Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hate-crime = Thought crime?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 181 of 376 (539256)
12-14-2009 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Straggler
12-14-2009 12:14 PM


Re: Evidenced 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?
Intimidating a group of people is not a "state of mind" that is the intent meant by criminal law (as I'm understanding it). What you're describing is the motivation for the crime. The motive is not suppose to determine whether the activity was criminal, but it can be used to determine the level of punishment. So I do think it should be taken into account, but not in the way of creating this new criminal activity. The activity is already criminal without using the labeling of the motive as hatred as a way to make it a different criminal activity. The motive can still come into play during sentancing.
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.
Yes, but not in this way. The motive of the crime should be treated with the punishment and not used to create new redundant criminal activities.
Making motivations criminal is thought-crime. Hate-Crime, Greed-Crime, Lust-Crime, Envy-Crime, etc. How far should we take this? Where do you draw the line?
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?
I haven't thought about it much. Terrorist attacks are simply done to terrorize people, as opposed to monetary gain for example. I do think that 'inflicting terror' falls under motivation and thus is a redundancy of a crime. I don't really support anti-terrorism laws either, although I haven't looked into them much. But things like Guantanamo Bay, where "terrorist" were held without a trial seems clearly wrong to me. And things like the Patriot Act, where we are giving up personal freedoms for security are unfavorable. A "terrorist attack" is still a crime even if we drop the whole terrorism thing, so it seems unneccessary in addition to opening up a slippery slope.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Straggler, posted 12-14-2009 12:14 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Rrhain, posted 12-15-2009 6:22 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 187 by Straggler, posted 12-15-2009 3:41 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 182 of 376 (539260)
12-14-2009 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Legend
12-14-2009 12:22 PM


Dust Bites Back
Calm down Legend. You appear to be very full of hate. I'll have to send the thought-police round if you carry on like this.
Straggler writes:
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.
Really? So the perpetrators will be charged with simple harassment, will they now?
There is evidenced intent to intimidate and eradicate an entire group of people from the local community and you want to convict for harrassment?
Legend 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.
If a different member of the local Catholic community is beaten up each time who is being harrassed? In the terms of the laws you are advocating as adequate to deal with this situation. Tell me Legend how do you deal with this situation?
Legend 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?!
Do you really think that evidenced intent to intimidate an entire community and the specific reason that you don't like somebody are the same thing? Can you really not see the difference? Are they really identical in Legend's fantasy land?
Did you read the section of the post you are replying to? Have you read any of that which has been said to you previously? Are you being willfully ignorant? Do you know what intent is?
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:
Er no. Wider intent to intimidate. You are obviously still very confused by your conflation of concepts.
Do you really think that evidenced intent to intimidate an entire community and the specific reason that you don't like somebody are the same thing?
Legend writes:
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?
Indeed. The reality that there are crimes commited that have an intended and actual intimidatory effect more far reaching than the crime against the individual in question. I have called it "targeted subjugation" in this thread. Are you saying that such situations do not occur in reality?
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? If not why not?
Stragggler 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.
Legend writes:
'Hate'-crime laws don't deter criminals from committing crimes, they just deter ordinary people from expressing their thoughts and opinions!
Your warped perception of how hate laws have been applied is not the underlying issue here. But let's consider your contradictory views on detterent a bit further.
If you were a bored teenager with a spraycan would you go and vandalise the local church that has been the repeated target of real bigots? Or would you think that being convicted of a hate crime just isn't worth it and choose somewhere else. Leaving the targeting to those who really mean it?
If hate crimes didn't exist do you think bored teenagers might just be tempted to join in with the persecution of a localised minority?
Do hate laws have any effect on restricting hate crimes to those who are genuinely involved in targeted subjugation? Or is your view so warped that you think everyone who would never commit any such crimes lives in terror of thinking whilst all those who might will just carry on regardless?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Legend, posted 12-14-2009 12:22 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Legend, posted 12-16-2009 2:09 AM Straggler has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 183 of 376 (539297)
12-14-2009 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Rrhain
12-14-2009 2:16 AM


