|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
| Author | Topic: Hate-crime = Thought crime? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member  Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes:
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? There's no such thing as "terrorism" distinct from "assault"? It would appear we have another case of you pretending that semantics have something to do with it. Would you be happier if we called it "terrorism" rather than "hate crime"? When you commit a crime against someone specifically due to their attachment to a particular group, then the point of the crime is not simply to commit it against that individual but rather to terrorize all members of that group. It is not sufficient that the victim is a member of a group that is regularly terrorized because, as you will notice, the laws do not list subset but rather full categories: It mentions "race," not any particular race, for example, and crime happens to all groups. Instead, you must be able to show that the person committed the crime specifically because the target was a member of a group. That makes it terrorism. Would your complaint disappear if the term used were "terrorism"? Is your entire complaint only about semantics, not about reality? Or are you saying that terrorism isn't a crime? (So much for anti-stalking laws.)
quote: No, the motive informs the action. It's how we distinguish between degrees of murder, for example. "Reckless indifference to human life" means murder two. "Premeditation with malice aforethought" means murder one. You don't get charged with simply "killing someone." Instead, we look at what you were thinking in order to determine exactly what crime to charge you. 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? Tell you what, you start complaining about the distinction between murder one and murder two and then I'll start believing you when you say that the problem is that these are "thoughtcrime" rather than the fact that it's gay people who are being protected. Yes, yes, I know you didn't mention gays at all, but let's not play dumb, shall we?
quote: So you have a right to commit acts of 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hryoglyphx responds to me:
quote:quote: 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: Is a liquor store a conscious being? No. Let's stop playing dumb, shall we?
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Legend writes:
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes:
quote: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
onifre writes:
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes:
quote: 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: 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: 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: Not if it isn't murder. Are you saying there is no distinction between a preventable accident and lying in wait?
quote: 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: 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: And thus, they shouldn't be charged with murder. Instead, it's just a cased of aggravated vandalism, right?
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hyroglphx responds to me:
quote:quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Incorrect. It is precisely the motive for killing someone. That's why "crimes of passion" are considered murder two, not murder one.
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
AZPaul3 responds to me:
quote: 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: 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: That wasn't "unintended." That was the entire purpose.
quote: 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: 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, 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Legend responds to me:
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: The legal definition of which is "state of mind." Thank you for proving my point.
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
onifre writes:
quote: And what?
quote: 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: And what?
quote: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
onifre writes:
quote: The jury, just like they decide everything else about the case, including if you had intent to commit it.
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Indeed. Your entire scenario is bullshit.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Legend responds to me:
quote: Because of the state of mind "lying in wait" requires. You didn't just suddenly reach the conclusion to kill the person. Instead, you put a lot of thought into it, planned and schemed. You developed the required mens rea to perform the act. Are you saying our entire system of justice is based on a fraud?
quote: Incorrect. Once again, the legal definition of "intent" is "state of mind," not actions. Prosecution must show mens rea as well as actus reus. That's why we can have a result of "not guilty by reason of insanity." The person performed the act but did not have the state of mind capable of understanding what was going on.
quote: Of course. But killing without intent is not the same thing as killing with intent. And since the legal definition of "intent" is "state of mind," your argument fails.
quote: Did you not read your own source?
Intent is a mental attitude What part of "mental attitude" are you having trouble with? The fact that you have to show it via indirect methods is immaterial. You're absolutely right that we cannot read your mind, but if you decide to tell us what's in your mind, then that's perfectly fine. The fact that we determine your state of mind via your actions is immaterial. What we're trying to establish is your state of mind. You're behaving as if a hate crime simply assumes intent based upon the identification of the victim as a minority group member. It doesn't. The prosecution must prove the state of mind of the defendant in a hate crime in exactly the same way that the prosecution must prove the state of mind of the defendant in a capital murder case. It's the same process. If it's valid to distinguish murder one from murder two, why is it suddenly invalid when used to distinguish simple assault from terrorism?
quote: And I gave it to you. If you don't agree, that's fine. We can discuss it. But let's not pretend that I didn't give you chapter and verse. Did you or did you not write, "they indirectly propagate racism and increase racial tensions"? Thus, we shouldn't prosecute people for terrorism lest other people take up the cause.
quote: Incorrect. We don't know if it's murder one or murder two until we determine your mens rea. Murder one requires specific thoughts (which must be shown by the prosecution). If we can't show what you were thinking, then it isn't murder one. That's why "crimes of passion" are murder two, not murder one: You don't have the requisite "state of mind" that murder one requires. The legal system makes a distinction between killing someone in the heat of the moment and killing someone with a calculated mental state. We have to prove your mental state in order to prove murder one. So if it's OK with regard to murder, why is it suddenly a problem when it comes to terrorism?
quote: And thus, we shouldn't prosecute terrorists out of fear that others will take their place. You're saying that because there are people out there who resent treating all people equally under the law, we shouldn't actually treat them equally lest these bigots decide to act upon their bigotry. Need I remind you that hate crimes laws protect those in the majority just as much as those in the minority? Should we stop protecting the victims of terrorism because people have a mistaken understanding of the law? Victims of terrorism shouldn't be able to have full justice applied because bigots think it's an affront to decency to do so? When did we start taking orders about what justice is from the ones who seek to deny it to their fellows?
