Hate-crime = Thought crime?

The problems I have with hate-crimes are:(i) that they detract from the severity of the crime and shift focus on the race of the victims. Like you said, 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.(ii) that they indirectly propagate racism and increase racial tensions. Let's not beat around the bush, hate-crime laws were introduced to appease certain minorities, just like positive action legislation was introduced for the very same reason. This naturally leads to feelings of bitterness, double standards and discrimination from the majority.(iii) and most importantly: hate-crimes are thought crimes in that they seek to judge and condemn "evil" thoughts instead of just evil actions. So if murdering someone is bad enough, murdering someone while thinking that they are racially inferior or sexually deviant makes it doubly bad. This mentality inevitably leads to totalitarian witch-hunts (e.g. McCarthism, Stalin's pogroms) where people are condemned based on the perceived implications of their peceived thoughts, rather than just their actions. Absolutely. What they were thinking at the time should be of no concern to anyone else other than their conscience. I think the issue here isn't so much the pursuit of safety but rather the attempted railroading of a certain self-righteous morality and political mechanisms for suppressing inidividuality and independent thought. People who don't read history are likely to repeat it.P.S Just for the record, I have similar misgivings about anti-terrorism laws or any other legislation where the accused are judged on their thoughts or beliefs instead of just their actions. I think that the definition of a free society is one where people are allowed to think whatever they want but act within the confines of others' equally-granted rights.P.P.S This from Life On Mars T.V series:
Sam Tyler: I think we need to explore whether this attempted murder was a hate crime.
Gene Hunt: What as opposed to one of those I-really-really-like-you sort of murders?Edited by Legend, : added PPS

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Yes and -just to make it clear- that's fine by me. Establishing motive in order to demonstrate causation and ascertain guilt is one thing. Judging the motive as a crime in itself is totally different and unacceptable as far as I'm concerned.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

You're conflating (deliberately I wonder?) motive with intent. The distinction between murder one, two and manslaughter is made on the existence and degree of intent and planning involved, NOT, I repeat NOT, the feelings or thoughts of the perpetrator towards the victim. "Reckless disregard for human life" and "malice aforethought" are descriptors demonstrating the absence (or not) of intent. Killing someone by showing disregard for human life means that you didn't intend to kill that person specifically. The inverse is true of "malice aforethought". I mean, come on....we know you're not dumb so stop playing it. Where did I say or even remotely suggest this?! Post number and paragraph please! I've said that terrorists shouldn't be punished for their thoughts but only for their actions. How the hell did you deduce the above from that? so.....because I suggested that people should be punished for their actions and not their thoughts or feelings you've infered that I don't believe in terrorism or different degrees of murder?!?I've nothing to say to this other that your reasoning ability doesn't appear to be very cogent. ...Huh??....How does the existence of white supremacy groups invalidate my argument that hate crimes punish the motive/thought instead of just the crime?!You're just not making any sense. Because you're a self-righteous, conceited so and so who thinks that anyone who disagrees with the 'right-on' causes you support is a racist, sexist bigot. 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! As I've explained above the distinction is made based on intent. Which is surmised by the perpetrator's actions. So, for instance, we can safely deduce that
McVeigh intended to kill those people by the fact that he went to the trouble of packing a van with explosives, parking it under a populated building and then setting it off. That's why it was murder one. Surely, even you can make the distinction between motive, intent and the significance of each.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

That's plainly false. "Lying in wait" makes it murder one because of the *action* taken by the perpetrator to lie in wait before attacking the victim, which siginifies *intent* to murder. That's why it's murder one , not because -while lying in wait- the perpetrator thought about the victim being racially inferior or sexually deviant or anything else. Any thoughts the perpetrator might have had on the victim can be used to show motive for the attack (e.g. he killed him because he hated Asian people), which is used to establish guilt, NOT to decide the degree of murder. This is decided solely based on the perp's actions before and during the attack.So to put is as simply as I can : thoughts/feelings ==> motive ==> guilt, actions ==> intent ==> degree of murder/manslaughter.Put it like that: Just because you hate someone doesn't mean that you intend to kill them. If that person is murdered, you could be a suspect in the investigation because you have a motive (hate) and -if the evidence is there- this motive could cement your conviction. However, the ONLY way to establish whether it was a first, second or third degree murder would be to look at your *actions* before and during the murder in order to show INTENT. There is no DA/Crown Prosecutor on either side of the pond who can demonstrate intent based on your feelings/thoughts alone. They would have to present evidence of your actions which signify intent to kill, e.g. that you were lying in wait. Intent can only be inferred by one's actions. This from the free dictionary:

quote:

---

Intent is a mental attitude with which an individual acts, and therefore it cannot ordinarily be directly proved but must be inferred from surrounding facts and circumstances.

