|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Hate-crime = Thought crime? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3629 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
So you add more of a penalty to an individual who commited a single crime because of the feelings the rest of the targeted group may or may not be experiencing? How does anyone know what the community is feeling? Sounds a bit shitty to me. So what? Do you think laws should be made that don't sound shitty to you? Are you concerned that the bigots, and hate mongers just aren't getting a fair shake? Well, guess what, the commnuity has decided that they know what the targeted groups will feel, that is why communities make laws. If they don't like the laws, the community gets to change them. Are you also opposed to laws that prohibit hate speech, and inciting violence? How about crimes against humanity like genocide (oh why do you have to be so shitty about it, just call it war). Well, even if you are, so what. More civilized people than you have already decided.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Oni writes: The rich upper class.... I am not gonna disagree with you on that in the most generic of senses. But how do you think "hate laws" specifically benefit these people over any other? Edited by Straggler, : Spelling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2950 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Are you concerned that the bigots, and hate mongers just aren't getting a fair shake? Yes, actually. Because I believe everyone can be reformed when properly taught the error of their ways, not just locked up and forgotten about.
Well, guess what, the commnuity has decided that they know what the targeted groups will feel And what are you using as evidence to support this, or is this your opinion?
Are you also opposed to laws that prohibit hate speech Yes, I would be very opposed to a law that prohibited speech of any kind. Luckly in the US we have freedom of speech.
How about crimes against humanity like genocide Like what the government of China did to the Tibetans...like that? Yes, I am very much opposed to that, but I don't know how it's relevant.
More civilized people than you have already decided. If you are saying that the community has already decided that for example, a cross burning in a black persons house strikes fear in the rest of the black community - then I'd like to see the evidence. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Oni writes: If you are saying that the community has already decided that for example, a cross burning in a black persons house strikes fear in the rest of the black community - then I'd like to see the evidence. One of the things with really malevolent bigotry is that it's meaning and intent needs to be known to be effective. If burning crosses didn't have the desired effect of making an intimidating point to a wider community then why bother even do it? Such an act would be reduced to a sort of calling card that does nothing but help the police identify and track down the perpetrators in question. It's about intent. And I would say the intimidating effect of acts of targeted subjugation are well evidenced. Historically, culturally and psychologically. No crime operates in a vacuum of all objective evidence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2950 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
And I would say the intimidating effect of acts of targeted subjugation are well evidenced. Historically, culturally and psychologically. Currently...?
If burning crosses didn't have the desired effect of making an intimidating point to a wider community then why bother even do it? Because historically it did, when blacks actually feared the white man. When there was a clear intimidation. When they were second class citizens. This is, trust me, not the current opinon.
No crime operates in a vacuum of all objective evidence Yes I agree. Which is why I think current 'evidence' is relevant, not the evidence from the 50's. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Again you seem to be thinking about this in very defininte historical and national terms with very definite predefined ideas about who is the aggressor and who is the victim on that same historical basis. Partly because of the example in question admittedly. But I cannot help thinking partly because you just cannot get over a certain idea of what this is "really" about.
I think we may have two opposing and irreconcilable views of what this is actually about. You seem intent (correct me if I am wrong) on seeing this as white well meaning but misguided middle class liberals patronisingly labelling specific sections of current society as victims. I on the other hand see this as the pragmatic and necessary confrontation of timeless and universal yet unsavoury aspects of human nature. Namely the fact that we as a species have a proclivity to gang up on each other on the basis of certain very predictable criteria.
Oni writes: This is, trust me, not the current opinon. Indeed. But these things change all the time. Social demographics change. Social attitudes change. The law needs to be blind to the specifics of who is attempting to subjugate who at any given time and simply deal with the fact that people will keep subjugating each other on the same old criteria.
Oni writes: Yes I agree. Which is why I think current 'evidence' is relevant, not the evidence from the 50's. I am not just talking about the 50s. I am talking about the entirety of human history. Now where have I heard that before......?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3629 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Does 2003 count? That was the last time the Supreme Court upheld the state's right to ban cross burning based on the notion that the history of intimidation outweighed the KKK's right to free speech.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5005 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
Legend writes:
...??? WTF are you on about? *I am* the one who's advocating that whoever murders shoud get done for murder, regardless of their race, gender or beliefs, remember?
you're forgetting about the 3000 first-degree murders?
