|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,481 Year: 3,738/9,624 Month: 609/974 Week: 222/276 Day: 62/34 Hour: 1/4 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
| Author | Topic: Hate-crime = Thought crime? | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2514 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
I don't know what to tell you that might allow you to see this from a different perspective, the perspective of setting a very dangerous precedence. You just don't see it and I can't reach you, so... I understand your perspective. You're just not living in reality. That's evident from your continued assertion that punishing one criminal somehow reduces the sentence on an unrelated criminal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member  Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
onifre responds to me:
quote: Because you don't even understand your own argument. You don't get charged unless there is sufficient evidence to sustain the charges. No, that doesn't mean it's proven, but it does mean that as a legal standard, there must be sufficient cause to justify the charge in the first place. Otherwise, the defense will immediately move for a dismissal of charges. That's why they don't haul random people off the street and charge them with murder (something just as bad as the "social ramifications" you've been whining about over being charged with a hate crime): If there is no evidence to justify the charge, there is no charge at all. And if the prosecutor would dare to go ahead with it anyway, then he's guilty of prosecutorial misconduct as well as the judge if he goes along with such nonsense. You're throwing a fit over the possibility of someone being charged with a crime who didn't do it. But that's true for every crime out there. Every single one has the possibility of being charged against someone who didn't do it because as humans, we are incapable of being perfect. But the process is designed so that we don't bring charges unless there is sufficient reason to think that the accused probably did do it.
quote: Yep, and I ran with it. You don't get charged with a hate crime unless there is sufficient evidence to justify the charge. You're pretending that the only information that we have is a cop finding you with a can of spray paint in your hand with the nozzle pressed and paint coming out onto someone else's wall. It pretends that you managed to maintain absolute silence during arrest, interrogation, and arraignment such that not even your lawyer said anything about your activities. It presumes that there was absolutely no investigation into your actions. But in real life, there is so much more than that. What was it you were spraying on the wall? Whose wall? Is this the first time you've done this? Is this part of a string of vandalism you've engaged in? What did you say during arrest, interrogation, and arraignment? What other materials were found upon your person during investigation? All of these things are taken into account to determine what the charges are. So if you were charged with a hate crime, then there necessarily is more evidence as to what was going on than the "spsssst" sound of paint leaving a can.
quote: That's unreality. If all we found was a tagged wall, how do we know it was you? We don't simply arrest people off the street hoping we found the right guy. You don't get charged with a hate crime unless there is evidence to back it up. If you were, then there necessarily is more evidence than simply paint on a wall.
quote: Your "script" is nonsense and seeks to find justification for a scenario that simply does not exist. You're pretending that there is absolutely no evidence except paint on a wall, but that will never support even a charge of vandalism let alone a charge of a hate crime. You don't get charged with any crime, let alone a hate crime, unless there is evidence to back it up.
quote: Then you can't even arrest anybody for vandalism. How on earth do we know who did it if "all we have" is paint on a wall? How do we know it is even an act of vandalism if all we have is paint on a wall? Are we supposed to just pluck random people off the street and hope we found the right person? You don't get charged with a crime, let alone a hate crime, unless there is evidence to back it up. That necessarily means there is more to this scenario than simply paint on a wall.
quote: Nobody here has ever said that. But if you do something about it, you may actually be committing a crime. But even then, you will never get charged with a crime unless there is evidence to back it up. Mere paint on a wall isn't even sufficient to support a charge of vandalism since that won't even let us know who did it.
quote: But paint on a wall isn't vandalism. Stick to the script. All you have is paint on a wall. Oh? You mean there's more to it than that? There's actually more evidence than this fantasy you've created ad hoc to try and bolster your failed argument? You mean we actually know who did it because we caught him doing it? We actually have the owner of the wall indicating that the guy who did it didn't have permission to be doing it? Well, that's actual evidence that your "script" doesn't indicate. So if you're going to assume the charge of vandalism actually has evidence to support it, why are you having conniptions over the idea that the charge of a hate crime has evidence to support it, too? You don't get charged with a crime, let alone a hate crime, unless there is evidence to back it up. Some idiots just stole the "Work Brings Freedom" sign from Auschwitz. Is it a hate crime? Well, that would require investigation, now wouldn't it? But according to your "script," absolutely no investigation of any kind is done. In reality, however, they caught the people who did it and it appears it was just done for money. Oh, but that requires investigation that finds evidence. Hell, we couldn't even support a charge of "receiving stolen goods" if all we have is what your fabled "script" provides of the sign simply being gone from where it normally is and physically being near you. Your entire "script" involves everybody completely losing their mind and refusing to actually carry out an investigation to determine what happened, who did it, and their intent so that the appropriate charges can be filed. It's a typical creationist tactic to come up with an ad hoc strawman and pretend that it has anything to do with reality. You don't get charged with a crime, let alone a hate crime, unless there is evidence to back it up.
quote: Wait a minute. That's more than simply paint on a wall. Stick to the script. We don't know what was actually written on the wall. To know that would mean we have more evidence than what the script tells us. All we have is paint on a wall. So if you're going to assume the charge of vandalism actually has evidence to support it, why are you having conniptions over the idea that the charge of a hate crime has evidence to support it, too? You don't get charged with a crime, let alone a hate crime, unless there is evidence to back it up.
