "motive."
quote:
Riigghhhhht....
Yep.
So far you still haven't managed to show me where in the law it says anything but "intent." Your only argument so far is that because the sequence of letters is not "i-n-t-e-n-t," that means the law is referring to motive.
quote:
I've already linked to two serious cases
Neither of which supported your claim. In fact, they supported mine: Not one case of anybody convicted simply for speaking. The closest you have come is a single woman who received a letter that everybody, including the department that sent the letter, agrees should never have been sent.
quote:
Without even mentioning the numerous other cases of police 'having a word' with people who expressed an 'incorrect' opinion.
And your evidence of this is? And the cops shouldn't be talking to people that are running really close toward breaking the law that they might want to pay attention to what they're doing? The cops should never pay attention to what is going on in the neighborhood lest things that aren't crimes now escalate to crimes later?
quote:
I've provided plenty of evidence.
Indeed...evidence in support of my position. I'm still waiting for the person who was prosecuted simply for speech. All you've got is a letter that everybody, including the department that sent it, agrees shouldn't have been sent. Such laws have been on the books for decades here in the US and despite all this "chilling of speech" that you have been railing against, we still have white supremacist groups having their parades and gatherings where they set up PA systems to broadcast their missives to the world at large.
Where are the people being arrested for what they said on Speaker's Corner?
quote:
But then again, you're the person who refuses to believe what the Police, Home Office and FBI are saying
Huh? I believe what they are saying. I just understand the difference between a press release sent out to people who don't know what "intent" and "motive" are and the law. I understand that the entire judicial profession has simultaneously developed insanity such that when the law says, "intent," they read it as "motive."
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.
™ Version 4.2