Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hate-crime = Thought crime?
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 16 of 376 (537557)
11-29-2009 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Hyroglyphx
11-29-2009 9:50 AM


Re: Hate Crimes used for statistics, motives, trends
Hyroglyphx writes:
I think for statistical purposes, in order to establish criminal trends and rates, it is acceptable for police agencies to track hate crimes as long as it is categorized as a motive. The FBI, and more than likely Scotland Yard, tracks crimes that are racially motivated.
Yes and -just to make it clear- that's fine by me. Establishing motive in order to demonstrate causation and ascertain guilt is one thing. Judging the motive as a crime in itself is totally different and unacceptable as far as I'm concerned.

"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 14 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-29-2009 9:50 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 17 of 376 (537562)
11-29-2009 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by subbie
11-27-2009 10:49 PM


Which is not really a problem if the legislature considers someone committing the former to be more dangerous than someone committed the latter.
It is a problem if the legislature is wrong. For instance, if they have been swayed by appeals to emotion or appeals to popularity.
As as example, hate crimes legislation doesn't usually include crimes directed at left-handed people because of their left-handedness. I suggest that the reason for this is that there isn't a significant amount of crime directed at left-handed people. Thus, this type of prejudice, if it occasionally occurs, is not as serious a problem and is thus less important for the legislature to address.
Heh - it seems victims of minority crimes are being discriminated against - "sorry Bob, but we can only get six months for your attacker because his motivations aren't widespread enough to warrant being called a social problem that needs special attention.". Just because there is a greater amount of a certain crime - it doesn't mean it should be punished more seriously than an equal crime committed with uncommon motivations. Creating this kind of law has noble intentions, and it might even go some way towards addressing the social evil that is being combated - but we shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking that it's the best or even only thing that can be done about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by subbie, posted 11-27-2009 10:49 PM subbie has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 18 of 376 (537590)
11-29-2009 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
11-27-2009 8:42 PM


We're seeking to give additional charges to sweeten the pot, as if beating a person nearly to death isn't enough? Why not just make assault and battery penalties more strict if you want to get these kinds of monsters off of the streets? Why threaten the freedom of speech and free thought?
Something else to consider is, certain laws exist simply to give the illusion that something is being done, to set certain portions of our society at ease.
Like the raising of taxes on cigs, which just gives the illusion that the government is taking action against the Tobacco Ind., "hate crime" laws are just there to give certain members of society the illusions that the government is acting out against racism.
Like you point out, it really doesn't make much of a difference, the only difference it makes is that now society knows that they're fighting racism.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-27-2009 8:42 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-29-2009 8:48 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 26 by Rrhain, posted 11-30-2009 3:32 AM onifre has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 19 of 376 (537621)
11-29-2009 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
11-27-2009 8:42 PM


Typical Libertarian FUD
This is nothing more than the canned conservative/libertarian talking points to this issue. Calling it "thought crime", wrapping the flag of the founders around themselves.
We have been punishing criminals based on motive for a long time. It works. Hate-crimes simply suffer from very poor naming. They should be called what they are, terrorism laws, plain and simple.
We just have degrees of terrorism. If it is against a sub-class we call it a hate-crime, if it is against a nation it is "terrorism". Same reasoning, sound reasoning.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-27-2009 8:42 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-30-2009 8:45 AM Jazzns has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 376 (537630)
11-29-2009 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by AZPaul3
11-29-2009 10:26 AM


