quote:I did some investigating and as if turns out the United States Commission on Civil Rights actually opposed the bill we are now debating, citing very similar arguments as my own.
No, it doesn't. Where on earth do you find justification for this? Their only arguments are that it would result in retrial at the federal level of those found not guilty at the state level and that the bill would result in crimes they do not consider to be "hate crimes" being prosecuted as such.
Did you even read your own source? The very first footnote indicates that it is a statement only for the four members of the Commission that are on the letter. The other four members weren't asked:
We have not polled the other four members of the Commission, and this letter should in no way be taken to suggest that they have taken any particular position on the measure.
So this isn't actually an official statement by the US Commission on Civil Rights. It's just a joint statement by four individual people. And who are these four people?
Gerald A. Reynolds was appointed by Bush and made his career out of the fact that he's a black person who opposed civil rights legislation. He's the leader of the Center for New Black Leadership, a reactionary conservative group.
Todd Gaziano is on the staff of the Heritage Foundation and a contributor to the National Review, well-known reactionary conservative groups. He brought in Hans Von Spakovsky, a well-known foe of voting rights, to work with the Commission as a consultant. He is trying to hold hearings regarding the New Black Panthers even though the Department of Justice dismissed the case.
Gail L. Heriot was one of the champions for Prop 209 here in California. She's routinely written against affirmative action.
Peter N. Kirsanow is also a member of the Center for New Black Leadership as well as the National Center for Public Policy Research, another reactionary conservative group.
So basically you've got a statement by four right-wing conservatives who are not speaking for the Commission but trying to make it look like their comemnts are official statements.
The statment made by these four individuals is filled with innuendo in direct contradiction to the very people who wrote the bill. Contrary to what some may tell you (and what the Bush administration thought), courts take legislative intent into account when interpreting the law (not executive intent). If the intent of the legislature was that this law was not intended to prosecute rape as a general course, then the courts will understand that and realize that it won't apply unless rapists are doing so in accordance with the intent of the law: Committing a crime against an individual as a proxy for the rest of the group.
They can't even cite people who support their suspicions but instead resort to anonymice who don't actually support their claim. Instead, they merely don't specifically deny it:
While Senator Edward Kennedy has written that it was not his intention to cover all rape with LLEHCPA, some DOJ officials have declined to disclaim such coverage.
"Some DOJ officials"? Exactly who are these officials? "Decline to disclaim"? Yeah, that's specific. What, precisely, did they say? Was their "declining" simply along the lines of, "We will not comment on any hypothetical prosecution"? Or was it them asking the secretaries who said they were in no position to indicate what DoJ policy would be?
Is there a reason you were less than honest about what this letter said? Did you actually read it or did you just do a troll of right-wing sites to try and find something, anything you might use to buttress your argument?
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.
That would be the FBI. That's why I said, "according to the FBI." The Department of Justice has prosecuted 132 cases between 2001 and 2006. That is out of 55,000 documented hate crimes (according to the FBI).
Do your own homework.
quote:Did I say 10 minutes worth of testimony, did I say unreliable witnesses...
Did you have to? You're not stupid. Your arguments, however, are implicative of prosecutors being generally incompetent and bring charges they haven't really investigated and think they can prove. That prosecution for hate crimes is common and often results in not guilty verdicts.
You were the one who said that everybody lied in your scenario. So the prosecutors were dumb and couldn't figure this out?
And this is typical?
quote:
quote:Surely you're not hinting that hate crimes prosecutions are out of control, are you?
Not at all.
Then what's your complaint? According to the FBI, there were about twice as many homicides (more than 14,000) as hate crimes (a bit under 8,000) in 2008. Surely being accused of murder is just as bad if not worse than being accused of a hate crime, no?
quote:Only when they're dressed like Peter Pan.
I wouldn't know. Peter Pan dresses in a tight green or brown tunic:
The first two being Mary Martin while the last is Cathy Rigby in her most recent turn as Peter.
That, of course, assumes Peter wears anything at all:
This being the recent movie Peter.
Hamlet, on the other hand, often shows up in a peasant shirt since it's the iconic "Elizabethan" stereotype. I'd use the picture of me as Juliet as my icon since it's a much more dramatic one, but it's a long shot of me sitting on a ladder and you can barely make out the details when it's reduced to thumbnail size since it, too, is a single light shining down on a completely dark stage.
I highly recommend you see The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (abridged) if you have the chance. The Reduced Shakespeare Company often tours, though I don't know if they still do Shakespeare anymore since it was originally done so long ago.
From their West End performance, the first part of the Hamlet section, watch out for the "What a piece of work is man?" speech at about 8:50. It'll look familiar:
And then, of course, there's backwards Hamlet:
I'd love to play Peter Pan. To get to be put in a flying harness and put to soar over the audience? To have children truly believe you can fly? Alas, I'm not a woman and I'm a baritone with a somewhat prominent larynx. It'd be hard for me to pull off a boy. I've played Schroeder, but You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown is more about the spirit of youth rather than actually looking like a child.
Of course, if someone is insecure in one's identity, I don't recommend going into the theatre. If you're going to be any good, you have to present yourself believably as something you're not. Tell us, do you think the people who play murderers, rapists, and thieves are telling us something about themselves or do you only reserve that attitude for homophobic reactions?
But that's OK, onifre. I'm not going to have sex with you. So please stop asking.
quote:Having not heard the testimonies from the witnesses, not seen the case or the details of the fight ... how then do you know they are criminals?
Innocent til proven guilty, right?
Indeed, but this is the great doublethink required of our justice system: It doesn't get to trial unless there is evidence of something happening. Smoke doesn't equal fire, but smoke indicates something going on. The accused is innocent but probably guilty.
I highly recommend the article, "Lawspeak and Doublethink" by Barbara Allen Babcock, written for the anthology, On Ninteen Eighty-Four, published by the Stanford Alumni Association for the Portable Stanford:
In law, as in politics, family life, and literature, doublethink is also often a valuable instrument. A good example is the presumption of innocence for the criminally accused. The law enjoins fact finders to treat the defendant as "clothed" in this presumption when he is brought to trial. One of the oldest, and best, defense lawyer's stratagems is to ask prospective jurors whether they have formed an opinion about the defendant's guilt. When a juror says "no," the lawyer responds: "Well, you should have an opinion; your opinion should be that according to the law this is an innocent person." In fact, the presumption of innocence is a "carefully constructed lie" which must be entertained together with the statistical and common-sense knowledge that in the vast majority of cases the accused is guilty and that he is on trial as a result of an intensive investigative process that has produced evidence to that effect. The two beliefsthat the accused is innocent and that he is probably guiltymust be held simultaneously and both accepted.
Indeed, mistaken prosecution is a tragedy. But you haven't shown why mistaken prosecution regarding commission of a hate crime is so horrid as to outweigh the justice achieved by convicting those who have committed it.
Especially when an accusation of murder is more common and more shunned by society, at least.
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.
quote:I never argued that hate crimes should be abolished just because of potential backlash from any particular community. That's just a strawman created by Rrhain in previous posts.
Huh? Have you been paying attention? I didn't come up with that argument. Onifre did. It was he who came up with the scenario of an attack in Florida and the people who carried out the societal reaction to how the prosecution of it was played out (Message 59):
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?
Please try to keep up.
quote:detracting from the severity of the crime and shift focus on the race/sexuality/otherness of the victims.
So terrorism isn't a crime? That's what you're advocating. I guess we should be charging the people involved with the attacks on September 11 with conspiracy to commit vandalism. You're trivializing the very real crime of terrorism.
quote:indirectly propagating racism and increasing racial tensions
Didn't you just say that you "never argued that hate crimes should be abolished because of potential backlash from any particular community"?
You do realize that you just contradicted yourself, yes?
quote:as inevitably certain groups/communities will feel unjustly and unequally treated when the murder of a loved one is considered a lesser crime than the murder of a loved one of another group.
How is that not "backlash"? My word, it's only been four sentences and you've already forgotten what you've said. I realize that it's rare for anybody to recognize what happened before and surely people seem to think that what they say now is to be taken for what it is without absolutely no connection to any statements made previously (Palin just now gave an interview where she was asked about the legitimacy of the birthers, saying it's a "legitimate question" to ask about his birth certificate and then immediately said how ridiculous it was that she was asked to provide the birth certificate of Trig, proving he was her son...and then immediately stated that it would be good to take that demand for a birth certificate to use against Obama. A double flip-flop in literally 60 seconds.) But I actually pay attention to what people say and will point out when you contradict yourself.
