Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hate-crime = Thought crime?
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 256 of 376 (540061)
12-21-2009 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Straggler
12-21-2009 5:34 PM


Re: Motive Schmotive
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?
The problem is its special stature and irrelevancy.
But there is that conflation again. This is intent. Not motive. They are different. Legally. And actually.
Which is what I've been arguing since the beginning of the thread.
quote:
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.
  —hyro
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?
Arguing the seriousness is a little ridiculous don't you think, being that murder is pretty fucking serious all on its own. The point is: Is it more serious to murder for money as the motive, for revenge as the motive, for hatred of another race as the motive, or for the thrill of the kill?
Giving harsher sentences for murder based on the motive of racial hatred only mocks the families of those killed in a liquor store homicide. Why can't murder in the 1st be prosecuted on the basis of it being murder in the 1st all the time regardless of the motive?
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?
Is a convenience store assault less intimidating to owners and employees of said convenience stores? Everyone should experience equal protection under the law.
If somebody says that they hate Jews, that likely will intimidate some Jews I'm sure. But that is not a crime, unless of course that individual makes a direct threat.
The whole "thought crime" ting is just a straw man once we differentiate intent from motive. No?
Yes, to some degree you are right. There is no such thing as a true thought crime since we have not the technical ability to read minds at this point, if we are going to use Orwellian meanings as our basis for defining "thought crimes." Calling it a thought crime is just a metaphor, if you will, for punishing people for their beliefs.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Straggler, posted 12-21-2009 5:34 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Nuggin, posted 12-21-2009 10:24 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 259 by Nuggin, posted 12-21-2009 10:25 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 265 by Straggler, posted 12-22-2009 10:28 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 257 of 376 (540064)
12-21-2009 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Straggler
12-21-2009 5:05 PM


Re: What Am I Missing Here?
Is adultery illegal? I didn't think it was.
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.
It is possible to just persuade people in a wholly legal way to give you their money.
"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.
In short the difference between legality and illegaility is very much determined by how you intend to acheive your aims. No?
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.
If it was called vandalism with intent to intimidate/subjugate/whatever the legal phraseology here is - Would that make things clearer?
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?
How are they conceptually different in your view?
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:
Straggler writes:
But I still maintain that the "thought crime" premise of the OP has been refuted. Do you agree? If not why not?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Straggler, posted 12-21-2009 5:05 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Nuggin, posted 12-21-2009 10:29 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 263 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-22-2009 8:30 AM onifre has not replied
 Message 267 by Straggler, posted 12-22-2009 11:07 AM onifre has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 258 of 376 (540065)
12-21-2009 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Hyroglyphx
12-21-2009 9:09 PM


Re: Motive Schmotive
Why can't murder in the 1st be prosecuted on the basis of it being murder in the 1st all the time regardless of the motive?
Because that's not our legal system for one. And because there is an actual limit to how much you can punish a person for two.
If murder in the 1st is "bad" and therefore deserves a punishment of X, then someone committing 100 murders deserves to get 100x.
However if X is 50 years, or even just 10 years, the fact that you are giving something 1000 year sentence is a bit ineffectual.
The fact of the matter is that each and every situation has variables involved in determining the outcome of sentencing.
A man who robs a liquor store and shoots the owner has committed a serious crime.
A man who hunts down and kills a black man for sport has also committed a serious crime.
Which of these men set out to kill the person they killed? Which deserves a more severe punishment?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-21-2009 9:09 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Legend, posted 12-22-2009 3:49 AM Nuggin has replied
 Message 264 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-22-2009 9:01 AM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 259 of 376 (540066)
12-21-2009 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Hyroglyphx
12-21-2009 9:09 PM


Re: Motive Schmotive
Calling it a thought crime is just a metaphor, if you will, for punishing people for their beliefs.
Except that no one is being punished for their beliefs, only for their actions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-21-2009 9:09 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 260 of 376 (540067)
12-21-2009 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by onifre
12-21-2009 10:06 PM


Re: What Am I Missing Here?
A punishment already exists - increasing the sentecing in each case doesn't help any - and the punishments are already strict enough.
Clearly you don't live in a major city. The punishment for graphiti absolutely is not strict enough. People do it constantly, are almost never caught, those who are aren't sufficiently deterred.
I'm shooting for "lose a hand".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by onifre, posted 12-21-2009 10:06 PM onifre has not replied

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


Message 261 of 376 (540090)
12-22-2009 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Straggler
12-21-2009 6:55 PM


Re: Refuted
Straggler writes:
What 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.
Had you bothered to read the rest of the message of which you just quoted the first paragraph, you'd find that I explained how it isn't describing Intent to commit the criminal act just because it says "intends to". You're just getting hung-up on words instead of meaning.
You appear to be developing a selective vision, just like Rrhain. I hope it's not contagious!