Re: Humans R Us
The difference, Hyro, is the difference in a crime against an individual vs a crime against humanity. Members volunteer their services to the gang as individuals.
It's all discrimination based on superficial differences, is my point.
Society has determined that dragging a man down miles of gravel road dangling on a rope attached to the bumper of your pick-up just because he owed you money and wouldn't pay is less harmful (slightly) to the fabric of society than the same actors in the same crime but done just because he is a nigger.
I'm sure that's of little to no consolation for the family member. And it still does not get to the root of the problem. Being charged for murder and based upon the heinous nature of that murder is the only relevance to the statute itself.
If it is not illegal to be a bigot, then why are people being doubly punished for the motive of the killing? Shouldn't the act of murder alone be sufficient? We aren't imprisoning these people for their beliefs but because of their actions.
Your concern about using such laws as precedence to warrant expansion beyond the intended scope into limiting legal speech (that damn camel's nose) is not without justification. That is why we must remain ever vigilant that society, the tyranny of the majority, does not overstep the bounds. And we do that in discussions like this and in the USA (to a greater or lesser extent) by acknowledging the supremacy of a Constitution over the wants and desires of the society.
But isn't this an infringement of the Constitution?
Follow the train of logic in stepwise fashion and you will see that it does not add up. We are brushing it aside because nobody likes bigotry and so it seems justifiable.
A. It is not a crime to have a racial bias.
B. It is not a crime to yell racial epithets.
1. It is a crime to threaten people's lives with violence.
2. It is a crime to murder people.
This bill takes A&B and marries it to 1&2 unjustly.
"He called my friend a nigger (not a crime) and told him he would kill him (a crime) because he's black (not a crime). Then he killed him (crime) because he's black (not a crime)."
That is punishing people for their beliefs rather than punishing them for their actions. That the 9/11 hijackers killed in the name of their religion certainly pisses everyone off just like killing over race pisses us off. The motive itself is not the criminal act, even if it is a catalyst towards the action itself.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by AZPaul3, posted 11-29-2009 10:26 AM AZPaul3 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Rrhain, posted 11-30-2009 3:51 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 376 (537632)
11-29-2009 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by onifre
11-29-2009 2:16 PM


Something else to consider is, certain laws exist simply to give the illusion that something is being done, to set certain portions of our society at ease.
I hope it's not a tool of appeasement.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by onifre, posted 11-29-2009 2:16 PM onifre has not replied

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


Message 22 of 376 (537645)
11-30-2009 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Hyroglyphx
11-28-2009 11:18 AM


Hryoglyphx responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Ah, so the attacks on September 11th were nothing more than a case of aggravated vandalism with about 3000 counts of manslaughter attached, right?
It was murder, not assault.
How do you know it was murder and not manslaughter? I didn't mention assault at all. By your logic, it was simply aggravated vandalism with involuntary manslaughter as a secondary charge.
Is your argument that there is no such thing as "terrorism"?
quote:
So when a liquor store or convenient store is robbed, all liquor stores and convenient stores are attacked by proxy?
Is a liquor store a conscious being? No.
Let's stop playing dumb, shall we?
quote:
Which all can be determined in the courtroom like it has always been.
No, which is all determined by the prosecutor before you go into the courtroom. You determine charges first and then try the person to see if the charges are justified. You don't get to throw stuff at the wall and hope something sticks.
Showing that you killed someone (manslaughter) is a lot easier than showing that you had "malice aforethought" in doing it (murder one). Thus, the prosecutor takes a look at the case, determines what he thinks he can prove, and then files the appropriate charges.
quote:
I'm not saying that motive should have no play, I am saying that a specific bill makes little sense.
So there's no difference between reckless endangerment, manslaughter, and murder nor any of the degrees of same? All those are specific laws in the judicial titles.
As soon as you start complaining about how murder one and murder two are laws that should be taken off the books because they penalize "thoughts," then I'll start believing you about your complains regarding hate crime laws.
quote:
Wouldn't it make more sense to simply allow the courts to examine the motives and severity of the cases as it has always been done?
Except the courts have never done that. It appears you don't know anything about our system of jurisprudence. The prosecutor figures it out beforehand based upon the case. He then files the approrpiate charges based upon what he thinks he can prove in court.
You literally do not have an accurate model of how the legal system works.
quote:
quote:
Are you suggesting there shouldn't be any distinction among reckless endangerment, manslaughter, murder, and the various degrees of all of those because those distinctions are based upon the thoughts of the person who committed the crime? There should only be "killing" as a charge?
I never said that or even alluded to it.
Let's take a look at your original post, shall we? Did you or did you not write the following:
The "act" is what is criminal, not the motive.
The fact that they violently assaulted a man without legal justification should be the only thing relevant to a charge.
What difference does it make from a legal point of view?
The problem is that this goes against the freedom of speech and thought.
We're seeking to give additional charges to sweeten the pot, as if beating a person nearly to death isn't enough?
Why threaten the freedom of speech and free thought?
And here you are trying to say you aren't suggesting there shouldn't be a difference when the very difference among things like manslaughter, murder, and the various degrees of same have to do with what you were thinking at the time.
If it is "the 'act' that is criminal, not the motive," then why on earth is there any distinction between murder one and murder two?
The moment you start complaining about the laws distinguishing murder one and murder two, then I'll start believing you when you say that your complaint about hate crimes is about punishing "thought" and not the people who are being protected by those laws.
quote:
Is it worse to murder a man for money or murder him for hatred?
According to the law, murder with "malice aforethought" is worse than murder with merely "reckless indifference." That's why the former is called "murder in the first degree" by statute while the latter is called "murder in the second degree."
When you start complaining about there being different degrees of murder, when you start complaining about the difference between murder, manslaughter, and reckless endangerment, then we'll start putting some credit to your complaint that hate crimes laws "penalize thought" and not that you just don't like the fact that gay people are being protected.
quote:
Nobody is protected by these laws
Tell that to the people who have been victimized by those committing acts of terrorism and had those perpetrators punished under the hate crimes statutes. As the attorney general for the US has said, we need tougher hate crimes laws to work against "violence masquerading as political activism."
quote:
as if racist groups are somehow going to dissolve away or quake at the thought of this bill.
So let's do away with all laws since it's clear they don't actually stop crime, right? We have plenty of laws regarding what is considered criminal behaviour and yet people still commit crimes.
So why bother with the law at all, right?
quote:
Okay, then stop being dumb by making unsubstantiated, veiled assertions.
You first. As someone much more witty than I said, "You ask a silly question, you get a silly answer."
Let us not pretend about why you're suddenly complaining about laws that have been on the books for literally decades. You even tell us why in your very first post: These laws have been expanded.
Let us not pretend about your concern regarding which groups are being covered.
Let us not play dumb, shall we? I'm asking nicely.
quote:
Where does acts of terrorism fall under the protection of free speech?
Huh? Free speech allows you to commit acts of terrorism?
Ah, yes, the argument of the homophobe: If you protect gay people, they'll start arresting priests for preaching against gay people! As if the current hate crimes laws protecting race have resulted in racist priests being arrested for their sermons against blacks. Strange how the various white supremacist groups manage to hold their rallys and parades without running afoul of hate crimes laws.
If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?