How is saying that there would be a problem of people "feeling unjustly and unequally treated when the murder of a loved one is considered a lesser crime" not "arguing that hate crimes should be abolished because of the potential backlash"? Just because you say it isn't doesn't mean it actually isn't.
quote:and this is most important: judging and condemning people based on the thinking or beliefs which caused them to attack.
Which is what we do in every other crime. It's called "mens rea" in the judicial Latin, and means "guilty mind." In English, we call it "intent" and the legal definition is "state of mind." We prove it by citing acts, since we cannot directly read your mind, but the acts are brought forth specifically to prove what you were thinking at the time. It's what allows us to separate murder one from muder two and allows us to have a finding of "not guilty by reason of insanity" (if you did it but didn't understand right and wrong at the time you did it, you are not responsible for it. You did not have the required "mens rea." Your thoughts were not in alignment with your actions.)
It's why coercion allows an exception: If you are being forced to commit an act, you are not culpable for it because your thoughts are not to commit the act. However, there is something else going on that forces you to go against your thoughts.
Proving the act took place at the hands of the defendant is required. But beyond that, you have to prove that the defendant's thoughts were in alignment. You must show mens rea or you don't have a case.
So why aren't you protesting prosecutions of murder one which are dependent upon proving a person's thoughts and punishing him more harshly for them?
quote:it's not a usual, traditional or historical methodology in our judicial system and more gravely it is a THOUGHT CRIME as it implies that certain thoughts and opinions can now be indirectly prosecuted and punished if they can be associated with a crime, or even without.
Where? Did you even read your own source? This woman wasn't actually accused of a hate crime. She simply had someone write to her to tell her to be careful. No arrest, no trial, no nothing. Just a person (indeed, a person in authority) writing back to someone who mouthed off. Inappropriate? At least. Certainly the deputy chief executive needs to be talked to at the least. But no legal process was ever instigated.
Do you have an example of anybody actually being arrested for writing a letter saying, "I don't like X"? Or are all your examples nothing more than, "But it could have happened!" hyperventilation?
You seem to arguing that because there is a risk that somebody somewhere might have an inappropriate application of a law, that is sufficient reason not to have the law in the first place.
But every law carries that risk. Every law that has ever existed has had somebody unjustly accused in the most outrageous fashion. But I hardly see you complaining about any of those.
quote:This has led to many people being AFRAID to express their opinions in case they get punished for them.
Nobody denies that there is at least one person out there who is sitting in a puddle of his own urine over the idea of him being arrested for having a thought. But here's the thing: Nobody ever has. You certainly haven't given us any examples of anybody anywhere being punished for "expressing their opinions." Are we to deny justice to people because bigots are scared? Over something that has never happened?
There's a word for that: Childishness. We should withhold justice because a bunch of children are wetting themselves?
quote:It's a bitter twist of irony that the laws that are supposed to protect minorities from being terrorised are doing so by terrorising the majority, don't you think?
And if you had an example of it happening, then you might have a point but so far, you haven't shown this scenario has having taken place in reality. The only thing we have is a bunch of bigots having panic attacks that they spooked themselves into having. Why should we coddle them? Why should we deny justice simply because idiots don't understand the law?
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.
quote:One can still be charged with a hate crime and stand trail for one. The media can blast it all over the airwaves. And at the end of the trail, you could be completely innocent, yet the damage to your reputation, to the community and to those of the 2 opposing races/religions/etc has been done.
"One can still be charged with murder and stand trial for one. The media can blast it all over the airwaves. And at the end of the trial, you could be completely innocent, yet the damage to your reputation, to the community, and to those of the two families has been done."
So we should do away with murder laws, right?
If you aren't going to complain about this unfortunate reality that is applicable to every single crime, why are you picking on hate crimes legislation?
quote:Also, this is only something to consider for "hate" crimes, no other crime pins two groups against each other like that and divides communities when they get misclassified.
Bullshit.
You think the McMartins are ever going to have a normal life after what happened to them? Do you know how many people have been run out of town simply because of the accusation of a sex crime? When I was an undergrad, several students, including the student body president, were kicked off campus not because they actually committed any crime, but because they followed the school's listed honor code regarding another student who was involved in drugs. But because his other student got caught, the school decided that his suitemates couldn't be trusted and kicked them off campus: Only allowed on to take classes and not allowed anywhere near the dorms.
Later on, a group of women accused a man of rape, plastering his face on posters across all the campuses, and despite the fact that no charges were ever filed, he had to leave due to the threats against his life.
You weren't living in Albuquerque at the time that William Kennedy Smith was on trial for rape. He was followed around and hounded after he was acquitted. Had to delay his internship for a year.
Where on earth did you get this silly idea that only hate crimes cause rifts in communities?
quote:You would have to show me how it intimidates, and, how a small minority of racist/bigots/straight up haters is going to subjugate groups, that while considered "minorities," still out number by a long ways any racist organization out there. There are more black people in the US than there are Klan members, hell there are more black gang members than there are Klan members. So who is intimidating who?
You don't pay attention to the news much, do you? A gay bar in Atlanta was just raided by the police, in full swat gear, including breaking into an apartment above the bar, without a warrant, to arrest the occupant. A civil suit has been filed against the department.
Earlier this year, on the 40th anniversary of Stonewall, the police raided a gay bar in Fort Worth. One of the patrons had to be hospitalized for a week for bleeding in his brain after the police threw him to the ground. The internal investigation, of course, found nothing.
Are you really that naive?
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.
quote:Please show me (post and paragraph) where I'm advocating terrorism.
I've done so already. Multiple times. But you just did it again in the very post I responded to. You claim that hate crimes laws, which are anti-terrorism laws, "detract from the severity of the crime and shift focus on the race/sexuality/otherness of the victims." Did you or did you not say that?
When you denigrate hate crimes laws, you are saying that terrorism isn't a crime.
quote:Please explain how the flipping hell you're equating my objection to hate-ctime with supporting terrorism.
Because hate crime laws are laws against terrorism. To trivialize them as "detracting from the severity of the crime and shift focus on the race/sexuality/otherness of the victims" means you don't think that terrorism should be prosecuted. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should only be charged with consipracy to commit aggravated vandalism, right? OK, maybe accessory to some counts of involuntary manslaughter, but it's not like his actions had anything to do with trying to send a message to everybody else, right? That'd be punishing him for his thoughts, right? How dare we put him on trial for what he thinks, right?
For all your talk about "detracting from the severity of the crime and shift focus on the race/sexuality/otherness of the victims," you're doing a mighty find job of that which you rail against. You're trivializing the crime, ignoring it completely, specifically to focus on the race/sexuality/otherness of the victims. How dare we focus on the perpetrator and charge him with the appropriate crime which was committed: An act of terrorism.
quote:While you're at it you can you also explain why YOU think that someone blowing up a building with 3000 people inside it because they think that these people are agents of the Great Satan should be punished more severely than someone blowing up a building with 3000 people inside it for some other reason?
I already have. Because there is a difference between an attack that is focused upon the individual victims and the exact same attack that is carried out on proxies for an entire community. The former is not intended to affect society as a whole while the latter is precisely that: Terrorism. It is not the same and should not be treated the same.
quote:You seem to think that killing 3000 people is much worse if you're an Arab terrorist than if you are, say, a gay-rights campaigner. Why is that?
Huh? What does the person committing the crime have to do with anything? Crimes aren't (well, let's be honest..."shouldn't") be prosecuted because of who the perpetrator is. Rather, they are to be tried because of what the crime is.
Which means crimes carried out against individuals as proxies for their class are crimes of terrorism and should be treated as such.
And nice rationalization for why you're running away.
There are two very simple questions for you:
1) Do you think attacking someone as a proxy for everybody else in that class is terrorism or not? I say it is.
2) Should an act carried out for the purpose of terrorism be judged more harshly than the identical act when it is only carried out against an individual? I say it should be.
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.
quote:Was Dmitry Sklyarov's arrest and detention under DMCA an unintended violation of his legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights? The court said yes.
You're missing the point, though: The entire reason for the DMCA's existence is to restrict people's rights. Hate crimes legislation, however, does no such thing. The laws have been on the books for forty years and despite many attempts by people to claim that their rights are being violated, they have never been able to show how.
The court didn't say it was "unintended." It said the entire point was to restrict speech and that such restrictions were unconstitional.
And at any rate, you have yet to show how hate crimes laws "restrict speech."
quote:Was the government's issue of a prior restraint order pursuant to the Espionage Act an unintended violation of the NYTimes legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights? The court said yes.
