Hate-crime = Thought crime?

Intent to defraud.
Lurking with intent.
Breaking and entering with intent.
Assault with intent to rape
Possession of drugs with intent to supply.
Grevious bodily harm (see GBH link below)I could go on if you want me to? Here is another link about intent and the law.

Nah, it's not coz you're English, it's coz you talk shite.Seriously now, as an Englishman you should be well used to oppressing minorities so I can't quite understand why you're supporting hate-crime laws. Are you feeling guilty or something? I wasn't expressing an opinion, I was stating a fact: There are already laws -and have been for ages- that punish threatening behaviour without punishing motive.If you threaten or intimidate someone you'll get done. You now want to punish people for the thought process that caused them to commit the crime. Why is that? Lighten up, I was only being facetious. I thought you English lads had a sense of humour. You selectively apply this "targeted subjugation" term to suit you. Can you please define it for us? Is a school bully guilty of "targeted subjugation" ? If not why not? My objection is that you're supporting a totalitarian, socially and individually harmful legislation just so that you can deter some opportunistic bullies! Really? In 'any other crime' Intent is defined as the design or purpose to commit a criminal or wrongful act. The difference between Murder and Manslaughter is Intent, i.e. that the perpetrator purposefully -not accidentally or negligently- killed the victim. Now let's suppose that someone kills a member of race X because he hates X then please SHOW ME:1) what is the ACT in question?
2) how do we determine the INTENT behind the Act and what is its significance?
3) how do we determine the MOTIVE behind the Act and what is its significance?
4) which of the above do hate-crimes punish?Feel free to elaborate but please stick to the legal/formal definitions of terms, not the fantasy terms you have in your head. Reality, remember?

---

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

And I do so proudly. But I can feel that hate again. You should get counselling. Some big words. And some even bigger assertions. I see you followed that dictionary link I provided. 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. Specifically on the basis of "racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation".Why these criteria? Because there is historical evidence of extreme prejudice on the basis of these criteria to the extent that such prejudice is a recognisable social phenomenon. If people start subjugating each other on the basis of eye colour to the point that this becomes a widespread social phenomenon then we would tackle that too. But this seems unlikely. As such occular hate offences are not required. For example. Rarely I suspect to any level that requires police or legal intervention. Except in Merthyr of course. That isn't what I am arguing in favour of though is it? And, despite your repeated assertions to the contrary, I very much doubt that is how the law actually operates in Britain either.But let's assume you are right for the sake of argument. Do we change the laws? Or do we just throw them away? Which part of my argument do you actually disagree with?You don't seem to be denying that in reality crimes are committed against individuals with the wider intent of intimidating those within the same sub-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". It must be very comforting to be able to ignore reality by dictionary defining your way around it. So aside from yor dictionary definitions which part of the intent based arguments you are being presented with do you actually disagree with?And before you start bleating about the legal definition of intent see my post Message 211 to CS. Nope. That doesn't answer the question. How do you know who is being threatened beyond the immediate victim? Who is being "put in fear of violence" (as you put it) in the Catholic example we are discussing? How do the laws you are advocating as sufficient recognise this act of wider intimidation? I find it hard enough to feel guilty about the things I really should feel guilty about. So oppressing a few Welshmen isn't really a big worry. In fact it is kinda fun.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Catholic Scientist responds to me:

quote:

---

I'd like to read the court decistions if you could provide links.

---

There are literally decades worth. You are asking me to provide you links to the library. FindLaw exists for your use. I cannot do your homework for you.

quote:

---

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.

