Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hate-crime = Thought crime?
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 46 of 376 (537755)
11-30-2009 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by onifre
11-30-2009 6:16 PM


Re: If this is directed at me...
quote:
Punching a member of a protected class because he is a member of that protected class is a hate crime
And who determines whether or not someone should be charged with a hate crime?
The prosecutor, based on what charges can be supported with evidence and reasonably be expected to stick. Just like with every other charge for every other crime in every other criminal case in teh US.
I understand what you're saying, Oni - you're concerned about someone being charges with a hate crime when the incident should nto have qualified, as in your club fight example.
But in your club fight example, a hate crime charge would only be able to stick to you if you had made anti-gay statements while fighting, or had earlier expressed a desire to assault gays simply because of their orientation. Otehrwise there would be no evidence to support a hate charge.
It's just like murder. Whether you killed someone can be proven byond a reasonable doubt, but that;s a separate issue from whether the murder was premeditated, and that determination has a significant effect on sentencing.
quote:
and that motivation must be supported in court beyond a reasonable doubt in order for a hate crime charge to stand
Right, but you are on trial for a hate crime regardless of whether or not it is the proven motive. If it is not the proven motive, you were still charged with it. So who decides that?
The prosecutor, as I said. But why does the identity of the person making the charges matter? If there is sufficient evidence, the accused is guilty. If not, the accused is not guilty. Charges are just charges until a conviction is handed down.
Mexican gang beats up black kid - hate crime? Who determines wether the Mexican gang members where beating him up because he was black or for being in the wrong hood?
Again - the prosecutor does.
Can you see how a motivated politician or DA could use this to motivate hate crime supporters?
"Hate crime supporters?"
I think you're losing me in irrational conspriacy theory land, Oni.
Further, this is an appeal to consequence, and thus a fallacy. Either hate crime legislation encroaches on free speech, or it does not. I have supported my argument that such legislation in no way violates free speech. You have not refuted any of my points, and neither have you made specific claims of your own. All you've done is ask the identity of teh person who selects the charges to bring against the accused, whom we all know is the DA's office, in an effort to insinuate political conspiracies.
It has nothing to do with any argument I've made - it's wholly irrelevant. Would you care to debate what I;ve actually said, or would you like to continue with this red herring?
Can you also see how adding the word "hate" to it could cause both groups to actually build hate toward one another?
Just as much as I can see that disallowing "discrimination" against homosexuals and racial minorities and women in hiring practices can "build hate."
Bigots don't like to be called bigots, and usually claim not to be bigots when taking bigoted stances or performing bigoted actions. The fact of the matter is that crimes that specifically target a protected class like race or gender do more harm to society and are often less well protected under the law. Hate crime laws correct for both, and tension between minorities and bigots won;t be solved by pretending the problems dont exist or allowing the old status quo to continue.
And again - this is all irrelevant to whether hate crime laws actually violate the 1st Amendment, which is in fact th topic of this thread. This side discussion is an appeal to consequence at best and a red herring at worst.
Do you believe hate crime legislation to violate the 1st Amendment? Why?
PS - it was no more directed at you than anyone else. I don't think many people have bothered to read about what they're arguing about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by onifre, posted 11-30-2009 6:16 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by onifre, posted 11-30-2009 8:07 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 47 of 376 (537758)
11-30-2009 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Jazzns
11-30-2009 6:18 PM


Re: How many of the participants of this thread...
Amen! Although that was a damn funny episode.
Indeed it was, though it's also a perfect example of what I really don't like about South Park - nobody appeals to the Mindless Middle like they do, and their attempts to satirize reality often leave people with a very distorted conception of real-world issues. Just like this one.
Not entirely their fault, of course - hate crime legislation has always been [i]perceived by the public[i] to protect only specific minorities. I don't think many people realize that a hate crime can be committed against an American-born heterosexual white Christian male, just as easily as against a gay black Muslim woman from Egypt. One's just more likely to be the target of a hate crime, nothing more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Jazzns, posted 11-30-2009 6:18 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 48 of 376 (537774)
11-30-2009 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Rahvin
11-30-2009 6:44 PM


Re: If this is directed at me...
PS - it was no more directed at you than anyone else. I don't think many people have bothered to read about what they're arguing about.
My only reason for replying to you was because I thought it was slightly directed at me. I understand the context of what you guys are discussing and I wasn't getting into that part of the debate.
I was simply defending what I wrote to Hyro originally.
I understand what you're saying, Oni - you're concerned about someone being charges with a hate crime when the incident should nto have qualified, as in your club fight example.
Sorta. I'm concerned with people having personal connections and/or personal interest in certain situations, or just lack enough intelligence to assess a situation properly, or any other reason for why someone might fuck up a case and begin giving labels to incidents when they are not legit. I am concerned about this, esp. when it involves throwing the word "hate" around.
This happens in court a lot, even in murder cases. If you try for murder 1 and fail to prove murder 1, the dude goes free. That's why prosecuters take extra care in murder trails to make sure they call it precisely what it is.
Now, the social ramifications of misclassifying it murder 1 -vs- manslaughter is absolutely none (except for having someone who may have commited and actual crime go free) - but not a big social consequence. However, the social ramifications of misclassifying a situation a "hate" crime -vs- calling it a crime, is enormous.
In a hate crime case, mislabelling the crime can cause more problems and tension between groups that all ready don't get along, but are tolerant of one another.
Thats one problem. Who gets to label these things and the ramifications that misclassifying it can have. At the very least, its cause for concern and should be weighed in against the benefits of having "hate" crime laws.
I think you're losing me in irrational conspriacy theory land, Oni.
Well I can do better, if mislabelling it a hate crime breeds more crime due to the ramifications I mention above, the only ones who stand to gain are those who work in the justice system. It works in the same way as making an addictive product illegal; you are guaranteed criminals.
All you've done is ask the identity of teh person who selects the charges to bring against the accused, whom we all know is the DA's office, in an effort to insinuate political conspiracies.
Not political conspiracy, but to show that there are consequences to that pathetic euphemism called "hate" crime that are more of a cause for concern than the extra few years you can add to a sentence.
Now I understand that you weren't talking about this, but still, don't misrepresent what I'm saying and dismiss it as a conspiracy. Sorry I don't agree with the hate crime laws. I know as liberals you guys like to feel like you're doing good for society, but sometimes good intentions can have bad results.
However, I was just defending what I said, and had no beef with your argument with Hyro.
The fact of the matter is that crimes that specifically target a protected class like race or gender do more harm to society and are often less well protected under the law.
You are talking as if calling it a crime does nothing at all. You are talking as if labelling it a hate crime impacts society in some way. You get a few more years to your sentence, wow.
Why not just make punishment harder across the board and resolve the issue? Does it make you feel better that you stuck it harder to a racist, really? What are we children?
The problem is that word "hate" attached to the crime forces the side being hated to hate back, it actually helps breed ignorance. The very ignorance the hate crime law is trying to fight against. It actually breeds hate. And misclassifying it can have grave results, even just throwing the word around in the media has bad results. Its a stupid route to go to get such an inconsequential return.
It has nothing to do with any argument I've made - it's wholly irrelevant. Would you care to debate what I;ve actually said, or would you like to continue with this red herring?
I hope you understand that I was responding to what you wrote. Since it had no direct person it was talking about, and I was the last to post, I thought I was part of those you said were "talking out of their ass." So I felt I should reply, but I know it was not in response to anything you said.
Do you believe hate crime legislation to violate the 1st Amendment? Why?
Don't really care. Because you and Hyro can go around in circles arguing that without actually getting to the root of the issue.
I felt this thread was also about those simply against the hate crime law, for our own reasons.
I feel there is no need for the hate crime law, for the reasons I express above, that is what I was debating.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Rahvin, posted 11-30-2009 6:44 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 376 (537779)
11-30-2009 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Rahvin
11-30-2009 2:02 PM