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Straggler, posted 12-21-2009 6:55 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Straggler, posted 12-22-2009 10:37 AM Legend has not replied
 Message 307 by Rrhain, posted 12-26-2009 1:28 AM Legend has not replied

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


Message 262 of 376 (540091)
12-22-2009 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Nuggin
12-21-2009 10:24 PM


Re: Motive Schmotive
Nuggin writes:
A man who robs a liquor store and shoots the owner has committed a serious crime.
A man who hunts down and kills a black man for sport has also committed a serious crime.
Which of these men set out to kill the person they killed? Which deserves a more severe punishment?
The man who hunts down and kills a black man is committing 1st degree murder.
The man who robs a liquor store and shoots the owner is committing 2nd degree murder (assuming he didn't intend to kill him when he walked in the store), maybe even manslaughter (depending on the circumstances, e.g. scuffle broke out, gun went off, etc.).
Clearly, the man who hunts down and kills the black man is commiting the gravest crime and deserves the greatest punishment.
Now that we've stated the obvious, what is your point again?
Edited by Legend, : clarification

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Nuggin, posted 12-21-2009 10:24 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Nuggin, posted 12-22-2009 12:16 PM Legend has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 263 of 376 (540105)
12-22-2009 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by onifre
12-21-2009 10:06 PM


Re: What Am I Missing Here?
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?
Brilliant and elegant.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by onifre, posted 12-21-2009 10:06 PM onifre has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 264 of 376 (540108)
12-22-2009 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Nuggin
12-21-2009 10:24 PM


Re: Motive Schmotive
quote:
Why can't murder in the 1st be prosecuted on the basis of it being murder in the 1st all the time regardless of the motive?
  —hyro
Because that's not our legal system for one.
I'm asking why not just petition for stricter penalties for murder in the first degree regardless of motive versus only stricter penalties if the motive of that murder in the first degree was done under pretense of bias?
What does it have to devalue one life in order to lift another one up? Invariably that is what is happening, which is not in accordance with the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
If murder in the 1st is "bad" and therefore deserves a punishment of X, then someone committing 100 murders deserves to get 100x.
However if X is 50 years, or even just 10 years, the fact that you are giving something 1000 year sentence is a bit ineffectual.
If it means that someone will never be eligible for parole, then I don't see it being ineffectual.
The fact of the matter is that each and every situation has variables involved in determining the outcome of sentencing.
Agreed, which is why it needs to be reviewed in court and not federally mandated which so easily can be manipulated. The danger is not necessarily from the president who passes the law. For instance, Obama has many provisions on it in an attempt to protect speech, but there is no accounting for what kind of manipulation comes down the line as we have seen in England.
A man who robs a liquor store and shoots the owner has committed a serious crime.
A man who hunts down and kills a black man for sport has also committed a serious crime.
Which of these men set out to kill the person they killed? Which deserves a more severe punishment?
They both could have killed with the intent of malice aforethought, so as to not leave a living witness. That's why we have degrees of murder and manslaughter (1, 2, 3). They are levels determining the intent (not motive) of the criminal. Can it be established by their actions beyond reasonable doubt that the assailant methodically planned to murder in advance of the crime?
That is the question you are asking, but the answer has to do with intent and not motive. Planning to kill someone is intent. The reason why you want to kill them is the motive.
This is why legal definitions are important and why I am harping on it. Thus far everyone who gives a reason why this bill is good is smuggling in intent through the back door and substituting it with motive. One has nothing to do with the other from a legal perspective.
If someone went out targeting old people because of their perceived inability to fight back, and planned in advance to kill them every time so as to not leave a living witness to testify against the culprit, would we pass a special law protecting the elderly?
No. But why? Because the elderly are already protected by the law. It's always illegal to commit murder and always has been. It's the same for those in this new protected status. It is illegal to murder them because murder, by definition, is illegal!
That clearly being the case, what this really is about is showing solidarity to a community who has received past injustices -- so that society is now sure to pay for the past transgressions of our forefathers. It's an attempt to make political correctness a law by proxy, which completely undermines the premise of free speech.
No one can reasonably argue that there are not good and noble intentions behind the law. I want exactly what you want, which is for all people regardless of race, gender, age, sexual orientation, etc to be safe from harm. But they are already protected.
What we stand to lose through such a bill is far more costly, since nothing can actually be gained by it. What we all stand to lose incrementally is a little more freedom, a little more freedom, and a little more freedom, until one day we wake up finding that we have traded liberty for political correctness.
Not on my watch, good sir.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Nuggin, posted 12-21-2009 10:24 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Nuggin, posted 12-22-2009 1:00 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 276 by xongsmith, posted 12-22-2009 3:36 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

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


Message 265 of 376 (540119)
12-22-2009 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Hyroglyphx
12-21-2009 9:09 PM