---

(*blink*)I quoted the specific statutes in question to you. At no point was "motive" ever mentioned. In fact, in the case of British law, they specifically use the word "intent." For you to claim that I haven't shown you that it isn't is disingenuous at best.For at least the fourth time: Where do you see any mention of "motive" in those statutes? "Because of" is a reference to intent, not motive.Here's the British law. Again, for at least the fourth time: No mention of "motive" but instead there is a direct mention of "intent."So since I have shown you the actual law, not what people are saying about the law, not popular press simplifications of the law, not talking heads pontificating about hallucinations they had ten mintues before they went on the air and had to come up with something to get purple-faced about, but the actual law, it is now your turn to show where it indicates that "motive" is being punished and not "intent."Especially since the law doesn't mention "motive" at all.Especially since one of them specifically says "intent," not "motive."

quote:

---

A simple reading of the legal definition of 'intent' and 'motive' suggest that motive is actually the target

---

Incorrect. The law literally does not say what you think it says. I have quoted the actual laws to you. It is now your burden to show where it refers to "motive" rather than "intent."

quote:

---

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 quoted the law to you.Did you bother to read it?Where does it mention "motive"? What phrases could be interpreted to mean "motive" rather than "intent," especially since the UK law specifically uses the word "intent"?

quote:

---

I'll need you to show me that it is intent.

---

What part of the word "intent" doesn't mean "intent"? When the law in question specifically uses the word, are we supposed to think it means something else?I cannot do your homework for you. You have to read the law. It has been presented to you. The fact that it was I who placed the law in front of you does not absolve you of your obligation to pay attention and read it before you start declaring what it does or does not say.If you don't like the fact that it was I who placed the information in front of you, then do you own homework and look it up for yourself.

---

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.

Catholic Scientist writes:

quote:

---

Maybe according to your own principle, but not according to the law... and we're discussing the law

---

Since I'm the only one who has bothered to actually quote the law, it would help if you would point out where the law supports your claim.Because so far, I can't find a single reference to motive anywhere in the law. All we've got is references to intent.Prove me wrong. Show me where the law mentions motive.

quote:

---

In the eyes of the law, you are discribing motives.

---

Incorrect. In the eyes of the law, we are describing intent.Prove us wrong. Show us where in the law it talks about motive.No, not a definition of motive. Instead, you need to go to the actual hate crimes statutes and point out where they describe motive rather than intent.This may be difficult because the UK law, for example, it specifically uses the word "intent."Are you saying the law isn't being accurate? If so, where. Where in the law does it say that? It's been quoted to you. Multiple times. Surely you should be able to show the specific clause in the law that refers to motive by now.

quote:

---

They are not supposed to be used to determine what crime has taken place.

---

And where in the law do you see any reference to motive?The specific statutes have been quoted to you. It is now time for you to do your own homework.

---

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.

Legend responds to me:

quote:

---

I pointed you the the official Home Office (UK's Dept of Justice equivalent) and FBI web sites!

---

And I pointed you to the actual law. Thus, my source outranks yours.Nowhere in the law is motive mentioned. In fact, UK law specifically uses the word "intent." You can rant and rave all you want about what third parties that are not the law say when talking about the law, but none of that makes any difference because the only thing that matters is what the law actually says.And the UK's hate crimes law specifically uses the word "intent."Are you saying the people charged with enforcing the law don't understand the difference between intent and motive? That they were given a law that specifically says "intent" and the entirety of them completely took leave of their senses and started treating it as if it really said "motive" and that the only person who has managed to figure this out is not the legislators who wrote the law, not the police who search out violations of the law, not the prosecutors who try those accused of violating the law, not the judges who analyze, interpret and apply the law, but rather someone who is none of the above and has no actual training in the law?I'm in an xkcd cartoon:

quote:

---

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!

---

Indeed. What you highlighted is a description of intent, not motive. Motive would be "because the perpetrator hates the victim." But that isn't what the statute says. Instead, it gives a description of the act based upon characteristics of the victim. That's intent. From other sections of the penal code: Are you saying that "to conceal" is motive, not intent?More penal code text: There's that word "because" again. Is this a description of motive? The person is engaging in the crime because the victim has certain characteristics. Is this "thought crime"?Or perhaps you don't understand what "motive" really is when it comes to the law.

quote:

---

You really have to do something about that selective vision of yours.

---

You mean the word "motive" appears there? I don't see it. Are you saying that my vision is so selective that the word "motive" really is there but I'm just deliberately overlooking it?Or is it possible that you are referring to something that isn't motive but is actually a description of intent?

quote:

---

LOL! oh, I see you did a google search on "hatred intent -motive", did you?