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 11 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-28-2009 11:18 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-30-2009 9:56 AM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 23 of 376 (537647)
11-30-2009 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Legend
11-29-2009 8:55 AM


Legend writes:
quote:
beating someone to death should be condemned for what it is, not be seen as different just because the victim happens to belong to a certain ethnic or sexual group.
Same question to you: By this logic, we should throw out the legal distinctions between reckless endangerment, manslaughter, and murder as well as the various degrees of same and just have a single crime of "killing someone." After all, "killing someone should be condemned for what it is," right? Making a distinction between "reckless disregard for human life" and "malice aforethought" only "detracts from the severity of the crime," right?
When you start complaining about there being distinctions between murder one and murder two, then your argument will hold water.
quote:
that they indirectly propagate racism and increase racial tensions.
Except they don't. They actually allow us to ensure that those who engage in violence as a means of terrorism are punished accordingly.
Are you seriously saying that those who commit acts of terrorism shouldn't be punished accordingly lest people who agree with the terrorists should take up the cause? I guess Timothy McVeigh shouldn't have been prosecuted, right? Or at least only charged with aggravated vandalism with 168 counts of involuntary manslaughter attached, right?
quote:
and most importantly: hate-crimes are thought crimes in that they seek to judge and condemn "evil" thoughts instead of just evil actions.
So murder one needs to go since it judges and condemans "evil thoughts." You justify it by showing the perpetrator had "malice aforethought" rather than merely "reckless indifference."
When you start complaining about murder one being an actual crime, then we'll start believing you that the problem is that hate crimes "punish thought."
quote:
What they were thinking at the time should be of no concern to anyone else other than their conscience.
So there's no such thing as terrorism? No such thing as murder in the first degree?
You start complaining about that and then we'll start considering your claim that you're concerned about "punishing thought." After all, hate crimes laws have been on the books for decades. When was the last time you saw a white supremacist group arrested for what they were saying at their rallies?
quote:
I think the issue here isn't so much the pursuit of safety but rather the attempted railroading of a certain self-righteous morality and political mechanisms for suppressing inidividuality and independent thought.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Right. Because opposing bigotry is just politics.
Instead, as the attorney general said, "We will not tolerate murder, or the threat of violence, masquerading as political activism." If what you say is true, why are there any white supremacy groups to be found in the US? They should all be illegal on the face of it, right? Their thoughts are criminal, right?
No?
Then perhaps you don't know what these laws actually do.
quote:
P.S Just for the record, I have similar misgivings about anti-terrorism laws or any other legislation where the accused are judged on their thoughts or beliefs instead of just their actions.
Why don't I believe you? So McVeigh shouldn't have been charged with murder? After all, that's what makes it murder: What you were thinking. And let's get rid of stalking laws since clearly someone who waits outside your house every day to follow you to work is just exercising his rights to walk the public streets, not terrorize you. Where is your justification for the legal distinctions made among reckless endangerment, manslaughter, and murder as well as the various degrees of such? Are you seriously claiming that the centuries-old distinction between murder one and murder two is simply "self-righteous morality and political mechanisms for suppressing individuality and independent thought"?
quote:
.P.S This from Life On Mars T.V series:
Sam Tyler: I think we need to explore whether this attempted murder was a hate crime.
Gene Hunt: What as opposed to one of those I-really-really-like-you sort of murders?
At which point an intelligent person would respond:
"No, as opposed to one of those, 'I'm only in it to get you, not everybody else like you if you have the misfortune to cross my path,' sort of murders. You know, terrorism."