Just quit while you're behind
Legend writes:
Who's arguing that intent needs to be removed?
Rrhain writes:
You. Hate crimes target intent. You're arguing that this is invalid.
........[sigh].........ok.......I will once more quote you the definition of a hate crime, as presented in both the Home Office and FBI web-sites. I've already linked to them in previous posts, so I'm not going to link them again just because you've not been paying attention.
Make sure you read it this time. The clue is in the wording.
quote:
A hate crime, also known as a bias crime, is a criminal offense that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin.
I hope you didn't miss it this time. What did it say? M-o-t-i-v-a-t-e-d.
That's right, it said that hate-crimes are motivated by bias.
Repeat after me once more: M-o-t-i-v-a-t-e-d, yeah that's it, you got it, atta boy!
quote:
Motivate
Function: transitive verb
: to provide with a motive
So what differentiates a 'hate'-crime from an 'ordinary' crime?.........[drumroll]......that's right......the MOTIVE!
So what do hate-crimes target?............[drumroll]......that's right......they target MOTIVE!
So who's been talking complete and utter bullcrap about what hate-crimes really are for the last 180 posts or so?...........that's right......Rrhain!

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Rrhain, posted 12-14-2009 2:16 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Rrhain, posted 12-15-2009 6:05 AM Legend has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 184 of 376 (539330)
12-15-2009 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by New Cat's Eye
12-14-2009 11:30 AM


Catholic Scientist responds to me:
quote:
I think you're wrong that they punish intent.
So far, all legal precedence disagrees with you. These laws have been on the books for decades and plenty of people have tried to claim they are invalid for punishing something other than intent. No court has agreed.
quote:
wiki on motive
Wikipedia? Didn't we already have this discussion? Let's take a look at your source:
"Intent" in criminal law is synonymous with mens rea, which means no more than the specific mental purpose to perform a deed that is forbidden by a criminal statute, or the reckless disregard of whether the law will be violated.[citation needed] "Motive" describes instead the reasons in the accused's background and station in life that are supposed to have induced the crime.
Now, to my point: That little "citation needed" is significant. You may wish to go beyond Wikipedia and take a look at more original sources.
But to your point, your own sources proves my claim: These laws punish intent: Specific mental purpose to perform a deed that is forbidden by criminal statute. The deed is the terroristic act of attacking an individual as a proxy for a group.
quote:
Hating somebody would be a motive for a crime, not the intent.
But the law doesn't punish "hating somebody." It punishes the criminal assault with intent to terrorize.
quote:
wiki on the relevance of motive to mens rea
Wikipedia again? (*sigh*)
But let's go with your source. Did you read it:
If motive has any relevance, this may be addressed in the sentencing part of the trial, when the court considers what punishment, if any, is appropriate.[citation needed]
There's that "citation needed" again, but since you seem to trust it, I'll go with it. Hmm..."sentencing." Hate crimes statutes go to sentencing. After all, you're not being punished for your thoughts but for your actions. You have to commit a crime. But if the intent of the crime is terrorism, then the sentence is enhanced.
quote:
They're up-front with hate crimes being them because of the motive.
You're quoting from the press release, not the statute. You do understand the difference, yes?
The statute doesn't mention motive:
422.55. For purposes of this title, and for purposes of all other state law unless an explicit provision of law or the context clearly requires a different meaning, the following shall apply:
(a) "Hate crime" means a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim:
(1) Disability.
(2) Gender.
(3) Nationality.
(4) Race or ethnicity.
(5) Religion.
(6) Sexual orientation.
(7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these
actual or perceived characteristics.
(b) "Hate crime" includes, but is not limited to, a violation of
Section 422.6.
...
422.6. (a) No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States in whole or in part because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in subdivision (a) of Section 422.55.
(b) No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall knowingly deface, damage, or destroy the real or personal property of any other person for the purpose of intimidating or interfering with the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to the other person by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States, in whole or in part because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in subdivision (a) of Section 422.55.
(c) Any person convicted of violating subdivision (a) or (b) shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by both the above imprisonment and fine, and the court shall order the defendant to perform a minimum of community service, not to exceed 400 hours, to be performed over a period not to exceed 350 days, during a time other than his or her hours of employment or school attendance. However, no person may be convicted of violating subdivision (a) based upon speech alone, except upon a showing that the speech itself threatened violence against a specific person or group of persons and that the defendant had the apparent ability to carry out the threat.
(d) Conduct that violates this and any other provision of law, including, but not limited to, an offense described in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11410) of Chapter 3 of Title 1 of Part 4, may be charged under all applicable provisions. However, an act or omission punishable in different ways by this section and other provisions of law shall not be punished under more than one provision, and the penalty to be imposed shall be determined as set forth in Section 654.
So do we trust the actual legal definition when trying to determine what the law says or do we trust a popularization that is designed to be understandable by a layman?
If you truly live up to that "scientist" part, would you reference a popular press item such as a newspaper article/book or would you rather go to the original source?
Why am I the only one who quotes the actual law?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-14-2009 11:30 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2009 2:37 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 185 of 376 (539333)
12-15-2009 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Legend
12-14-2009 6:43 PM