Re: Motive Schmotive
Straggler writes:
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?
Arguing the seriousness is a little ridiculous don't you think, being that murder is pretty fucking serious all on its own. The point is: Is it more serious to murder for money as the motive, for revenge as the motive, for hatred of another race as the motive, or for the thrill of the kill?
Giving harsher sentences for murder based on the motive of racial hatred only mocks the families of those killed in a liquor store homicide. Why can't murder in the 1st be prosecuted on the basis of it being murder in the 1st all the time regardless of the motive?
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?
The problem is its special stature and irrelevancy.
What "special stature"?
Straggler writes:
But there is that conflation again. This is intent. Not motive. They are different. Legally. And actually.
Which is what I've been arguing since the beginning of the thread.
Then we all agree that intent based laws are not thought crimes and we can all agree to play nicely again?
Everyone should experience equal protection under the law.
Everyone does receive equal protection under the law as written. Who do you think receives special protection under the law? Be specific.
If somebody says that they hate Jews, that likely will intimidate some Jews I'm sure.
Only if they fear the actions that person may intend to take.
But that is not a crime, unless of course that individual makes a direct threat.
Well precisely. So how can you call these "thought crimes". You have just argued against your own premise.
Stragler writes:
The whole "thought crime" ting is just a straw man once we differentiate intent from motive. No?
Yes, to some degree you are right.
Sanity prevails! Oh but wait let's read on.....
There is no such thing as a true thought crime since we have not the technical ability to read minds at this point, if we are going to use Orwellian meanings as our basis for defining "thought crimes." Calling it a thought crime is just a metaphor, if you will, for punishing people for their beliefs.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-21-2009 9:09 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-22-2009 11:29 AM Straggler has replied

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


Message 266 of 376 (540121)
12-22-2009 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Legend
12-22-2009 3:44 AM


Re: Refuted
Had you bothered to read the rest of the message of which you just quoted the first paragraph, you'd find that I explained how it isn't describing Intent to commit the criminal act just because it says "intends to". You're just getting hung-up on words instead of meaning.
"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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Legend, posted 12-22-2009 3:44 AM Legend has not replied

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


Message 267 of 376 (540124)
12-22-2009 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by onifre
12-21-2009 10:06 PM


Re: What Am I Missing Here?
Stragler writes:
It is possible to just persuade people in a wholly legal way to give you their money.
"Office, please, do not confuse my actions. I meerly persuaded them out of their cash, that was in their bank."
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?
Right, it is the difference between legally demonstrating and illegally vandalising.
OK. Legal means vs illegal means. That is the defining difference. Same as the money example. Yes?
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?
One uses legal means to achieve the aim whilst the other uses illegal. Just as in the money example. Yes?
How do you distinguish?
By applying the law. As in the money example. Yes?
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).
Yes. Obviously I would have thought. The more serious the crime generally the more violent, socially damaging and intimidating it is. No?
But this can get confusing when judging the individual situation, and pointless in the same sense.
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?
A punishment already exists - increasing the sentecing in each case doesn't help any - and the punishments are already strict enough.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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"?
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..
"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.
and is inherently subjective.
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?
Since this too requires subjectivity, I would say that in some cases it can be proven that it is punishing a thought crime
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?
But the OP also mentions free speech and I gave my answer on that.
Yes you did.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by onifre, posted 12-21-2009 10:06 PM onifre has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 268 of 376 (540125)
12-22-2009 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by Straggler
12-22-2009 10:28 AM