---

(Emphasis is mine) I'm asking again: SHOW ME the post and paragraph where I said or implied that those who commit acts of terrorism shouldn't be punished accordingly lest people who agree with the terrorists should take up the cause.So far you've shown me a post where I said that hate crimes indirectly propagate racism and increase racial tensions. Try again. No, I'm complaining that giving (or appearing to give) special treatment to people based on their race, ethnicity or sexuality causes resentment and social tensions.Can't you read? Or is it that you're just deliberately misrepresenting what I write? Nope, nope and nope. Murder differs from manslaughter based upon your actions.If you load a gun, break into your neighbours's house and shoot him while he sleeps, that's murder one.If your neighbour comes round your house to complain about loud music, says something offensive to you and you shoot him, that's murder two.If you're in your garden doing target practice and a bullet enters your neighbour's house and kills him, that's manslaughter.Note that nowhere in the above are your thoughts towards your neighbour or your motive used to distinguish between degrees of murder. If you broke into his house and killed him because he was black doesn't make it any less of murder one than it would if you broke into his house and killed him because you loved him.Contrast this with hate-crime laws, where you're still convicted for different degrees of murder based on your intent, but *on top of that* you're also convicted for your motive. So breaking into your neighbour's house to kill him in order to rob him is suddenly a less serious crime than breaking into your neighbour's house to kill him because of his race or sexuality.Surely even you should be able to appreciate the resentment and sense of injustice this causes to victims and their families, where the taking of a life under the same circumstances suddenly becomes more deplorable dependent on the victim's skin colour or sexual preferences. Once again, I never said nor implied that.We should punish terrorists for what they've done, *not* for what they believe in. Hate-crime laws punish people for what they believe in, on top of what they've already done. It's as simple as that, despite your pathetic, veiled attempts to associate my position with supporting terrorism and white supremacy groups.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Absolutely! The label is stuck at the point of arrest. Here in Britain, the police arrest you "on suspicion of a" crime. It's up to the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute you for that crime. The effect remains the same, as with rape/sexual allegations, the label is stuck and remains even if you are acquitted. Indeed. Here in Britain, the police have to charge you with racially aggravated assault if the victim alleges that you used a racially/sexually derogatory epithet before/during the attack, even if the allegation is totally unsubstantiated. Bottom line is: if you are on the losing end of a fight you can make sure the other party get some extra punishment by claiming it was a hate-crime. Exactly! maybe there's a reason they're called 'hate crime laws' after all And that's exactly what gets me with all this politically-correct legislation that's supposed to help minorities feel equal and empowered and : by its very existence it makes them feel needy and dis-empowered. it's quite ironic really, as most of the people I know who support things like 'positive discrimination' and hate-crime laws are middle-class white people with a guilt-syndrome. Most of my black/asian friends are either indifferent or opposed to such laws because they make them feel 'special' (in the bad sense of the word), thereby negating the objective of their very existence. The white people -on the other hand- insist they know best in the same patronising and self-preening way that's so evident in some of the posts on this thread.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

A short, sharp explosion of reality checking. I take my hat off to you sir!

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

So we both agree that it's the *action* that's used to differentiate between degrees of murder. We both agree that you might have really hated the victim but without performing the *action* of lying in wait before killing him you wouldn't have been done for murder one. It's the fact that you lied in wait to kill him that makes it murder one, NOT that you lied in wait to kill him because he was black/white/gay/whatever.I'm glad we cleared that up. No, just that some parts of it are ill thought out and exist to reflect some people's morality instead of providing equal justice for all. But we're digressing...

quote:

---

Intent is a mental attitude...

