Hate-crime = Thought crime?

I'm jumping in late to the game here, so I may have missed a post or two.Clearly there is a difference between writing "Onifre Rulz" on a stop sign and writing "Kill all Honkies" on a stop sign. (wanted to pick a racial slur that wouldn't be too offensive.)One of these is a statement of personal worth, the other is a call to action inciting violence.Now, the "kill" statement isn't really to be taken seriously. At least, I don't know of any cases where someone read a similar sign and then did it. However, technically it's still a call to violent action.Similarly there is a difference between writing "Onifre Rulz" on the side of a temple and writing "Finish what the Nazis started". One of these is simple vandalism with no more implied intent than any other tagger. The other has a specific target audience in mind which it is directly determined to offend.Now, if you wanted to march up and down the street in front of the temple carrying a Nazi sign - feel free. So long as you aren't trespassing or directly harassing people, that's free speech.However, vandalism is a crime. And the intent behind a crime is a factor in determining the punishment for that crime. A person who spray paints a temple with Nazi symbols deserves a harsher punishment than someone who spray paints a smiley face.

This is precisely my point - If it's ok to write "Finish what Hitler started" on a sign and, in a control fashion, demonstrate outside of a temple, then the only violation of the law is the vandalism part.Obviously the sign that is being carried during the demonstration also has a specific target in mind and is also the same call to action that is inciting violence. So if its ok and protected under free speech to write it on a sign, the only thing writing it on the temple is doing is vandalising the temple. But I have shown you how the same intent is ok under the right circumstances. The intent is completely legal.For example: robbery with intent to kill, assault with intent to rape, possession of drugs with intent to supply - are ALL intents which are illegal on their own.It is NOT illegal however to intend to rid your entire city of jews, blacks, hispanics, cripples, gays, etc., as long as you do it legally. You can protest legally, start a website, pass out reading material, whatever. What becomes illegal is the act of vandalism. And that is all that is punishable by the law, and should be punished in the same manner that any other vandalism case would be punished.- Oni

Ding ding. Well let me "answer" your question with some questions. Is "beyond reasonable doubt" a subjective judgement at all? If crimes of any sort were entirely free of subjectivity we could in principle do away with judges and juries and just run the evidence through a computer programme to determine guilt. Yes? But I cannot ever see this happening. Surely a degree of subjectivity is just a fact of human reality? Are you saying that we should do away with all crimes where intent is a significant component because determination of guilt in such cases is too reliant on subjectivity? Presumably not. So are you then applying harsher criteria to hate laws because you oppose them on other grounds? Intent in many forms can be, and frequently is, evidenced in a court of law.Secondly as I have said previously one of the things about practical bigotry is that to be effective the intent needs to be reasonably clear. Graffiti that says "Go home Pakkis" doesn't leave much room for interpretation and is fairly typical of the sort of thing under discussion. Likewise "Burn in hell fags" doesn't leave much to the imagination. Active bigots determined enough to commit the sort of crimes under discussion are very helpfully not shy about expressing their bigotry. In fact in my (albeit anecdotal) experience they tend to be rather proud of themselves. And then there is all the surrounding evidence as with any other crime with a significant intent component.But in short if the sub-section of society in question is blissfully unaware that they are being intimidated then the intimidator isn't doing a very good job. So in cases that matter I don't think the issues you raise are likley to be as much of a problem as you are assuming they will be. As I have said previously I think it is more at the local community level that hate laws are most relevant. So I would quibble what it is you mean by "the entire Islamic community". As you pointed out, at a national level a civil rights movement rather than a few laws is probably more appropriate (although some laws might indicate the start of a wider social movement). But let's assume you mean closing the local mosque down or, more realistically, stopping local Muslims using said facility freely and without fear as is their basic right. Then I guess so.The obvious thing to do is question the perpetrator. I personally suspect that (for the reasons stated above) the answers might be both forthcoming and quite revealing in many cases. I also guess that this is where motive in terms of securing a conviction (as I believe you described the role of motive earlier) and intent in terms of what the specific crime committed actually is, and thus the punishment incurred, come into play. But ultimately wider intent should be evidenced in exactly the same that intent is evidenced for any other crime.I am no lawyer. But it seems to me that now we have definitively established that the actual laws under discussion are based on evidenced intent rather than motive - That, gripes about how well (or not) such laws are being applied in practise aside, there is little to distinguish these laws from any other. In principle.If you disagree then I am not sure on what basis exactly?