---

No, I used your sources. Your sources made references to specific parts of the law so I looked up those parts to see what they actually said. You did read your own source, didn't you?http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/...ms/reducing-crime/hate-crime: So since it mentioned the specific acts, I looked them up.You're complaining that I'm quoting the actual UK law to you?

quote:

---

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)

---

No, you didn't. You gave a press release. Your press release made reference to the law. I then went to the law to find what it actually said. I should think that an act named "Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006" would be the place to find the definition of a type of hate crime, wouldn't you?

quote:

---

Unfortunately for you, the word 'intends' here doesn't show Intent in the legal sense of the word

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Your argument is that the word "intend" does not actually mean "intend"? That in a law, the word "intend" is not supposed to be interpreted in a legal context?

quote:

---

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.

---

---

And what part of "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" does not meet this criteria of legal intent? The law is specifically referring to the fact that the person who carries out the action is not innocently engaging in activity that stirs up religious hatred but instead is consciously, deliberately, and purposefully "intending" doing so.Are you really trying to say that when the law says, "intend," it doesn't actually mean "intend" in a legal sense?

quote:

---

But what this law punishes *on top of* the threatening behaviour is the religious hatred that caused it!

---

Incorrect. It punishes the intended action. It is not enough to simply show that religious hatred was stirred up. You have to show that the person who did it intended to do it.Are you seriously claiming that a law that uses the word "intend" has been completely misinterpreted by everybody whose job it is to actually work with the law and that you, who don't have any training in the law at all, are the only one to notice that they've made a mistake? And your justification for this is that the word "intend" doesn't actually mean "intend"?The "motive" can be all sorts of things. Perhaps the person knows that by stirring up religious hatred, a riot will occur and the person owns a business that would get a lot of lucrative contracts rebuilding the destroyed property. That would be a motive that has absolutely nothing to do with hatred. The guy simply doesn't care who gets hurt: He's only doing it for the money.However, he is stirring up the religious hatred deliberately, consciously, and purposefully. He "intends" to do it. And thus, he is guilty of violating the statute cited.Similarly, for the California statute, the motive for the guy might be money. But because he intends to do this to specific classes, he is violating the statute. Hatred has no presence in this, but the law has still been violated.And yet, you're absolutely certain that you, who is not a scholar of jurisprudence, has figured out something that all the people who study the law for a living have missed: That the word "intend" really doesn't mean "intend."That's your argument?

quote:

---

This is a classic example of legislation that punishes MOTIVE as well as the criminal act that ensues.

---

Yep, that does seem to be your argument: That when the law says, "intend," what it really means is "motive." And nobody has noticed this except you.

quote:

---

Really Rrhain, I thought you were against playing semantic games, changed your mind did you?

---

I'm not the one saying that the word "intend" in a law doesn't really mean "intend" in a legal sense.

---

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.

Catholic Scientist writes:

quote:

---

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?

---

Yes. Fraud is all about intent.If you have sex with someone who thinks you're his or her spouse while expressly intending to impersonate said spouse, you're guilty of rape: Thus, if the other person thinks you're his spouse but you're not intending to do so and you have sex, you're not guilty of rape. But if you were specifically trying to fool the other person, you are.The entire crime is based upon your intent.Why are you incapable of doing your own homework?

---

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.

I will grant you that the public information sites of the UK government are very misleading with regard to the actual law. It seems the people who write home office sites for the public think the public too stupid to understand "intent" or "aggravated" and so do use the word "motivated" quite persistently.But I have looked up the actual laws as Rrhain also did and it is quite clear that the word "intent" is specifically used throughout the wording of the actual laws under consideration. Here is an example: With regard to your "thought crimes" claims point 5 might be of interest. Sounds very much like the "evidenced intent" I have been talking about no?So if anything it seems that the hate laws in the UK have a PR problem rather than the "thought crime" problems that you claim.