Re: Typical Libertarian FUD
if you try to prevent black people from voting, or intimidate asians from attending school (exclusively targeting protected groups, as opposed to trying to prevent everyone from participating in those activities) then you are guilty of a hate crime.
Nothing about speech in there. Nothing at all.
You are not understanding. First of all, preventing anyone from doing any of those things are already crimes. There is no need to inject emotive arguments.
Secondly, it is already a crime to murder anyone, regardless of any disposition. So by examining the motives of the killers, you punish them twice, once for the murder, and the second for their motive. But if it is not a crime to be a bigot, then why are they being punished twice? They are obviously being punished for their beliefs (which falls under freedom of speech/expression), none of which, remember, are criminal acts.
Neither is a violation of the 1st Amendment.
Posting how you are going to murder someone is not protected under the 1st Amendment.
Speech is used after the commission of an actual crime to establish the motive for that crime.
Speech is very broad. Burning flags is considered free speech.
If you think hate crime legislation is a violation of teh 1st Amendment, you'll have to overturn every other law where a person's motivation, planning, or other expressions of speech are used.
Why would I have to do that? It would be you who would have to do that.
if you punch a guy, you're charged with assault. If you punch a guy because he's a racial minority (and this motivation can be supported in court beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury), you get a larger sentence.
That's ridiculous. So I can be clocked in the dome for no reason other than to satisfy some sick urge of the assailant, but because I'm not part of the "protected class" my assailant gets less of a charge? How is that Equal Protection under the law?
We'll take the DC Sniper... This hate law would give him additional sentencing for specifically targeting women, a protected class.
Why? Why are women more or less protected? What does it even mean? What does it even matter? That means as long as he shoots people at random, their lives mean less in the eyes of the court. All that should matter is that a killer was killing. His callous nature can come in to play in the court. His motives can come in to play in the court. But why invent a super-duper crime in place of a crime that is equally tragic?
This is not a threat to the 1st Amendment in any way. It doesn't criminalize speech at all.
I specifically said that it is a step in the wrong direction and that bills such as these carry unintended consequences. It is taking a former injustice and creating an opposite injustice to try and balance it out. Why not just then make it equal?
This doesn't even include the abuse that could go along with it with all sorts of false accusations.
You can speak racial epithets to whomever you want. It's not advisable, but you can do it. You can't punch people in the face without clearly defending yourself or in the defense of others. If you punch a person in the face and say a nasty little epithet while you're doing it, suddenly it's an additional no-no.
And what if you got in to a fight with someone of a "protected class" (yeah, that doesn't sound wrong) but for completely unrelated reasons from their race, or gender, or sexual identity, or whatever other bigoted reason. But they say you did, who decides?
We're sacrificing people on the alter of political correctness. Soon enough, if left unchecked, we won't be able to say whatever we want that is protected under free speech.
And again, I'm not saying this to protect bigots, I'm saying it to protect the freedom of speech. Personally I think you should get your ass kicked for yelling epithets, but we cannot operate outside of the law, my opinion be damned. But if we don't protect it jealously, we all lose.
Your argument rests compeltely on the idea that hate crime legislation threatens the First Amendment
No, it is but one of my arguments.
If it is legal to be bigoted but not legal to assault people, then why is it especially bad to be bigoted when assaulting someone? That just doesn't even come close to making rational sense. And it certainly does nothing to remove the wall of bigotry, as it simply inverts the social injustice of bigotry rather than removing it altogether.

"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 36 by Rahvin, posted 11-30-2009 2:02 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Rahvin, posted 11-30-2009 10:04 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 52 by AZPaul3, posted 11-30-2009 10:29 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

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


Message 50 of 376 (537784)
11-30-2009 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by onifre
11-30-2009 5:39 PM


