Hate-crime = Thought crime?

I thought we were talking about wider evidenced intent? I.e. intent to have a criminal effect that lies beyond the specific crime if viewed only as an isolated incident randomly committed. If such intent is evidenced where is the problem exactly? But there is that conflation again. This is intent. Not motive. They are different. Legally. And actually. No it doesn't. It makes criminal acts with a wider intent more serious. How are the intent based laws under discussion in principle different from convicting someone who has committed arson with the intent to defraud an insurance company of arson with intent to defraud?If you think of a violent hate crime as being assault (for example) with intent to intimidate a wider community how exactly is this different to the example above?The whole "thought crime" ting is just a straw man once we differentiate intent from motive. No?

Precisely. Good example!! Well said. Your example is much better than mine. I wish I had read it before I had posted my replies to Oni and Hyro.

Here is the legal document in question. Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006What are you talking about? Are you really splitting hairs between "intent", "intends" and "intended". Because I count six instances of "intends", one of "intended" and exactly none of "motive", "motives" or "motivated".Thus refuting the entire basis of your "thought crimes" argument.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Why are you ranting about murder when I asked about arson? Could you answer the question posed rather than the one you want me to ask? What "special stature"? Then we all agree that intent based laws are not thought crimes and we can all agree to play nicely again? Everyone does receive equal protection under the law as written. Who do you think receives special protection under the law? Be specific. Only if they fear the actions that person may intend to take. Well precisely. So how can you call these "thought crimes". You have just argued against your own premise. Sanity prevails! Oh but wait let's read on..... No Hyro. Not their beliefs. Their INTENTIONS. You can hate whoever you want. But if you action that hatred in a criminal manner with evidenced intent to intimidate or restrict the freedoms of others beyond the immediate victim of your crime then you will be punished accordingly.Are you seriously under the bewildering misapprehension that if we could somehow read minds the laws under discussion could be applied to arrest people for simply being prejudiced? That is really quite mad. And really quite silly.Edited by Straggler, : Fix quotes

"Words instead of meaning". Coming from you who has been claiming thought crimes on the basis of dictionary definitions all thread! How hilarious.So tell me which "words" actually used in the law really have the meaning required to be "thought crimes"? I would love to hear your translation of the laws as you see them. It should be fun.

How do you think gamblers go broke? What do you think stock brokers do? What do you think pyramid schemes are? There are probably more legal ways to get your bank account emptied than illegal ones. And plenty of persuasive people legally taking people's money off them hand over fist even as we write.Intending to relieve someone of their cash is not illegal. The illegality depends how you go about doing that. Yes? OK. Legal means vs illegal means. That is the defining difference. Same as the money example. Yes? One uses legal means to achieve the aim whilst the other uses illegal. Just as in the money example. Yes? By applying the law. As in the money example. Yes? Yes. Obviously I would have thought. The more serious the crime generally the more violent, socially damaging and intimidating it is. No? Why? How is it any more confusing or subjective than the application of any other law where intent plays a signiicant part. Why isn't "beyond reasonable doubt" enough for you when it comes to these laws but enough for so many others? I disagree. And for what it is worth most of the lawmakers of the world seem to as well. Why treat a crime as if it were an isolated random attack with no wider intent if there is wider intent that is evidenced? It seems negligent to do so. Erm... Isn't "where" a rather important factor here? Walking round with a sign that simply says "DIE" is one thing. Repeatedly graffitiing a synagogue with "DIE" in pigs blood means quite a different thing. No? Where is the wall? What is the evidenced context? Who is the graffiti aimed at? Is the intimidating intent evidenced "beyond all reasonable doubt" as far as a jury is concerned? Surely that is all that counts? In the same way that you evidence any intent. As a comparison do you know how the law distinguishes between possession and possession with intent to supply? I don't. I can guess how some obvious examples might be judged. But more borderline cases? Who decides? I am not a lawyer. But I don't see the intent here as any different. What am I missing? What is wrong with "Beyond all reasonable doubt"? "Social differences"? What those self same "social differences" that people have been predictably fucking each other over on the basis of for generations? In some cases millenia? Those "social differences"? Race, religion, nationality etc. etc. etc.I think you are once again viewing this through the blinkers of recent US history. But hate laws have been implemented all over the world. This really isn't just about judging US based blacks and hispanics (or whoever) as victims. It is about tackling the well evidenced social phenomenon of active prejudice made on the basis of very predictable and re-occurring criteria. The application of any law is inherently subjective. That is why we have lawyers, judges, juries and an entire legal system rather than cut and dry black and white guilt and innocence. Why is "Evidenced beyond reasonable doubt" not enough? Why more so than any other crime where intent is a significant factor? And again - The application of any law is inherently subjective. That is why we have lawyers, judges, juries and an entire legal system rather than cut and dry black and white guilt and innocence. Why is "Evidenced beyond reasonable doubt" not enough? Yes you did.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

