Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hate Crimes? Thought Crimes? Crimethink?
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 106 of 131 (775675)
01-03-2016 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Tangle
01-03-2016 4:48 AM


Re: So Which Is IT?
You are wrong in your analysis.
The difference between a premeditated crime and an opportunistic one is the degree to which we feel the actor to be responsible; the purpose of determining responsibility is not to correct abhorrent morals, but because we believe as a society that people should be judged for their actions only to the extent to which they are responsible for them.
This is not at all like hate crime laws.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Tangle, posted 01-03-2016 4:48 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Tangle, posted 01-04-2016 4:13 AM Jon has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 107 of 131 (775676)
01-03-2016 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Jon
01-03-2016 9:37 PM


What does 'stand your ground' have to do with anything?
You wrote that "when you devise laws that consider the thoughts of the actor, you are, by definition, creating thought crimes [...] And free societies really should have no place for such crap."
Now have a look at the laws of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, etc. Note that these laws specifically consider the thoughts of the actor, to the extent that having the right thoughts can make the difference between being guilty of murder and innocent of anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Jon, posted 01-03-2016 9:37 PM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-04-2016 3:34 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 131 (775685)
01-04-2016 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Dr Adequate
01-03-2016 11:19 PM


Those "thoughts" you are describing are actually actions and they are describing intent, not motive. A charge for conspiracy isn't charging them for their thoughts, it's charging them for their intent to commit an action. And very specific actions are necessary to demonstrate the willingness or intent to commit the act to completion.
So stating that thoughts can be criminalized is misleading

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-03-2016 11:19 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by NoNukes, posted 01-04-2016 9:06 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 112 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-04-2016 10:19 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 109 of 131 (775686)
01-04-2016 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Jon
01-03-2016 10:57 PM


Jon writes:
Impossible?
What does that have to do with criminalizing something?
Thought crime is a science fiction fantasy - you know, it's not real? We can't do it, so we can't criminalise it. What's more relevant is that we're not doing it.
It's impossible to detect or even be a witch, yet that never stopped many a witch hunt and subsequent execution.
Well yes, and 1000 years ago the only punishment for any crime was death and a for a long time after the local baron could do what the hell he liked to his serfs. But we don't do that stuff anymore.
Laws already existed targeting the actions relevant to hate crime laws. It wasn't like someone invented a new way to punch minorities in the face to which the legislature responding by creating special laws dealing with this special way of punching.
If you punch a gay chap in the face you get prosecuted for common assault. If you punch a gay chap in the face whilst calling him a fucking filthy fag you get prosecuted for common assault aggravated by the fact that the assault was motivated by a hatred of a particular protected group.
Their only distinction was that they now made it possible for the legal system to consider (and punish based on) the presence of thoughts considered unsettling to the general public.
Motives, thoughts, intent - whatever language you'd like to use, the crimes are being punished more harshly because they show traits that society wishes to erradicate, that is, discrimination on religious, sexual and racial grounds. People can have whatever thoughts they like, but the minute they start acting on those thoughts, they're going to find themselves in trouble. Motive and intent has always been a factor in deciding the level of a punishment.
We aren't talking about probing at people's thoughts to determine their degree of responsibility, but about probing at their thoughts do determine if they are 'unacceptable' and that just so we can punish them more severely because we don't like the thoughts.
Nope, we don't do that, we punish actions. See above

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Jon, posted 01-03-2016 10:57 PM Jon has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 110 of 131 (775687)
01-04-2016 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Jon
01-03-2016 10:57 PM


Re: So Which Is IT?
Jon writes:
The difference between a premeditated crime and an opportunistic one is the degree to which we feel the actor to be responsible;
Correct
the purpose of determining responsibility is not to correct abhorrent morals,
Incorrect. The purpose of law is to signal society's values and to force compliance to them by a system of punishments.
but because we believe as a society that people should be judged for their actions only to the extent to which they are responsible for them.
This is a bit garbled - but it's probably correct.
This is not at all like hate crime laws.
Yes it it. The introduction of penalties for actions that are motivated by hatred of particular sections of our society which we have decided need special protection because they are at risk, is exactly what law does - protect it's citizens.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Jon, posted 01-03-2016 10:57 PM Jon has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 131 (775700)
01-04-2016 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Hyroglyphx
01-04-2016 3:34 AM


So stating that thoughts can be criminalized is misleading
Exactly. Hate crime laws are not thought crimes.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-04-2016 3:34 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 112 of 131 (775705)
01-04-2016 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Hyroglyphx
01-04-2016 3:34 AM