Legend responds to me:
quote:
I will once more quote you the definition of a hate crime, as presented in both the Home Office and FBI web-sites.
No, you're quoting popular press releases. You do understand the difference between something that is written to be understood by a layman and something that is used by people who are actually working in that field, yes? We see this all the time in science: Creationists never seem to point to original articles but always to popular press articles and books.
Here's what the actual law regarding hate crimes in California says:
422.55. For purposes of this title, and for purposes of all other state law unless an explicit provision of law or the context clearly requires a different meaning, the following shall apply:
(a) "Hate crime" means a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim:
(1) Disability.
(2) Gender.
(3) Nationality.
(4) Race or ethnicity.
(5) Religion.
(6) Sexual orientation.
(7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these
actual or perceived characteristics.
(b) "Hate crime" includes, but is not limited to, a violation of
Section 422.6.
...
422.6. (a) No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States in whole or in part because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in subdivision (a) of Section 422.55.
(b) No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall knowingly deface, damage, or destroy the real or personal property of any other person for the purpose of intimidating or interfering with the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to the other person by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States, in whole or in part because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in subdivision (a) of Section 422.55.
(c) Any person convicted of violating subdivision (a) or (b) shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by both the above imprisonment and fine, and the court shall order the defendant to perform a minimum of community service, not to exceed 400 hours, to be performed over a period not to exceed 350 days, during a time other than his or her hours of employment or school attendance. However, no person may be convicted of violating subdivision (a) based upon speech alone, except upon a showing that the speech itself threatened violence against a specific person or group of persons and that the defendant had the apparent ability to carry out the threat.
(d) Conduct that violates this and any other provision of law, including, but not limited to, an offense described in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11410) of Chapter 3 of Title 1 of Part 4, may be charged under all applicable provisions. However, an act or omission punishable in different ways by this section and other provisions of law shall not be punished under more than one provision, and the penalty to be imposed shall be determined as set forth in Section 654.
No mention of motive to be found.
Let's look at your own country's laws:
(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.
No mention of motive at all.
Is there a reason you are refusing to go to the actual law?
quote:
So what differentiates a 'hate'-crime from an 'ordinary' crime?.........[drumroll]......that's right......the MOTIVE!
Incorrect. It's the intent.
Your own law says so. You did read the actual law first, yes?
(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.
Where do you see the word "motive"? I see the word "intent." I only see one letter "m" in the whole thing and it is for the word "material." So I'm looking and looking and I cannot find the word "motive." Perhaps you would be so good as to point it out to me.
Oh! You're referring to the popular press statement designed to be understood by the average person who doesn't know the difference between motive and intent! No wonder you're confused.
Is there a reason why you are scrupulously avoiding the actual law and are only going for secondary simplifications of it?
quote:
So who's been talking complete and utter bullcrap about what hate-crimes really are for the last 180 posts or so?
Well let's see:
Which one of us has been quoting the actual law and which one of us has been only referring to popular press summaries?
Which one of us asked for examples of real people who were charged and prosecuted for hate crimes merely because of speech or such and which wouldn't couldn't provide a single one?
You tell me:
422.55. For purposes of this title, and for purposes of all other state law unless an explicit provision of law or the context clearly requires a different meaning, the following shall apply:
(a) "Hate crime" means a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim:
(1) Disability.
(2) Gender.
(3) Nationality.
(4) Race or ethnicity.
(5) Religion.
(6) Sexual orientation.
(7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these
actual or perceived characteristics.
(b) "Hate crime" includes, but is not limited to, a violation of
Section 422.6.
...
422.6. (a) No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States in whole or in part because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in subdivision (a) of Section 422.55.
(b) No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall knowingly deface, damage, or destroy the real or personal property of any other person for the purpose of intimidating or interfering with the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to the other person by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States, in whole or in part because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in subdivision (a) of Section 422.55.