quote: Not at all. In fact, I find it ludicrous that there are people out there who don't understand the difference between a crime that was only oriented at a single person and one that was geared at terrorizing an entire class of people. I swear I'm in an Eddie Izzard monologue:
Pol Pot killed 1.7 million people. We can't even deal with that! You know, we think if somebody kills someone, that's murder, you go to prison. You kill 10 people, you go to Texas, they hit you with a brick, that's what they do. 20 people, you go to a hospital, they look through a small window at you forever. And over that, we can't deal with it, you know? Someone's killed 100,000 people. We're almost going, "Well done! You killed 100,000 people? You must get up very early in the morning. I can't even get down the gym! Your diary must look odd: Get up in the morning, death, death, death, death, death, death, death — lunch- death, death, death -afternoon tea - death, death, death - quick shower..." The crime committed against an individual is not the same as a crime that is committed against an individual as a symbol to the rest of the group. To deny that, to downplay the effect upon everybody else who was directly targeted but not physically attacked, is to deny justice. So no, I don't understand any sense of resentment or injustice. Instead, I feel the exact opposite. I resent those that want to deny justice to those who are the victims of terrorism by waving it away as something smaller.
quote: And that's precisely what hate crimes laws do: Punish you for your actions. If we can show that your intent was not to simply commit a crime against an individual but rather against an entire class through the proxy of the particular individual in question, then you are guilty of a greater crime. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
onifre responds to me:
quote: The perpetrator when they committed the crime. Why should the police be on the lookout for a killer just because they have a dead body?
quote: By this logic, we should toss out the entire criminal code because it applies to all crimes: A mistake in calling any action a crime can have grave repercussions in the community, add to the already present tension, etc. This is the real world scenario. If we accept the fact that mistakes will be made with regard to other crimes, why are you so upset about mistakes being made with regard to these crimes? Do you make a habit of beating up gay people but don't want anybody to think there might be a reason for it beyond just coincidence? Prosecutorial discretion allows the DA to literally charge you for anything at all at his whim. And yet, you don't seem to be that upset over this. But since we let prosecutors have this freedom, we also have a check on it called "prosecutorial misconduct." And its standard of proof is pretty much the same as that for hate crime: You have to prove that the DA was out to get you for malicious reasons. Our entire judicial system is based upon this. That's why it's the prosecution that draws up the charges, not the police or the judge or the jury. The person who has the responsibility of proving the case has to have the freedom to decide what it is he thinks he can prove. Yes, mistakenly filed charges are a bad thing. But since I don't see you railing against the existence of murder laws on the basis that people are routinely unfairly charged with murder, I find it more than a bit disingenuous that you're complaining about the existence of anti-terrorism laws for the same reason. Do you make a habit of beating up gay people?
quote: Justice. It ensures that the punishment fits the crime.
quote: So we should deny justice to victims of terrorism because bigots in the community might get their feelings hurt? Do you make a habit of beating up gay people? Afraid that people might think it isn't just a coincidence? You gotta commit a crime first in order to have the charges enhanced by hate crimes legislation. Have you commited a crime?
quote: And thus, we should get rid of laws against murder because of the "hardcore, real world, social repercussions" that happen when people are wrongfully accused. Why are you not protesting that? Why is your complaint only coming up when we are providing justice to certain classes of people? Are you worried that you're going to get tagged? Well, you'll only get tagged if you commit a crime. Have you committed a crime? Do you make a habit of beating up gay people?
quote: Yes. Since when do we take lessons on justice from bigots? Since when do we deny justice to an entire class of people simply because the bigots would get upset at having their criminal activities exposed? You have to commit a crime first. Have you committed a crime?
quote: The real world. Last time I checked, the paperwork that is turned in regarding the formal charges against a defendant are filed by the DA, not the New York Times. It's why Polanski is only charged with "unlawful sex with a minor," rather than aggravated rape. To listen to some media talking heads describe it, his penalty should be life imprisonment (and I make no comment here about agreeing or disagreeing with that sentiment), but they don't get to draw up the charges. They only get to flap their yaps.
quote: Evidence of the defendant's state of mind. It's not like they attempt to read the mind of the defendant. They have to provide documentable evidence. If we have a videotape of your assault that records your statements, the fact that you wrote various statements upon the body of the victim, other comments you make during interrogation, we can develop a case regarding your mens rea. We develop a larger context, not just a snapshot of twenty seconds worth of gutteral outbursts. That you beat up someone who is gay is not sufficient. That you called him names while doing so in and of itself is not sufficient.
quote: And thus, we shouldn't have charged OJ Simpson with murder. He was found not guilty and the poor man shouldn't have to suffer the ostracism of having all those people think he was guilty of murder. WAAAAAH! As soon as you start complaining about people being unfairly accused of murder, then I'll start believing your concerns about people being unfairly accused of terrorism. You have to commit a crime first. Have you committed a crime?
