Hate-crime = Thought crime?

Very astute observation, Onifre. That's the unfortunate, unintended consequence of trying to right a past wrong by wronging others in the process.It's almost like the people who push for political correctness aren't actually seeking equality but are seeking to punish one group for past sins, sins they were never themselves involved with. Sins of the father, kinda thing.There's no doubt that sins have been committed against various groups of people for really ridiculous reasons. There is no doubt that "equality" in the past was at best hypocritical, and at worst criminal.But going an extra step by giving certain groups extra status as compensation for past wrongs doesn't work. It only reinforces superficial differences instead of trying erase differences altogether.I think you would agree that they only have the best of intentions in mind, but that they are going about it with backassward logic.

---

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

To each his own. If you are calling the authenticity in to question, it is going to have to be more concrete than a hunch. Secondly, it dealt with most of the concepts I questioned: Double-Jeopardy, Equal Protection, it mentioned the law already covers murder, it mentioned that by the nature of some crimes victims not protected (like the elderly) are targeted specifically yet not protected, etc.

---

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

Precisely... Intent and motive are not the same. Intent and motive are commonly confused but they are distinct principles and differentiated in the law. Motive is the cause or reason that prompts a person to act or fail to act. Intent refers only to the state of mind with which the act is done or omitted. Because intent is a state of mind it can rarely be proved with direct evidence and ordinarily must be inferred from the facts of the case. Evidence of intent is always admissible to prove a specific-intent crime but evidence of motive is only admissible if it tends to help prove or negate the element of intent." - Findlaw.comTherefore people are being charged more severely on the basis of something that is protected under freedom of though/speech with something that has always been a crime. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

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

No one is suggesting that we like hate-crimes or agree with their premise. The bottom line is that the crime of assault/murder is crime regardless of the motive. So in essence people who commit hate-crimes are being charged once for the crime they committed and being punished doubly for their belief system.Secondly, this bill, just like all of its predecessors, has not and will not deter anything. For one thing, members of race-identity groups do not feel they are doing anything wrong. You and I obviously disagree with them.My central issue is that this threatens the 1st and 14th Amendments, respectively, is therfore not Constitutional.Why should the motive or pretense of "hate" trump an equally tragic motive of murder for robbery? How does that constitute equal protection when murder is murder? It doesn't add up, and glibly saying "that's how we roll," only defecates on the Constitution.

---

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

Yes, words and their definitions matter. That's how we effectively communicate with one another. It matters so much that you and I would not be able to understand each other without it.The issue is that motive and intent are not the same thing. They have similar characteristics, but they are legally and definitionally separate. The intent you are referring to is "motive," which is separate from the legal definition of intent (see pg. 9).Let me ask you something. If a thief targets old people because of their physical frailties or perceived inability to defend themselves, would that be classified as a "hate crime?" You likely would say no because the thief does not have ill-feelings for the elderly, he only sees them as victims of opportunity.What you can't see is that those in favor of hate-crime laws are basing such laws only on motive in relation to their being socially taboo.Clearly then people are being charged twice, once for their involvement in an actual crime (assault, murder, etc) and the other for how they felt about their victim on a personal level, which is totally and completely irrelevant. Sure, but is it worse to hate someone for the color of their bandana (gang affiliation) versus hating them for their skin color? Dead id dead. Murder is murder. Assault is assualt, and everyone should receive equal protection under the law from such an affront. What this inherently, yet unintentionally does, is place a higher value for members under a specious guise of special protection. Courts don't deal with social issues, they deal with laws. It is not their place to arbitrate between what is socially acceptable and what is socially taboo. They are there to determine whether or not a crime has been committed. The kind that punishes people for their beliefs in conjunction with their actions.

---

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

In law enforcement it is referred to as a hate crime, of which I have no problem with. Establishing motives helps narrow down suspects and helps protect individuals from future crimes.What I take exception to is federalizing a crime that gives a higher emphasis or a stricter sentence based solely on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Those are based on feelings in tandem with actions. Aside from which motives are examined already in a court room, so there is no need for special legislation.The danger, again, is if such a precedence like this is law, it leaves open the possibility to limit the freedom of speech and of thought.