(c) Any person convicted of violating subdivision (a) or (b) shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by both the above imprisonment and fine, and the court shall order the defendant to perform a minimum of community service, not to exceed 400 hours, to be performed over a period not to exceed 350 days, during a time other than his or her hours of employment or school attendance. However, no person may be convicted of violating subdivision (a) based upon speech alone, except upon a showing that the speech itself threatened violence against a specific person or group of persons and that the defendant had the apparent ability to carry out the threat.
(d) Conduct that violates this and any other provision of law, including, but not limited to, an offense described in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11410) of Chapter 3 of Title 1 of Part 4, may be charged under all applicable provisions. However, an act or omission punishable in different ways by this section and other provisions of law shall not be punished under more than one provision, and the penalty to be imposed shall be determined as set forth in Section 654.
(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.
Where do you find "motive" mentioned anywhere?
Be specific.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Legend, posted 12-14-2009 6:43 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Legend, posted 12-17-2009 8:40 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 186 of 376 (539335)
12-15-2009 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by New Cat's Eye
12-14-2009 12:46 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
Intimidating a group of people is not a "state of mind" that is the intent meant by criminal law (as I'm understanding it).
Then your understanding is wrong for that is precisely what the law says.
(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.
Now, that's British law, but you see the point.
quote:
What you're describing is the motivation for the crime.
Incorrect. It's describing the intent: To attack the group by way of a proxy.
The law doesn't mention motive at all:
422.55. For purposes of this title, and for purposes of all other state law unless an explicit provision of law or the context clearly requires a different meaning, the following shall apply:
(a) "Hate crime" means a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim:
(1) Disability.
(2) Gender.
(3) Nationality.
(4) Race or ethnicity.
(5) Religion.
(6) Sexual orientation.
(7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these
actual or perceived characteristics.
(b) "Hate crime" includes, but is not limited to, a violation of
Section 422.6.
...
422.6. (a) No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States in whole or in part because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in subdivision (a) of Section 422.55.
(b) No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall knowingly deface, damage, or destroy the real or personal property of any other person for the purpose of intimidating or interfering with the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to the other person by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States, in whole or in part because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in subdivision (a) of Section 422.55.
(c) Any person convicted of violating subdivision (a) or (b) shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by both the above imprisonment and fine, and the court shall order the defendant to perform a minimum of community service, not to exceed 400 hours, to be performed over a period not to exceed 350 days, during a time other than his or her hours of employment or school attendance. However, no person may be convicted of violating subdivision (a) based upon speech alone, except upon a showing that the speech itself threatened violence against a specific person or group of persons and that the defendant had the apparent ability to carry out the threat.
(d) Conduct that violates this and any other provision of law, including, but not limited to, an offense described in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11410) of Chapter 3 of Title 1 of Part 4, may be charged under all applicable provisions. However, an act or omission punishable in different ways by this section and other provisions of law shall not be punished under more than one provision, and the penalty to be imposed shall be determined as set forth in Section 654.
Where do you find "motive" in there?
quote:
The motive is not suppose to determine whether the activity was criminal, but it can be used to determine the level of punishment. So I do think it should be taken into account, but not in the way of creating this new criminal activity.
But the law doesn't mention motive. I've quoted the relevant penal codes. Where do you find any mention of motive? I only see "intent."
quote:
The activity is already criminal
And by this logic, there is no justification for making distinctions among reckless endangerment, manslaughter, and murder and the various degrees of same. They are all distinguished by your thoughts.
quote:
Making motivations criminal is thought-crime.
But the law doesn't mention motive. I've quoted the relevant penal codes of two countries. Can you find me any indication of "motive" being used?
I only see the word "intent."
Your entire argument comes down to a claim that these laws criminalize motive. But the laws literally do not say what you think they say.
Burden of proof is now upon you. The law has been shown to you. Where do you find any criminalization of motive?
quote:
I do think that 'inflicting terror' falls under motivation and thus is a redundancy of a crime.
So the only thing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is guilty of is aggravated vandalism with some attached counts of involuntary manslaughter.
It certainly wasn't an act of war.
Right?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-14-2009 12:46 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 187 of 376 (539399)
12-15-2009 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by New Cat's Eye
12-14-2009 12:46 PM