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 13 by Legend, posted 11-29-2009 8:55 AM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Legend, posted 11-30-2009 12:52 PM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 24 of 376 (537648)
11-30-2009 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Hyroglyphx
11-29-2009 9:50 AM


Hyroglyphx writes:
quote:
There's no law on the books stating that you can't be a bigot.
Precisely. And that includes hate crimes laws.
So what's you're complaint? The crime you are being charged with isn't your bigotry. It's the fact that your bigotry-motivated crime wasn't committed just against the individual but rather against all the other people who share that trait, too.
That means you committed a bigger crime.
And thus, you should have a bigger punishment if you are guilty.
Note, it is insufficient merely to show that the perpetrator is a bigot against the victim's group. The prosecution must show that the bigotry was a motivating factor.
Just like it is insufficient for a murder one charge to merely show that the perpetrator killed the victim. Instead, the prosecution must show "malice aforethought" as the motive.
So when are you going to start protesting the difference between murder one and murder two? It's the exact same legal standard.
quote:
Therefore how can it be an additional crime to an act of violence?
Because your motive determines what kind of crime you engaged in. If I park my car at the top of the hill, don't leave the parking brake on, and it rolls down the hill into someone's house and kills the occupant, then whether I am charged with involuntary manslaughter, murder two, or murder one depends solely upon my motive.
If I didn't mean for the car to roll away like that, if it was an accident, then it's involuntary manslaughter.
If I did mean for the car to roll down but I really didn't care who was in the house, if anybody, then it's murder two.
If I was specifically targeting an occupant and used this as the method by which to kill him, then it's murder one.
The action is the same: The car rolled down the hill into a house and killed someone.
The crime is different based upon my motive. The prosecution needs to show my motive in order for me to be successfully prosecuted. It is the prosecution that decides what charges to file. They do this based upon the evidence they gather regarding my motive.
quote:
I think that is perfectly fine in order to establish motive, but making it its own crime is a huge step in the wrong direction with the freedom of thought and speech.
And thus, you think there should be no distinction made among reckless endangerment, manslaughter, murder, and the various degrees of same. For the differences between them have to do with motive and by your assertion, "making the motive its own crime is a huge step in the wrong direction."
For centuries, our judicial system's distinction of crimes based upon the motive of the perpetrator has been wrong and there should only be a charge of "killing someone."