Re: Who says a crime is a "hate" crime?
And who determines if a single act was motivated by "hate" or not?
The jury.
Isn't a person on trail for a hate crime before the jury has even had a chance to hear the details of the case? Is it not left to the arresting officer or prosecutors to say if in fact it was a "hate" crime?
The police may arrest the individual for murder. The DA may amend the charge to murder with bias (hate crime) depending upon the particulars of the evidence.
No it is not the officer nor the DA who say in fact it was a hate crime. The officer does not make an arrest for murder with bias, just murder. The DA assesses the evidence and may amend the charge. Only the jury can say what the "fact" was. Only the jury can label it a hate crime.
Now the media grabs a hold of the story and promotes it as a hate crime. Note that my group has yet to set foot in a court room, however, we are now defending ourselves against a "hate" crime, and thus have received hate mail, or perhaps threats, or whatever else can come from that label, from groups who defend gay rights.
If the DA so amends the indictment from his view of the evidence then your reputation is shot. That's life in a media-hyped world. What you need to worry about is those big guys in jail who want you to be their play thing.
This is bullshit. If it had just been deemed a crime then it would not have had the repercussions that labelling it a "hate" crime had.
Under the scenario you gave you are in no danger of having a "with bias" charge tacked on. That's an emotional boogyman. Even a half-comatose attorney could quash that one if the DA were really that stupid. Don't get all bent out of shape over your strawman. The reality is quite different. In reality you and your opponents would both be charged with disturbing the peace, pay a fine and may have to attend anger management sessions. Then you would have to divy up your share of the bar damage.
But what happened to James Byrd in Jasper, Texas, is exactly what these things are aimed at, not some bar fight by a bunch of drunks in Surprise, Arizona.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by onifre, posted 11-30-2009 5:39 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by onifre, posted 12-01-2009 10:00 AM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 51 of 376 (537785)
11-30-2009 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Hyroglyphx
11-30-2009 9:19 PM


Re: Typical Libertarian FUD
I'm only replying to one bit here, because Im strapped for time and because this demosntrates that you arent paying attention:
quote:
if you punch a guy, you're charged with assault. If you punch a guy because he's a racial minority (and this motivation can be supported in court beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury), you get a larger sentence.
That's ridiculous. So I can be clocked in the dome for no reason other than to satisfy some sick urge of the assailant, but because I'm not part of the "protected class" my assailant gets less of a charge? How is that Equal Protection under the law?
"Racial minority" includes whites, Hyro. The hate crime laws legislate tougher sentencing and additional charges against those who commit violence on teh basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, or color.
Any race, national origin, color, sexual orientation, or gender. Any.
That means if some Black Panthers\asian street gang\hispanic gang beat up a bunch of white kids just for being white, they get charged with a hate crime.
That's equal protection under the law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-30-2009 9:19 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

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


Message 52 of 376 (537791)
11-30-2009 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Hyroglyphx
11-30-2009 9:19 PM


Re: Typical Libertarian FUD
So by examining the motives of the killers, you punish them twice, once for the murder, and the second for their motive. But if it is not a crime to be a bigot, then why are they being punished twice? They are obviously being punished for their beliefs (which falls under freedom of speech/expression), none of which, remember, are criminal acts.
You keep asking the same question. We've covered this. You don't have to agree with the reasoning but you could at least acknowledge it. Society says such crimes are separate from individual crimes because the motive is biased against humanity regardless of the character of the individual. Society sees these crimes as more heinous.
You disagree. We understand that. But you keep asking, "why?" and that has been covered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-30-2009 9:19 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

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


Message 53 of 376 (537808)
12-01-2009 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Hyroglyphx
11-30-2009 9:56 AM