what, "totalitarian" and "individually" are considered big words over that side of the channel, are they? I thought you English folk would make better use of the English language. But if you want me to stick to monosyllabic (oops, another big word, sorry!) words then that's fine, I'll understand. but according to YOUR definition a bully would be guilty of "targeted subjugation", wouldn't he? When he picks on the ginger kid he sends out a message to all ginger kids. When he mocks the kid with the stutter he mocks all kids with a stutter. So, according to you, school bulllying is a hate crime ! I take it then you'd expect to see bullies charged with hate-crimes, no? As well-meaning as you are, by supporting these laws you're supporting punishing people's feelings and ideas. I've alreasy shown you examples which show that this is exactly how the law actually operates in Britain. Here's yet another case which shows that, sometimes, a crime is not even needed for an intimidating visit by the police. A 'Bad Thought' is all it takes.As far as I can see, these laws have done nothing to protect vulnerable groups (statistics show an increase in such crimes), but they have managed to suppress freedom of speech and expression. People are afraid to speak in public in case they receive a visit by the Thought Police. What argument?You've stated that some crimes are committing offences to target whole groups of people instead of individuals. Yes they do, but these laws are looking at people's ideas and feelings in order to distinguish between who targets whom. They also ignore offences that target whole groups as long as this group isn't defined by any particular race/religion/sexuality/etc. They also create a feeling of unfairness and special treatment in communities when victims of certain races/religions/etc see their attackers punished less severely than other victims' attackers.I mean FFS, how many more reasons do you need to see that these laws are far more harmful than beneficial? I've repeatedly shown you the letter and the practice of the law. Instead you prefer to ignore it all and stick with the idealistic notion of hate-crime laws you have inside your head. I don't. That's the point: in most cases you can't know unless you start making inferences and assumptions based on the accused's ideology, thoughts, feelings or even circumstances. If a white racist mugs a black man did he do it because he hated blacks or did it happen that the black guy was the first one to walk into the alleyway? This unfortunate mugger was given 75 years in prison because the authorities inferred that he "targeted aged people". Just because he targeted older people (almost certainly because they were easy victims rather than anything else) it was *assumed* that he hated old people and he therefore was convicted of a hate crime. Can you imagine if he was unlucky enough to have also called any of the victims an 'old hag' or something similar? He'd be given the death sentence no doubt.So, the answer to your question "Who is targeted?" the answer is : Whoever the authorities want to present as being targeted in order to expediate their aims. That's the problem with such laws, they can be applied selectively and subjectively to further ulterior motives.That's why, as I told you before, you shouldn't be thinking that these laws protect you and the people round you. If they do it's just due to fortunate circumstance that can easily change dependent on the whim of the current authorities, not due to any higer ideal and design.Now, I understand and appreciate that some people have truly abhorrent ideas that you (and I for that matter) find disgusting and repugnant. However, it is essential that we allow these people, all people, to express these ideas for reasons that are too numerous to mention, are probably beside the scope of this thread and should be evident in the first place. If you start punishing people for their thoughts you can't claim to be living in a free country and probably don't deserve to either.