onifre responds to me:

quote:

---

That is all you have

---

No, that is not all we have. Once again, you're trying to pull a RAZD, pretending that there is a complete vacuum of evidence, the investigators simply made shit up, and absolutely nobody in the entire process ever bothered to do any sort of analysis of it. Nope, rather than leaving it to the jury to decide if the prosecution has proved its case, the judge simply declared it to be so.That's what you're arguing: That everybody who is charged with dealing with the law has completely lost their minds in a mass hallucination and think they can get away with one tiny little scrap (because we all know the defense isn't going to actually try to put up a defense and impeach the witness) as if a jury is going to buy that.

quote:

---

I said nothing during my interrogation that indicated I want all "insert group here" dead, gone or whatever, nor were any journals found

---

Yes, we did. We have it on tape. You didn't think the prosecution was going to file charges of a hate crime without significant evidence to back up the burden of proof of intent that is required, did you?You're pulling a RAZD: Close your eyes hard enough and sing "la-la-la!" loud enough, and maybe you can convince yourself that the evidence doesn't exist.You're complaining that the prosecution has the temerity to file charges for crimes they think they are able to prove given the evidence that they have. And yet, you only seem to be making this complaint for this specific crime. By your logic, we need to throw out the entire legal system because what you are wetting yourself over is the precise way all crime is prosecuted: After an investigation, evidence is gathered regarding a possible crime. The prosecution looks over the evidence that it has and makes a judgement call as to whether or not to charge someone with a crime. It does this under the good faith assumption that it can win its case because it has sufficient evidence to prove it. If it doesn't, if it routinely brings forward frivolous charges that it clearly doesn't have sufficient evidence to justify, that's known as "prosecutorial misconduct" and can land the lawyers (and judges for allowing it) into a lot of trouble. That's why we have the entire concept of dismissal via the prosecution not being able to meet its burden of proof. Note, this is not the jury coming back with a verdict of not guilty. This is a legal proceeding where the judge determines that there is no way a jury could find the defendant guilty because there simply isn't any evidence to do so.That's the way all crime is: You don't get charged with anything unless there is sufficient evidence to make the matter worthy of investigation.So since you don't seem to have this apoplectic fit whenever anybody is charged with murder (something just as serious), one has to wonder why it is you're picking on this particular type of crime.

quote:

---

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?

---

Um, what part of "evidence" is slipping past you? Once again, you're pulling a RAZD: Insisting there isn't any evidence when in fact there are mountains of it. We wouldn't be prosecuting you for it if there weren't. This is not something that is left to whim or chance. There are legal standards that must be met and if the prosecution tries to file charges without any real evidence to back it up, the defense will file a motion for dismissal so fast you'll wonder why they even bothered in the first place.

quote:

---

Or do you simply punish me for vandalism?

---

And ignore the evidence? Why would you demand we ignore the evidence? You don't get charged with any crime of any kind unless there is evidence to back it up. Now, it's up to the jury to determine if the case has been proven, but it will never get that far unless there is sufficient evidence to justify the charge in the first place. That's why people aren't plucked off the street and thrown into court to defend themselves against a crime.We've already been through this (Message 98): But, of course, even though I showed you this once before, you didn't respond. Given that you were too doubled-over with a fit of the giggles at your attempt to impugn my masculinity, I'm not surprised you didn't see it the first time. How many times will I have to post it before you read it?We don't get to trial unless there is a very good reason. It's possible the prosecution has made a mistake, but it isn't out of sheer stupidity.

quote:

---

You are pretending there is evidence.

---

If you got charged, then there is evidence. Why are you denying it?Oh, that's right...it's all about "liberal white guilt." The entire process is rigged, everybody makes shit up, and the defense is naught but a bunch of brain-dead idiots who are incapable of noticing that the prosecution doesn't have any evidence to back up the charges and thus won't move for immediate dismissal.

---

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.

In law enforcement it is referred to as a hate crime, of which I have no problem with. Establishing motives helps narrow down suspects and helps protect individuals from future crimes.What I take exception to is federalizing a crime that gives a higher emphasis or a stricter sentence based solely on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Those are based on feelings in tandem with actions. Aside from which motives are examined already in a court room, so there is no need for special legislation.The danger, again, is if such a precedence like this is law, it leaves open the possibility to limit the freedom of speech and of thought.