What? So the "intent to defraud" that is specified in the law is actually "motive"? Not "intent"? Have you lost the ability to read?Are all laws with a significant intent component "thought crimes" where intent actually means motive? Or just the ones you don't like? Hyro do you think one race (for example) is any more protected by the law than any other? Because of the evidenced intent to effect intimidation beyond the immediate victim. This could apply to anyone of any race, any religion etc. etc. etc.And (in answer to your silly example) unless targeting technology workers becomes a widespread social phenomenon evidenced through history as a significant problem to society rather than a one off thing - Then no we probably don't need to add the level of technology in ones job to the "protected class" list. No. It isn't. Which races do you think have been specified as being better protected by the law over any other? Be specific.We can come to the rest of your post later if you really think it worthwhile but we really need to clear up this seeming misappprehension of yours that the law specifies some races, religions or whatever as protected whilst others are not. Which races do you think have been specified as being better protected by the law over any other? Be specific.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So according to you "intent to defraud" as used legally actually means motive? Not intent? And is thus, by your definition, constitutes a "thought crime"?So all crimes where there is "intent to defraud" are thought crimes. Yes? The part where you changed "arson with intent to defraud" to "arson" that has the motive to defraud.So tell me which words actually used in the law really have the meaning required to be "thought crimes"? I would love to hear your translation of the laws as you see them. It should be fun. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The parts where the laws use the word "intent" and not "motive". That is a non-answer. Either intent is a thought crime or it isn't. Which is it? And are you applying your thinking on intent based crimes consistently? Or are only those laws you don't like "thought crimes"? Then you are missing the entire point. If I go and and paint the word "DIE" in pigs blood all over a Synagogue based in the heart of the local Jewish community this is blatantly not same as graffitiing "Fuzzy Rabbit" on the side of a random derelict house. But you want the law to treat them identically in terms of intended effect. I think this would be negligent. Once you get people willing to murder on the basis of prejudice or otherwise you are probably beyond any deterring effect of harsher punishment anyway. I am talking about lesser crimes designed to intimidate and subjugate localised sub-communities. Your morbid fascination with seriel killers and the like are not overly relevant to what we are talking about here. How are we not equally protecting everyone? Once again I want to know which races or religions you think are better protected by law over any other? Please answer this question or stop implying that this is the case without stating it explicitly.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Then why is it called "with intent to defraud"?So your argument is that the legal use of "intent" actually means the legal term "motive". "Intent to defraud" actually means "motivated to defraud". Are you serious? What do you think "intent to supply" means? By your logic that means "motivated to supply". Yes?Can you not see that doing something with a wider aim (i.e. doing it with the intent to defraud or supply) is conceptualy different to doing something because you happen to think or feel a certain way about something (i.e. motivated by greed)? Are these two concepts identical in your head? So you are saying all crimes where intent is a significant factor meet your criteria for being "thought crimes" to the extent of being "borderline". Wow! No wonder you are getting so upset. Half the laws we have are "thought crimes" in your world. Is possession with intent to supply also a thought crime? Is it "borderline"? And the intent we are talking about here is being evidenced in exactly that way. What makes you think it isn't? Other than some stories about individual police officers applying the law stupidly and failing to get a conviction? Should all laws that have been applied badly at any point be recinded? So when legal documents say "intends" or "intent" they don't mean "intends" or "intent" (e.g. to defraud or supply) they mean motive? As far as you are concerned anyway. So you are saying that the legal terms "intent to defraud" and "intent to supply" actually mean "motivated to defraud" and "motivated to supply" respectively? What? The motive is greed. The intent is to make the insurance claim. The act is murder. In your definitions where does greed come in if not as motive? Until you start making sense? Or, more likely, we run out of thread.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