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 14 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-29-2009 9:50 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

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


Message 25 of 376 (537649)
11-30-2009 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by AZPaul3
11-29-2009 10:26 AM


AZPaul3 writes:
quote:
Your concern about using such laws as precedence to warrant expansion beyond the intended scope into limiting legal speech (that damn camel's nose) is not without justification.
Because as we all know, there isn't a single white supremacist group to be found in the US because the hate crimes laws regarding race that have been on the books for decades have actually been expanded to arrest people for speech, right?
As an abstract concept, your comment makes sense. But the fact that this complaint about the "camel's nose" only seems to come up when the laws mainly protect minorities indicates that the complaint really isn't a sincere quest for fairness.
This same legal distinction you're so worried about "expanding beyond the intended scope" has already been around for centuries with regard to the distinctions among reckless endangerment, manslaughter, and murder as well as the various degrees of same. Has there been a problem of this legal distinction unfairly criminalizing thought?
Then what makes you worried that there is anything different? You can't be charged with a hate crime unless you commit a crime in the first place. And as long as the KKK is around, then you can rest assured that hate crimes laws aren't punishing anybody for their thoughts.

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 15 by AZPaul3, posted 11-29-2009 10:26 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by AZPaul3, posted 11-30-2009 10:35 AM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 26 of 376 (537650)
11-30-2009 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by onifre
11-29-2009 2:16 PM


onifre writes:
quote:
Like you point out, it really doesn't make much of a difference, the only difference it makes is that now society knows that they're fighting racism.
You don't really know what hate crimes laws do, do you?
Part of the law is that if a local jurisdiction is not taking the crime seriously, the feds can step in to make sure that justice is done. If the local police and prosecutor think that a black man should know better than having a conversation with a white woman in a bar and thus the beating that required medical intervention shouldn't be prosecuted, then what?
Hate crimes laws allows the feds to step in when the local legal system refuses to enforce the law.
This idea that they don't do anything is simply flawed.

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 18 by onifre, posted 11-29-2009 2:16 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by onifre, posted 11-30-2009 1:43 PM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 27 of 376 (537651)
11-30-2009 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Hyroglyphx
11-29-2009 8:46 PM


Hyroglyphx writes:
quote:
It's all discrimination based on superficial differences, is my point.
Then start protesting the difference between murder one and murder two and we'll start believing you because it's the exact same distinction.
quote:
Being charged for murder...
Hold it just one second there. "Murder"? Why not "manslaughter"? Why not "reckless endangerment"?
You do realize that the charge is murder and not one of the others has to do with your thoughts, yes?
Thus, by your logic, there is no such thing as "murder." There's only "killing someone." Did you want to revise your statement?
quote:
If it is not illegal to be a bigot, then why are people being doubly punished for the motive of the killing?
For the same reason that killing someone by accident is different than killing someone because you don't care about the other person's life, both of which are different than killing someone because you are specifically targeting that particular person.
The first is involuntary manslaughter. The second is murder two. The last is muder one.
So you're going to protest these distinctions, right? Our entire judicial system for the past two-plus centuries has been fundamentally flawed in punishing people for their thoughts when they committed the crime, right? There is no such thing as the crime of "murder," only "killing," right?
quote:
Shouldn't the act of murder alone be sufficient?
Not if it isn't murder. Are you saying there is no distinction between a preventable accident and lying in wait?
quote:
But isn't this an infringement of the Constitution?
Nope. The various laws against bias crime have all been challenged in court and all have been found to be constitutional.
You aren't being punished for your thoughts. You're being punished for your crime. Since your motivation determines your crime, different motives will result in different crimes.
By your logic, an action that was the result of a preventable accident is no different than the same action performed with malice aforethought and thus we should dismantle our entire judicial system regarding this, getting rid of the distinctions of reckless endangerment, manslaughter, and murder as well as the various degrees of same and simply call it "killing."
quote:
This bill takes A&B and marries it to 1&2 unjustly.
The moment you called it "murder" as opposed to "manslaughter," you engaged in the very thing you claimed was "unjust." The difference between them is what you were thinking when you killed the other person.
So are you going to protest the distinction between murder one and murder two?
quote:
That the 9/11 hijackers killed in the name of their religion certainly pisses everyone off just like killing over race pisses us off.
And thus, they shouldn't be charged with murder. Instead, it's just a cased of aggravated vandalism, right?
quote:
The motive itself is not the criminal act
Yes, it is. It's what separates reckless endangerment, manslaughter, murder, and the various degrees of same. Are you saying we should get rid of all of them and simply call it "killing"?
Having motive is not sufficient to prove culpability, of course. One must show that the defendant actually committed the act, but the motive determines the crime that was carried out by the act.
"Oh, my god! I forgot to set the parking brake!" That's involuntary manslaughter.
"Heh, heh! Let's roll the car into that house, man!" That's murder two.
"That son-of-a-bitch. I've been waiting years to finally get him back for what he did to me!" That's murder one.
And yet, the act was identical: A car rolled down a hill into a house and killed the occupant.
By your logic, there is no distinction.
For centuries, we've recognized that there is a big difference among them.
What you think you were doing when you committed the crime determines what crime you did.

