Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hate-crime = Thought crime?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 196 of 376 (539507)
12-16-2009 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by New Cat's Eye
12-15-2009 4:43 PM


Motive Schmotive
CS writes:
I suppose. The law isn't supposed to punish motive, but hate crime laws do. How else can I phrase that?
Don't bother. Recognise that I am talking about intent.
CS writes:
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.
The intent is the wider aim. If I beat up Catholics with the wider aim of driving them out of my local community that isn't motive that is intent. What would you call it?
CS writes:
Again, intent is your state of mind and motive is your reason for doing it. You're conflating the two.
So what are you calling the wider aim of intimidating a sub section of the community achieved by targetting individuals? Does it matter which woerds we use as long as the concepts and principles are clear? The anti-law lobby here seem intent on ignoring the reality that such crimes occur by yabbering on about "thought crimes" when the concept of wider intent (as I am using the term) is established in all sorts of legal areas.
CS writes:
You've been describing motives and calling them intent.
No. But terminological issues aside let's concentrate on concepts here. You don't seem to be denying that in reality crimes are commited against individuals with the wider intent of intimidating those within the same community. You don't seem to be denying that such intent can be evidenced. Nor do you seem to be denying that such crimes can be incredibly socially damaging. You don't even really seem to be explicitly denying that we should tackle such socially damaging situations through legislation.
Instead all you have done is locate some dictionary definitions and go "Look look it says 'motive' and motive is 'thought' so hate crimes are thought crimes. Look look my dictionary says so".
So aside from yor dictionary definitions which part of the intent based arguments you are being presented with do you actualy disagree with?
CS writes:
Its both. I think the current application is wrong...
Badly applied laws will be bad laws. With regard to effective application in the US I remain rationally agnostic
But I am interested to know why you think the laws are being applied badly? Most states seem to have implemented them. No? In fact numerous countries across the globe have implemented such laws. Are they all wrong?
CS writes:
...and that, in principle, its opening up thought crime.
Only if you conflate evidenced intent to intimidate a community by targetting individuals and places of social gathering with personal motivation for doing so. Whatever words we use there is no excuse for conflating concepts.
Evidenced intent or "targeted subjugatiion" as I have called it here.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2009 4:43 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-16-2009 1:15 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 199 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2009 2:31 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 197 of 376 (539508)
12-16-2009 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Legend
12-16-2009 2:09 AM


Re: Dust Bites Back
Legend writes:
Sorry if I went a bit mad there.
Why so hateful Leg? Is it coz I is English? I know how much you Welsh boys hate the English. I am starting to feel very intimidated by your subjugating thoughts. I can feel the vitriol emanating from my screen. Quick - Somebody call the thought police!! HeeeeeLLLLLppppp Meeeeeee.
Legend writes:
You have to admit though, you did spew some self-contradicting drivel on that post.
Er no. Strangely that is exactly how I feel about your position here.
Legend writes:
There's also the offence of "putting people in fear of violence" and other related offences.
Which people are in fear of violence? How do you know whioch group is being intimidated unless you take the wider intent of the attacks into account?
Your position here is contradictory.
Legend writes:
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?
Well done for making the hyperbolic misrepresentation of the year. I am talking about attempting to drive people away from the local area or close down a social facility of some sort. Not exterminating people for heavens sake.
I think we can all agree that a bit more than a few hate laws are required to avert genocide.
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?
Sigh. Because it doesn't take into account the reality of the situation. The more malevolent and socially destructive reality of targeted subjugation as opposed to random and isolated crimes. Nor does it deter those who are just bullies seeking to join in preying on an easy target.
Legend writes:
If I was just a bored teenager then no, I probably wouldn't vandalise the church knowing the extended penalties that hate-crimes incur.
So then we agree that we have deterred casual participation in prejudicial attacks. We have deterred those bullies who are not bigots as such but just opportunists who would prey on the weakest elements of the community for no other reason than having an easy target. Thus restricting hate crimes to those who are truly engaged in acts of socially destructive discrimination, intimidation and subjugation. Restricting such crimes to those who if caught will be dealt with more punitively. Protecting society in the process. And your objection to this state of affairs is.........what exactly?
If those who are not fuelled by hatred but who might otherwise be tempted to take part in persecuting a localised minority purely because they are an easy target are deterred by the stigma and punishment of hate laws then the laws have succeeded.
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.
Welcome to reality!! Now we just need to evidence such intent in exactly the same way that we evidence intent in any other crime where intent is a significant component.
Could this be progress on your part?
Legend writes:
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.
Then it seems that your entire objection is based solely on your perception of how the laws have been applied. But badly applied laws will be bad laws.
I approached this topic by asking myself two questions. A) Is there a role for the sort of laws under consideration? B) Can such laws be implemented effectively? I have tried to approach this thread from that point of view. Meanwhile you have, until now, seemed unable to grasp this simple concept. Instead you have been so blinkered by what appears to be your Daily Mail/Fox News tinted view of the world that any consideration of hate laws that fail to comply with this paradigm of prejudice are simply rejected on idealogical grounds.
But we may have had a breakthrough here..........?
Legend writes:
Whoaah, easy now with the big words Straggler.
I believe that pretentious pompous preaching prick with a preconceived paradigm of prejudice was the argumental alliteration you are seeking to arrive at. Here is a site that will help you with those big words: http://dictionary.com
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Legend, posted 12-16-2009 2:09 AM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Legend, posted 12-17-2009 3:56 PM Straggler has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 198 of 376 (539517)
12-16-2009 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Straggler
12-16-2009 10:34 AM