---

You admonished Hyro a few posts back for getting stuck on semantics yet don't hesitate to do so yourself. The "mental attitude" that is Intent is *not the same* as the "mental attitude" that is Motive. Intent is the state of mind with which an act is done. Motive implies the state of mind which causes an act to be done.Motive is used to establish guilt. Intent is used to determine the severity of the crime.'Normal' crime laws punish the guilty based on Intent NOT on Motive.Hate crime laws punish the guilty based on Intent AND on Motive.And this is the crux of the debate and this is where your argument demonstrably fails as you're trying to conflate Motive with Intent and try to present punsihment for the Motive as something normal that's already happening outside hate-crime laws. In "Insanity Defence" cases the jury is still called to decide whether or not the mental disorder meant that the accussed did not intend to commit a crime.
Mental illness alone is no defense, just a mitigating factor. A person who suffers from scizhoprenia will still be considered guilty if he commits a crime intentionally. See...INTENT is still judged and punished, regardless of the existence of Motive. If it can be shown that -due to his mental illness- the accused didn't intend to commit the crime, then and only then a "not guilty by reason of insanity" verdict is returned.Thanks for proving my point. Blatantly false! As I've already shown you in a murder case the prosecution must prove *intent* to get a murder conviction. If they can also show Motive they make a conviction more likely but it's not necessary. In a hate-crime case the prosecution must prove that the *Motive* is racial/gender related to get a hate-crime conviction.You go out and beat up a man to steal his wallet.
You go out and beat up a man because he's black.The INTENT in both cases is there to the same degree. What makes one a hate-crime and the other an 'ordinary' crime is the different MOTIVE. A few months back we had a robbery in our village. It terrified the whole village. Some people wouldn't go out at night, started carrying kitchen knives with them, etc. Police eventually caught the youths who did it. They were NOT charged with a hate-crime, just plain old robbery and affray.So according to YOU, the people in my village were denied justice, right?
According to YOU, the effect the crime had on the rest of us was downplayed, right?I invite you to ponder the answers to those questions and their implications on what we've been debating regarding intent, motive and thought-crimes. The fallacy of your position should become transparent pretty soon by then.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Of course! Now that you put it like that, it does makes sense: hate crimes are acts of violence going beyond the immediate victim. As opposed to other crimes of violence which affect only the the immediate victim, like.......you know..........errm..........what's its name...................help me out here! Exactly. In my last post I mentioned a violent robbery that terrorised people in my village. Strangely enough, this *wasn't* classified as a hate-crime, despite the added threat to the members of the community. Can you remind me again why that happened? Now that you say this I realise that :
- Striking postmen who verbally abused their working colleagues trying to enter the workplace were commiting a HATE CRIME as they were trying to change the behavior of the target group
- Homeowners who attack burglars in their homes are actually commiting HATE CRIMES as they're trying to change the behaviour of the burglar.
- Police attacking demonstrators in the recent London climate-change protests were trying to change the behaviour of the demonstrators, thereby commiting HATE CRIMES.
- Our soldiers currently fighting in Afghanistan are commiting HATE CRIMES as they're trying to change the behaviour of the Taliban.I can think of so many other examples but I just don't know where to draw the line! Can you help? Where do you draw the line between someone trying to change the behaviour of a whole group and someone attacking someone else for unrelated reasons? Who decides? How? and based on which criteria? Yes, yes, I already mentioned the police beating the demonstrators and the Army attacking the Taliban. They're only doing it because they want to see the demonstrators/Taliban changing their behaviour, they're just so damn bigoted! Naturally. Also, the Nazis built motorways therefore motorways are evil! Just thought I'd mention that.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

First off, my Nazi/motorway reference was making a point to Lithodid-Man's reasoning that the arguments used to oppose hate-crime laws have also been used to defend perpetrators of crimes. Do I really need to start using [sarcasm] tags? I understand the reasoning behind it. Do you understand that by saying this you're implying that current sentencing for the same type of crime, outside a 'hate' context, is not enough to set an example?You're effectively saying is that if you kill someone because they're black/gay/whatever it's really bad and you need to be set as an example but if you kill someone because you like seeing what the inside of a human body looks like, then it's not quite so bad and you don't need to be set as such an example. While we can have others selecting who lives and who dies simply based on the amount of money they have, cars they drive or any other non-hate-crime related reason, right? So you're admitting that current sentencing for murder/assault/etc is not enough of a deterrent. Maybe you should be campaigning your local Congressman for tougher sentencing instead of supporting hate crime laws?! That way, everyone would benefit and not just targeted minorities. You may find this weird but I would rather deter *anyone* from dropping the hammer on me or my loved ones, not just racists.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