---

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

Well it must have been somebody Welsh who wrote the Home Office public information site then. Because they seem as ignorant of the actual wording of thw law and of the difference between intent and motive as you do. You don't work for the HO at all do you.....? I very much doubt it. Firstly you are dealing with minors who are not fully legally culpable. Secondly a crime such as assault or GBH has to have been committed before any other consideration is required. And thirdly you would have to demonstrate evidenced intent of a wider intimidatory or subjugating effect on one of the predefined (based on historical evidence) social groupings made as part of the 'normal' crime. In your opinion. Primarily based on your personal conflation of intent and motive. The lawmakers of the world seem to disagree with you. And they it seems know the difference between the two terms. Is this a problem with the actual laws you want to get rid of? Or is it the bad application of the law? Should we dispense with every single law that has been implemented over zealously or stupidly by individual police officers? Would we have any laws left if we did? Let's see what you link actually says shall we? So we see that this is not the fault of the laws themselves but an idiot police officer making a "gross error of judgement". As I suspected it would be. I am sorry but this is just hyperbolic crap. I live in one of the most socially diverse parts of London. And that makes it one of the most socially diverse places in the world. It is hardly crime free either. Now according to you the entire nation of Britain is gripped with fear of even thinking. Given the social mix in Brixton if what you say is true about the application of such laws every other crime committed would be a hate crime! Yet they aren't. Why? Because you are applying a parochially minded right wing press point of view and seeking out examples where ideiots have applied the laws badly and then taken this as some sort of defining principle to support your preconceived paradigm. In short you are talking out of your ill informed arse.Should we get rid of all the laws that individual police officers have applied stupidly? Would we have any laws left if we did? That one I have been making all thread. The one you seem determined to disagree with in principle despite grudgingly agreeing with all of the steps taken to reach the conclusion. Which races or religions do you think are specifically protected by the law over any others? Or is the law specifically worded so as to be blind as to which religion or race is being targeted? Still on about "thought crimes" huh? Which part of evidenced intent are you still struggling to comprehend? Did you read the actual UK laws in question? In Message 218. And also the message about intent in the law Message 211.Given that intent is a common component of numerous laws are you suggesting that all laws where intent is a significant component are "thought crimes"? Should we get rid of all of them? Or could it be that your entire "thought crimes" argument is a massive popular misconception?I think the biggest problem with the hate crime laws in the UK is one of PR. And this isn't helped by the sort of imbecilic application you have highlighted. But that hardly justifies recinding the laws in question now does it? Should we get rid of all the laws that individual police officers have applied stupidly? Would we have any laws left if we did? just to be clear - This is not a rhetorical question.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

First off, you quoted *one* particular instance of *one* particular Act, out of several, that constitutes a hate-crime. So even if this one dealt with intent only (which it doesn't) that still wouldn't mean that hate-crimes, in general, don't punish motive.

quote:

---

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, I said that the word 'intends' here doesn't show Intent in the legal sense of the word, can't you read?The ACT in question is "using threatening words or behaviour".The INTENT of this act is decided on whether there was determination to perform the act or to act in a particular manner (From the Legal Dictionary ), i.e. did he used threats accidentally/jokingly or did he mean it.The MOTIVE behind the act is the why the person acted in that way (source as above), i.e. did he use threats to extort money, or -in this case- to stir up religious hatred.If you want to use layman's terms it's simple really. You just have to ask yourself three questions:
1) WHAT did he do
2) did he MEAN to do it.
3) WHY did he do it.Whicever way you look at it you'l see that this is a typical example of a law that punishes the motive. If you want to play semantic games and latch onto the use of the word "intends" feel free but that doesn't change what this laws is actually punishing. The ACT in question isn't "stirring up religious hatred" it's "using threatening words or behaviour". The REASON/MOTIVE for it is "to stir up religious hatred"Just like when someone kills their spouse, the ACT isn't "cashing in on the life insurance", although the MOTIVE may be so. Hmm...let's see what the Legal Dictionary says:

quote:

---

Motive

​

An idea, belief, or emotion that impels a person to act in accordance with that state of mind.

​

Motive is usually used in connection with Criminal Law to explain why a person acted or refused to act in a certain wayfor example, to support the prosecution's assertion that the accused committed the crime.

---

Yup, I was right all along. Now, are you sure *you* know what motive means? As it happens, half the UK Parliament and most of the House of Lords noticed it, which is why it took the UK government three attempts to finally pass this billFinally, from the Legal dictionary

quote:

---

A Hate Crime is one crime that requires proof of a certain motive. Generally, a hate crime is motivated by the defendant's belief regarding a protected status of the victim, such as the victim's religion, sex, disability, customs, or national origin. In states that prosecute hate crimes, the prosecution must prove that the defendant was motivated by animosity toward a protected status of the victim. Hate-crime laws are exceptions to the general rule that proof of motive is not required in a criminal prosecution.

---

I rest my case.