Re: Evidenced Intent
CS writes:
Making motivations criminal is thought-crime. Hate-Crime, Greed-Crime, Lust-Crime, Envy-Crime, etc. How far should we take this? Where do you draw the line?
I draw it at evidenced intent to intimidate those beyond the direct attack.
You?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-14-2009 12:46 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2009 3:49 PM Straggler has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 188 of 376 (539401)
12-15-2009 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Straggler
12-15-2009 3:41 PM


Re: Evidenced Intent
CS writes:
Making motivations criminal is thought-crime. Hate-Crime, Greed-Crime, Lust-Crime, Envy-Crime, etc. How far should we take this? Where do you draw the line?
I draw it at evidenced intent to intimidate those beyond the direct attack.
You?
At not punishing motive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Straggler, posted 12-15-2009 3:41 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Straggler, posted 12-15-2009 3:53 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 189 of 376 (539403)
12-15-2009 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by New Cat's Eye
12-15-2009 3:49 PM


Re: Evidenced Intent
Motive? Or intent?
Do you see any difference at all?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2009 3:49 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2009 3:59 PM Straggler has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 190 of 376 (539404)
12-15-2009 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Straggler
12-15-2009 3:53 PM


Re: Evidenced Intent
Motive? Or intent?
Do you see any difference at all?
Haven't I been explaining the difference?
Intent is the state of mind while doing it. Motive is the reason for doing it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Straggler, posted 12-15-2009 3:53 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Straggler, posted 12-15-2009 4:04 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 191 of 376 (539406)
12-15-2009 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by New Cat's Eye
12-15-2009 3:59 PM


Arse Over Tit
CS writes:
Intent is the state of mind while doing it. Motive is the reason for doing it.
I think you have it the wrong way round.
My intent may be to to eradicate Catholics from my local community. Whilst my motive may be that Puff the Magic Dragon told me that I would only go to Puffy Land if I met his wishes to subjugate and eradicate Catholics in my community.
To put it bluntly you have your definitions arse over tit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2009 3:59 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2009 4:12 PM Straggler has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 376 (539407)
12-15-2009 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Straggler
12-15-2009 4:04 PM


Re: Arse Over Tit
I think you have it the wrong way round.
I think I'm right and you're wrong.
My intent may be to to eradicate Catholics from my local community. Whilst my motive may be that Puff the Magic Dragon told me that I would only go to Puffy Land if I met his wishes to subjugate and eradicate Catholics in my community.
Not according to the legal definitions.
quote:
intent
n. mental desire and will to act in a particular way, including wishing not to participate. Intent is a crucial element in determining if certain acts were criminal. Occasionally a judge or jury may find that "there was no criminal intent." Example: lack of intent may reduce a charge of manslaughter to a finding of reckless homicide or other lesser crime.
Legal Dictionary | Law.com
quote:
motive
n. in criminal investigation the probable reason a person committed a crime, such as jealousy, greed, revenge or part of a theft. While evidence of a motive may be admissible at trial, proof of motive is not necessary to prove a crime.
Legal Dictionary | Law.com
To put it bluntly you have your definitions arse over tit.
The tits are those big round things on top with nipples and the arse is the thing at the bottom that poop comes out of. You're the one who is upside-down.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Straggler, posted 12-15-2009 4:04 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Straggler, posted 12-15-2009 4:22 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 193 of 376 (539408)
12-15-2009 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by New Cat's Eye
12-15-2009 4:12 PM


Re: Arse Over Tit
So is your problem with laws as you think they are currently applied?
Or do you have ideological reasons to object to the very notion of hate laws as appied to intent?
CS writes:
The tits are those big round things on top with nipples and the arse is the thing at the bottom that poop comes out of. You're the one who is upside-down.
Not in any way that I have been arguing in this thread. Feel free to try and demonstrate otherwise.
Is your issue with hate laws current application (as you perceive it to be)? Or on more principled grounds? If so what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2009 4:12 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2009 4:43 PM Straggler has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 194 of 376 (539410)
12-15-2009 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Straggler
12-15-2009 4:22 PM


Re: Arse Over Tit
So is your problem with laws as you think they are currently applied?
I suppose. The law isn't supposed to punish motive, but hate crime laws do. How else can I phrase that?
Or do you have ideological reasons to object to the very notion of hate laws as appied to intent?
I don't think so. But what do you mean? Hate laws can't be applied to intent, because that is your state of mind and not the reason for doing the crime.
Not in any way that I have been arguing in this thread. Feel free to try and demonstrate otherwise.
You've been describing motives and calling them intent.
Message 157
quote:
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.
Message 158
quote:
You are. My entire argument can be summed as "Evidenced intent to subjugate".
...
Regardless of motive for doing so (Mommy didnt love me, they get all the jobs, Puff the magic dragon told me to do it) do you recognise that committing a crime against an individual with the wider intent to intimidate a sub-community can both exist and be evidenced?
Message 169:
quote:
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.
Message 179
quote:
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?
Again, intent is your state of mind and motive is your reason for doing it. You're conflating the two.
The motive can be to intend to do something but that doesn't make it criminal intent.
Is your issue with hate laws current application (as you perceive it to be)? Or on more principled grounds? If so what?
Its both. I think the current application is wrong and that, in principle, its opening up thought crime.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Straggler, posted 12-15-2009 4:22 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Straggler, posted 12-16-2009 10:34 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 195 of 376 (539453)
12-16-2009 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Straggler
12-14-2009 1:08 PM