Again, you miss the point. The entire reason for the Espionage act was to restrict people's rights. Hate crimes legislation, however, does no such thing. The laws have been on the books for forty years and despite many attempts by people to claim that their rights are being violated, they have never been able to show how.
The court didn't say it was "unintended." It said the entire point was to restrict speech and that such restrictions were unconstitional.
And at any rate, you have yet to show how hate crimes laws "restrict speech."
quote:Village procedures can ONLY follow from Ordinance (Law). Read the case. Was the law of the village of Skokie abused in such a manner as to deny the group's legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights? The court said yes.
Again, you miss the point. The entire reason for the action by the city was to restrict speech. Hate crimes legislation, however, does no such thing. The laws have been on the books for forty years and despite many attempts by people to claim that their rights are being violated, they have never been able to show how.
The court didn't say it was "unintended." It said the entire point was to restrict speech and that such restrictions were unconstitional.
And at any rate, you have yet to show how hate crimes laws "restrict speech."
quote:Have you never heard of the Philly 11? Michael Marcavage?
First, it's the "Philly 5." And second, he was found innocent, yes? Are you seriously claiming that because a law can be misapplied, then we shouldn't have the law in the first place? Well, we better get rid of laws against murder as we've seen hundreds of people who were found guilty of murder set free because they were innocent.
You will note, however, that the law that was the basis for the charges against the Philly 5 is still on the books. The court did not find it to be unconstitutional, just that it was misapplied.
So it would seem that the basis for your claim, that these laws restrict free speech, is not founded in reality.
quote:My issue here is that we be cognizant of the fact (as detailed above) that such legislation, indeed any legislation, law, ordinance, or court opinion can be twisted to abuse.
But since your complaint is only cropping up with regard to hate crimes laws, this claim of yours isn't exactly true, now is it? When you start lodging your protest against the murder statutes for being "twisted to abuse," then we'll start considering your other claim.
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.
quote:I get what you're asking, but they are not comparable.
Incorrect. They are identical. Your complaint is not unique to any crime, let alone hate crimes. Every single law criminalizing activity has been incorrectly applied to somebody, causing a stigma against the person so accused.
quote:Murder is not a euphemism where as "hate" crime is.
So? You think being accused of murder is somehow less of a problem than being accused of a hate crime? That if someone is accused of murder with an additional charge of it being a hate crime, that people are going to ignore the murder part of it?
quote:And it is that euphemisms that has the repercussions and not the act itself.
Bullshit. Are you seriously claiming that your argument is merely semantics? That if it were called "domestic terrorism" you'd be OK with it? Do you really think people are so stupid as to not understand what the point of a charge of "domestic terrorism" means? That somebody charged with "civil rights violations" isn't going to get the same reaction? The officers involved in the Rodney King beating weren't charged with a "hate crime," and yet LA was under siege for nearly a week after the verdict came back.
What is your justification that what we call a crime is significant with regard to how it is perceived?
quote:Mislabelling something a muder 1 or a murder 2 does not affect at a social level, where as mislabelling it a "hate" vs simply calling it a crime, does.
And do you have any evidence of this? That being accused of murder doesn't have an effect on how people see you and treat you? That it doesn't cause a rift in the community? The McMartin's weren't charged with a "hate crime," and yet do you really think that anybody is going to look at them the same way again?
Take a look at Polanski. The charge against him isn't "rape," but that doesn't seem to phase people. Look at the reaction people had when Whoopi Goldberg tried to make that point. All she did was point out that the legal charge against him isn't "rape" and suddenly everybody was accusing her of trivializing what happened.
quote:Its a crime, period, not a "hate" crime or any other euphemism we choose to label it as.
So terrorism isn't a crime. And the merry-go-round spins again. How many times do we have to go through this? A single act can result in multiple charges. And an act that is carried out against an individual as a proxy for the entire group is not the same as an act carried out only against the individual.
Again, are you seriously claiming your argument is merely semantics? That if it were called "domestic terrorism," you wouldn't have a problem?
quote:But hate crime affects the entire community at a broader level
That's the entire point behind hate crimes laws: These crimes affect not just the person who was directly attacked but the entire community at large. In a just society, we recognize that fact and treat the crime differently than those that affect only the individual they are directed against.
quote:Now, I'm not saying that the person shouldn't be charged with a crime, and if this has a personal affect on their standing in the community then so be it, but calling it a hate crime divides the entire community which was not involved.
But that's true for all crimes, regardless of what they're called. Surely you aren't saying that your objection is merely semantic? That if it were called "domestic terrorism" you'd be OK with it. The people are so stupid that they don't know what the point of a charge of "domestic terrorism" really means.
quote:People, from the outside in, are saying what the effects of a single crime has
Incorrect. It is the person who committed the crime that is saying what the effects of the single crime have. The prosecution doesn't get to just declare something a hate crime out of some misguided prosecutorial discretion. It has to be proven with evidence. It needs to be presented before a jury who must return a verdict. You don't get charged unless there is some investigation into the crime and the prosecution determines that they think they have enough evidence to successfully prosecute you.
That's the way it is with all crime. You don't just get charged with murder. An investigation has to be made into what happened, linking the events to you, and justifying that you had the mens rea to do it. This is done by looking at you and what you did, not just a declaration by the prosecution.
Since this is true of all criminal prosecutions, why are you singling out this one as if it were different?
Oh, that's right...your racist claim of "liberal white guilt."
quote:yet there is no basis for this opinion
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? Have we wandered back into RAZD's thread that there is no evidence of anything anywhere and thus the only rational position is "I don't know"? You mean all the evidence presented at trial by the prosecution was just an hallucination? They made it up? It's all a vast conspiracy?
Be specific. Why is it that the prosecution seems to be under the impression that they have to prove a charge of a hate crime, that they don't get to just declare it? Why is it that they spend time in court bringing forth evidence that the perpetrator carried out the particular crime with a particular intent of terrorising people if all they have to do is say, "It is! It is!"? And why on earth would the judge allow such a diversion if the point of the trial is simply to show that the defendant did it?
quote:and the results are far from accurate.
Says who? You? Why should we believe you? Strange how the prosecution thought they had to prove their case and the jury was under the impression that they had to return a verdict indicating that the case was proven or not. Are you saying that the jury tends to get the verdict wrong? Your own example showed that the jury came back with a "not guilty" verdict, so it would seem that the basis for your entire complaint is contradicted by reality.
quote:So if that's the only point to a hate crime and the only reason for having harsher punishment, yet, it doesn't actually have this effect
And since that isn't the only point to a hate crime and it does actually have that effect, your entire argument falls apart.
quote:
quote:You don't pay attention to the news much, do you? A gay bar in Atlanta was just raided by the police, in full swat gear, including breaking into an apartment above the bar, without a warrant, to arrest the occupant. A civil suit has been filed against the department.
Are you saying this was hate motivated? Says who?
The jury. And thus, the merry-go-round spins again. How many times do we have to go through this? The prosecution doesn't get to just declare it a hate crime. They have to prove it just like every other crime. They have to bring forth evidence just like every other crime. They have to present it to a jury just like every other crime. And the jury is the one that decides whether or not the case was made, just like every other crime.
Why is it you're only complaining about one crime when your justification is applicable to every single crime in existence?
The prosecution hopes they can make the charge of murder stick, but they aren't the ones who get to declare it murder. That's for the jury. They wouldn't have brought a charge of murder unless they thought they could prove it through all the evidence they gathered, but it still isn't up to them to decalre it an actual murder: That's for the jury. The jury can come back with a verdict of not guilty or perhaps a guilty verdict to a lesser, included charge of manslaughter.
quote:Are you gonna jump the gun here and say the Atlanta police specifically targeted this group for the sole purpose of them being gay?
That certainly seems to be what happened, given the direct statements of the officers during the raid. It certainly explains why they would enter a home without a warrant and without any immediate circumstances to justify such an unconstitutional entry. It isn't like these charges were brought out of the blue. The people who committed the crime left evidence.
However, the current case against the police department isn't a "hate crime" but rather a "civil rights violation" case. Hate crimes are criminal cases. Civil rights violations are civil cases. You do understand the difference between them, yes?
But, we won't know if the charges stick until it gets brought to trial and the evidence is presented and examined by the jury. They're the only ones who get to make that determination.
quote:Are you gonna guess the motive behind this without letting the jury decide?