No let's call it what it is actually called. Namely "with intent to defraud". But your whole argument is based on the legal use of the word "intent" not actually meaning "intent" in a legal sense. This is patently absurd.Look Legend if I thought you were right about the laws under discussion I would be advocating a change in the law to make the crimes be based on evidenced intent. But as far as I can see this is the case anyway. Your protestations to the contrary are being increasingly exposed as confused gibberish. This includes your examples of the poor application of the law being treated as exactly that by the legal system. I.e. being treated as the poor application of the law. Not guilty verdicts, individual police officers facing disciplinary action etc. etc. How do these examples help your case at all? Would you abandon all laws that have been badly applied by individual officers? Would we have any laws left if we did?Your position is untenable here. So I am sorry but I see no further point in talking to you on this issue.Have a happy New Year.

One where either the intent itself is the crime or where the crime committed has a significant intent component beyond the main crime committed. For example: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. Is that enough on intent for you? Well exactly!!!!!!!But who would you say this is a threat towards? And how does the law as you are advocating it recognise this threat? At the point that the jury considers such intent to be "Beyond all reasonable doubt" based on the evidence of the individual case. Just as with any other law. Neither I nor the laws are compartmentalising people. I am not the one viewing this with "backwards thinking". You are the one who thinks some races (or whatever) are defined under the law as protected. You are the one viewing this entirely on the basis of recent US history despite the fact that such laws have been implemented all over the world. You are the one who is wrong.ANYONE who is attacked because of their race, no matter what their race may be, is equally protected under the law as long as such intent is evidenced beyond all reasonable doubt. There you go with your murder examples and blinkers about what this is about again. Do you think the law protects Asians any more than it does honkies?You seem utterly determined to view this debate in terms of predefined aggressors and victims. But that is not what this is about. This is about identifying those widespread and identifiable criteria upon which people seem predisposed to fuck each other up. Common identifiable criteria which are prevalent enough to be widespread social phenomenon. Common identifiable criteria such as race, nationality, sexuality, religion etc. etc. The law should be, and is, completely blind to the temporal specifics of exactly who is persecuting who. Details which entirely depend on local context. Details which will change from generation to generation as new immigrant populations arrive, old ones establish themselves, political situations with different countries fluctuate and social demographics alter. No race or religion is specified as being better or worse protected in the eyes of the law. Why can't you see that? SCENARIO
Imagine a scenario where the actions of the US government result in widespread anti-Americanism amongst certain sections of British society. Imagine that a militant section of a local community take it upon themselves to vent this ire and hostility towards a particular American style diner run by a Yank and regularly frequented by many US ex-pats. Through simple word of mouth this establishment becomes the focal point of local tension and the subject of repeated vandalism and intimidation towards the owner and patrons. Acts of violence ensue, customers stop attending and if the situation continues the venue will go out of business and close down for good.Should these crimes be covered by hate crime laws? Yes. Does it matter here that the victims are predominantly white in a predominantly white nation? No. Does it matter that in global terms the victims are from the most powerful country in the world? No. Do we give a babboons ballsack that this is not the most common of racist or anti-nationalist scenarios? No. This is a susained attack on a localised sub-community on the basis of nationality. The criminal acts are NOT dispirate events that happen to have a common and unfortunate link between victims. They are NOT random isolated acts of violence between random individuals. There is a wider context. There is wider intent beyond the actual direct crimes committed (vandalism, assault etc.). There is both intended effect and actual effect beyond that which is covered by laws that do not take the hate crime factor into account. This isn't about telling you who you can hate and who you can't. This is about recognsing the socially destructive element of common forms of prejudice and their wider effects when actioned by illegal acts such as vandalism, assault etc. This is not about specifying who is more important in the eyes of the law. Why can you not accept that? Or show us in the law where it says that Asians (as you have used in your examples) are given priority over any other racial groups? I'm sorry this is hyperbolic hysterical drivel straight off the screen of Fox News. The laws have been around for some time and have been implemented in one form or another all over the world. In addition the cities of the world are becoming more and more socially diverse. Yet do we have prisons full of people who have merely disliked others? Do we have prisons full of those convicted on a mere accusation? Do have prisons full of people who have committed "thought crimes"?No. Of course we don't. Because you are simply wrong.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