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 20 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-29-2009 8:46 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 376 (537678)
11-30-2009 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Jazzns
11-29-2009 5:39 PM


Re: Typical Libertarian FUD
This is nothing more than the canned conservative/libertarian talking points to this issue.
This is a non-partisan issue, as it is a question of Constitutionality not party lines.
Calling it "thought crime", wrapping the flag of the founders around themselves.
That's what it is! It is sacrificing people on the alter of political correctness and is punishing people for how they think. How could you deny that?
We just have degrees of terrorism. If it is against a sub-class we call it a hate-crime, if it is against a nation it is "terrorism".
For purposes of tracking hate groups, for collecting statistics, and for reasons of establishing motives of a crime should be the only reasons the words "hate crime" ever factor in to anything. Criminals who commit murder should be tried on the basis of their murder and as with all cases, should be on a case by case basis to be examined in court.
These kinds of laws don't protect anyone, as if Neo-Nazi's are going to stop believing in their fascism. What they will do is set the stage for false allegations and sacrificing lambs on the alter of political correctness to feign as if they're doing something about it in a weak attempt to show solidarity. This is a step in the wrong direction.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Jazzns, posted 11-29-2009 5:39 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Jazzns, posted 11-30-2009 11:38 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 376 (537691)
11-30-2009 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Rrhain
11-30-2009 2:39 AM