Huh? What on earth are you talking about? You mean the prosecution isn't allowed to bring charges of murder one because that's a question of motive which requires the jury to make that finding? Stop playing dumb. Stop insulting everybody with this faux charade of stupidity you're displaying.
Of course the prosecution needs to come to a determination about what charges to bring. The jury is not responsible for coming up with the charges. It isn't like a jury is called and the prosecution simply puts forth evidence, leaving it to the jury to decide exactly what crime was committed. Since juries are pulled from the general population, they don't know what the legal ramifications are.
Instead, the prosecution has the responsibility of determining what the charges are. The prosecution is then challenged to provide evidence that meets the legal standards of what those charges are. The jury is then given the task of determining if the burden of proof has been met.
Now, sometimes the jury is given options: Is it murder or is it manslaughter? But even if they are, they are only allowed to consider the specific charges that the prosecution has presented. The prosecution has to make a choice: Do they go with both possible charges and risk that the defendant only gets convicted of the lesser charge? Or do they go with only the more severe charge and risk that the defendant go free? If the prosecution only decides to bring charges of murder, the jury may instead be of the opinion that while the defendant did it, the prosecution has not proven a case sufficient to justify a charge of murder. They do not have the discretion to reduce the charge to manslaughter or reckless endangerment.
Now, since that's the case with all crime, why are you picking on this one? Until you start protesting about a lawyer being allowed to bring a charge of murder "without letting the jury decide," then we'll start believing you that that's really your issue.
quote:Whats your point with this story?
Are you incapable of remembering your own words? My comment was made in direct response to your statement:
So who is intimidating who?
Do you not remember making that query?
The point of that story is that the very governmental institutions that we have put in place to protect the equal rights of all citizens in this country are the very ones involved in terrorising certain segments of the community. And the hate crimes laws we have are designed to combat that reality by allowing the federal government to step in where the local officials won't.
quote:Do you have evidence pertaining to this case that somehow changes the findings of the internal investigation?
Yes. The Ft. Worth police department changed their policies as a result of the raid. Strange that they would do that if they didn't do anything wrong. Their justification for why they did what they did changed multiple times during the course of the investigation.
quote:Or are you judging it from the outside in?
Since you don't even know what I'm referring to, shouldn't you apply that sneer to yourself?
quote:
quote:Are you really that naive?
To what?
To your claim of "Who is intimidating who?" Really, are you that incapable of remembering your own argument?
quote:You have proven nothing with your straw man cases
Ah, so the cops didn't raid the gay bars under pretenses of alcohol violations and public sex and wind up arresting nobody? Strange how even though the cops had undercover people inside the bars at the time the raids were scheduled to take place (and note, the raids were specifically scheduled ahead of time) and admitted that they hadn't seen any violations of any laws taking place, the raids happened anyway. Are you saying the police have a duty to carry out a scheduled raid when their own investigative personnel are telling them that no criminal activity is taking place?
"The Family" (also known as "C Street") has been working tooth and nail to get the "kill the gays" legislation passed in Uganda. Do you really think that's a strawman?
Are you really that naive?
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.
quote:Please show me (post and paragraph) where I'm advocating terrorism.
I've done so already. Multiple times.
No you haven't.
Did you or did you not say:
beating someone to death should be condemned for what it is, not be seen as different just because the victim happens to belong to a certain ethnic or sexual group.
Did you or did you not say:
they indirectly propagate racism and increase racial tensions.
Did you or did you not say:
and most importantly: hate-crimes are thought crimes in that they seek to judge and condemn "evil" thoughts instead of just evil actions.
Hate crimes are acts of terrorism, plain and simple. Your trivializing of them and dismissal of the attempts to prosecute the people who commit them appropriately is an advocation of terrorism.
You can disagree with my conclusion if you wish, but let's not pretend that you didn't say what you did.
quote:Just because I'm supporting that hate-crime labels detract from the real crime doesn't mean that I'm advocating terrorism
So your entire argument is semantics? If we called it "domestic terrorism," you'd be OK with it? Do you seriously think people are stupid enough not to understand what the underlying crime is?
That isn't what you were arguing. You were saying that prosecuting people for terrorism actually causes terrorism, is only a prosecution of "thoughts," and most importantly, isn't important because we already got them for a crime, why bother taking it more seriously?
A car rolls down a hill and crashes into a house, killing the occupant. Is it an accident? Reckless endangerment? Manslaughter? Murder one? Murder two? By your logic, we wouldn't want to be too harsh lest we "indirectly propagate tension" in the community. We certainly can't make the distinction between murder one and murder two because that would require that we "seek to judge and condemn 'evil' thoughts." Hell, let's just call it a tragic accident and not prosecute it at all because it should only be "condemned for what it is, not seen as different," right?
The fact that you are trivializing and dismissing a crime committed against an entire class of people through a proxy of an individual is precisely an adovcation of terrorism.
Prove me wrong. Prove that your complaint is simply semantic. That you'd support renaming these laws "domestic terrorism." Explain how it is that people won't have the exact same reaction because they'll actually think the underlying crime is something different due simply to the name we call it rather than the actual reason why we're prosecuting it.
quote:
quote:When you denigrate hate crimes laws, you are saying that terrorism isn't a crime.
...huh?!
You heard me. Hate crimes laws penalize terrorism. To denigrate them is to say that terrorism isn't a crime.
quote:If you really want to connect my rejection of the validity or necessity of hate-crime laws with advocating terrorism, you'll have to show where I said or implied that people who commit crimes in order to intimidate others shouldn't be punished. Post and paragraph please!
Already done. Did you or did you not say:
beating someone to death should be condemned for what it is, not be seen as different just because the victim happens to belong to a certain ethnic or sexual group.
You seem to think that we shouldn't actually prosecute people for terrorism. Nah, it's just simple assault. The fact that it is the latest in a string of incidents shouldn't be considered. No, they're all isolated, we should never look at the larger picture, never consider that perhaps acts are connected to things outside the immediate environs.
You're advocating terrorism.
quote:
quote:Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should only be charged with consipracy to commit aggravated vandalism, right? OK, maybe accessory to some counts of involuntary manslaughter,....
...double huh?!
Well, we shouldn't "indirectly propagate tension," right? To treat it as terrorism would be to "seek to judge and condemn 'evil' thoughts," right? If we were to consider it something more would mean that it is "seen as different" rather than "condemning it for what it is," right? Those are your arguments.
Why are you backing away from them now?
quote:you're forgetting about the 3000 first-degree murders?
No, it's "involuntary manslaughter." To call it "first degree murder" would "indirectly propagate tension," which you abhor. It would "seek to judge and condemn 'evil' thoughts," which you declared anathema. It would mean we are not "condeming it for what it is" but rather are insisting that it be "seen as different," which you have indicated you detest.
So why is it you are quite ready to abandon your principles with it's a brown foreigner who does it compared to a local race-baiter?
quote:surely you must have heard about this 9/11 thing?
Of course, but to try him for his "'evil thoughts," would be wrong, isn't that what you said? To point out that he engaged in terrorism would "propagate tension" which is a bad thing, isn't that what you said? It's treating his actions as "different" rather than "for what they are," which is a horrible thing to do, isn't that what you said?
So at worst, he's guilty of aggravated vandalism with some secondary counts of involuntary manslaughter. Anything else would be unconstitutional, right? To dare to consider it terrorism would violate every single argument you put forward against hate crimes.
If it's no good against the local hooligan, why does it suddenly become legitimate against the foreigner?
quote:What's his message got to do with the punishment he should receive?
That's what makes it terrorism rather than just a bunch of isolated incidents.
And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as advocating terrorism. Why is it that if it's done by a brown foreigner, it suddenly becomes "terrorism" while if the local bigot does it, it's just an isolated incident that we shouldn't treat the same lest there be "tension" that makes us "see it as different" rather than "for what it is" or even worse, that we "seek to judge and condemn 'evil' thoughts"?
quote:Who the hell cares what his message was?
The people prosecuting him care. It's what lets them understand that what he did was an act of war, not just a bunch of isolated incidents.
quote:3000 people died here, surely that's enough to punish anyone many times over.
Yep. For aggravated vandalism with some counts of involuntary manslaughter thrown in. Anything else would just "propagate tension," making us "see it as different" rather than "for what it is," and any prosecution based on that would be to "seek to judge and condemn for 'evil' thoughts."
Why is it when a brown foreigner does it, it's terrorism but when a local hooligan does it, it's just an isolated incident?
quote:If he was a climate-change activist and his message was a warning to the biggest-polluting nation in the world would it have made anything any better?