quote: The jury. Just like they're the ones who decide if you are guilty of murder. If you're truly that upset over being tagged a terrorist, surely you must be even more petrified of being tagged a murderer. Hey, all you did was beat up some people...it's not like you killed anybody. Thus, anybody unjustly accused of murder must have an even worse burden about what people think and how they will react. So let me know when you start that protest against laws prohibiting murder due to the "hardcore, real world, social repercussions" that result from mistaken charges of murder being brought up.
quote: Which the defense has the right to point out during trial. It's called "impeachment." It is then up to the jury to decide who to believe. Findings of facts are matters for the jury to decide, not the lawyers, the cops, or the judge.
quote: Are you describing an event that happened to you? Then you must have been charged and brought to trial. Were you found guilty? Do you make a habit of beating up gay people?
quote: BWAHAHAHAHA! Oh, that's just precious. People really do have this fantasy notion that nobody ever paid attention to gossip until now. As if Walter Winchell never existed. Nobody ever paid attention to the trials of Fatty Arbuckle, Leopold and Loeb, the Rosenbergs, and all the other "trials of the century" that have been hyped over the centuries.
quote: That has got to be one of the most bigoted statements I've heard in a long time. As if it were "liberals" who were foisting hate crimes laws upon blacks who were actually fighting against it back in the 60s.
quote: Ahem. You do realize that it is still legal in this country to torture gay people, yes? I think those who have suffered this torture might have a more appropriate response to you regarding your whine that they "get over it."
quote: And thus, we should do away with laws making distinctions between reckless endangerment, manslaughter, and murder and the various degrees of same. To do so is "special laws." When you start complaining about murder being a charge distinct from manslaughter, then I'll start believing you that you complaint is about "special laws" rather than some other reason.
quote: "I'm sorry, Sir, but we can't actually prosecute your assailant because the bigot next door might get his feelings hurt." When did we look to bigots for advice on justice? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
onifre writes:
quote: Let me be clearer with my response: Is a person on trial for a murder or charged with a murder before they go to court? Why are you only whining about ths one crime? All defendants are charged as part of going to court. All charges are made public before the trial starts because the prosecutor has to file them as part of going to court. So if you are truly concerned about "hard core, real world consequences," surely you're going to be complaining about all the other crimes that people are charged with and can cause societal reactions, right? Why does only this one rate a response?
quote: Of course. So why are you complaining about the charge of a hate crime while you don't seem to have the same issues about the charge of murder? The prosecutor files the charges. Not the cops. Not the media. The jury determines if the evidence warrants conviction. It is possible for the jury to return a verdict of guilty with regard to the base crime but not guilty with regard to the enhancement of hate crime. This is exactly the same process used with regard to capital murder. First, you have to show that the defendant committed murder and then you have to show that there were the "special circumstances" that are required for a verdict of murder one. If the prosecutor can't show special circumstances, then it isn't murder one but murder two. So why are you complaining about hate crimes and not murder?
quote: The DA, just like every other crime. Why are you only complaining about hate crimes and not every other crime? They, too, have "hard core, real world social repercussions" for being accused of. Why is this one particular crime the only one that causes problems?
quote: So we should deny justice because bigots might get their feelings hurt? Your argument applies to absolutely every crime. The repercussions of all (maybe false) indictments "could be grave, depending on the community that this happens in." If a financier gets accused of embezzlement, the "repercussions could be grave." Should we do away with laws regarding embezzlement because of the possible problems someone falsely accused of it might have? Change the name so that people don't have such a bad vision of what financial shenannigans are? Why are you picking on hate crimes when you don't have any problem with the exact same problem existing on even grander scales for every other crime?
quote: Are the benefits of labeling things murder worth the negative social repercussions that come with it? Surely your argument isn't one of petty semantics, is it? It's the same ridiculous claim that we can't call same-sex relationships "marriage" out of fear of disturbing the precious little feelings of bigots. Since when did we take our notions of justice from those who would deny it? Your argument is that because people who don't think committing crimes against certain groups is all that bad, we shouldn't actually be honest about the crime that was committed because it would upset them to have that fact pointed out to them. I'm in a Brian Regan monologue: Somehow, we need to coddle people who commit crime lest people who don't think it was really a crime cop an attitude.
quote: Yes. We don't coddle bigots because they get their feelings hurt. Surely you're not saying that the racial tensions this country has seen were lessened any because acts of terrorism against blacks were called "civil rights violations," are you? The LA riots following the verdict in the Rodney King trial didn't happen? There was no charge of hate crime...only excessive force and failure to prevent the unlawful assault. But for six days, LA was under siege and the National Guard had to be called out. So since calling the crime something "nice" doesn't actually seem to have any effect upon how people feel about it, why are you trying to coddle bigots? You're completely ignoring the "hard core, real world repercussions" that result in "divisive" and "lasting effects" from the commission of the crimes. So we should not deliver justice to the people who suffered the crime on the off chance that we make a mistake in prosecution? Yes, it's tragic when it happens, but it's always tragic when a mistake in prosecution happens. It always results in "hard core, real world repercussions." Why are you only complaining about this one? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