Hyroglphx responds to me:
quote:
quote:
How do you know it was murder and not manslaughter?
Based on the preponderance of evidence, like any other fucking case!
But that isn't the difference. The difference is what you were thinking. If you weren't thinking about killing someone but your actions would be reasonably likely to result in somebody's death, then you're guilty of manslaughter. It only becomes murder when you were actually thinking about causing harm to someone and getting a result of death.
So how did you know it was "murder" and not "manslaughter" without considering the person's thoughts?
Are you saying prosecuting someone for murder is "thoughtcrime"? Since the only difference between murder and manslaughter is what you were thinking.
quote:
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.
You need to explain why prosecuting terrorism is "taking a giant shit on the Constitution."
Be specific. When are you going to start protesting the existence of murder prosecutions which punish people simply for their thoughts?
The attacks on the World Trade Center were just aggravated vandalism, right? Anything else is "punishing people for their thoughts," right?
quote:
The people getting murdered or assaulted in them are.
Wait. How do you know it was murder and not manslaughter? The difference between them is what you were thinking. And yet, you think punishing someone for what they were thinking is "taking a giant shit on the Constitution." Therefore, you are necessarily arguing that there should be no such charge as "murder." It's just aggravated burglary, right?
The moment you start complaining about murder being punishing people for their thoughts, that'll be the time we start taking your complaints about hate crime seriously.
quote:
This administration is just expanding an already existent bill supported by the last three presidents.
Because we all know there isn't a single white supremacist group in the entire country because the statutes that have been in place for decades have made sure that all those people have been prosecuted for their thoughts, right?
So long as the KKK has their rallies, then you can rest assured that you won't be prosecuted for your thoughts.
quote:
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.
Incorrect. You have to prove the charges first. You really don't have any clue how hate crimes laws work, do you? You have to be charged with a hate crime. And the prosecution must prove that you are guilty of it. It isn't like the judge simply says, "You were found guilty of assault in the second degree and I think you had naughty thoughts so I'm going to add two years to your sentence."
Instead, the prosecution must provide evidence that the defendant meets the standard of evidence for the hate crime and the just must find the defendant guilty. Only if the jury finds the defendant guilty of a hate crime will the sentence be based upon the standards for hate crimes.
Thus, we might have a lot of evidence to prove that you killed someone and thus the verdict will come back as guilty of, say, murder (which is a thoughtcrime under your logic since it is based upon what you were thinking at the time), but come back with a verdict of not guilty with regard to it being a hate crime because the prosecution failed to show evidence for your motive.
Hate crimes must be prosecuted and decided upon by a jury. They are not arbitrary functionings of the judge.
quote:
You just can't help yourself to manipulate everything I say when you have nothing substantive to defend a worthless bill, aye?
Nae. Instead, you just can't help yourself to avoid answering simple questions.
The difference among reckless endangerment, manslaughter, and murder is what you were thinking. By your logic, manslaughter and murder are "punishing people for their thoughts" because of that. Thus, there should not be any such crime as "murder," only "killing."
A car rolls down a hill into a house and kills the occupant. Someone comes running up screaming:
"Oh, my god! I forgot to set the parking brake again! Oh, my god! Oh, my god!" That's reckless endangerment or possibly involuntary manslaughter.
"Dude! That was so gnarly! I knew it was gonna take out the wall when I shoved it down the hill, but I didn't think I'd decapitate the guy sitting on the couch!" That "depraved indifference to human life" and thus murder two.
"Heh, heh. That'll teach him not to mess when me!" That's "malice aforethought" and thus murder one.
The exact same act. The only difference between the charges are the thoughts of the person who carried them out. And the prosecution needs to prove that the defendant had those thoughts. We might have plenty of evidence that the defendant actually set the events in motion that resulted in the car rolling down the hill and killing the person in the house. But in order to successfully prosecute endangerment vs. manslaughter vs. murder two vs. murder one, we need to get into the mind of the defendant and prove what it was he was thinking at the time.
But according to you, that's "taking a giant shit on the Constitution."
So the charge of murder is unconstitutional, eh?
quote:
All of those have their place in the courtroom.
But the only difference between them is what you were thinking. And if we punish you for what you were thinking, then we're "taking a giant shit on the Constitution," according to you. And thus, there is no difference among reckless endangerment, manslaughter, and murder and the various degrees of same. To make such a distinction would be punishing people for their thoughts which is unconstitutional, right?
quote:
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.
Huh? The difference between murder one and murder two is what your were thinking. That's your First Amendment right. So according to you, charging people with murder one is a violation of their constitutional right to free speech.
quote:
No fucking shit, what the fuck does that have to do with anything?
It means the prosecutor has to decide what's going on inside your head before charges can be brought. The only way to determine what crime you committed is to know what you were thinking. But according to you, that's "taking a big shit on the Constitution," right? To punish someone based on their thoughts is unconstitutional, right?
Therefore, there's no such thing as "murder" since the only difference between that and manslaughter is the "thoughtcrime" in your head. And since we should never enhance anybody's penalties simply for what they were thinking, there shouldn't be a charge of murder in the first place. Only "killing."
quote:
The "act" is what you are being charged with.
But the "act" includes what you were thinking at the time. If you weren't thinking about killing somebody, it's manslaughter. If you were thinking about killing someone but weren't really thinking about the particulars, it's murder two. If you were thinking not only of killing someone but all the specifics of who and how and where, it's murder one.
You don't get charged until we learn what you were thinking and your punishment upon successful prosecution, which requires proving that you were, indeed, thinking such a thing, will go up or down depending upon those thoughts.
This is why prosecutors have dilemmas regarding what to charge the defendant with: They can prove that the defendant did it, but they are going to have a harder time proving what he was thinking. If they bring charges of manslaughter and murder, then they are going to get a conviction but will have to leave it to the jury to decide if the defendant really was thinking what the prosecution is claiming and trying to justify with evidence. And if they don't think the defendant was thinking that, then the perp gets a lighter sentence of manslaughter. But if they don't bring charges of manslaughter but instead only bring charges of murder, they risk the jury coming back with a verdict of not guilty because to make a charge of murder stick, you have to prove that the defendant was thinking of killing somebody.
quote:
Manslaughter, murder 1, 2, or 3 only evaluates the severity in which the ACT was committed.
And how does it do that? That's right: By determining what the perpetrator was thinking at the time. The exact same act will result in very different charges based solely upon what the prosecution can prove regarding what you were thinking.
quote:
That has to do with the manner in which you kill someone, not what your core beliefs are.
Incorrect. It has to do with what you were thinking when you killed the person. The same act will result in different charges solely based on what the prosecution can prove about what you were thinking. If you didn't mean it, you'll get involuntary manslaughter. If you really meant it but weren't so concerned about who or how or where, you get murder two. If you really meant it and you were very specific about the who and the how and where, you get murder one.
quote:
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's a question about your thoughts. And if we can't prove what you were thinking, then we can't meet the standard for charges of murder one or murder two or voluntary manslaughter.
Thus, murder one is increasing punishment based upon a person's thoughts and thus is "taking a big shit on the Constitution" and needs to be abolished immediately, according to your logic.
quote:
That literally has not one thing to do with the motive for killing them
Incorrect. It is precisely the motive for killing someone. That's why "crimes of passion" are considered murder two, not murder one.
quote:
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.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh, that's rich. You haven't said a single accurate thing regarding the application of the law in the United States and yet here you are complaining that you're being called out on it.
quote:
Yep, and that's all based upon what??? Actions, maybe?!?!?
Nope. Thoughts. It's what you are thinking that determines if you are convicted of endangerment, manslaughter, or murder and the various degrees of same. The same act has very different charges based solely upon what you were thinking.
If you didn't mean for the car to roll down the hill, that's manslaughter. If you meant it but weren't out to get the occupant, that's murder two. If you meant it and you meant to target the occupant, that's murder one.
The exact same action results in three different charges based solely upon what you were thinking at the time you did it.
quote:
How about tougher laws against, maybe, say, murder???
Which murder are you talking about? Murder one? Murder two? Murder three? Murder one is defined by you deliberately and with malice aforethought killing someone, "lying in wait," and such. As Pennsylvania defines it (among other things), "willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing." In short, we need to know what you're thinking in order to make a charge of murder one stick. If we can't prove your thoughts were willful, deliberate, and premeditated, then we can't prove murder one.
Murder two is killing someone in the process of a felony...you're not out to specifically kill someone and you may not have had the intention to kill the person when you started but by the time you got around to killing the person, you meant it. "Crimes of passion" are murder two: When you get into an argument with someone which escalates to a fight where you grab a knife and stab the person, that's murder two. Murder three, if it exists, depends upon your jurisdiction. Federal law only has murder one and two. Second degree murder doesn't carry the death penalty and while life imprisonment is possible, the sentencing rules do allow non-life sentences. Murder one, on the other hand, is either life imprisonment or death.
quote:
Oh, so it's not designed to be preventative?
Like all laws, it's designed to be a means to justice as well as a preventative to future crime. Let's not play dumb and pretend that laws only exist for a single purpose.
Hate crimes laws ensure that the punishment fits the crime since acts of terrorism affect more than just the individual person they are committed against. They allow the feds to step in when local authorities refuse to act.
quote:
If it doesn't prevent anything, yet risks the freedom of thought, then there is no reason for it.
And thus, we should do away with murder laws since they "risk the freedom of thought." What makes it murder as opposed to manslaughter is what you were thinking.
quote:
Like I said, motives are evaluated by investigators to narrow down suspects to establish guilt.
And they are also used to establish exactly what crime you are charged with. The difference among endangerment, manslaughter, and murder and among the various degrees of same has to do with your thoughts.
quote:
Then motive helps determine the reason why they did it and what their intentions for the act was.
And then is used to determine exactly what crime you committed. Otherwise, there is no difference among endangerment, manslaughter, and murder and the various degrees of same. The exact same act results in very different crimes based solely upon what you were thinking at the time you did it.
quote:
The act, however, is what we are being punished for.
Then why do we have the distinctions of endangerment, manslaughter, and murder and the various degrees of same? The difference between them is what you were thinking. That's why a single mechanical process can result in very different charges: What you were thinking determines what your act actually was.
quote:
If I had a problem with homosexuals, I would flat out tell you.
I doubt that. That said, you have pretty much shown that yes, you do have a problem with gay people. Oh, I hardly suspect you "lie in wait" to bash them, but your posts here show that you still want to hold out full equality to gay people.
quote:
I am not protecting THEM, I am protecting the Constitution which make us all free.
And thus, since murder is punishing a person solely for his thoughts, it is "taking a giant shit on the Constitution," according to your logic.
But if you do agree that murder one is different from murder two and thus punishment should be increased for killings carried out when the person was thinking very different thoughts, then your claims about "protecting the Constitution" ring quite hollow.
quote:
If their rights are infringed, then yours and mine are in jeopardy too. It is that simple.
So start protesting the distinctions among endangerment, manslaughter, and murder and the various degrees of same because the difference is what you are thinking. Thus, your rights are being infringed and you should be storming the steps of the legislature to get them to remove this "thoughtcrime" from our laws.
quote:
I'm not defending Neo-Nazi's, I am defending the Constitution.
And by your logic, prosecuting somebody for murder is unconstitutional. The only reason it's murder as opposed to manslaughter is what you were thinking when you did 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 29 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-30-2009 9:56 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