Re: Motive Schmotive
quote:
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?
It is still the same, as you're describing motive. The intent is to commit arson, the motive is the reason why they want to do it. So you are right back to where we left off.
Again, this is why there are levels of crime. That measures intent, not motive. So if you commit arson with the motive of defrauding for insurance versus, say, committing arson with the motive of killing someone inside the building is going to vary.
quote:
The problem is its special stature and irrelevancy.
What "special stature"?
It gives a higher precedence based on a protected class. Why should one murder victim be treated differently as another one? This is the same principle as affirmative action. While everyone realizes it is trying to level the playing field and even the keel, so to speak, it inherently does the very thing it is designed to eliminate -- bias or special privilege based on something like race or gender.
quote:
Which is what I've been arguing since the beginning of the thread.
Then we all agree that intent based laws are not thought crimes and we can all agree to play nicely again?
We can all play nice, sure, but there seems to still be a fundamental misunderstanding between intent and motive, and it ain't on my end.
Everyone does receive equal protection under the law as written.
Exactly, so no need to invent new laws which make things only really bad (versus just bad) based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. As I said to Nuggin, everyone is already protected against murder or assault. Everyone. What sense is there to make it worse to assault someone over their culture versus assaulting someone over robbery? That makes no sense to me.
Who do you think receives special protection under the law? Be specific.
Embedded in the link above.
quote:
If somebody says that they hate Jews, that likely will intimidate some Jews I'm sure.
Only if they fear the actions that person may intend to take.
Right, which is irrelevant to the action. If someone punches you for being Jewish or someone punches you because they like to bully people, the action is still the same. It's still a crime, regardless.
Someone is going to be intimidated regardless, no?
So how can you call these "thought crimes". You have just argued against your own premise.
I already explained that there is no such thing as a true "thought crime" in the Orwellian sense. I just mean that people are being punished for their beliefs that are by and large socially taboo. But those feelings are covered by free speech, so it is bullshit. That is as close to a thought crime as humanly possible.
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.
Which is already a crime... Do you understand that? It is already a crime because it violates Clear and Present Danger. Speech is protected up and until the point where you make threats. Whether those threats are because they're gay or whether those threats are made because they just don't like you, it's still the same.
So, again, hate-crime laws only serve to sacrifice lambs on the alter of political correctness. It's just a weak attempt for politicians to show solidarity to a community.
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.
No, there seems to be something fundamental and critical in how you are viewing this. It's like you have blinders on.
Hate-crime laws to be extraneous and redundant. They only punish others for their beliefs. How do we know?
Murder is always illegal. Always, regardless of motive (your version of intent, which is totally different than legal intent). You say it is good because when someone is assaulted because of their race, the intent (which is really their motive) is to strike fear in the wider community of that race.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. It doesn't really matter as far as prosecution of a crime is concerned. The Unibomber specifically targeted people working in some capacity technological field. He thought technology and the industrial world was going to ruin society. He saw it his mission to kill those in defense of society. Sounds similar to racists, no?
Should we have therefore passed a special resolution to give extra punishment for people that target those in the technology industry? No. Why? Because it is illegal to fucking blow people up already! Passing a bill for the protection of people in the technology industry is absurd. And that is tantamount to what these hate-crime bills do.
Law enforcement monitoring hate-groups serves to prevent others from being killed. I'm all for that. But they aren't being charged for their beliefs, rather their motives only place them on the radar of law enforcement. Their intent to kill is all that matters.
I'll give you another example. Let us say we have a serial killer in our midst. He targets only females between the age of 14-19. This obviously strikes fear and intimidation in the hearts of young girls and their families. Something has to be done to stop such a monster. Should we therefore pass an anti-murder-of-females-between-the-ages-of 14-19 bill to give the murderer a harsher sentence?
No!!! Why??? Because murder is already illegal!
The motive or modus operandi of the killer only helps law enforcement narrow down suspects so they can catch him and prosecute him for MURDER.
Does this illustration help you to see the absurdity now?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Straggler, posted 12-22-2009 10:28 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Straggler, posted 12-22-2009 12:20 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 272 by Nuggin, posted 12-22-2009 1:10 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 269 of 376 (540129)
12-22-2009 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Legend
12-22-2009 3:49 AM


Re: Motive Schmotive
The man who hunts down and kills a black man is committing 1st degree murder.
The man who robs a liquor store and shoots the owner is committing 2nd degree murder (assuming he didn't intend to kill him when he walked in the store), maybe even manslaughter (depending on the circumstances, e.g. scuffle broke out, gun went off, etc.).
Clearly, the man who hunts down and kills the black man is commiting the gravest crime and deserves the greatest punishment.
Now that we've stated the obvious, what is your point again?
A death, whether intentional or unintentional, caused during a felony is 1st degree murder.
They are both committing the same crime.
Further, people who do one action are often subject to having violated MULTIPLE statutes.
It's virtually impossible for you to commit attempted murder without also committing at least one other offense (illegal discharge of a fire arm, assault, battery, etc).
So, a single crime can be subject to multiple prosecutions because the different elements of the crime each carry different sentences.
The hate crime legislation is merely adding an additional element onto the crime for which the person can be prosecuted.
And, before you pipe in that his intention is not a crime, let me remind you the merely planning a murder is in and of itself a prosecutable crime.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Legend, posted 12-22-2009 3:49 AM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Legend, posted 12-22-2009 1:24 PM Nuggin has replied

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


Message 270 of 376 (540130)
12-22-2009 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Hyroglyphx
12-22-2009 11:29 AM


Re: Motive Schmotive
Straggler writes:
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?
It is still the same, as you're describing motive. The intent is to commit arson, the motive is the reason why they want to do it. So you are right back to where we left off.
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?
It gives a higher precedence based on a protected class.
Hyro do you think one race (for example) is any more protected by the law than any other?
Hyro writes:
Why should one murder victim be treated differently as another one?
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.
Hyro writes:
This is the same principle as affirmative action.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-22-2009 11:29 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Legend, posted 12-22-2009 1:39 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 280 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-22-2009 8:54 PM Straggler has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024