In all honesty I started this thread ignorant and uncaring about what the actual laws are. Instead I came at it from the angle of whether or not there was a valid argument in favour of such laws in principle. Regardless of how well or badly such laws had been implemented around the world. I was interested in whether or not an argument could be made where evidenced intent rather than "thought crimes" lay at the foundation.But having looked into it a bit here - As far as I can ascertain the actual law (in the US and Britain) seems fairly consistent with what I was arguing anyway. Certainly evidenced intent rather than "thought crimes" on the basis of motivation seems to be the reality. AbE - And if this were not the case I would be advocating that the laws be changed to "evidenced intent". I don't think so. I think I am arguing that if there is evidenced intent to have an effect beyond that of the direct crime committed then that should be taken into account. I think you like so many other are getting caught up in the name "hate crime", putting two and two together and coming up with 9. Hate is "thought" therefore they must be thought crimes right? Making it illegal to hate people right? But we are talking about evidenced intent to have an effect beyond that of the same crime committed randomly in an isolated situation. In essence wider evidenced context. If it were called "with intent to intimidate" or "with intent to subjugate" or some other such better phrased legal nomencalture would that make things clearer?I gave the example of graffitiing "DIE" all over a synagogue in pigs blood. Is this the same as spray-painting "I love fluffy rabbits" on the side of an abandoned house? Surely not. So what is the evidenced contextual difference here? And why would we pretend it doesn't exist?Evidenced beyond all reasonable doubt is all I am advocating here. Why is that so contentious? Surely you can see that intent to supply can be evidenced beyond reasonable doubt? Why cannot vandalism (for example) with intent to intimidate a certain group in society be equally evidenced beyond reasonable doubt? And if it is why would we not take that into account? As is intimidation I believe. The difference here is that the intended target is not an individual.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This yet another example of yours blowing up in your face.A pissed woman abuses an Asian taxi driver yelling racial abuse as she does so and then attacks the manager of an Indian restaurant. For this she receives: This was on top of (and concurrent with) the main punishment received for the basic assault: So in effect (because it runs concurrently) she receives no practical punishment at all for the racially aggaravated component of her crime unless she commits another such crime within the suspension period of 12 months.Frankly this all sounds eminently sensible and a far cry from your "thought crimes" nonsense.

You have so far provided examples of:

A policeman who applied the laws so badly that it was suggested that he be disciplined for his stupidity.

A woman who was found not guilty.

A woman who pleaded guilty and was given a sentence that only had any practical effect if she persisted in committing such crimes.

​

Well done Legend. Well done indeed. You have almost saved me the bother of looking up my own examples of the law working as intended. But if on the basis of these examples you want to hide quivering under your duvet with an aluminium saucepan on your head terrified that those thought police might detect your hateful brainwaves then you carry on mate.

​

Meanwhile those of us that live in the real world, and the most socially diverse parts of the real world at that, will continue on our merry way unconcerned by your ridiculous fears and assertions as we go about our business thinking whatever we damn well please unhindered by insane notions of "thought crimes".