---

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

Hi Straggler,I have some free time again, so I'll jump back in the ring with you.... How can this be proven without applying subjectivity? IOW, how can you evidence this "wide scale intent" from a single act of violence/vandalism/etc. to a single victim?If I vandalize a mosque, repeatedly, are you saying the law could then try to prove that my large scale intent was to intimidate the entire Islamic community?- Oni

Legend responds to me:

quote:

---

First off, you quoted *one* particular instance of *one* particular Act

---

Incorrect. I quoted one specific phrase but then wrote on to notice that the law goes on and on in the same vein, using the same words to describe different specific acts. I didn't want to have to waste a bunch of space on repetitious phrasing. Is your argument seriously that there's only one place in the Religious and Racial Hatred Act that uses "intent"?Have you read it?

quote:

---

So even if this one dealt with intent only (which it doesn't)

---

I see we're repeating the "intend" doesn't actually mean "intend" argument.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Your argument is that the word "intend" does not actually mean "intend"? That in a law, the word "intend" is not supposed to be interpreted in a legal context?

---

​

No, I said that the word 'intends' here doesn't show Intent in the legal sense of the word, can't you read?

---

Better than you.How is that not precisely what I said? "Doesn't show 'intent' in the legal sense" ... "the word 'intend' is not supposed to be interpreted in a legal context."How are those two sentences different?Talk about a case of special pleading. You go on and on about how the law is about motive and not intent, quoting a press release as proof, and when shown that the law actually says intend, your response is that they don't really mean it.

quote:

---

The ACT in question is "using threatening words or behaviour".

---

...where you intend to stir up religious hatred. It is not a hate crime simply to be threatening. You have to have intent. That's why the law talks about your intention by using the word "intend."Ah, but you know better and can read the minds of the entire legal profession to know that they really meant "motive" when they said "intend."

quote:

---

The MOTIVE behind the act is the why the person acted in that way

---

I know. That's why the law talks about intent, not motive. But your response to the fact that the law specifically uses the word "intend" rather than "motive" is to claim that they don't really mean "intend" when they say, "intend," but rather actually mean "motive."

quote:

---

Whicever way you look at it you'l see that this is a typical example of a law that punishes the motive.

---

Incorrect. It punishes crime carried out with a specific intent. That's why the law uses the word "intend" rather than "motive." There are plenty of motives you might have for the same intent. Your action may be intended to stir up religious hatred, but your motive can be for anything you care to name: Money, sex, property, just because you like to see the pretty colors the fire makes when the riot breaks out. Your motive is not at issue. Only your intent.That's why the law uses the word "intend."But you can read the legal professions' minds to know they really meant "motive."

quote:

---

The ACT in question isn't "stirring up religious hatred" it's "using threatening words or behaviour".

---

To quote you: Can you read? It isn't enough to simply be threatening. In order to have a hate crime, the specific intent (not motive..."intent") is to stir up racial hatred. Your motive can be anything. You might be doing it for money, but your intent is to stir up racial hatred. The method by which you carry out your intent is the action.That's why intent, in and of itself, is not a crime. You can intend anything you wish, but if you don't actually do anything, then there is no crime.That's why your example of Tweedy is so descriptive: She assaulted someone. Nobody denies that she hit the other party. There are, however, three possible outcomes:She just hit her.
She hit her with intent to cause hatred.
She acted in self-defense.You do recall those three points that the judge made, yes? If the prosecution hasn't proven intent, then there is no hate crime and she's just guilty of assault. But then there's the third option that she isn't guilty of anything at all no matter what since she was defending herself.That's what "intent" means.Why does everyone in the legal profession know this but you don't?

quote:

---

Just like when someone kills their spouse, the ACT isn't "cashing in on the life insurance", although the MOTIVE may be so.

---

But your "intent" is to defraud. That's what makes fraud a crime.Why is it everybody in the legal profession understands this but you don't?

quote:

---

Yup, I was right all along.

---

I'm reminded of A Fish Called Wanda. "Apes read Plato...they just don't understand it."Yes, you've managed to read a dictionary and parrot a definition of motive. But now you need to use it in a sentence correctly in order to show that you actually understand what it is that you're parroting. And so far, you haven't. In fact, you've proven that you don't understand motive at all because you are confusing it with intent. That's why you keep arguing that a law that specifically uses the word "intend" really means "motive," even though you don't have any evidence to justify this claim and, in fact, every example you have given to try and buttress your argument actually shows the exact opposite.Intent is used to define crimes. It's what allows us to distinguish assault from self-defense. If you don't have the intent to commit assault, then you haven't. Fraud is entirely defined by intent. If you have sex with someone who thinks you're his or her spouse, you have only committed rape if your intent was to actually pretend to be said spouse. Your motive may be to have sex, but it isn't rape unless your intent meets the definition.If your intent in engaging in the crime is to stir up religious hatred, then your crime is not simply the assault but is a more serious crime of terrorism.

quote:

---

Now, are you sure *you* know what motive means?