Rrhain writes: 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? Legend writes: ...surely you must have heard about this 9/11 thing?
Rrhain writes: Of course, but to try him for his "'evil thoughts," would be wrong, isn't that what you said? err...let me think.......NO.....*I'm* the one who suggested trying him on 3000 counts of first-degree murder, remember? I mean, FFS you even quoted me stating this in your reply. TWICE. What's the matter, don't you even remember what you've been quoting ?!
Rrhain writes:
NO they aren't!. 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?
Hate crimes are terrorism by definition. Rrhain writes:
And that's why you're shown up LYING. FABRICATING STUFF. MAKING THINGS UP.
And that's why you keep getting tagged as advocating terrorism. Rrhain writes:
Unfortunately for you that's not what the law sees. All the law sees is someone commiting a crime against X because he hates X . That's 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. Rrhain writes:
Indeed it isn't terrorism. But guess what? The thug WILL be charged with a hate-crime. And you know why? 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) 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. 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. Why? Because he thinks 'bad' thoughts about certain races and his thoughts can be tied (even falsely) to a crime. Get your facts straight before talking shite.
Rrhain writes:
I already have. What's the matter, can't you read?
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? Rrhain writes: Your other example fell apart upon examination. No charge was filed, no arrest, not even an investigation. * BLINK * 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?) and had her name mentioned on national news alongside murderers just because she expressed an opinion and you claim that nothing happened ?!? You think that this is an example that......"falls apart upon examination" ?! FFS, what are you on ?
Rrhain writes:
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. What's the matter? Don't you believe the links I provided? Do you think I faked government web-sites and then pointed you to them? Hate crimes laws penalize terrorism. To denigrate them is to say that terrorism isn't a crime.......You're advocating terrorism. Or is it that you just refuse to read anything that destroys your point? 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! In other words your pathetic attempt to associate rejecting hate-crime legislation with advocating terrorism is simply FALSE. A LIE. TOTAL BOLLOCKS. 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. A less honest person would just stop posting and keep a low profile. However, I strongly suspect that you fall in neither of those categories so I expect you to find invent some other fabrication to pursue, some other strawman to attack. Suit yourself. My point is already made and proven. All you have is your baseless self-gratifying illusion that hate-crime laws are 'good' and that whoever opposes them supports 'terrorism'. Which is essentially the same vacuous argumentation used by countless neo-con, right-wingers and fascists in general, to push their own totalitarian ideologies upon the masses. "We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Legend responds to me:
quote: 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: Hate crimes don't target motive. They target intent.
quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? I have been the one arguing that point.
Message 53 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. Message 54 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?
Message 55 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. And you kept on making this incorrect statement:
Message 74 Rrhain writes: Legend writes: actions ==> intent 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. Message 110 Rrhain writes: Legend writes: 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? Message 150 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: (*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: Intent. You did read the quotation of the California Penal Code I provided for you, yes?
quote: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Legend responds to me:
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Incorrect. We must prove it in a court of law by presenting physical evidence of intent. Just like every other crime.
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Huh? How does a law that specifically and deliberately treats people the same treat them differently?
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Legend responds to me:
quote: Your logical error of special pleading.
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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:
The effects of hate crime vary, but often include:
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Except your own sources deny that. To quote you, "Get your facts straight before talking shit."
quote:quote: 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: 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: Huh? Where in your source do you find any mention of killing of any stripe, let alone murder?
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: (*chuckle*) I'm the one quoting your source to you and I'm the one who didn't read it. That's cute.
quote: 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/ --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: Indeed. And I await your apology. But I won't hold my breath.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3911 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
I just want to say this, this world needs more people like you.
One criticism, claiming advocacy for terrorism is a little too far, but the rest of your arguments are quite good and a clear case against the watering down of a society based on laws. Its hard because the natural tendency in this situation is to fight against a percieved authoritarianism which is what I feel the anti-hate-crime folks are operating with. In the vast majority of cases I feel it is quite right to resist the authoritarian position but in this case it just seems to boil down to fear mongering over facts. No fact seems to be capable of getting in the way of the feeling of being slighted by these laws. Hence the hyperbole of "thought crime" or appealing to "free speech" which is simply ludicrous. If any law can all of a sudden be a slippery slope to authoritarianism then certainly any percieved injustice to "free speech" can be seen as a slippery slope to anarchy. If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote: No, they don't. They punish intent, which all criminal laws do. I think you're wrong that they punish intent.