Re: Motive Schmotive
So what are you calling the wider aim of intimidating a sub section of the community achieved by targetting individuals? Does it matter which woerds we use as long as the concepts and principles are clear?
Yes, words and their definitions matter. That's how we effectively communicate with one another. It matters so much that you and I would not be able to understand each other without it.
The issue is that motive and intent are not the same thing. They have similar characteristics, but they are legally and definitionally separate.
The anti-law lobby here seem intent on ignoring the reality that such crimes occur by yabbering on about "thought crimes" when the concept of wider intent (as I am using the term) is established in all sorts of legal areas.
The intent you are referring to is "motive," which is separate from the legal definition of intent (see pg. 9).
Let me ask you something. If a thief targets old people because of their physical frailties or perceived inability to defend themselves, would that be classified as a "hate crime?" You likely would say no because the thief does not have ill-feelings for the elderly, he only sees them as victims of opportunity.
What you can't see is that those in favor of hate-crime laws are basing such laws only on motive in relation to their being socially taboo.
Clearly then people are being charged twice, once for their involvement in an actual crime (assault, murder, etc) and the other for how they felt about their victim on a personal level, which is totally and completely irrelevant.
But terminological issues aside let's concentrate on concepts here. You don't seem to be denying that in reality crimes are commited against individuals with the wider intent of intimidating those within the same community.
Sure, but is it worse to hate someone for the color of their bandana (gang affiliation) versus hating them for their skin color? Dead id dead. Murder is murder. Assault is assualt, and everyone should receive equal protection under the law from such an affront. What this inherently, yet unintentionally does, is place a higher value for members under a specious guise of special protection.
You don't seem to be denying that such intent can be evidenced. Nor do you seem to be denying that such crimes can be incredibly socially damaging. You don't even really seem to be explicitly denying that we should tackle such socially damaging situations through legislation.
Courts don't deal with social issues, they deal with laws. It is not their place to arbitrate between what is socially acceptable and what is socially taboo. They are there to determine whether or not a crime has been committed.
So aside from yor dictionary definitions which part of the intent based arguments you are being presented with do you actualy disagree with?
The kind that punishes people for their beliefs in conjunction with their actions.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Straggler, posted 12-16-2009 10:34 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Straggler, posted 12-16-2009 2:51 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 199 of 376 (539522)
12-16-2009 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Straggler
12-16-2009 10:34 AM