---

"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

That may be, however a court sentencing a man for stealing $10 worth of bread to feed his children is likely to be less harsh than a court sentencing a man for stealing $10 worth of stereo parts.Intent is a factor in sentencing.Further, "hate crime" tends to refer to acts of physical violence more so than graffiti. It's typically used in cases where the subject of rape/assault/murder is selected on the basis of race/sexual orientation.Now, it is true that a murder is a murder. However, a person killing his wife's lover is unlikely to re-kill him. A person killing black people is likely to find more victims any time he likes.

It is, I agree. But is this particular intent "wanting to rid your city of [insert group here]" illegal?Like I wrote in the post to Nuggin, if I wrote it on a sign and demonstrated for this purpose, I would be doing nothing illegal. I'd be expressing free speech. No it doesn't, it is a clear message. But it's not illegal to say, the only illegal part is vandalising someone's property while expressing this message. Ok. But now lets say I had the exact same intent, but instead of vandalising the mosque I organized a protest. I obviously have the same wide scale intent, but this time I am breaking no laws, right?So in the previous case the only law broken was vandalism, yet in both cases the wide scale intent to rid the community of muslims was there.Therefore the only thing punishable is vandalism, since the wide scale intent to rid a community of a certain group/race/relgious/class of people is not illegal and protected under free speech.- Oni

No dude, why do you always have trouble following shit?I set up the scenario. In this scenario nothing but a tagged up wall was found. Nothing else. Deal with that. I set up the scenario. In this scenario nothing but a tagged up wall was found. Nothing else. Deal with that.Everyone has seemed to understand it just fine. Why are you writing in extra lines? Stick to the script. All you have IN THIS SCENARIO is a tagged up wall. Deal with that.My point, if you would have stuck to the script, is that it is not illegal to want to rid your community of [insert group here]. What makes it illegal is the part that breaks an actual law - like vandalism. Yet, I can write "Finish what Hitler started" on a sign and demonstrate outside of a temple legally. However if I write it on the temple wall I have broken a law, I have vandalised.In both cases (demonstrating and vandalising) the message is clear - but in only one case has there been a law broken. All you have is a tagged up wall. Stick to the script. I got charged with vandalism for tagging up a wall. That is all. Deal with the scenario I set up (since you jumped into this discussion on your own) instead of filling the post up with pointless crap.- Oni

It is, I guess, I don't want to get into that part of the debate. But the point is, this particular intent is completely legal and protected under free speech. Unlike say Assault with intent to rape. Rape is illegal on it's own. It is also for cases of vandalsim and/or harassment.But even in a case of voilence, either the person commited a violent act because the person was of a particular race/sexual orentation/religion or because they were an easy target, small, weak, whatever. The point that everyone has made is, if you attack a weak person you aren't trying to send a message to the entire community of weak people. Where as, if you attack a jewish person, you ARE trying to send a message to the entire community of jewish people.The problem is, intending to rid your community of jewish people is NOT illegal. What is illegal is attacking someone for this purpose. So, the only thing that is against the law is attacking the person.- Oni

Correct. However, in the case of the Texas man who was dragged behind a truck, simply prosecuting the people for murder is frankly insufficient.Yes, one man is dead. Yes, two men are held responsible for the death. However, unlike a robbery gone wrong, these two men are committing a heinous crime with the intent of terrorizing a community.If we can't prosecute them for their intentions, we can't prosecute terrorists for their intentions either.Along the same lines, we can't prosecute someone for conspiracy to commit murder, since it's only the murder which is illegal. Nor can we prosecute for any criminal conspiracy (fraud, coersion, etc) since those are all "crimes of thought" as well.It's not an invalid argument which you are posing, it's just that you are talking about taking away the ability for law enforcement (a group with is already seriously overwhelmed) to deal with a class of criminal.A typical kid who spray paints their name on a wall may get a $100 fine or 100 hours of community service. I have no problem with the same kid getting a $500 fine and 500 hours of community service for spray painting a swaztika on a temple. Just like that same kid would get a $500 fine for spray painting a statue of Washington instead of spray painting the side of a parking garage.