---

Yep. I've given several examples of it. If I run a construction company and I think I can manage to get a lot of constuction contracts if there's a riot downtown that causes a lot of damage, then my motive for engaging in acts that stir up religious hatred is money. I couldn't care less about the specific people in any way. I'm only in it so that I can make a profit. But my intent is to stir up religious hatred.

quote:

---

As it happens, half the UK Parliament and most of the House of Lords noticed it

---

Did you read your source? The entire argument was about making a distinction about the type of intent. It wasn't a discussion about motive versus intent. From your own source: There's that word "intent." They're not debating motive but rather are making a distinction between intent to actually stir up hatred and intent to do something else. It would seem that your complaint is that the legislators were being very specific about ensuring that the law was about intent, not motive...that it's not enough to simply dislike people but you have to have a specific intent to engage in a particular activity.Hmmm...intent, intent, intent, and yet you're absolutely certain that when they said, "intent," they really meant motive." They're going on and on about "intent" but they really don't mean it. Your argument is that the word "intend" is not supposed to be interpreted in a legal context.Did you bother to read your own source?All the other debates were technical ("Remove the words 'Part 3 of' on Page 1, line 2"), procedural (voting to give the bill a second reading), or unrelated (the first Lords discussion was to delete religious offenses such as blasphemy, disturbing a religious service, or striking a person in a churchyard.At any rate, you haven't responded to the fundamental point: The text reads "intend," not "motive." Therefore, what is your justification that the law refers to "motive," not "intent"?

quote:

---

Finally, from the Legal dictionary

---

Which is not the law. I've quoted the law to you. It trumps the dictionary. Even a legal dictionary.Where in the law does it mention "motive"? Why is it that the only words used are "intent" or go to intent?

quote:

---

I rest my case.

---

Yep. Your entire case is based on third-party discussions of the law rather than the actual law itself. Your entire case is to evade, avoid, and distract from the actual law so that you can buttress a preconceived notion about the way things are supposed to be.And "intend" doesn't really mean "intend."

---

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.

onifre writes:

quote:

---

How can this be proven without applying subjectivity?

---

The same way every other prosecution of intent is done: By providing evidence. What did the perpetrator say or do?In California, it is a crime to have sex with someone who thinks you are his or her spouse if your intent was to fool said spouse.How do we prove that intent? The point is that we want to make a distinction between a horrible misunderstanding (twin brothers are in a house, the spouse of one doesn't realize that it's the wrong room, and in the dark the two of them have sex) and actual fraud resulting in rape (twin brothers are in a house and one brother enters the room of the other to have sex with his brother's spouse knowing that he won't be recognized as the wrong brother.)The way we prove intent is to provide evidence.We certainly don't pretend we can read your mind. Instead, we provide specific and clear evidence of your actions and statements that go to your intent.

quote:

---

If I vandalize a mosque, repeatedly, are you saying the law could then try to prove that my large scale intent was to intimidate the entire Islamic community?

---

What is the evidence of your intent? You are behaving like RAZD, thinking that this entire process is taking place in a complete absence of evidence when in reality, we have mountains of it: The specific words you scrawled in your graffiti, your statements made when you were arrested and during your interrogation, the journal you were found with when you were arrested that has your explanation as to your intent, etc., etc.You are pretending that there is no evidence.Let's not play dumb.

---

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.

That is all you have, some graffiti (I said nothing during my interrogation that indicated I want all "insert group here" dead, gone or whatever, nor were any journals found). Now what?Do you extrapolate from my single graffiti a large scale intent to intimidate an entire race/religion/etc. through your own subjective interpretation of what my words meant?Or do you simply punish me for vandalism? You are pretending there is evidence.- Oni