No. That's why we prosecute the ELF for terrorism, too. You seem to think that the details of the message are the issue. Instead, the issue is that the act is being used as a message in the first place. It commits a crime against society using an individual as the proxy.
That's what makes it terrorism.
quote:You're falsely trying to associate hate-crimes with terrorism.
And I would say you're falsely trying to separate them. Hate crimes are terrorism by definition.
And that's why you keep getting tagged as advocating terrorism.
quote:As you can see, you don't have to try to instill terror in order to be accused of a hate crime.
Huh? I see the exact opposite: You have to try to instill terror in order to be accused of a hate crime. To commit crimes against a class of people through the use of a proxy is precisely terrorism. If you're a thug who happens to hate people of a certain race and you leap out at the next person around the corner in order to mug him, the fact that he's one of those that you hate isn't terrorism.
Can you show me a single case where this has happened? Where anybody has been charged with a hate crime simply because the victim happened to be of a particular class? Your other example fell apart upon examination. No charge was filed, no arrest, not even an investigation. Has anybody ever been convicted just because of the class of the victim?
quote:The difference is only one of perception.
So there's no such thing as terrorism and Khalid Sheikh Mohammad is only to be charged with aggravated vandalism with a few associated counts of involuntary manslaughter.
And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as advocating terrorism.
quote:The motive of the attack makes little difference on the victim.
Then why did we go to war over the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon?
quote:A rape victim feels the same regardless of whether they've been raped because they wore the 'wrong' clothes or because they were the 'wrong' race.
But a rape is directed at the individual, not the entire class of people like the victim.
quote:What is there to gain by calling it a 'hate-crime' other than alluding some extra significance to the race/religion/sexuality of the victim ?
It would be recognizing it "for what it is," which you seem to be so insistent about.
quote:'Terrorism' is a loaded and ambiguous term.
So is "murder." And yet, I don't see you challenging it.
quote:If by 'terrorism' you solely mean intending to instill fear in or influence a specific group/community then yes, it is.
That isn't what I asked. I asked you if you thought attacking someone as a proxy for everybody else in that class is terrorism.
quote:No. No crime should be punished for its motive.
And thus, we should do away with murder because what distinguishes it from manslaughter is motive.
When you start complaining about charges of murder, we'll start believing your complaints about charges of hate crime. The justifications and methods of prosecuting such are identical so if it's a crap argument for one, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy for the other?
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.
quote:Well let's see : there is an automatic life sentence for murder
Not in the United States. Second degree murder is for any term up to life. First degree murder is life minimum and possibly the death penalty (federal).
Individual states have their own laws. California, for example, has eight distinctions:
Plain second degree is 15 to life. Second degree using a firearm or a motor vehicle is 20 to life. If this is your second murder, it's 15 to life or possibly life without parole. Second degree murder of a police officer is 25 to life or possibly life without parole.
Plain first degree murder is 25 to life. If it's a hate crime or murder of an operator or driver, it's life without parole. If it's murder with special circumstances, it's life without parole or the death penalty.
Texas is different. Depending upon the type of murder, the sentence can be anywhere from two years to the death penalty.
Are you saying the US is in arrears in treating different types of murder differently?
quote:why do you think that a racist killer needs to punished more than, say, a contract killer?
I don't. I think a killer that seeks to attack an entire group through the proxy of an individual should be punished more than one who seeks to attack only the individual in question. The former is an attack on a greater number of people even if only a single person is killed while the latter is only an individual case.
By your logic, someone who kills two people should only be prosecuted for one since, given the UK's automatic life sentence for murder, there's no point in going overboard and prosecuting the person for all the crimes carried out. Isn't the one enough?
quote:if you find current sentencing inadequate and not deterrent enough then why aren't you campaigning for stricter sentencing rather than for introducing 'new' crimes.
Because terrorism isn't new nor is it the same as other crimes. Here in the US, we have a class of crimes that are referred to as violating the "RICO Act." It is for crimes that involve racketeering: RICO stands for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations. It recognizes that organized crime is different than simple crime. Stealing as an individual act of a single robber is different from stealing as part of an organized system of crime and thus has different prosecutorial standards and sentencing guidelines.
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.
P.C. 422.7 — Commission of a crime for the purpose of interfering with another’s exercise of civil rights. P.C. 594.3 — Vandalism of place of worship based on racial or religious bias. P.C. 11412 — Threats obstructing exercise of religion. P.C. 11413 — Use of destructive device or explosive or commission of arson in certain places.
Misdemeanors
P.C. 302 — Disorderly conduct during an assemblage of people gathered for religious worship at a tax-exempt place of worship. P.C. 422.6 — Use of force, threats or destruction of property to interfere with another’s exercise of civil rights. P.C. 422.9 — Violation of civil order (Bane Act) protecting the exercise of civil rights. P.C. 538(c) — Unauthorized insertion of advertisements in newspapers and redistribution to the public. P.C. 640.2 — Placing handbill, notice or advertisement on a consumer product or product package without authorization. P.C. 11411 — Terrorism of owner or occupant of real property. Placement or display of sign, symbol or other physical impression without authorization, engagement in pattern of conduct, or burning or desecration of religious symbols.
Enhancements
P.C. 190.2(a)(16) — Special circumstances imposing the Death Penalty or Life Without possibility of Parole if the victim was intentionally killed because of race, color, religion, nationality, country of origin. P.C. 190.3 — Special circumstances imposing Life Without possibility of Parole if the victim was intentionally killed because of sexual orientation, gender or disability. P.C. 422.75 — Penalty for felony committed because of victim’s race, color, religion, nationality, country of origin, ancestry, disability or sexual orientation shall be enhanced one, two or three years in prison, if the person acts alone; and 2, 3 or 4 years if the person commits the act with another.
It would help if we looked at what the laws actually say and not what we wish they would, California Penal Codes:
422.55. For purposes of this title, and for purposes of all other state law unless an explicit provision of law or the context clearly requires a different meaning, the following shall apply: (a) "Hate crime" means a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim: (1) Disability. (2) Gender. (3) Nationality. (4) Race or ethnicity. (5) Religion. (6) Sexual orientation. (7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics. (b) "Hate crime" includes, but is not limited to, a violation of Section 422.6.
quote:The law isn't suppose to punish motive, but hate crime laws do.
No, they don't. They punish intent, which all criminal laws do. Since you don't seem to complain about any other laws that punish in the same way, your protestations regarding hate crimes laws ring hollow.
Edited by Rrhain, : Wanted to give more details.
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.
quote:I've also pointed that out a dozen times or more on this thread to both Straggler and Rrhain. They just totally ignore it and move on as if it just doesn't invalidate a major part of their argument.
Incorrect. Instead, we point out that the laws punish intent, like all other laws do. The differenc between murder one and murder two is intent. The difference among murder and manslaughter and reckless endangerment is intent.
If you think that intent needs to be removed, then you are arguing that there is no such thing as murder.
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.
quote:Who's arguing that intent needs to be removed?
You. Hate crimes target intent. You're arguing that this is invalid. If it's bogus for hate crimes, then it's bogus for all other crimes that are based upon intent such as murder.
quote:On the contrary, I have been condemning the punishment of Motive, in addition to Intent, that hate-crime laws impose.
Hate crimes don't target motive. They target intent.
quote:Thank you for finally admitting it!
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? I have been the one arguing that point.
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.
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.
Have you forgotten our little discussion about what "mens rea" is and how you have confused it with motive?
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.
The exact same act, but the difference in crime is based solely on your thoughts. The legal definition of "intent" is "state of mind."
Rrhain writes:
Legend writes:
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.
Rrhain writes:
Legend writes:
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.
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.
Your own source even pionted it out to you, but you failed to recognize it:
Rrhain writes:
Legend writes:
Intent can only be inferred by one's actions. This from the free dictionary
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?
Rrhain writes:
Legend writes:
We should punish terrorists for what they've done, *not* for what they believe in.
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.
and this is most important: judging and condemning people based on the thinking or beliefs which caused them to attack.
Which is what we do in every other crime. It's called "mens rea" in the judicial Latin, and means "guilty mind." In English, we call it "intent" and the legal definition is "state of mind." We prove it by citing acts, since we cannot directly read your mind, but the acts are brought forth specifically to prove what you were thinking at the time. It's what allows us to separate murder one from muder two and allows us to have a finding of "not guilty by reason of insanity" (if you did it but didn't understand right and wrong at the time you did it, you are not responsible for it. You did not have the required "mens rea." Your thoughts were not in alignment with your actions.)
