Hate-crime = Thought crime?

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

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

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

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

Ok, but will you also add to this case that their wider intent was to rid the entire community of black people?Because if you can't evidence that their intent was to rid the entire community of black people, then how is this different from other people who are targeted because they happen to be alone, or small and (perceived) weak, females, fat and slow, walking through a dark alley, etc.?Do you think the color of the victim being dragged made him special? Now you are going to dictate what should be considered more offensive to people? Do you really want to open that door into censorship of (perceived) offensive material? But we established that the intent was ok under the right circumstances, so the only thing the punishment should be in reference to is the only illegal act - which was vandalism. Any other way, and the law is showing a bias.- Oni

You're missing the point - achieving those aims you mention above (adultery and steal from their bank) are also illegal. Where as acheiving your aim of riding your city of [group] is not illegal.I agree with you that very much depends on how you go about acheiving those aims. Thus it is only how you went about acheiving this aim that should be punished in cases when the "wide scale aim" is not illegal.If your wide scale aim was to rob with intent to kill, or assault with intent to rape, then yes, the wide scale aim should be part of the punishment. But when the wide scale aim is "rid my city of [group]," since that is totally legal to do under the right circumstances, how can you punish for that? I don't think this was ever my position. I think you confused me for Hyro and Legend. I agree. And that's why I say that the only thing that should be punished is the individual acts that break the law. There should be no increase in sentencing since the wide scale aim is not illegal. I thought I made my reasons for disliking hate crimes law clear?They do nothing. They are superficial laws. They ignore the actual problems, and are used as a tool to not have to actually tackle the real problems. They make victims out of people who are NOT victims. They set to dictate what should and should not be deemed offensive. They pretend to know the feelings of a community they are not in touch with (this is relevant with the common white/black/hispanic issues).Furthermore, they are bias and punish for an intent and wide scale aim that is NOT illegal on its own. Huh?The way I'm reading this, its the "illegal means" that is the crime, right?Isn't that the only thing that is punishable?- Oni

Please, do not confuse your rational country with mine. source

quote:

---

In the United States, laws vary from state to state. In those states where adultery is still on the statute book (although rarely prosecuted), penalties vary from life sentence (Michigan), to a fine of $10 (Maryland), to a Class I felony (Wisconsin). In the U.S. Military, adultery is a potential court-martial offense. The enforceability of adultery laws in the United States has been/is being questioned following Supreme Court decisions since 1965 relating to privacy and sexual intimacy of consenting adults, in cases such as Lawrence v. Texas; however, occasional prosecutions occur.

---

It is still illegal in some states over here. "Office, please, do not confuse my actions. I meerly persuaded them out of their cash, that was in their bank."You and Nugz are digging deep for this one. Right, it is the difference between legally demonstrating and illegally vandalising.You used "intent" in a different context.As I understand it, you are saying that demonstrating means your aim is to rid the community of [group], but that vandalising means you want to intimidate and subjugate the same [group]. I am asking for evidence of this. How do you distinguish?Notice how you'll increase the intent according to the crime: Spray paint (not so bad), break a window/damaging property (a bit worse), arson (even worse).But this can get confusing when judging the individual situation, and pointless in the same sense.A punishment already exists - increasing the sentecing in each case doesn't help any - and the punishments are already strict enough. This would take it into a free speech issue.The only way for you to establish that it was with intent to "intimidate/subjugate/whatever," by the act of vandalism(s), would be by judging the context of what was written.So implying that it can intimidate and subjugate should also be applied to simply carrying the same message on a sign. But if it's nothing more than an opinionated message in one sense, and protected under free speech, why does it carry such an aggressive tone when written on a wall?As I understand it, you are saying that demonstrating means your aim is to rid the community of [group], but that vandalising means you want to intimidate and subjugate the same [group]. I am asking for evidence of this. How do you distinguish? Even if they are conceptually the same as examples, doesn't mean anything. There are other factors that I am presenting.But, to answer your question: they are different.Establishing fraud in an arson case does not require you to take into account social differences that can become a grey area, especially when viewed from the outside in, and is inherently subjective.- Oni[abe] I didn't asnwer this: Since this too requires subjectivity, I would say that in some cases it can be proven that it is punishing a thought crime - maybe. But the OP also mentions free speech and I gave my answer on that.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.