Re: Motive Schmotive
Don't bother. Recognise that I am talking about intent.
The intentions that you are describing are legally classified as "motive" and not the legal classification of "intent", which is a state of mind.
The intent is the wider aim. If I beat up Catholics with the wider aim of driving them out of my local community that isn't motive that is intent. What would you call it?
The wider aim is the motive. Beating up Catholics was your (legal) intent and driving them out was the motive.
So what are you calling the wider aim of intimidating a sub section of the community achieved by targetting individuals? Does it matter which woerds we use as long as the concepts and principles are clear?
I'm calling it motive, as in the legal definition. It doesn't matter if you want to use the word intent to describe it, that doesn't make it intent in the legal sense.
The anti-law lobby here seem intent on ignoring the reality that such crimes occur by yabbering on about "thought crimes" when the concept of wider intent (as I am using the term) is established in all sorts of legal areas.
Give me some examples.
No. But terminological issues aside let's concentrate on concepts here. You don't seem to be denying that in reality crimes are commited against individuals with the wider intent of intimidating those within the same community. You don't seem to be denying that such intent can be evidenced. Nor do you seem to be denying that such crimes can be incredibly socially damaging. You don't even really seem to be explicitly denying that we should tackle such socially damaging situations through legislation.
Instead all you have done is locate some dictionary definitions and go "Look look it says 'motive' and motive is 'thought' so hate crimes are thought crimes. Look look my dictionary says so".
So aside from yor dictionary definitions which part of the intent based arguments you are being presented with do you actualy disagree with?
The part where you want to make the motive criminal when its not supposed to be.
Its not a crime to be greedy, its a crime to steal. If you were arguing for Greed-theft being a whole 'nother crime then I'd be taking the same position.
Badly applied laws will be bad laws. With regard to effective application in the US I remain rationally agnostic
But I am interested to know why you think the laws are being applied badly? Most states seem to have implemented them. No? In fact numerous countries across the globe have implemented such laws. Are they all wrong?
I dunno, I'm arguing against the law in principle.
Only if you conflate evidenced intent to intimidate a community by targetting individuals and places of social gathering with personal motivation for doing so. Whatever words we use there is no excuse for conflating concepts.
Evidenced intent or "targeted subjugatiion" as I have called it here.
You are the one conflating concepts. Cleverly wording a motive doesn't make it not one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Straggler, posted 12-16-2009 10:34 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Straggler, posted 12-16-2009 2:47 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 200 of 376 (539524)
12-16-2009 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Rrhain
12-15-2009 5:52 AM


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.
I'd like to read the court decistions if you could provide links.
The rest of your posts seems to be saying that I haven't adequately shown that motive is being specifically targeted by the law, but you haven't shown me that it isn't either. A simple reading of the legal definition of 'intent' and 'motive' suggest that motive is actually the target so if you want to convince me otherwise then you're gonna have to do more than just cast doubt on it being motive. I'll need you to show me that it is intent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Rrhain, posted 12-15-2009 5:52 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Rrhain, posted 12-18-2009 9:43 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 201 of 376 (539526)
12-16-2009 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by New Cat's Eye
12-16-2009 2:31 PM


Re: Motive Schmotive
Cleverly wording a motive doesn't make it not one.
Dude you can call it whatever you want. I have called what I am talking about "targeted subjugation" for clarity but none of you guys accepted that term either. If you want to play semantics rather than concepts then I would suggest it is because your "thought crimes" argument does not hold up on a conceptual basis.
Whatever the case the evidenced targeting of individuals or places of social gathering so as to intimidate a wider sub-community is not the same as doing that because you believe that Puff the Magic Dragon told you personally to go out and rid your your local community of Catholics.
Wider aims beyond the individual crime commited can be evidenced. Even if your exact internal thought processes that led to that aim cannot. What term do you want to use for that wider aim? If not "intent"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2009 2:31 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2009 3:17 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 202 of 376 (539527)
12-16-2009 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Hyroglyphx
12-16-2009 1:15 PM


Re: Motive Schmotive
Hyro writes:
The issue is that motive and intent are not the same thing. They have similar characteristics, but they are legally and definitionally separate.
Well want do you want to call the wider aim of an individual crime? If there is evidence to suggest that a crime against an individual (or place of social gathering) is intended (there is that word again) to intimidate and subjugate other memebrs of a social group to which the the targeted individual belongs what would you call that?
Or are you saying this situation just does not exist and needs no means of expression?
Edited by Straggler, : Spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-16-2009 1:15 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-20-2009 9:55 AM Straggler has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 203 of 376 (539531)
12-16-2009 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Straggler
12-16-2009 2:47 PM


Re: Motive Schmotive
I have called what I am talking about "targeted subjugation" for clarity but none of you guys accepted that term either.
That's because that's not what Hate-Crimes are. Maybe according to your own principle, but not according to the law... and we're discussing the law
Whatever the case the evidenced targeting of individuals or places of social gathering so as to intimidate a wider sub-community is not the same as doing that because you believe that Puff the Magic Dragon told you personally to go out and rid your your local community of Catholics.
In the eyes of the law, you are discribing motives. They are not supposed to be used to determine what crime has taken place. Its supposed to be used during the sentancing to determine the level of punishment.
Wider aims beyond the individual crime commited can be evidenced. Even if your exact internal thought processes that led to that aim cannot. What term do you want to use for that wider aim? If not "intent"?
If you want to argue that "targeted subjugation" should be a crime in its own right, then you're having a different argument than the one we're having against Hate-Crime laws.