It's why coercion allows an exception: If you are being forced to commit an act, you are not culpable for it because your thoughts are not to commit the act. However, there is something else going on that forces you to go against your thoughts.
Proving the act took place at the hands of the defendant is required. But beyond that, you have to prove that the defendant's thoughts were in alignment. You must show mens rea or you don't have a case.
So why aren't you protesting prosecutions of murder one which are dependent upon proving a person's thoughts and punishing him more harshly for them?
Why is it that the prosecution seems to be under the impression that they have to prove a charge of a hate crime, that they don't get to just declare it? Why is it that they spend time in court bringing forth evidence that the perpetrator carried out the particular crime with a particular intent of terrorising people if all they have to do is say, "It is! It is!"? And why on earth would the judge allow such a diversion if the point of the trial is simply to show that the defendant did it?
I even quoted the LA county District Attorney's office:
P.C. 190.2(a)(16) — Special circumstances imposing the Death Penalty or Life Without possibility of Parole if the victim was intentionally killed because of race, color, religion, nationality, country of origin. P.C. 190.3 — Special circumstances imposing Life Without possibility of Parole if the victim was intentionally killed because of sexual orientation, gender or disability.
And then pointed this out:
No, they don't. They punish intent, which all criminal laws do. Since you don't seem to complain about any other laws that punish in the same way, your protestations regarding hate crimes laws ring hollow.
For crying out out, Legend, in the very message to which you responded, I said nothing but "intent":
Incorrect. Instead, we point out that the laws punish intent, like all other laws do. The differenc between murder one and murder two is intent. The difference among murder and manslaughter and reckless endangerment is intent.
If you think that intent needs to be removed, then you are arguing that there is no such thing as murder.
Come on, Legend. Don't make me repost the entire thread.
quote:So far you've been implying that Motive is being punished as standard.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? Where have I talked about motive? I have, but this time, it's going to be your homework to find out what I said and then provide the full and complete context about it (hint: Manslaughter and murder).
quote:Now please tell me: What causes a crime to be tagged as a 'hate'-crime? Is it the Intent or is it the Motive?
Intent. You did read the quotation of the California Penal Code I provided for you, yes?
quote:To make it easier for you (as you seem to get easily confused) here's a definition and example of Intent and Motive
Here we go again. The merry-go-round spins another time. Since you come up with nothing new, you get the same answer you did before:
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:If Amy threw snowballs at Billy because Billy was the wrong race/gender/etc that would be classed as a hate-crime.
Of course not, and stop playing dumb like this hasn't been covered already. We have to prove intent. Just like every crime. The fact that you keep complaining about it means you are advocating terrorism and your logic requires that we get rid of reckless endangerment, manslaughter, and murder laws as well as the various degrees of same and lump it all into "killing."
quote:Is it because of Amy's *Intent* or is it because of Amy's *Motive* ?
Intent. Just like every crime. The fact that you keep complaining about it means you are advocating terrorism and your logic requires that we get rid of reckless endangerment, manslaughter, and murder laws as well as the various degrees of same and lump it all into "killing."
Hate crimes are based upon intent.
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.
quote:Once more: SHOW ME how this implies advocating terrorism.
By denigrating terroristic acts as something less than what they are, completely removing from the jurisprudence the ability to punish terrorism, you advocate terrorism. The only think Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be charged with is aggravated vandalism and some secondary counts of involuntary manslaughter. To call it what it is would mean that we'd have to supply intent, which you claim is some sort of "thoughtcrime."
quote:Once more: SHOW ME how this implies advocating terrorism.
By denying justice to the victims out of some desire to coddle those who would commit terrorism, you advocate for terrorism. Since when do we look to the precious feelings of those who would deny justice to others for our opinions about what justice is?
quote:Once more: SHOW ME how this implies advocating terrorism.
By pretending that acts of terrorism are "thought crimes" and advocating that laws against such acts be removed from our jurisprudece, you advocate terrorism. The only think Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be charged with is aggravated vandalism and some secondary counts of involuntary manslaughter. To call it what it is would mean that we'd have to supply intent, which you claim is some sort of "thoughtcrime."
quote:So, because I claim that hate-crime laws detract from the severity of the crime, increase racial tensions and condemn "evil" thoughts........you've concluded that I'm advocating terrorism ??!?
Yes.
Hate crimes are acts of terrorism. To treat them as something less than that, to deny the reality of what they are, to advocate for the removal of laws to prosecute such acts, you advocate terrorism.
quote:Have you heard of Propositional and Predicate Logic Well, you've just raped them both. Both ways. And then took a dump on their broken bodies as they lied motionless on the floor.
Sweetie, honey, baby, pussycat, you can try to lecture me on logic, but try to remember that I am a degreed mathematician. I have forgotten more than you know.
Now that we have the pissing match out of the way, can we get back to the topic at hand?
quote:You keep bringing up this red herring
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Oh, that's precious. The fundamental subject of the thread is a "red herring." That's rich.
Hate crime is terrorism. To deny this is to advocate for terrorism.
quote:despite my showing you that intent to terrorise is not necessary for a crime to be classes as a 'hate'-crime.
You have done no such thing. No case has been presented of a single person being even arrested let alone charged and tried of a hate crime due to "thoughts." The only example you have shown is that of a woman who got a letter. No arrest, no charges, nothing else. Just a letter.
The act of committing a crime against a person as a proxy for the rest of the group to which the victim belongs is the very definition of terrorism.
You, on the other hand, seem to think that no matter much we can show this, we should only treat it as an isolated, individual act that has no connection to anything else, even if the perpetrator is screaming it in the courtroom.
quote:All it takes is a racially/etc aggravated motive.
Incorrect. What it takes is proof of intent. Merely disliking the victim is insufficient to prove a hate crime. It must be shown that the intent was beyond the specific individual.
Which makes it terrorism.
quote:If you have a nightclub fight with someone and you call them a paki/black/etc bitch instead of just a 'bitch', hey presto, you're charged with a 'hate-crime'.
No, you're not. Do you have any evidence that this is the case? You seem to be of the opinion that if there is ever anybody anywhere who is ever mistakenly charged with a crime, then that is sufficient to throw the entire jurisprudence out in order to ensure that such a mistake never happens again.
quote:Oh, but I forget, you assume that this is a proxy attack on the whole community
Incorrect. We must prove it in a court of law by presenting physical evidence of intent.
Just like every other crime.
quote:Because you can naturally read the perpetrator's thoughts.
On the contrary. It is precisely because we cannot read the perpetrator's thoughts that we must provide evidence of mens rea, just like every other crime. It is not enough to simply show actus reus. That a person engaged in a series of actions does not mean a crime has taken place. If it were, we'd be unable to dismiss charges based upon self defense, insanity, accident, or coercion.
You did read the relevant California law as to what constitutes a hate crime, yes?
quote:But, hey, no you're not supporting Thought Control at all now, are you?
Nope. Instead, we are treating hate crime just like every other crime by showing intent. Your desire to remove intent means there is no such thing as murder.
quote:SHOW ME where I've "disimissed attempts to prosecute the people who commit them"!
Do you or do you not find hate crimes to be "thoughtcrime" and thus should be discarded? If so, then you dismiss attempts to prosecute the people who commit them.
Hate crime is terrorism, but you don't want to let us prosecute them for it. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is only guilty of aggravated vandalism with some secondary counts of involuntary manslaughter. Anything else requires us to "read his mind," by your logic, and thus we have no reason to charge him with murder.
quote:On the contrary, I've fully supported punishing people for what they've done. Instead of why they've done it !
But the difference between murder and manslaughter is precisely "why they've done it."
You're engaging in special pleading. You won't find that in your little link about predicate logic, though.
quote:You can call it what you like! That's the rub: calling it something else DOESN'T BENEFIT ANYONE.
Huh? If we can call it what we like, why are you so upset over what it's called? Do you really think people are stupid enough not to realize what the actual point of the charge is?
quote:What's important is the ACT they've committed.
Indeed. And the act is terrorism, but you want to deny us the ability to prosecute it. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is only guilty of aggravated vandalism with some secondary counts of involuntary manslaughter. Anything else requires us to "read his mind," by your logic, and thus we have no reason to charge him with murder.
quote:Calling it this or that won't undo the act, won't make the victims feel better and won't deter the perpetrators.