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


Message 54 of 376 (537809)
12-01-2009 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by AZPaul3
11-30-2009 10:35 AM


AZPaul3 responds to me:
quote:
You don't have to arrest the hooded bastards, just use the law to enjoin legal speech.
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?
quote:
First Amendment rights are always under assault as unintended consequences of legislation.
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?
quote:
Think DMCA
That wasn't "unintended." That was the entire purpose.
quote:
NY Times vs United States. National Socialists v Skokie.
Those are trials, not laws. With regard to the first, do you mean the trial regarding the Pentagon Papers? If so, then the law cited (Section 793 of the Espionage Act) was specifically designed to restrict speech:
Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it.
With regards to the Skokie trial, that didn't have anything to do with a law but rather a procedure: The city insisted that the Nazis had to post an extremely large insurance bond in the hopes that they couldn't post it and thus wouldn't be able to march (when they didn't ask other groups to post such bond at all, let alone the size required by the Nazi group.)
None of your examples are in any way comparable to hate crimes laws. Nobody anywhere has ever been arrested or even charged under hate crimes laws simply for speech. You must commit a crime first: Something that you could actually be charged with, taken to court, and be found guilty of.
What the laws do is allow the prosecutor to introduce more evidence during the trial that the reason the crime was carried out had to do with targeting members of a group. The prosecutor must prove this: The jury can return a verdict that the crime was actually committed but that the motivation behind it was not proven.
This is identical to what we have in California regarding "special circumstances." It isn't first degree murder unless those "special circumstances" are proven. If they're not, it isn't like you get off...you're still guilty of murder two. We find you guilty first and then we have a second question of whether or not there were special circumstances. Only if that second question comes back yes do we have a result of murder one.
This is what the hate crimes laws do: First you have to commit a crime. If we find that the intent of the crime was to target members of a protected group, that means the sentence is increased because the crime is different than if the target was just an individual.
quote:
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.
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?
quote:
Come on, Rrhain, you are intellectually better than this.
Come on, yourself. Can you give a single example of anybody anywhere who has had his First Amendment rights violated because of hate crimes laws? They've been on the books for decades so you have plenty of cases to go through.
So if we have never had these laws used to violate free speech, why would extending them to cover sexual orientation suddenly cause such violations? There are plenty of people who are as vehemently anti-black as there are those who are anti-gay. So if such laws protecting race never resulted in this bugaboo of "unintended consequences," why would protecting sexual orientation do it?
Where is your evidence?

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 30 by AZPaul3, posted 11-30-2009 10:35 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by AZPaul3, posted 12-05-2009 7:52 PM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 55 of 376 (537818)
12-01-2009 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Legend
11-30-2009 12:52 PM