Clearly. But to the enitre community, not just to the community of people who share the same race as the person being dragged. Just as the DC snipper did, Ted Bundy and Wayne Gacy - all of which terrorized the entire community.It would not be less of a henous act to drag someone who wasn't black, right? I think it would be equally henious, so why have any bias at all? Why? What is so special about a swaztica as opposed to writing your name on the wall of a sacred temple? We have ( I think ) agreed that a swaztika is not illegal when carried on a sign in front of the temple and that the message of hate when done properly is also not illegal, so why should it carry a greater punishment?- Oni

It's so simple a concept that at this point they must either be admitting their bias or they're just being trolls.

---

"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

A robbery gone wrong would be murder II which is decidedly different from murder I. That in itself makes it different. You aren't understanding. You prosecute based on their actions and based upon the preponderance of evidence pointing to their deliberation in committing a crime. Anything less makes it illegal, or at least grossly unfavorable, to be a Muslim.We can't make it worse to prosecute people for murder simply because of religious conviction. You prosecute because their religious conviction does not give them a legal mandate to murder. Once again the people of this forum confuse "intent" with "motive." Please go look it up. Nonsense. Law enforcement do use the term hate-crime for statistical analysis and for uncovering motive (which helps point to the offender). What these hate-crime bills do does not even involve law enforcement. These hate-crime bills facilitate prosecution in a court of law.Besides, this bill is intended to prevent hate-crime, hence the name of the bill. It won't prevent anything, because murder has always been illegal and people still commit it! Why not go ahead and go a step further like Germany did to rectify the sins of their past? Why not make it a capital offense to draw a swastika in class and send that kid to jail? Cut it off where it grows before it can balloon out of control.Or if you wouldn't do that, tell me why not.Here's the bottom line: Motives can be examined in court. The danger with federalizing laws such as these is how loose interpretation can be thus jeopardizing free speech.If patron A enters a bar and gets in fight with patron B, patron A can falsely claim that patron B yelled racial epithets during the fight.Yelling racial epithets is not a crime, but assault is. Why then is the charge worse if he does something that is not illegal, just socially taboo?This fear is not unsubstantiated. Legend already provided articles where a woman faces a hate-crime for petitioning against gay pride parades. For petitioning!?!?! What kind of 1984 shit is that?

---

"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

Not in the case I'm discussing. These two white men deliberately targeted a black man for being black and dragged him to death behind their truck as a means of ridding the world of a black man.In the case of the sniper, the only common characteristic between the victims was proximity to DC. Bundy and Gacy had serial killing targets which were (in one case at least) white women who had brunette hair. Was Bundy attempting to terrorize all white women with brunette hair? Maybe. I don't know.But I do know that white women with brunette hair have not been a group which has historically been targeted for violent crime with the frequency or cavalier attitude that the current protected groups have been targeted. Because of intent. Intent, as I said earlier, is a factor in accessing the punishment for crime. It's unclear whether a person spray painting "Broncos rule!" on a temple is doing so because it is a temple or simply because it is the nearest flat surface. There's nothing about the statement which relates to the location in any way.However, a swaztica on a temple is clearly meant to convey a more offensive message. The building and group are being deliberately targeted for that purpose and a crime is being committed in order to convey that message.Since there is no base crime to someone walking around outside, there is no punishment. Since there is a base crime in spray painting the wall, there is a punishment. Given that there is a range of punishment to be assessed for any crime, I see no problem to allowing intent to inform which end of the spectrum the criminal faces.Should someone be convicted for "hate crime" with no underlying offense? No.

My point is convicting someone for owning fertilizer and diesel fuel and a truck and having a blueprint of a federal building and having posted hateful messages to the internet is still convicting them of thought crime not actual action. At no step in the process have they actually taken an illegal action.Still, I doubt you would suggest that we have to wait until they have detonated the bomb before we take action.In the same way, we can treat hate crime as a different class of crime. Now you are talking about the concept of determent. That's a whole different discussion. I don't have any statistics on determent of hate crime as a result of legislation. I doubt you have any either. These laws have not been in place long enough to get a sufficient sampling to really determine effectiveness. Because the swastika in and of itself is not a uniquely Nazi symbol. A Hindu kid could be drawing one based on symbols from pre-WWII religious iconography.Context matters. 50 years earlier, gay men were being beaten and killed for petitioning to have a gay pride parade. Which is worse?She is, for all intents and purposes, defending the position which for decades, if not centuries, was behind brutal murders which went completely unpunished.Now the pendulum has swung back 1 percent over the line and people are having a fit about how unfair it is.Where was your outrage when the pendulum was 99% in your favor? Why are you so offended now that's it barely crossed back over?