ABE:
I still would like to see some examples of:
quote:
the concept of wider intent (as I am using the term) is established in all sorts of legal areas.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see abe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Straggler, posted 12-16-2009 2:47 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Straggler, posted 12-16-2009 6:30 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 215 by Rrhain, posted 12-18-2009 9:49 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 204 of 376 (539536)
12-16-2009 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by New Cat's Eye
12-16-2009 3:17 PM


Re: Motive Schmotive
CS writes:
That's because that's not what Hate-Crimes are. Maybe according to your own principle, but not according to the law... and we're discussing the law
If you are interested solely in the application of the law as it stands in the US today then I will drop out of this conversation. I thought we were talking about the principle of hate crimes and whether they necessarily equate to crimes of "thought". As I have described them they do not. And you seem to agree.
CS writes:
In the eyes of the law, you are discribing motives. They are not supposed to be used to determine what crime has taken place. Its supposed to be used during the sentancing to determine the level of punishment.
If you will argue only in terms of dictionary definitions and your (media driven?) perception of the current application of law then my argument of principle based on timeless and universal aspects of human nature will be lost on you. But that is not my failing. It is yours.
Straggler writes:
Wider aims beyond the individual crime commited can be evidenced. Even if your exact internal thought processes that led to that aim cannot. What term do you want to use for that wider aim? If not "intent"?
Cs writes:
If you want to argue that "targeted subjugation" should be a crime in its own right, then you're having a different argument than the one we're having against Hate-Crime laws.
Really? Are you denying this exists? Or that it can be evidenced? Or that it needs to be tackled legally?
If you are failing to recognise the reality of crimes committed with the wider intent to intimidate and subjugate then it is your paradigm of legal prejudice that is lacking. Not mine. You can yabber on about the straw man of "thought crimes" all you want. But what we are talking about here is evidenced and real. Your ideological inability to recognise this reality does not mean it does not exist or should not be tackled.
CS writes:
I still would like to see some examples of:
Any crime where the intent as opposed to the pure physical outcome is a significant componet of the crime. Which part of that is alien to you? I will ask you again because you have not been forthcoming:
What term do you want to use for that wider aim of intimidation and subjugation?
If not "intent"?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2009 3:17 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-17-2009 11:01 AM Straggler has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 205 of 376 (539538)
12-16-2009 6:43 PM


Now I get it...
Now I see the reason you guys want to preserve these laws
White Americans' majority to end by mid-century
- Oni

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Straggler, posted 12-16-2009 6:52 PM onifre has not replied

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


Message 206 of 376 (539540)
12-16-2009 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by onifre
12-16-2009 6:43 PM


Re: Now I get it...
Finally
You can see that your paradigm of prejudice is based on outmoded historical thinking.
It is us white well meaning but misguided middle class liberals that will need hate crime protection from angry ethnic majorities.
I know it. You know it. Now we just need to persuade CS, Legend and Hyro......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by onifre, posted 12-16-2009 6:43 PM onifre has not replied

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


Message 207 of 376 (539574)
12-17-2009 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Rrhain
12-15-2009 6:05 AM


Legend writes:
I will once more quote you the definition of a hate crime, as presented in both the Home Office and FBI web-sites.
Rrhain writes:
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?
.....huh??...I pointed you the the official Home Office (UK's Dept of Justice equivalent) and FBI web sites! *Not* some newspaper or other popular press web sites. Are you saying that what the Home Office / FBI put on their web sites is inaccurate or distorted? Are you really saying that you know better?
Rrhain writes:
Here's what the actual law regarding hate crimes in California says:
quote:
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..
.....
No mention of motive to be found.
...huh?!...can't you read?!... You missed the part where the MOTIVE is described. I took the liberty of emphasizing it for you. The "because of ..." bit should have been a bit of a clue really!
What drives someone to commit a criminal act is called......a MOTIVE. We've been through this so many times, you've forgotten already?
You really have to do something about that selective vision of yours.
Rrhain writes:
Let's look at your own country's laws:
quote:
(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.
LOL! oh, I see you did a google search on "hatred intent -motive", did you? How very not-intellectually-dishonest of you.
So you quoted an instance of an act defined as intended to stir up hatred (instead of the definition of a hate-crime, like I did) and latched on the use of the word 'intends' to make a point. Unfortunately for you, the word 'intends' here doesn't show Intent in the legal sense of the word, i.e. intent of wrongful purpose, i.e. mens rea as you well know. This is how criminal law says about intent/mens rea
quote:
If a person innocently causes harm, then she or he lacks mens rea and, under this concept, should not be criminally prosecuted.
In this instance threatening behaviour or material are -by definition- proof of mens rea, i.e. harmful intent. You don't accidentally or innocently threaten someone. So the ACT of threatening behaviour is being punished (as indeed it was long before hate-crime laws). But what this law punishes *on top of* the threatening behaviour is the religious hatred that caused it! This is a classic example of legislation that punishes MOTIVE as well as the criminal act that ensues.
Really Rrhain, I thought you were against playing semantic games, changed your mind did you?