Legend responds to me:
quote:
The distinction between murder one, two and manslaughter is made on the existence and degree of intent and planning involved, NOT, I repeat NOT, the feelings or thoughts of the perpetrator towards the victim.
Incorrect. They do base it upon the feelings and thoughts of the perpetrator toward the victim. It's why "lying in wait" makes it murder one. It's why "crime of passion" is murder two.
The legal definition of "intent" is "state of mind." We need to know what you're thinking in order to be able to charge you.
quote:
quote:
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?
Where did I say or even remotely suggest this?! Post number and paragraph please!
In the post that I responded to and the specific paragraph I included before I gave my response. Is there a reason why you cut it out? Since you can't remember your own argument and since you seem to have trouble reading your own words, let's try it again, shall we?
Message 13:
that they indirectly propagate racism and increase racial tensions.
You're complaining about punishing people for terrorism because it might actually cause resentment and thus cause more terrorism.
quote:
I've said that terrorists shouldn't be punished for their thoughts but only for their actions. How the hell did you deduce the above from that?
Because you are complaining about anti-terrorism laws on the basis that "they indirectly propagate racism and increase racial tensions." As if we should stop punishing terrorists lest other people who agree with terrorists get pissed off and take up the cause.
quote:
because I suggested that people should be punished for their actions and not their thoughts or feelings you've infered that I don't believe in terrorism or different degrees of murder?!?
Yep. Murder differs from manslaughter based upon your thoughts.
A car rolls down a hill into a house and kills the occupant. Someone comes running up and screams:
"Oh, my god! I left the parking brake off again! Oh, my god! Oh, my god!" That's involuntary manslaughter.
"Dude! That was so gnarly! I knew it was gonna take out the wall when I shoved it down the hill, but I didn't think I'd decapitate the guy sitting on the couch!" That's murder two.
"Heh, heh. That'll teach him not to mess when me!" That's murder one.
The exact same act, but the difference in crime is based solely on your thoughts. The legal definition of "intent" is "state of mind."
quote:
How does the existence of white supremacy groups invalidate my argument that hate crimes punish the motive/thought instead of just the crime?!
Because none of the bugaboos you are raising have happened even though the very laws you are railing against have been on the books for decades. If what you were saying were true, then why are the various white supremacy groups still around, holding rallies, and generally making asses of themselves? There are plenty of people who are as vehemently anti-black as those who are anti-gay, and yet we haven't seen anybody arrested under these laws for their speech against black people.
So if it's a bogus argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
Because you're a self-righteous, conceited so and so who thinks that anyone who disagrees with the 'right-on' causes you support is a racist, sexist bigot.
I don't recall mentioning anything about sexism. But I do believe that anybody who cannot support equal treatment under the law in every aspect of life with no exceptions, hesitations, or reservations is a bigot, yes. That doesn't mean the person goes around, lying in wait for people to assault or goes bombing locations where certain groups gather. But just because a person doesn't kick puppies doesn't mean he isn't a menace to animals.
quote:
Really?! and here I was thinking that it was the fact that he set off two tons of explosives under a populated building that made it murder. Silly me!
Indeed, silly you. If you didn't realize that what you were doing would lead to death, then it isn't murder but manslaughter. If it was a tragic accident, it isn't murder. That's because you don't have the requisite state of mind. As the legal latin goes: Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. Roughly translated: An act does not make guilt without a guilty mind. Our entire history of criminality is based upon mens rea, not just actus reus. It's what allows us to find people "not guilty by reason of insanity." If you have no idea what you're doing, then you're hardly guilty of a crime even though you committed an act that for anybody else would be considered a crime.
This concept was used to good effect in an episode of CSI (and yes, I know that TV shows are hardly the best reference): If you run someone over in a car, you're in big trouble. And if you happen to be drunk at the time you run the person over, then you're pretty much automatically guilty because you've put yourself in a position where you are out of control and likely to do something like run a person over.
But if the person you run over deliberately leaps out in front of your car (using you as the means to commit suicide), then you're not guilty.
The act is exactly the same but because you don't have the guilty mind, you're off the hook.
The only difference between vehicular homicide and what is only a tragedy is what the people were thinking.
quote:
As I've explained above the distinction is made based on intent.
The legal definition of which is "state of mind." Thank you for proving my point.
quote:
Which is surmised by the perpetrator's actions.
Indeed. We cannot read your mind. But we can determine your state of mind by your actions. No, not the mechanical actions of the crime but rather your actions surrounding those of the crime such as statements you make ("If I find that you have been untrue to me — if I find that you have falsely seduced me from my dear husband Albert — I will kill you, Simon Gascoyne!") Those statements aren't the physical act (actus reus). Instead, they go to your thoughts (mens rea). We have to prove not only actus reus but also mens rea in order to gain conviction.
quote:
Surely, even you can make the distinction between motive, intent and the significance of each.
Indeed. Can you? What is the legal definition of "intent"?
Motive is a reason for committing the crime. If you're the beneficiary of a life insurance policy the deceased had, that's a "motive" for the crime. But if you had no "intent" to kill him, then we're going to have a harder time proving that a crime took place.
Prosecution does not need to prove motive, though it often helps. They only need to prove intent: State of mind.

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 33 by Legend, posted 11-30-2009 12:52 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Legend, posted 12-01-2009 8:30 AM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 56 of 376 (537826)
12-01-2009 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by onifre
11-30-2009 1:43 PM


onifre writes:
quote:
Cool ... and?
And what?
quote:
Then we call Gene Hackman (like in Mississippi Burning), or, we get back in our time machine and head back to 2009.
Right. You do realize that the feds have had to be called in to prosecute crimes that the local authorities would not, yes? That the only reason that they were able to do so is because of the hate crimes statutes, yes? About 26 a year, according to the FBI.
The very law we're complaining about allowed Jasper, Texas to get $284,000 in federal money to help prosecute the Byrd case.
quote:
Cool ... and?
And what?
quote:
I simply feel the "hate" crime laws are more superficial - like the taxes on tobacco, and causes more tension between groups than anything else.
And I "simply feel" that you don't know what these statutes actually do. For example, from the very law itself:
RULE OF EVIDENCE In a prosecution for an offense under this section, evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.
quote:
Its also a grey area, and left up to prosecutors to decide on, or the arresting office to determine. This leaves a lot of room for error.
Assuming your "grey area" claim is true (and it isn't), you're complaining against the very concept of prosecutorial discretion. That's part of the problem that the statutes were designed to solve: Too often "prosecutorial discretion" meant no justice at all. Thus, the laws allow the feds to step in when local authorities are failing to execute their duties.
quote:
Was this a hate crime? No. Could it be confussed for one? Sure.
No, it couldn't. You're assuming that no investigation is done and that anybody would go to trial based on 10 minutes of unreliable witness testimony. Please.
Surely you're not hinting that hate crimes prosecutions are out of control, are you? Do you make a habit of beating up gay people?
You're arguing against prosecuting criminals.