Re: Dust Bites Back
Straggler writes:
Calm down Legend. You appear to be very full of hate. I'll have to send the thought-police round if you carry on like this.
Sorry if I went a bit mad there. You have to admit though, you did spew some self-contradicting drivel on that post.
Legend writes:
Really? So the perpetrators will be charged with simple harassment, will they now?
Straggler writes:
There is evidenced intent to intimidate and eradicate an entire group of people from the local community and you want to convict for harrassment?
Whoaah, easy now with the big words Straggler. First off, harassment is what the perps are actually doing until they physically attack the victims. There's also the offence of "putting people in fear of violence" and other related offences. Second, "eradicate an entire group of people from the local community"? unless the gas chambers and concentration camps have been discovered that's a pretty strong phrase for shouting abuse at someone, don't you think?
The ACT that you're describing is essentially harassment and intimidation. If violence is involved then there are other criminal offences to deal with that. You want to call it something else and treat it differently! Why is that? Don't you think the existing laws are adequate? If you don't, then you're doing a massive injustice to all the other victims of harassment and intimidation who are not victimised because of their race/religion/etc. Because they suffer just as much as the rest.
Straggler writes:
If a different member of the local Catholic community is beaten up each time who is being harrassed?
Does it matter? As long as the law is applied to punish the aggressors each time they commit an offence, then what's your problem?
Straggler writes:
In the terms of the laws you are advocating as adequate to deal with this situation. Tell me Legend how do you deal with this situation?
You simply punish the perpetrators for the offences they've commited. What's wrong with that?
Straggler writes:
Do you really think that evidenced intent to intimidate an entire community and the specific reason that you don't like somebody are the same thing?
In practice, yes it is. What do you think passes for "evidenced intent" most of the time? Unless you have a confession by the accused then the only way to show that they intended to intimidate an entire community, incite racial hatred and other similar offences, is by judging their beliefs and opinions regarding that community. That's why people as diverse as that are charged and prosecuted *solely because they expressed their opinions*.
Straggler writes:
The reality that there are crimes commited that have an intended and actual intimidatory effect more far reaching than the crime against the individual in question
Of course there are. But here's the rub: most crimes have an intimidatory effect far more reaching than the actual victims. If someone is robbed or beaten up, the whole street/village is afraid and initimidated, as well as the victim, their family and their friends. This happens regardless of the attack being racially motivated or not. By you saying that only special kinds of motive have far reaching effects not only are you mis-representing reality, you're also displaying a condescending attitude to other victims of crime who suffer just as much.
Straggler writes:
Did you read the section of the post you are replying to? Have you read any of that which has been said to you previously? Are you being willfully ignorant? Do you know what intent is?
LOL you're having a laugh, are you? I went to pains to explain to you the difference between intent and motive. YOU're the one who's constantly ignored it and conflated the terms.
Straggler writes:
If you were a bored teenager with a spraycan would you go and vandalise the local church that has been the repeated target of real bigots? Or would you think that being convicted of a hate crime just isn't worth it and choose somewhere else.
If I was just a bored teenager then no, I probably wouldn't vandalise the church knowing the extended penalties that hate-crimes incur.
But then again if I vandalised the church out of boredom I shouldn't be expected to be charged with a hate-crime, should I now?
You do realise that you've just indirectly admitted that hate-crime laws are only there to deter people from doing their ordinary activities lest they be mis-interpreted as 'hate'-crimes?
Straggler writes:
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? If not why not?
If "evidenced intent" can be factually and objectively demonstrated then maybe it should. If, on the other hand, "evidenced intent" is just a tautology for "Motive" and is soley surmised based on the accused's beliefs and opinions the no it shouldn't.
But that's besides the point really, as the law says nothing about "evidenced intent" and such like. All the law says is that if anyone at all says your offence was racially/etc motivated, then it's a hate-crime. The laws seeks to punish the Motive , often on no evidence other than someone's saying so. 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"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Straggler, posted 12-14-2009 1:08 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Straggler, posted 12-16-2009 11:00 AM Legend has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024