---

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

It's so simple a concept that at this point they must either be admitting their bias or they're just being trolls.

---

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

A robbery gone wrong would be murder II which is decidedly different from murder I. That in itself makes it different. You aren't understanding. You prosecute based on their actions and based upon the preponderance of evidence pointing to their deliberation in committing a crime. Anything less makes it illegal, or at least grossly unfavorable, to be a Muslim.We can't make it worse to prosecute people for murder simply because of religious conviction. You prosecute because their religious conviction does not give them a legal mandate to murder. Once again the people of this forum confuse "intent" with "motive." Please go look it up. Nonsense. Law enforcement do use the term hate-crime for statistical analysis and for uncovering motive (which helps point to the offender). What these hate-crime bills do does not even involve law enforcement. These hate-crime bills facilitate prosecution in a court of law.Besides, this bill is intended to prevent hate-crime, hence the name of the bill. It won't prevent anything, because murder has always been illegal and people still commit it! Why not go ahead and go a step further like Germany did to rectify the sins of their past? Why not make it a capital offense to draw a swastika in class and send that kid to jail? Cut it off where it grows before it can balloon out of control.Or if you wouldn't do that, tell me why not.Here's the bottom line: Motives can be examined in court. The danger with federalizing laws such as these is how loose interpretation can be thus jeopardizing free speech.If patron A enters a bar and gets in fight with patron B, patron A can falsely claim that patron B yelled racial epithets during the fight.Yelling racial epithets is not a crime, but assault is. Why then is the charge worse if he does something that is not illegal, just socially taboo?This fear is not unsubstantiated. Legend already provided articles where a woman faces a hate-crime for petitioning against gay pride parades. For petitioning!?!?! What kind of 1984 shit is that?

---

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

I understand your point, but there is a fundamental misunderstanding. It is not really a thought crime since they were taking actions (drawing blueprints, purchasing fertilizer and diesel, making threatening speech which is not covered under free speech, etc). That is based upon the categorically different intent versus motive. The only thing that has ever been effective is the increasing popularity of individual rights, and that is is good thing! Legislation doesn't do anything. It's just blustering and campaign promises. That is your reason? How about the freedom of expression? Comparing what is worse doesn't nullify that petitioning is supposed to be protected speech. She's afforded that right to petition, just as homosexuals of all stripes are afforded the right to petition the right to march. It's not about being offensive, it's about what is Constitutional. All people should have equal protection under the law.

---

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

I did know that actually. I was being sarcastic to prove a point. I don't actually want anything of the sort.

---

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

The problem is its special stature and irrelevancy. Which is what I've been arguing since the beginning of the thread.

quote:

---

The danger, again, is if such a precedence like this is law, it leaves open the possibility to limit the freedom of speech and of thought.
  —hyro

---

Arguing the seriousness is a little ridiculous don't you think, being that murder is pretty fucking serious all on its own. The point is: Is it more serious to murder for money as the motive, for revenge as the motive, for hatred of another race as the motive, or for the thrill of the kill?Giving harsher sentences for murder based on the motive of racial hatred only mocks the families of those killed in a liquor store homicide. Why can't murder in the 1st be prosecuted on the basis of it being murder in the 1st all the time regardless of the motive? Is a convenience store assault less intimidating to owners and employees of said convenience stores? Everyone should experience equal protection under the law.If somebody says that they hate Jews, that likely will intimidate some Jews I'm sure. But that is not a crime, unless of course that individual makes a direct threat. Yes, to some degree you are right. There is no such thing as a true thought crime since we have not the technical ability to read minds at this point, if we are going to use Orwellian meanings as our basis for defining "thought crimes." Calling it a thought crime is just a metaphor, if you will, for punishing people for their beliefs.