I repeat my original argument: So your entire argument is semantic? If we called it "domestic terrorism," you'd be OK with it? As I said before, I feel like I'm in a Brian Regan monologue:
quote:Oh, but I forget: it will make people like you able to sleep better at night, knowing that you've done your bit to fight bigotry.
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Oh, that's just precious. Gotta get it in first so that you can throw the discussion off the rails in the hopes that the person you fling your feces at gets defensive.
Right...the reason we're prosecuting terrorism has nothing to do with the people who are attacked. It has to do with "liberal white guilt," right?
What a racist thing to say.
Now that we've exchanged the stupid remarks, can we get back to the issue at hand?
quote:No. Read again. I said that punishing people extra for 'hate'-crimes increases racial tensions.
Which is what leads to hate crimes. Thus, punishing people for terrorism causes terrorism. Can't hurt the precious feelings of the bigots lest they decide to act upon their bigotry, as if we're supposed to look to the people who would deny justice to others for our guidelines about how to mete out justice.
quote:Because it gives the impression that one race's life is valued more than another race's life.
Huh? All races are protected. 20% of all hate crimes that were based upon race were perpetrated against white people (that was from your source...you did read it before you posted, yes?)
How does a law that protects all races "value [one] more than another"? You will notice that the laws don't say "black," they say "race." They don't say "gays," they say "sexual orientation." They don't say "Jews," they say, "religion."
You seem to be upset that a law that protects everybody tends to get used more often to protect some people as if that makes it a bad law rather than precisely what is needed.
Compare this to the laws against rape in this country. Up until recently, it was legally impossible for a man to be raped in California. The very laws used to protect people literally did not protect an entire class because rape was defined in terms of a female. A male could be the victim of sexual assault, but not rape.
The law has since been changed to remove references to females or males and thus, we now can prosecute people for raping a man.
quote:Just like any other measure ever invented that appeared to treat people differently depending on their race/gender/etc.
Huh? How does a law that specifically and deliberately treats people the same treat them differently?
quote:Surely, even you can understand that "increases racial tensions" is not the same as "causes terrorism" !
Why do you think these acts of terrorism are carried out in the first place?
Edited by Rrhain, : correct my stat.
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.
quote:*I am* the one who's advocating that whoever murders shoud get done for murder, regardless of their race, gender or beliefs, remember?
But to show that it's murder, we have to "read the mind" of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, something you say that needs to be kept out of the courtroom. Without being able to prove intent, we cannot prove murder. Without being able to prove murder, the only thing we get to charge him with is aggravated vandalism with some counts of involuntary manslaughter attached.
You are upset when the exact same process is applied to acts of domestic terrorism that is applied to acts of foreign terrorism.
Special pleading.
quote:err...let me think.......NO.....*I'm* the one who suggested trying him on 3000 counts of first-degree murder, remember?
But the only way to do that is to try him for his "evil thoughts." That's what makes it murder, not manslaughter.
You don't get to have it both ways. If it is legitimate to make this distinction for other crimes, why does it suddenly become illegitimate for this set of crimes?
If you agree with the legal distinction between murder and manslaughter being based upon your thoughts (called "mens rea" or "guilty mind," which your own source has told you is the case), then why are you so upset about the difference between simple assault and terrorism being based upon the same distinction?
Special pleading.
quote:NO they aren't!
Yes, they are. We can spin this merry-go-round again, if you wish, but I do believe that this is the fundamental issue. You don't see these crimes as significant and I do.
quote:I've already shown you the official definition of a hate-crime and it says nothing of the sort. What's the matter, can't you read?
Indeed, I can. And your reference is a press release, not the actual penal code. I, on the other hand, quoted the actual California penal code to you. Are you having trouble reading?
You seem to be of the opinion that because the word "terrorism" isn't being used, that somehow means it isn't actually terrorism. Let's look at your source, shall we? You did read your source before you responded, didn't you?
Why do we need to act on hate crime?
Hate crime is different to other forms of crime:
hate crime targets people because of their identity. It is a form of discrimination that infringes human rights and keeps people from enjoying the full benefits of our society
research has shown that hate crimes cause greater psychological harm than similar crimes without a motivation of prejudice
hate crime creates fear in victims, groups and communities and encourages communities to turn on each other
How hate crime affects people
The effects of hate crime vary, but often include:
anger and fear of repeat attacks
depression and a worsening of existing health conditions, including mental health issues
a financial burden, for example, having to replace and repair vandalised property, or having to take time off work
victims changing their personal appearance, accommodation and, or daily patterns to avoid being victimised
Sounds like textbook terrorism to me.
And let's look at the specific penal codes in question. From the "Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006":
(1) A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.
Hmmm...there's that word "intend." Something you want to get rid of because it requires we "read the mind" of the perpetrator. We can do on with the other sections, but they all read the same way: publishing or distributing written material; public performance of a play; distributing, showing, or playing a recording; broadcasting or including programme in programme service; possession of inflammatory material "if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred."
There's that word "intend" again. Ah, but to prosecute people for their "intent" means we have to "read their minds," and thus we can't actually prosecute anybody for this since it's "thoughtcrime."
quote:And that's why you're shown up LYING. FABRICATING STUFF. MAKING THINGS UP.
I quote your own words back to you and I'm "lying"? "Fabricating stuff"? "Making things up?"
Did you or did you not say:
beating someone to death should be condemned for what it is, not be seen as different just because the victim happens to belong to a certain ethnic or sexual group.
Did you or did you not say:
they indirectly propagate racism and increase racial tensions.
Did you or did you not say:
and most importantly: hate-crimes are thought crimes in that they seek to judge and condemn "evil" thoughts instead of just evil actions.
If you can't remember your own words, then we're going to have a very difficult time discussing them.
quote:Unfortunately for you that's not what the law sees.
Do you ever bother to read your sources before you link to them? Why is it that I am always the one that quotes from these things?
A hate crime, also known as a bias crime, is a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin.
Note: The target is motivated because of the identification with a group. In other words, the target is merely a proxy for attacking the group.
That's terrorism.
quote:All the law sees is someone commiting a crime against X because he hates X .
Incorrect. Did you actually read your source before you linked to it? "Bias against race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin." X committing a crime against Y isn't a hate crime simply because X hates Y. It's a hate crime if it goes beyond the individual and extends to the entire class of people Y belongs to. Y is merely a proxy for the entire group.
That's terrorism.
quote:Indeed it isn't terrorism. But guess what? The thug WILL be charged with a hate-crime.
No, he won't. You have yet to present a single case of anybody anywhere being charged with a hate crime simply because of the class distinction of the victim.
quote:Because the police will prosecute as hate-crime "any incident which is perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated by prejudice or hate" (Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO)
Do you bother to read your sources before you link to them? There is no mention of prosecution anywhere. Instead, your source is defining what a "hate incident" is (which isn't a crime) and what a "hate crime" is (which is). The entire document is to help people report incidents so that the appropriate investigations can take place and possibly take the correct legal action. For crying out loud, the title of the document you linked to is "Reporting hate incidents in Sutton."
When did "reporting" become a synonym for "prosecute"?
The kicker, showing that you didn't actually read your source (my guess is you trolled various websites looking for something, anything, to justify your claim...how very creationist of you):
If you report an incident we will record it only for statistical reasons within the council’s hate incident database. If you want help to take action, a council officer will contact you within 10 working days to find out more. We will not give personal details about you to anyone, including the police or any other organisation, without asking you first. Where legal action is taken as a result of the incident you may be asked to give evidence in court, tribunal or inquest.
Did you bother to read this document all the way through?
Why is it I'm the one who always has to quote these damned things?
quote:So yes, you don't know what you're talking about: the thug WILL get done for hate-crime even if the attack is totally random.
Except your own sources deny that. To quote you, "Get your facts straight before talking shit."
quote:
quote:Can you show me a single case where this has happened? Where anybody has been charged with a hate crime simply because the victim happened to be of a particular class?
I already have.
First, this isn't the example you gave. Do you really think we're not paying attention? Do you really think we're that stupid? I mean, I don't blame you for trying to pull a bait-and-switch. After all, you were asked to provide an example of somebody charged with a hate crime simply because the victim happened to be of a particular class. Instead, you provided an example of someone getting a letter. While I certainly agree that the letter was completely inappropriate, no crime was charged, no prosecution was made.
Second, in this new case, you still seem to suffer from the problem of not reading your own sources. She was not charged simply because the victim happened to be of a particular class. Instead, the entire case hinges upon the specific statements made by Cheryl Tweedy. As the judge directly stated:
Judge Haworth said the crucial element was whether Miss Tweedy had called Mrs Amogbokpa a "black bitch".