Those "thoughts" you are describing are actually actions and they are describing intent, not motive. A charge for conspiracy isn't charging them for their thoughts, it's charging them for their intent to commit an action. And very specific actions are necessary to demonstrate the willingness or intent to commit the act to completion.
So stating that thoughts can be criminalized is misleading
Did you not follow the link? Because I have no idea what you're talking about. "A charge for conspiracy"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-04-2016 3:34 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 113 of 131 (775811)
01-05-2016 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Hyroglyphx
01-01-2016 4:57 AM


Agreed. So then aren't we charging them for their actions and deeds above their motive? The motive doesn't kill, the action does.
I find your response completely bizarre. I describe a situation outside of hate crimes where we add extra punishment due to the mental state and motives of the criminal and then you respond as above. It's as if I never posted except that you responded.
Under normal jurisprudence, your motive for killing matters. Mental state and depravity are elements of crimes that provide enhanced punishment for crimes that are not hate crimes.
Another examples are terrorism enhanced punishments for crimes. And of course during sentencing judges take all kinds of accounts of motives when deciding jail time. Yet another example laws against possessing burglar tools for the purpose of breaking into a vehicle. Giving a candidate money is either a donation or a bribe depending entirely on the motive.
Breaking and entering is illegal, but breaking and entering for the purpose of committing a felony is burglary which is a serious felony. Nothing other than the criminals purpose distinguishes the two situations.
Degrees of murder are distinguished in part by motive. Killing a person for the purpose of preventing testimony in a trial is punished more severely because we want to deter that.
We can identify under the law any number of situations were motive either enhances punishment or even where there is an exculpatory vs an incriminating effect. You summarily dismiss such examples, but that's wrong. In those cases motive serves as distinguishing punishment from no punishment at all.
If you instead want to argue that we should not be enhancing punishments based on motive, then make that case. But stating that we don't do that or such things are not a part of a civilized society are empty rhetoric. The idea of enhancing punishments based on various mental states runs all through current jurisprudence.
Is it worse to shoot someone in the face for anti-Semetic reasons versus someone motivated by greed?
Sigh. Again you raise this false dichotomy. Both of those things are bad. Put the perp under the jail for life. There are lots of bad motives. Anti-Semite reasons are just one. Shooting someone in the face because he raped your brother might well be deserving of a lesser punishment.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-01-2016 4:57 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 114 of 131 (775879)
01-06-2016 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Tangle
01-02-2016 12:33 PM


Recent news relevant to this topic?
Hi, Tangle.
Tangle writes:
On the 'slippery slope' front, when hate crime becomes simply talking about disliking gay people in a mild and thoughtful fashion amongst likeminded individuals, causing no disturbance, there might be a point. For as long as it can only be an aggravating factor to a 'real' crime there's no problem.
While I agree that the 'slippery slope' arguments are mostly expressions of a person's paranoia, my mind isn't fully comfortable completely dismissing them yet, so allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment.
Here is a Snopes article on the NYC transgender discrimination guidelines that came out. The claim being evaluated is that you could be fined up to $250,000 for not using the preferred pronoun for a transgendered person.
Of course, that claim was found to be a gross exaggeration, but it does seem like there's an element of the 'slippery slope' that Jon was talking about: for example, wantonly refusing to use a transgendered person's preferred pronoun is actually prosecutable under these new guidelines.
An outside observer could reasonably conclude that this law pretty closely fits the predictions of a 'slippery slope' hypothesis. Of course, the trouble with the 'slippery slope' argument is that the endpoint is more mercurial, so 'slippery slope towards thought crime' is harder to confirm. Still, this law does make me feel a little insecure in my belief that the 'slippery slope' hypothesis is just paranoia.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Tangle, posted 01-02-2016 12:33 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Tangle, posted 01-06-2016 11:59 AM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 116 by NoNukes, posted 01-06-2016 12:19 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 115 of 131 (775882)
01-06-2016 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Blue Jay
01-06-2016 11:06 AM