quote:wiki on motive Hating somebody would be a motive for a crime, not the intent.
quote:wiki on the relevance of motive to mens rea Opposing testing on animals is analogous to hating somebody because of race and are both the motivation for the crime and not the intent. And even from your source:
quote: quote: They're up-front with hate crimes being them because of the motive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: Rrhain writes: No, they don't. They punish intent, which all criminal laws do. I think you're wrong that they punish intent. If a criminal act is committed with the evidenced intent of intimidating or restricting the rights of a group of people within society do you think that the law should take this context into account? I am not talking about your perception of the application of current laws. I am asking you whether in principle it is possible and effective to to treat crimes that have an intended and actual intimidatory effect on a community beyond the individual target of the crime in question. And while I am here can I ask what you think differentiates a "terrorist attack" from just "an attack"? What exactly is the difference between the two? Edited by Straggler, : Fix quotes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5005 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
Straggler writes:
Really? So the perpetrators will be charged with simple harassment, will they now? Because if they are then you'll have a point. But we both know that the perps will be charged with a 'hate'-crime. Because their feelings towards the victims will be taken into account and punished. So yes, the thoughts of the perpetrators before the act *are* relevant and *will* be punished. You are simply wrong.
If Catholics (for example) are being targeted with the intent to remove them from the local community or restrict their rights in any way then the exact thought processes of the perpetrators are irrelevant. Straggler writes: Are Catholics being targeted because those targeting them hate Catholics? Or because they were bored and specifically decided to target the Catholics in the community for no other reason than boredom? Or because Puff the magic dragon appeared in a vision and told them that they had to target Catholics to get to Puffy Paradise? Who gives a fuck why in the ridiculous terms you are trying to impose on this issue? .....WTF....??!
YOU give a fuck why !!!!!! YOU are the one supporting hate-crime laws, remember?! YOU are the one wanting to judge and punish motive, remember?!
I'm the one who's been claiming for the last thousand posts that the motive shouldn't matter, remember ?! YOU ARE the one who's been opposing my position! I AM the one who said "No crime should be punished for its motive." ( Message 128). Now YOU are suddenly pretending that we shouldn't care about the motive and that I 'm imposing ridiculous terms. I mean......FFS.....have you been smoking the same shit as Rrhain?! In any case, I'm glad you now saw the light and accepted my position that it's the act that matters, not the motive. Now let's move on:
Straggler writes: The point is that a sub-section of the local community are being intentionally targeted and intimidated in a manner that is not reflected by the individual crimes being committed against individual members of that sub-community. "Targeted Subjugation" as I have called it throughout this thread. And as you have repeatedly failed to address. Failed to address what exactly..? "Targeted Subjugation"?? This is just a fantasy term that exists only in your head. The law is clear on what a hate-crime is: any individual crime that the victim or anyone else deems to be racially/etc motivated. That's the REALITY. I thought you wanted to deal with REALITY, didn't you?
Straggler writes:
Nobody's suggesting that they're isolated incidents. There are already anti-harassment laws that deal with targeted and repeated aggression, as well as laws that deal with individual crimes. I'm objecting to the fact that -dependent on the victim's race/religion/etc- some cases are selectively lifted above the other harassment cases and given special treatment. The reasons for my objection have already been stated many times in this thread
Beating up Catholics and vandalising their houses with anti-Catholic slogans and propaganda are NOT just acts of random assault and vandalism. How the fuck does it help anyone to ignore this fact and carry on as if these were isolated incidents committed by one random individual on another? Straggler writes:
If you don't know by now then you should start smoking less of what Rrhain's been giving you.
What is your actual poistion here? Straggler writes: Because in one post you are arguing that hate laws are completely ineffective as a deterrent and yet in the next you are making the media led assertion that people are being deterred even from thinking and speaking freely because they are terrified of committing hate crimes. YES, YES - THANK YOU! This is exactly it! 'Hate'-crime laws don't deter criminals from committing crimes, they just deter ordinary people from expressing their thoughts and opinions! This is why 'hate'-crime laws are so terribly counter-productive and should be abolished. Well done, You finally got it!{applause} {crowd goes wild} There, that wasn't so hard to understand now, was it? "We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024