He said: "The word black is essential to the case - bitch is not enough."
Do you bother reading these things first? If they can't prove Tweedy's intent, then there is no crime. As you can see, if you had only bothered to read your own source:
Miss Tweedy denies racially aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm and an alternative charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
In other words, if the jury finds that Tweedy did assault Amogbokpa but did not have the intent of a racial bias, then she isn't guilty of a hate crime. Instead, it's just plain assault.
And, as the article points out (and you did read the article, didn't you?) Tweedy is claiming self-defense. That means she's not guilty of anything:
Judge Richard Haworth told the jury:
...
"The issue is has the prosecution proved that what Cheryl did was unlawful?
"If you think that Cheryl was or may have been acting in lawful self defence, she is entitled to be found not guilty."
Why is it that I'm always quoting people's sources back to them?
quote:I can't believe you even said that! Are you serious? An elderly woman was reprimanded by the council, investigated by the police (can't you read?)
Yes, I can. Do you know the difference between a "hate incident" and a "hate crime"? You did read your own source, yes? A hate "incident" isn't a crime. Thus no charges, no prosecutions.
quote:and had her name mentioned on national news alongside murderers just because she expressed an opinion
Huh? Where in your source do you find any mention of killing of any stripe, let alone murder?
quote:and you claim that nothing happened ?!?
No, what I claim was that she wasn't arrested, wasn't charged, wasn't prosecuted. You were asked to provide an example of somebody charged with a hate crime simply because the victim happened to be of a particular class.
So far, you haven't done so.
Now, I certainly agree that poor applications of the law need to be addressed, but you're advocating the complete disassembly of the law which is something else entirely. You're saying that if anybody anywhere is ever mistakenly charged with a crime, then the law for that crime needs to be completely abandoned.
And thus, we need to do away with criminal charges of murder because people get wrongfully accused of murder, "having their names mentioned on national news as an actual murderer," and we can't have that, now can we?
quote:You think that this is an example that......"falls apart upon examination" ?!
Yep. You were asked to provide an example of somebody charged with a hate crime simply because the victim happened to be of a particular class.
So far, you haven't done so.
quote:I've already shown the letter of the law which clearly says nothing about intent to terrorise or intimidate as necessary to class a crime as a hate-crime.
Incorrect. Your sources actually say the exact opposite. Let's not play dumb and pretend that because the word "terrorize" isn't used, that means the law isn't about terrorism. Your own sources description of why hate crime needs to be acted upon and how it affects people is a classic description of terrorism.
quote:What's the matter? Don't you believe the links I provided?
No, I do.
It's just that they literally do not say what you claim they do. Rather, they say the exact opposite of what you claim.
quote:Do you think I faked government web-sites and then pointed you to them?
No, I think you didn't read them for yourself. I think you trolled around looking for something, anything, that would justify your claims and linked to it before reading it.
quote:Or is it that you just refuse to read anything that destroys your point?
(*chuckle*)
I'm the one quoting your source to you and I'm the one who didn't read it. That's cute.
quote:Whatever it is, the *FACT* remains: All it takes to classify a hate-crime as such is a racially/gender/etc-based Motive, as perceived by the victim or anyone else!
Incorrect. That's what it takes to get it investigated as a possible hate crime. It still needs to go through the jury process where evidence is presented to prove the intent of the perpetrator and the jury needs to examine that evidence to come to a conclusion. If they find that the case hasn't been proven, then there is no hate crime. Some other crime, possibly, but not a hate crime.
Your own source showed that to be the case. If we can't show that Tweedy was attacked based upon race, then there is no hate crime. And heck, it's possible that Tweedy didn't even commit any kind of crime at all and it was just self-defense.
Ooh! But that's reading Tweedy's mind and we can't have that, now can we? The defense of "self-defense" requires the showing that the defendant reasonably believed that his or her person were in danger and that the response taken was reasonable to the perceived threat:
"The defendant acted in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another) if: [1] The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/ [or] ) was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury [or was in imminent danger of being (raped/maimed/robbed/ )]; [2] The defendant reasonably believed that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend against that danger; AND [3] The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger."
--Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction 505 Justifiable Homicide: Self-Defense or Defense of Another
"The defendant acted in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another) if: [1] The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/ [or] ) was in imminent danger of suffering bodily injury [or was in imminent danger of being touched unlawfully]; [2] The defendant reasonably believed that the immediate use of force was necessary to defend against that danger; AND [3] The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger."
--Judicial Council Of California Criminal Jury Instruction 3470 Right to Self-Defense or Defense of Another (Non-Homicide)
So do you think that self-defense a justifiable affirmative defense? It requires that we show what the defendant was thinking. It's all about your throughts.
quote:Now this normally would be the point where a courteous and honest person would admit the under-handedness of their approach,apologise and move on with the debate.
Indeed. And I await your apology.
But I won't hold my breath.
quote:My point is already made and proven.
Indeed. You can't even read your own sources.
Edited by Rrhain, : No reason given.
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.
quote:I think you're wrong that they punish intent.
So far, all legal precedence disagrees with you. These laws have been on the books for decades and plenty of people have tried to claim they are invalid for punishing something other than intent. No court has agreed.
quote:wiki on motive
Wikipedia? Didn't we already have this discussion? Let's take a look at your source:
"Intent" in criminal law is synonymous with mens rea, which means no more than the specific mental purpose to perform a deed that is forbidden by a criminal statute, or the reckless disregard of whether the law will be violated.[citation needed] "Motive" describes instead the reasons in the accused's background and station in life that are supposed to have induced the crime.
Now, to my point: That little "citation needed" is significant. You may wish to go beyond Wikipedia and take a look at more original sources.
But to your point, your own sources proves my claim: These laws punish intent: Specific mental purpose to perform a deed that is forbidden by criminal statute. The deed is the terroristic act of attacking an individual as a proxy for a group.
quote:Hating somebody would be a motive for a crime, not the intent.
But the law doesn't punish "hating somebody." It punishes the criminal assault with intent to terrorize.
quote:wiki on the relevance of motive to mens rea
Wikipedia again? (*sigh*)
But let's go with your source. Did you read it:
If motive has any relevance, this may be addressed in the sentencing part of the trial, when the court considers what punishment, if any, is appropriate.[citation needed]
There's that "citation needed" again, but since you seem to trust it, I'll go with it. Hmm..."sentencing." Hate crimes statutes go to sentencing. After all, you're not being punished for your thoughts but for your actions. You have to commit a crime. But if the intent of the crime is terrorism, then the sentence is enhanced.
quote:They're up-front with hate crimes being them because of the motive.
You're quoting from the press release, not the statute. You do understand the difference, yes?
The statute doesn't mention motive:
422.55. For purposes of this title, and for purposes of all other state law unless an explicit provision of law or the context clearly requires a different meaning, the following shall apply: (a) "Hate crime" means a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim: (1) Disability. (2) Gender. (3) Nationality. (4) Race or ethnicity. (5) Religion. (6) Sexual orientation. (7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics. (b) "Hate crime" includes, but is not limited to, a violation of Section 422.6.
...
422.6. (a) No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States in whole or in part because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in subdivision (a) of Section 422.55. (b) No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall knowingly deface, damage, or destroy the real or personal property of any other person for the purpose of intimidating or interfering with the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to the other person by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States, in whole or in part because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in subdivision (a) of Section 422.55. (c) Any person convicted of violating subdivision (a) or (b) shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by both the above imprisonment and fine, and the court shall order the defendant to perform a minimum of community service, not to exceed 400 hours, to be performed over a period not to exceed 350 days, during a time other than his or her hours of employment or school attendance. However, no person may be convicted of violating subdivision (a) based upon speech alone, except upon a showing that the speech itself threatened violence against a specific person or group of persons and that the defendant had the apparent ability to carry out the threat. (d) Conduct that violates this and any other provision of law, including, but not limited to, an offense described in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11410) of Chapter 3 of Title 1 of Part 4, may be charged under all applicable provisions. However, an act or omission punishable in different ways by this section and other provisions of law shall not be punished under more than one provision, and the penalty to be imposed shall be determined as set forth in Section 654.
So do we trust the actual legal definition when trying to determine what the law says or do we trust a popularization that is designed to be understandable by a layman?
If you truly live up to that "scientist" part, would you reference a popular press item such as a newspaper article/book or would you rather go to the original source?
Why am I the only one who quotes the actual law?
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
™ Version 4.2