Re: Recent news relevant to this topic?
Blue Jay writes:
While I agree that the 'slippery slope' arguments are mostly expressions of a person's paranoia, my mind isn't fully comfortable completely dismissing them yet, so allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment.
The transgender legislation is interesting. It's pretty hard to imagine circumstances when the pronoun issue would be prosecuted though - it would have to be a deliberate and repeated act, intended to provocate. Although I could see some raving, right-wing Christian idiots wanting to martyr themselves over it. God forbid they ever try to buy a cake!
But even so, the law has its heart in the right place, it's trying to ensure that these poor people can live as near normal lives as those of us without these problems and prevent bigotted egits discriminating against and humiliating them.
It's really all about the intent of the law and then its application. It's not a problem in itself that laws attempt to change minds.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Blue Jay, posted 01-06-2016 11:06 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Blue Jay, posted 01-06-2016 1:04 PM Tangle has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 116 of 131 (775885)
01-06-2016 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Blue Jay
01-06-2016 11:06 AM


Re: Recent news relevant to this topic?
Of course, that claim was found to be a gross exaggeration, but it does seem like there's an element of the 'slippery slope' that Jon was talking about: for example, wantonly refusing to use a transgendered person's preferred pronoun is actually prosecutable under these new guidelines.
These are still not thought crimes. Referring to a she as a 'he' has to be directed at the person. It does not seem to me that simply using it in conversation not involving the person is objectionable under the law. And of course there is still constitutional scrutiny to be applied.
Yeah, I see the problematic part of such legislation too. But do such laws as this get their start from laws that are actually designed to protect minorities from physical violence? That's what the slippery slope argument is insisting. The second question is whether we should sand paper the slope (prevent sliding into free speech territory) or eliminate the peak (not protect minorities from xenophobic abuse using targeted punishment).
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Blue Jay, posted 01-06-2016 11:06 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Blue Jay, posted 01-06-2016 1:13 PM NoNukes has replied
 Message 122 by Blue Jay, posted 01-07-2016 10:52 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 117 of 131 (775888)
01-06-2016 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Tangle
01-06-2016 11:59 AM


Re: Recent news relevant to this topic?
Hi, Tangle.
Tangle writes:
It's not a problem in itself that laws attempt to change minds.
I feel a little back-of-the-brain itch when I see this statement, because this feels like the entire essence of the 'slippery slope' paranoia: they're more concerned with the government trying to control their thoughts than with the technical definition of 'thought crime.'
I mean, you're right of course: laws are made to dissuade behaviors that have a disruptive effect in society. But then, the observation that such laws tend to proliferate over time, and that it seems relatively easy to condition people to accept new rules, gives the uncomfortable impression that government is becoming more intrusive over time.
Basically, while I'm pretty sure I agree with your views, I can still see how it's easy to misinterpret the available evidence as a 'slippery slope' toward... well, toward something different from the current state of affairs, I guess?

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Tangle, posted 01-06-2016 11:59 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Tangle, posted 01-06-2016 1:16 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(2)
Message 118 of 131 (775890)
01-06-2016 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by NoNukes
01-06-2016 12:19 PM


Re: Recent news relevant to this topic?
Hi, NoNukes.
NoNukes writes:
These are still not thought crimes.
Does this make you a legal baraminologist?
"No matter how much a crime micro-evolves, it will never macro-evolve into a thought crime."

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by NoNukes, posted 01-06-2016 12:19 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by NoNukes, posted 01-06-2016 4:03 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 119 of 131 (775891)
01-06-2016 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Blue Jay
01-06-2016 1:04 PM


Re: Recent news relevant to this topic?
Blue Jay writes:
I feel a little back-of-the-brain itch when I see this statement, because this feels like the entire essence of the 'slippery slope' paranoia: they're more concerned with the government trying to control their thoughts than with the technical definition of 'thought crime.'
Well 'they' aren't being consistent. All laws attempt to control and change behaviour - law require people to conform to rules of behaviour, or else. Behaviour is driven by thought, so sure, it's the thought police. But only if you really need to be really, really stupid about it.
And where is this 'slippery slope' supposed to lead to? The USA has loads of constitutional laws preventing abuse by law enforcers.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Blue Jay, posted 01-06-2016 1:04 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Blue Jay, posted 01-06-2016 1:28 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 120 of 131 (775892)
01-06-2016 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Tangle
01-06-2016 1:16 PM


Re: Recent news relevant to this topic?
Hi, Tangle.
Tangle writes:
Well 'they' aren't being consistent. All laws attempt to control and change behaviour - law require people to conform to rules of behaviour, or else. Behaviour is driven by thought, so sure, it's the thought police. But only if you really need to be really, really stupid about it.
Yeah, I'm not sure where I'm going with all this. I probably just have some residual conspiracy-theorist memes still embedded deep in my mind due to my former life as a fundamentalist (and my continued association with still-fundamentalist family members).
I've got a lot to tease out still.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Tangle, posted 01-06-2016 1:16 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024