It's called sarcasm. I sometimes get like that when I get frustrated with what I perceive as naive or irrelevant arguments. Apologies if it came across as nasty, it wasn't meant to. I'm afraid I did. I understand, I was just pointing out (albeit in a sarcastic/nasty way) that pretty much all violent crime affects people besides the intended victims. Often, it's not easy to see if it's by accident or by design. That's the $10,000 question. It just goes to show how muddled-up and politically tainted the definition/application of a hate-crime really is. I was just to trying to show how absurdly subjective and vague your definition of hate-crimes was. yeah, sorry about that, but like I said when faced with absurdity I often revert to sarcasm. You said - and I quote: "And on the issue of the laws making it worse - the flaw I see with that is that the same arguments have been used before to protect perpetrators of many crimes."So you rejected the arguments just because they have been used before to protect perpetrators of crimes. I'm sorry, but this IS argumentum ad Hitlerum in my books.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Yes, it was a relentless, systematic and concerted campaign of abuse and intimidation. Being abused like that always is terrible, regardless of the reason behind the abuse.Tell me, if these kids were hounded not because they were disabled but, say, because the locals opposed the morning traffic caused by the school in their area, would it make it any LESS of a relentless, systematic and concerted campaign of abuse and intimidation ?Tell me, if this wasn't a disabled school and was a MENSA-sponsored school instead, and the locals were beating up and abusing the kids shouting 'fucking brainiac' instead of 'fucking spaz' , would it make it any LESS of a relentless, systematic and concerted campaign of abuse and intimidation ?The things is, violence and abuse feels the same to the victim regardless of the motive behind it. When you're dragged to the ground, beaten and kicked, knowing that you weren't targeted because of your association to a particular group doesn't make you feel any less helpless, any less scared or any less shamed.The elephant in the room that supporters of hate-crime laws refuse to acknowledge is that violence and abuse has THE SAME EFFECT on the victims, regardless of the motive.So yeah, we can pass all the hate-laws we like and we may sleep a bit better at night, in the knowledge that we did the 'right' thing but the fact remains that NO ONE IS BETTER OFF because of these laws. In fact, a few innocent people end up being considerably worse off and the threat to even our freedom of thought becomes even greater (never mind freedom of speech, we lost that a long time ago to the same people who brought us 'hate-crimes').

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

If that's the case then I must have misunderstood your post and I apologise for that. Now I fear that you have misunderstood mine. 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. I've been arguing that hate crimes should be abolished because they are:1) detracting from the severity of the crime and shift focus on the race/sexuality/otherness of the victims. This has a marginalising and alienating effect on the communities these laws are supposed to protect.2) indirectly propagating racism and increasing racial tensions, 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. Whether that causes an actual backlash or not is not as important as the simerring tension and suspicion which will permeate every aspect of society, even if no street riots ever occur.3) and this is most important: judging and condemning people based on the thinking or beliefs which caused them to attack. This is punishing the Motive, not just Intent and -as I've explained in previous posts- 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.This has led to many people being AFRAID to express their opinions in case they get punished for them. 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?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