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 35 by onifre, posted 11-30-2009 1:43 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by onifre, posted 12-01-2009 1:47 PM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 57 of 376 (537832)
12-01-2009 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by onifre
11-30-2009 5:39 PM


onifre writes:
quote:
And who determines if a single act was motivated by "hate" or not?
The jury, just like they decide everything else about the case, including if you had intent to commit it.
quote:
Isn't a person on trail for a hate crime before the jury has even had a chance to hear the details of the case?
No. The prosecution must convince the jury that the crime is a hate crime. If the prosecution doesn't think it can't, it won't introduce such evidence. But if they do think they can, the jury can still say that they haven't established their case.
This is just like other trials: The prosecution puts forward the case and then asks the jury to decide if the defendant is guilty, whether it was murder or manslaughter. This causes some dilemmas: You can put both charges up knowing that you're more likely to get a conviction, but you run the risk of getting a lower penalty because the jury can decide you didn't meet the standard. If you decide to put only murder on the table, you run the risk of the jury not returning a guilty verdict.
Yes, the prosecutor is the one who decides what charges will be tried (which is true for all trials), but it is the jury who decides if the prosecution has satisfied its burden. It can easily return a verdict that the defendant is guilty of the crime but not of a hate crime.
quote:
The officers determine, on their own, due to the labels that each individual carries in our respective groups, that this was a hate crime.
Irrelevant. The police don't try the case. The prosecution does and even then, they'll only put up what they think they can prove. Ten minutes of unreliable eyewitnesses is hardly enough to put together a trial in the first place, let alone a prosecution for a hate crime.
What's the matter, onifre? Do you make a habit of beating up gay people?
quote:
Now the media grabs a hold of the story and promotes it as a hate crime.
Irrelevant. The media doesn't draw up the charges. Only the prosecution does. And since they have to actually prove that it fits the statutary requirements of a hate crime, they won't do so unless they have good evidence. And even then, it's up to the jury to decide if the prosecution has met its burden.
quote:
Again, we have yet to even step foot in a court room.
And thank heaven that actual trials are nothing like this fantasy of yours. The cops don't define charges. The prosecution does. And they do so in the context of a trial.
quote:
What this then does, is pin my group -VS- the gay rights people and/or the entire gay community in my area. Causing increased tension between our groups, and in some cases leading to actual hate of the group.
Except that your fantasy has no connection to reality. It would only be a hate crime if it could be established that your specific actions at the time were directed at the group, not the particular people you decided to assault. And the only ones who could establish that would be the prosecution and jury, not the cops or the media.
You act like the media can't possibly make a story about your motivations if there weren't a law. That the cops would only arrest you if there were a hate crime law (well, actually, that's the point behind hate crimes laws: Too often the cops wouldn't arrest people who assaulted others because, well, "They deserved it.")
quote:
This is bullshit.
Indeed. Your entire scenario is bullshit.
quote:
If it had just been deemed a crime then it would not have had the repercussions that labelling it a "hate" crime had.
Right...because there weren't any racial tensions before 1969 when the first hate crimes law was established.
These laws have been on the books for forty years. Where is this "dogs and cats sleeping together" mass hysteria you're so afraid of descending upon us?

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 42 by onifre, posted 11-30-2009 5:39 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by onifre, posted 12-01-2009 2:12 PM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 58 of 376 (537856)
12-01-2009 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Rrhain
12-01-2009 4:49 AM


Legend writes:
The distinction between murder one, two and manslaughter is made on the existence and degree of intent and planning involved, NOT, I repeat NOT, the feelings or thoughts of the perpetrator towards the victim.
Rrhain writes:
Incorrect. They do base it upon the feelings and thoughts of the perpetrator toward the victim. It's why "lying in wait" makes it murder one. It's why "crime of passion" is murder two.
That's plainly false. "Lying in wait" makes it murder one because of the *action* taken by the perpetrator to lie in wait before attacking the victim, which siginifies *intent* to murder. That's why it's murder one , not because -while lying in wait- the perpetrator thought about the victim being racially inferior or sexually deviant or anything else. Any thoughts the perpetrator might have had on the victim can be used to show motive for the attack (e.g. he killed him because he hated Asian people), which is used to establish guilt, NOT to decide the degree of murder. This is decided solely based on the perp's actions before and during the attack.
So to put is as simply as I can : thoughts/feelings ==> motive ==> guilt, actions ==> intent ==> degree of murder/manslaughter.
Put it like that: Just because you hate someone doesn't mean that you intend to kill them. If that person is murdered, you could be a suspect in the investigation because you have a motive (hate) and -if the evidence is there- this motive could cement your conviction. However, the ONLY way to establish whether it was a first, second or third degree murder would be to look at your *actions* before and during the murder in order to show INTENT. There is no DA/Crown Prosecutor on either side of the pond who can demonstrate intent based on your feelings/thoughts alone. They would have to present evidence of your actions which signify intent to kill, e.g. that you were lying in wait.
Rrhain writes:
The legal definition of "intent" is "state of mind." We need to know what you're thinking in order to be able to charge you.
Intent can only be inferred by one's actions. This from the free dictionary:
quote:
Intent is a mental attitude with which an individual acts, and therefore it cannot ordinarily be directly proved but must be inferred from surrounding facts and circumstances.
(Emphasis is mine)
Rrhain writes:
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?
Legend writes:
Where did I say or even remotely suggest this?! Post number and paragraph please!
Rrhain writes:
In the post that I responded to and the specific paragraph I included before I gave my response. Is there a reason why you cut it out? Since you can't remember your own argument and since you seem to have trouble reading your own words, let's try it again, shall we?
"....that they indirectly propagate racism and increase racial tensions."
I'm asking again: SHOW ME the post and paragraph where I said or implied that those who commit acts of terrorism shouldn't be punished accordingly lest people who agree with the terrorists should take up the cause.
So far you've shown me a post where I said that hate crimes indirectly propagate racism and increase racial tensions. Try again.
Rrhain writes:
You're complaining about punishing people for terrorism because it might actually cause resentment and thus cause more terrorism.
No, I'm complaining that giving (or appearing to give) special treatment to people based on their race, ethnicity or sexuality causes resentment and social tensions.
Can't you read? Or is it that you're just deliberately misrepresenting what I write?
Rrhain writes:
Yep. Murder differs from manslaughter based upon your thoughts.
Nope, nope and nope. Murder differs from manslaughter based upon your actions.
If you load a gun, break into your neighbours's house and shoot him while he sleeps, that's murder one.
If your neighbour comes round your house to complain about loud music, says something offensive to you and you shoot him, that's murder two.
If you're in your garden doing target practice and a bullet enters your neighbour's house and kills him, that's manslaughter.
Note that nowhere in the above are your thoughts towards your neighbour or your motive used to distinguish between degrees of murder. If you broke into his house and killed him because he was black doesn't make it any less of murder one than it would if you broke into his house and killed him because you loved him.
Contrast this with hate-crime laws, where you're still convicted for different degrees of murder based on your intent, but *on top of that* you're also convicted for your motive. So breaking into your neighbour's house to kill him in order to rob him is suddenly a less serious crime than breaking into your neighbour's house to kill him because of his race or sexuality.
Surely even you should be able to appreciate the resentment and sense of injustice this causes to victims and their families, where the taking of a life under the same circumstances suddenly becomes more deplorable dependent on the victim's skin colour or sexual preferences.
Rrhain writes:
As if we should stop punishing terrorists lest other people who agree with terrorists get pissed off and take up the cause.
Once again, I never said nor implied that.
We should punish terrorists for what they've done, *not* for what they believe in. Hate-crime laws punish people for what they believe in, on top of what they've already done. It's as simple as that, despite your pathetic, veiled attempts to associate my position with supporting terrorism and white supremacy groups.