How do you know it was murder and not manslaughter?
Based on the preponderance of evidence, like any other fucking case!
Is your argument that there is no such thing as "terrorism"?
No I'm not arguing that. Terrorism exists, referring to Neo-nazi's as terrorists doesn't bother me. Taking a giant shit on the Constitution bothers me.
Is a liquor store a conscious being? No.
The people getting murdered or assaulted in them are. Is it worse to kill a guy because he's hispanic or worse to kill a guy for money? Honestly, what's the damn difference? It's all bad, right? So why is Washington wanting to make a really, really bad thing by passing this bill?
And this isn't with just this Administration. This administration is just expanding an already existent bill supported by the last three presidents.
You determine charges first and then try the person to see if the charges are justified.
Right, and if it is justified then a person is either found guilty or not guilty based upon the verdict. Then sentencing comes and that's when they can attach thought crime to the sentence.
So there's no difference between reckless endangerment, manslaughter, and murder nor any of the degrees of same? All those are specific laws in the judicial titles.
You just can't help yourself to manipulate everything I say when you have nothing substantive to defend a worthless bill, aye? All of those have their place in the courtroom. They have nothing to do with establishing the precedence that the government can decide that people's First Amendment rights are as vaccuous as your arguments.
The prosecutor figures it out beforehand based upon the case. He then files the approrpiate charges based upon what he thinks he can prove in court.
No fucking shit, what the fuck does that have to do with anything? you're just stringing together a series of strawmen.
quote:
The "act" is what is criminal, not the motive. The fact that they violently assaulted a man without legal justification should be the only thing relevant to a charge.
And here you are trying to say you aren't suggesting there shouldn't be a difference when the very difference among things like manslaughter, murder, and the various degrees of same have to do with what you were thinking at the time.
Bullshit. Pure manipulation on your part. The "act" is what you are being charged with. Manslaughter, murder 1, 2, or 3 only evaluates the severity in which the ACT was committed. That has to do with the manner in which you kill someone, not what your core beliefs are. This evaluates questions like: did you intend to kill them? Did you not intend to kill them, but to harm them, but they died as a result of your actions? Did you plan to kill them well in advance?
That literally has not one thing to do with the motive for killing them, which answers questions like: "Did you kill him because he had money? Did you kill them to silence them, so as to not leave a living witness to testify against you? Did you kill them as a favor? Were you contracted to kill them? Did you kill them because they were black, and you hate black people? Did you kill them because he attacked your family?
If you can't understand the fundamental difference then it is laughable that you have the audacity to say that I don't understand law.
According to the law, murder with "malice aforethought" is worse than murder with merely "reckless indifference." That's why the former is called "murder in the first degree" by statute while the latter is called "murder in the second degree."
Yep, and that's all based upon what??? Actions, maybe?!?!?
Tell that to the people who have been victimized by those committing acts of terrorism and had those perpetrators punished under the hate crimes statutes. As the attorney general for the US has said, we need tougher hate crimes laws to work against "violence masquerading as political activism."
How about tougher laws against, maybe, say, murder???
So let's do away with all laws since it's clear they don't actually stop crime, right?
Oh, so it's not designed to be preventative? If it doesn't prevent anything, yet risks the freedom of thought, then there is no reason for it. Like I said, motives are evaluated by investigators to narrow down suspects to establish guilt. Then motive helps determine the reason why they did it and what their intentions for the act was. The act, however, is what we are being punished for.
Let us not pretend about why you're suddenly complaining about laws that have been on the books for literally decades. You even tell us why in your very first post: These laws have been expanded.
I've always had a problem with hate-crime laws. I only recently stumbled on to an article the other day that made me think about it currently to debate it. I didn't all of a sudden dislike it, I only just now thought to debate it.
Let us not pretend about your concern regarding which groups are being covered.
Let us not play dumb, shall we? I'm asking nicely.
Then stop being dumb and inventing lies as you go along. If I had a problem with homosexuals, I would flat out tell you. That I totally, utterly, and completely support homosexual couples, and have been explicit on that point, just makes you look paranoid and/or militant.
If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
Racists and homophobes are wrong in my opinion. I think they're backwards thinking, hateful people. I am not protecting THEM, I am protecting the Constitution which make us all free. If their rights are infringed, then yours and mine are in jeopardy too. It is that simple.
The ACLU sometimes defend people we all don't personally like. They do so not because they like the beliefs of others, but because the First Amendment are of vital importance to us all. If one groups right are unprotected, we're all unprotected.
I'm not defending Neo-Nazi's, I am defending the Constitution.
Not that any of this will do a bit of difference for you, I'm guessing. I made a critical error in feeding the troll and it's going to stop. I don't even think you believe in what you're saying, I think you're addicted to controversy and invent it where you can to gratify some sick penchant you have.
You just can't be reasoned with.
The novelty of your ways has worn off and I don't see how dignifying your bizarre assertions is worth my while any longer.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Rrhain, posted 11-30-2009 2:39 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Rrhain, posted 12-01-2009 3:21 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 30 of 376 (537700)
11-30-2009 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Rrhain
11-30-2009 3:24 AM


First things First
Because as we all know, there isn't a single white supremacist group to be found in the US because the hate crimes laws regarding race that have been on the books for decades have actually been expanded to arrest people for speech, right?
(snip)
Has there been a problem of this legal distinction unfairly criminalizing thought?
Then what makes you worried that there is anything different? You can't be charged with a hate crime unless you commit a crime in the first place. And as long as the KKK is around, then you can rest assured that hate crimes laws aren't punishing anybody for their thoughts.
You don't have to arrest the hooded bastards, just use the law to enjoin legal speech.
First Amendment rights are always under assault as unintended consequences of legislation. Think DMCA, NY Times vs United States. National Socialists v Skokie.
The justification is abundant throughout our history from the Alien and Sedition Acts thru the Patriot Act.
If we do not protect First Amendment principles even from the most well-intentioned legislation, and especially in instances most of us would find most abhorrent, we stand to lose it all.
That doesn't mean hate-crime legislation is not proper or necessary, just that we already know such things are open to abuse.
Come on, Rrhain, you are intellectually better than this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Rrhain, posted 11-30-2009 3:24 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-30-2009 11:11 AM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 54 by Rrhain, posted 12-01-2009 3:51 AM AZPaul3 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