---

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

Brilliant and elegant.

---

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

quote:

---

Why can't murder in the 1st be prosecuted on the basis of it being murder in the 1st all the time regardless of the motive?
  —hyro

---

I'm asking why not just petition for stricter penalties for murder in the first degree regardless of motive versus only stricter penalties if the motive of that murder in the first degree was done under pretense of bias?What does it have to devalue one life in order to lift another one up? Invariably that is what is happening, which is not in accordance with the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. If it means that someone will never be eligible for parole, then I don't see it being ineffectual. Agreed, which is why it needs to be reviewed in court and not federally mandated which so easily can be manipulated. The danger is not necessarily from the president who passes the law. For instance, Obama has many provisions on it in an attempt to protect speech, but there is no accounting for what kind of manipulation comes down the line as we have seen in England. They both could have killed with the intent of malice aforethought, so as to not leave a living witness. That's why we have degrees of murder and manslaughter (1, 2, 3). They are levels determining the intent (not motive) of the criminal. Can it be established by their actions beyond reasonable doubt that the assailant methodically planned to murder in advance of the crime?That is the question you are asking, but the answer has to do with intent and not motive. Planning to kill someone is intent. The reason why you want to kill them is the motive.This is why legal definitions are important and why I am harping on it. Thus far everyone who gives a reason why this bill is good is smuggling in intent through the back door and substituting it with motive. One has nothing to do with the other from a legal perspective.If someone went out targeting old people because of their perceived inability to fight back, and planned in advance to kill them every time so as to not leave a living witness to testify against the culprit, would we pass a special law protecting the elderly?No. But why? Because the elderly are already protected by the law. It's always illegal to commit murder and always has been. It's the same for those in this new protected status. It is illegal to murder them because murder, by definition, is illegal!That clearly being the case, what this really is about is showing solidarity to a community who has received past injustices -- so that society is now sure to pay for the past transgressions of our forefathers. It's an attempt to make political correctness a law by proxy, which completely undermines the premise of free speech.No one can reasonably argue that there are not good and noble intentions behind the law. I want exactly what you want, which is for all people regardless of race, gender, age, sexual orientation, etc to be safe from harm. But they are already protected.What we stand to lose through such a bill is far more costly, since nothing can actually be gained by it. What we all stand to lose incrementally is a little more freedom, a little more freedom, and a little more freedom, until one day we wake up finding that we have traded liberty for political correctness.Not on my watch, good sir. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

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

quote:

---

No it doesn't. It makes criminal acts with a wider intent more serious. How are the intent based laws under discussion in principle different from convicting someone who has committed arson with the intent to defraud an insurance company of arson with intent to defraud?

---

It is still the same, as you're describing motive. The intent is to commit arson, the motive is the reason why they want to do it. So you are right back to where we left off.Again, this is why there are levels of crime. That measures intent, not motive. So if you commit arson with the motive of defrauding for insurance versus, say, committing arson with the motive of killing someone inside the building is going to vary.

quote:

---

The problem is its special stature and irrelevancy.

---

It gives a higher precedence based on a protected class. Why should one murder victim be treated differently as another one? This is the same principle as affirmative action. While everyone realizes it is trying to level the playing field and even the keel, so to speak, it inherently does the very thing it is designed to eliminate -- bias or special privilege based on something like race or gender.

quote:

---

Which is what I've been arguing since the beginning of the thread.

---

We can all play nice, sure, but there seems to still be a fundamental misunderstanding between intent and motive, and it ain't on my end. Exactly, so no need to invent new laws which make things only really bad (versus just bad) based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. As I said to Nuggin, everyone is already protected against murder or assault. Everyone. What sense is there to make it worse to assault someone over their culture versus assaulting someone over robbery? That makes no sense to me. Embedded in the link above.

quote:

---

If somebody says that they hate Jews, that likely will intimidate some Jews I'm sure.