I can't really answer that other than to say that we must be living in different worlds. But why should there be laws against hate? People should be free to hate whoever or whatever they want. People should be culpable for what they do not for what/who they dislike. Once you start penalising hate it's only a short step away from having a central authority to dictate likes/dislikes and opinions in general. Absolutely! and we already have anti-harassment laws, in addition to ordinary crime laws which can be applied on multiple counts. Show me a 'hate' crime, that isn't already covered by existing laws and then you'll have a point.Besides, you're talking about systematic and sustained campaigns while a hate-crime can just as easily be applied to one-off crimes too. and we already have laws that can adequately punish the perpetrators of such crimes. Why the need for additional 'hate'-crime laws? You're then implying that someone who beats people up coz they're gay/muslim/whatever needs to be deterred more than someone who beats people up to rob them. On what do you base this? What makes a gay/muslim beater more persistent than a street robber and in need of greater deterrence? The context is often simply the labels that the participants attach to themselves or others attach to them. What would you think would happen if, for instance, a member of a far-right group is involved in a fight with a minority member over an unrelated matter? The member's beliefs alone will be enough to get them charged with a hate-crime even if the fight started over spilled drinks in a pub. And let's not beat around the bush, there are certain people who won't hesitate to play the 'hate' card when they think it's in their interest, regardless of whether it was a factor in the dispute. For all the reasons I mentioned above. When people's opinions and thoughts about the victims, i.e. the Motives behind such crimes -however abbhorent they may be- are being judged and condemned it means that Thought is being persecuted and that the general public will be AFRAID to express opinions in case they end up punished for them. It's as simple as that.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Of course I'm not denying that campaigns of hatred are actually hapenning. And -as I pointed out and you conveniently side-stepped- we already have laws that deal with the effects of such campaigns. So the question raised is: If we already have laws that allow us to punish the perpetrators of such campaigns why do we need extra laws? The answer is, because existing laws punish the actions of the perpetrator, while the powers that be now wish to punish the Motive of the perpetrator as well. Punishing the Motive is punishing the opinions / thoughts / feelings of the perpetrator. It is hence a Thought Crime. If you had read my posts you should know that I'm not denying this. I'm saying that campaigns of hatred based on "deepseated irrational prejudice", shouldn't be treated any different to crime campaigns based on sexual gratification or financial motives or any other 'non-hatred' reasons .If you do so you're not only devaluing the life and well-being of the 'non-hate-crime' victims but you're also implying that certain thoughts are 'bad' and won't be tolerated. The veiled threat of punishment if your thoughts can be even remotely tied down to a crime is easy to discern.Besides, who's to say that your own opinions and thoughts won't come to be regarded as "deepseated irrational prejudice" in the near future. That's the catch with supporting Thought Crimes: what's considered as 'correct' today can easily be considered abhorrent tomorrow. Nice avoidance and diversion. Now back to my question: can you think of any 'hate-crimes' where the perpetrator would get away with it without special 'hate-crime' laws?or is just that you think 'hate-crime' perps should be punished more than 'ordinary' crime perps? If that's the case please explain why you think that a killer driven by "deepseated irrational prejudice" should be punished more than ,say, a contract killer or a sex murderer.DO you think that the "deepseated irrational prejudice" killer is more dangerous than the others? or more 'evil'? Please explain. Yes, but the law isn't like you want it to be. The Home Office site says that:"A hate crime is any criminal offence that is motivated by hostility or prejudice based upon the victim’s"Note that it says "any offence", not "a string of", or "an orchestrated campaign". Anyone can be charged with a hate-crime for an ordinary pub fight, if it's alleged that during or before the fight the accused said something 'inappropriate'. I've already linked to the Cheryl Cole incident where she was branded a racist because the alleged victim claimed (without any other witnesses confirming it) that she was called a 'black bitch' instead of just a 'bitch'. Just an ordinary nightclub fight turned to something much more nasty and seriously defaming Cheryl (as much as I dislike her). And this is the great practical danger of such laws: anyone can turn any incident into something much more serious and have the perpetrator punished much more severely than their action deserves.

​

Having an 'incorrect' thought is the modern equivalent of owning a black cat in the middle ages. At the next outbreak of typhus, you'll be the one burning at the stake. Yes, and I've already explained why at least twice on this thread. If you're claiming that any of the incidents I've linked to are a 'media driven perception' please show why and how. Otherwise please refrain from making impressionistic sound-bytes about things you're refusing to acknowledge. No. The questions needed to be asked are: Are hate-crime laws necessary? Do they reduce public terror and fear? Are they being used to suppress thought and opinion? Are they being used as an instrument of fear and revenge?The answers to these questions are No, No, Yes and Yes. That's why hate-crime laws should be abolished asap.Edited by Legend, : spelling

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

In that case, my apologies for falsely accusing you on that one.

quote:

---

Terrorism : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

---

Please show me (post and paragraph) where I'm advocating terrorism. You'll find that the only place where I'm doing so is in your mind.

quote:

---

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.

---

Please explain how the flipping hell you're equating my objection to hate-ctime with supporting terrorism.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?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? NO! What I said was: NOT:"never argued that hate crimes should be abolished because of potential backlash from any particular community"Quick grammar lesson:

quote:

---

Definition: Just (subject pronoun): merely: and nothing more

---

You seem to be suffering from a visual impairment which causes you to fail to see words or sentences in certain posts, especially if said posts
express a disagreement with your point of view. May I suggest a visit to the opthalmologist.Seriously now, this is getting counter-productive and tiresome. When you feel you have the ability to quote one of my posts without distorting it or leaving words out in order to change its meaning, then we can continue this debate. Let me know if and when you're ready.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"