"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 185 by Rrhain, posted 12-15-2009 6:05 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Rrhain, posted 12-19-2009 6:29 AM Legend has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 208 of 376 (539580)
12-17-2009 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Straggler
12-16-2009 6:30 PM


Re: Motive Schmotive
If you are interested solely in the application of the law as it stands in the US today then I will drop out of this conversation. I thought we were talking about the principle of hate crimes and whether they necessarily equate to crimes of "thought".
I thought the whole "Obama admin passed a new hate-crime bill" part in the OP meant we were discussing US law.
As I have described them they do not. And you seem to agree.
You've totally missed the argument. As you have discribed them, you're failing to see how its a crime of thought because you've conflated motive with intent. Criminalizing motive is like thought crime. You're saying intent is criminalized but your showing that you don't understand the difference between the two and avoiding understanding by refusing to consider the definitions.
If you will argue only in terms of dictionary definitions and your (media driven?) perception of the current application of law then my argument of principle based on timeless and universal aspects of human nature will be lost on you. But that is not my failing. It is yours.
I've been arguing about the law and the law relies on specifically defined words. You can't take my argument and equivocate and still have a decent rebuttle.
And you've avoided giving any specific example of this "timeless and universal aspects of human nature" that you're basing your principle on so I'm not really getting what you're typing about.
CS writes:
I still would like to see some examples of:
Any crime where the intent as opposed to the pure physical outcome is a significant componet of the crime.
Like what, specifically? The intentions are not a significant component of the crime.
Which part of that is alien to you? I will ask you again because you have not been forthcoming:
What!? The alien part is the part where the criminal's specific intentions (his motive) is an element of the crime. I've already supported the point that motive is not an element of crime so how am I not being forthcoming?
What term do you want to use for that wider aim of intimidation and subjugation?
If not "intent"?
I want to use the legal term "motive", which can be the person's specific intentions, but that is different than the legal definition of "intent" so it only confuses the issue when you use it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Straggler, posted 12-16-2009 6:30 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Straggler, posted 12-17-2009 12:49 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

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


Message 209 of 376 (539591)
12-17-2009 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by New Cat's Eye
12-17-2009 11:01 AM


Apparently........
Apparently this thread is about locating dictionary definitions to support a preconceived ideological position. Apparently this thread is intended for those who wish to bandy around meaningless phrases such as "thought crime" as if the mere use of such phrases provides a definitive and argument clinching point. Apparently this thread is about justifying the use of these meaningless phrases through semantics and the application of the aforementioned dictionary definitions.
Nave fool that I am - I thought that this thread was about crimes committed against individuals or places of social gathering with the evidenced wider aim of intimidating and restricting the freedoms of other members of the same target group as the immediate victim. I thought this was about crimes, concepts and evidence. But apparently this is not the case.
Silly me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-17-2009 11:01 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-17-2009 1:04 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 222 by onifre, posted 12-19-2009 8:17 PM Straggler has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 210 of 376 (539593)
12-17-2009 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Straggler
12-17-2009 12:49 PM


Re: Apparently........
Do you have any examples of any non-homocide crimes where the criminal's specific intentions we're used as an element of that crime?
I say non-homocide because they're an exception due to them having 'degrees':
quote:
Motive is particularly important in prosecutions for homicide. First, murder is so drastic a crime that most people recoil from the thought of being able to do it; proof of motive explains why the accused did so desperate an act.
Moreover, most common law jurisdictions have statutes that provide for degrees of homicide, based in part on the accused's mental state. The lesser offence of voluntary manslaughter, for example, traditionally required that the accused knowingly and voluntarily kill the victim (as in murder); in addition, it must be shown that the killing took place in the "sudden heat of passion," an excess of rage or anger coming from a contemporary provocation, which clouded the accused's judgment. Homicides motivated by such factors are a lesser offense than murder "in cold blood."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Straggler, posted 12-17-2009 12:49 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Straggler, posted 12-17-2009 1:26 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 217 by Rrhain, posted 12-19-2009 6:35 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024