"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 55 by Rrhain, posted 12-01-2009 4:49 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Rrhain, posted 12-02-2009 6:18 AM Legend has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 59 of 376 (537863)
12-01-2009 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by AZPaul3
11-30-2009 10:00 PM


Re: Who says a crime is a "hate" crime?
Oni writes:
Isn't a person on trail for a hate crime before the jury has even had a chance to hear the details of the case? Is it not left to the arresting officer or prosecutors to say if in fact it was a "hate" crime?
The police may arrest the individual for murder. The DA may amend the charge to murder with bias (hate crime) depending upon the particulars of the evidence.
AZPaul3 writes:
No it is not the officer nor the DA who say in fact it was a hate crime. The officer does not make an arrest for murder with bias, just murder. The DA assesses the evidence and may amend the charge. Only the jury can say what the "fact" was. Only the jury can label it a hate crime.
Let me be clearer with my question, is a person on trail for a hate crime, or charge with a hate crime, before they go to court?
In the same sense as someone is charged with murder before they go to court - thats what I'm asking.
I understand that whether they are guilty or not is up to the jury, I'm asking who gets to charge you. And yes, the DA can amend the charge, but they would need the proper evidence for that, evidence gathered at the scence by the arresting officer.
If the DA so amends the indictment from his view of the evidence then your reputation is shot. That's life in a media-hyped world.
Right, and so the repercussions of this (maybe false) indictment could be grave, depending on the community that this happens in.
Are the benefits of labelling things hate crime worth the negative social repercussions that come with it?
What you need to worry about is those big guys in jail who want you to be their play thing.
Been there, done that, not that frightening, you should stop watching Lockup... the only play things in jail are the white guys btw.
Don't get all bent out of shape over your strawman.
Not a strawman, which I knew everyone would say. Its a true story, happened here on South Beach. The guys were falsely accused of a hate crime and the entire gay community went to the streets to protest. Fights broke out in bars all over beach. Gay guys and straight guys were being harassed. A few clubs even closed due to the fiasco.
In the end the guys were found not guilty of the hate crime but the repercussions of that mislabelling had lasting effects.
Thats on South Beach. Now imagine this same scenario in a small town in the south, and between blacks and whites.
Are the reprecussions on the community worth the extra years in jail for hate crimes?
The reality is quite different.
Indeed it is.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by AZPaul3, posted 11-30-2009 10:00 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Rrhain, posted 12-03-2009 2:25 AM onifre has not replied

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


Message 60 of 376 (537874)
12-01-2009 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by onifre
11-30-2009 5:39 PM


Re: Who says a crime is a "hate" crime?
onifre writes:
Isn't a person on trail for a hate crime before the jury has even had a chance to hear the details of the case?
Absolutely! The label is stuck at the point of arrest.
onifre writes:
Is it not left to the arresting officer or prosecutors to say if in fact it was a "hate" crime?
Here in Britain, the police arrest you "on suspicion of a" crime. It's up to the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute you for that crime. The effect remains the same, as with rape/sexual allegations, the label is stuck and remains even if you are acquitted.
onifre writes:
Take my example. My friends and I get into a fight at a club with people who happen to be gay. We win. The arresting officers shows up and see a group of gay guys who just got their asses kicked by a group of straight men. The officers determine, on their own, due to the labels that each individual carries in our respective groups, that this was a hate crime.
Indeed. Here in Britain, the police have to charge you with racially aggravated assault if the victim alleges that you used a racially/sexually derogatory epithet before/during the attack, even if the allegation is totally unsubstantiated. Bottom line is: if you are on the losing end of a fight you can make sure the other party get some extra punishment by claiming it was a hate-crime.
onifre writes:
What this then does, is pin my group -VS- the gay rights people and/or the entire gay community in my area. Causing increased tension between our groups, and in some cases leading to actual hate of the group.
Exactly! maybe there's a reason they're called 'hate crime laws' after all
onifre writes:
This is bullshit. If it had just been deemed a crime then it would not have had the repercussions that labelling it a "hate" crime had. It causes more harm than it does good, and it makes groups (minorities) look like oddities in our society that require special care.
And that's exactly what gets me with all this politically-correct legislation that's supposed to help minorities feel equal and empowered and : by its very existence it makes them feel needy and dis-empowered.
onifre writes:
Speaking as a minority, I say this is worse than the actual bigots who hate us.
it's quite ironic really, as most of the people I know who support things like 'positive discrimination' and hate-crime laws are middle-class white people with a guilt-syndrome. Most of my black/asian friends are either indifferent or opposed to such laws because they make them feel 'special' (in the bad sense of the word), thereby negating the objective of their very existence. The white people -on the other hand- insist they know best in the same patronising and self-preening way that's so evident in some of the posts on this thread.

"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 42 by onifre, posted 11-30-2009 5:39 PM onifre 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