---

Right, which is irrelevant to the action. If someone punches you for being Jewish or someone punches you because they like to bully people, the action is still the same. It's still a crime, regardless.Someone is going to be intimidated regardless, no? I already explained that there is no such thing as a true "thought crime" in the Orwellian sense. I just mean that people are being punished for their beliefs that are by and large socially taboo. But those feelings are covered by free speech, so it is bullshit. That is as close to a thought crime as humanly possible. Which is already a crime... Do you understand that? It is already a crime because it violates Clear and Present Danger. Speech is protected up and until the point where you make threats. Whether those threats are because they're gay or whether those threats are made because they just don't like you, it's still the same.So, again, hate-crime laws only serve to sacrifice lambs on the alter of political correctness. It's just a weak attempt for politicians to show solidarity to a community. No, there seems to be something fundamental and critical in how you are viewing this. It's like you have blinders on.Hate-crime laws to be extraneous and redundant. They only punish others for their beliefs. How do we know?Murder is always illegal. Always, regardless of motive (your version of intent, which is totally different than legal intent). You say it is good because when someone is assaulted because of their race, the intent (which is really their motive) is to strike fear in the wider community of that race.Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. It doesn't really matter as far as prosecution of a crime is concerned. The Unibomber specifically targeted people working in some capacity technological field. He thought technology and the industrial world was going to ruin society. He saw it his mission to kill those in defense of society. Sounds similar to racists, no?Should we have therefore passed a special resolution to give extra punishment for people that target those in the technology industry? No. Why? Because it is illegal to fucking blow people up already! Passing a bill for the protection of people in the technology industry is absurd. And that is tantamount to what these hate-crime bills do.Law enforcement monitoring hate-groups serves to prevent others from being killed. I'm all for that. But they aren't being charged for their beliefs, rather their motives only place them on the radar of law enforcement. Their intent to kill is all that matters.I'll give you another example. Let us say we have a serial killer in our midst. He targets only females between the age of 14-19. This obviously strikes fear and intimidation in the hearts of young girls and their families. Something has to be done to stop such a monster. Should we therefore pass an anti-murder-of-females-between-the-ages-of 14-19 bill to give the murderer a harsher sentence?No!!! Why??? Because murder is already illegal!The motive or modus operandi of the killer only helps law enforcement narrow down suspects so they can catch him and prosecute him for MURDER.Does this illustration help you to see the absurdity now?

---

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

What law are you referring to? I read what you've written and what you are describing is motive. I've already provided sources showing the difference between motive and intent. So what precisely am I supposed to be reading? Just the one's that punish people for things that are not crimes. No, it is placing a higher emphasis on race over other equally bad things. In essence it is worse to kill someone over race versus killing them to rob them. That could go for anything, Straggler. If a man is targeting women should killing women then be a worse crime versus targeting men? I mean the law is nonsensical. So it has to be a social phenomenon to have a special crime. Just use logic and this should all make perfect sense. Or is it that you do understand but are too invested to renege? Follow the train of thought:It is already a crime hurt, maim, injure, kill anyone unjustifiably.You say, oh but it makes those members fearful. Well, serial killers who target young women make women fearful. But we don't invent new laws to protect women from serial killers because they're already legally protected from it.What this then does is simply devalue one life, who seemingly was murdered without cause, versus a murder that was racially motivated.On some level this has to be sinking in, you're not an idiot. It's not specific races, it is that race itself is being used to magnify an already heinous crime.Just tell me this much. Suppose your aunt one night is shot in a convenience store. They catch the assailant and he's brought to trial. Before his trial there is another hearing for another murder. This one is for a man who shot and killed a latino woman for what appears to be racial reasons.The killer gets life in prison, no chance of parole. Then your aunt's killer stands before the judge. She was deemed as being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Her killer gets 10 years, with a chance for parole every 2 years with good behavior.Was justice for your aunt served?Why not then make all murder sentencing more strict? Wouldn't that be the simplest way, instead of not equally protecting every one?

---

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