quote: How do we know it's you? Stick to the script. All we have is paint on a wall. We don't even know what it is that you wrote because the script simply says paint on a wall. We don't know that the owner of the wall didn't hire you to do it because the script simply says paint on a wall. So if you're going to assume the charge of vandalism actually has evidence to support it, why are you having conniptions over the idea that the charge of a hate crime has evidence to support it, too? You don't get charged with a crime, let alone a hate crime, unless there is evidence to back it up.
quote: Then we don't have enough to support a charge of vandalism because the "script" doesn't mention who did it, what was said, if the owner allowed it, etc. You're simply assuming facts that your "script" doesn't provide. So if you're going to assume the charge of vandalism actually has evidence to support it, why are you having conniptions over the idea that the charge of a hate crime has evidence to support it, too? It's clear that this "script" of yours is nothing but an ad hoc strawman you've invented with no connection to reality simply because you want to extract some sort of "admission." You don't get charged with a crime, let alone a hate crime, unless there is evidence to back it up.
quote: How do we know it was you? How do we know it was vandalism? You're assuming a lot that isn't included in your "script." So if you're going to assume the charge of vandalism actually has evidence to support it, why are you having conniptions over the idea that the charge of a hate crime has evidence to support it, too? It's clear that this "script" of yours is nothing but an ad hoc strawman you've invented with no connection to reality simply because you want to extract some sort of "admission." You don't get charged with a crime, let alone a hate crime, unless there is evidence to back it up.
quote: Your "scenario" is an ad hoc fantasy that you've created specifically to play a game of gotcha. So if you're going to assume the charge of vandalism actually has evidence to support it, why are you having conniptions over the idea that the charge of a hate crime has evidence to support it, too? It's clear that this "script" of yours is nothing but an ad hoc strawman you've invented with no connection to reality simply because you want to extract some sort of "admission." You don't get charged with a crime, let alone a hate crime, unless there is evidence to back it up. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
onifre writes:
quote: But that's the way hate crimes work, too. You don't get charged with a hate crime without committing some other crime, too. It is an enhancement of charges. You don't get charged with a hate crime out of the blue.
quote: Nobody has said any such thing. But since you bring it up, do you see an actual society of "weak" people? Define "weak." Of course, there are laws regarding this. Scams and frauds that target people who are known to be unable to process all the terms and conditions of a contract are illegal. There has been a crackdown against check-cashing services that charge outrageous interest rates, for example. Is that what you mean by "weak"?
quote: Thinking it? Of course not. Nobody here has ever suggested such and not one example has been brought forward of anybody anywhere being arrested and charged for merely thinking anything. It is only when you start doing things that you run the risk of engaging in illegal activity such as the infamous "red-lining" that financial institutions do in order to prevent black people from buying homes in predominantly white neighborhoods. Are you saying that such shouldn't be illegal? A financial institution has the right to refuse to lend money to people on the basis of race? In order to ensure they don't buy a house in the wrong neighborhood?
quote: And if your intent is to do so for the purpose of driving the entire community out of the neighborhood, your crime is more than merely attacking the person and the sentence is based upon that. It's why murder one is more severe than murder two, why murder is more severe than manslaughter, why there is such a thing as "aggravated assault" compared to "simple assault." You don't complain about any of those other things, so why are you picking on this particular type of crime? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
onifre writes:
quote: Right. That's why the laws don't say, "black." Instead, they say, "race." That's why about 20% of racially motivated hate crimes were committed against white people. By your logic, we don't even know about these crimes because we only care about those who aren't white, right? How is it we know about hate crimes committed against white people if the law doesn't protect white people just as much as it protects those who aren't white? Your entire thesis is based upon some sort of unequal treatment under the law, but the law specifically avoids what you're insinuating. It protects "race," not "blacks;" "gender," not "women;" "sexual orientation," not "gays;" "religion," not "Jews." Not all laws were like this. In California, the law specifically defined "rape" as something that could only happen to a woman. A man would be the victim of sexual assault, but not rape. The law has since been changed to recognize that men needs its protection, too. I have posted the law here. Have you read it?
quote: Are you known for having a plan to exterminate all Jews around the world and actually succeeded in slaughtering the majority of Jews across Europe (with the actual assistance of the governments of other countries)? No? Then perhaps writing your name on a sacred temple isn't quite the same as painting a swastika on it. See, this is why the corollary to Godwin's Law exists: If you really think that the Holocaust is the best analogy to your argument, it shows that not only do you not understand the Holocaust, you clearly don't understand your own argument and you automatically lose the debate.
quote: Intent. It's why murder one is more severe than murder two. It's why murder is more severe than manslaughter. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes:
quote: Incorrect. He did no such thing. What he did was provide an instance of a woman receiving a letter from an official. No arrest was made. No charges filed. No prosecution of any kind. Time for you to put up or shut up. Show me anybody anywhere who has ever faced a hate crime charge simply for petitioning. These laws have been on the books for four decades. Surely you've got an example to show for it. Strange how you haven't bothered to complain about this until now, given the expansion of the law to include certain classes.... Using the exact same arguments as the bigots you claim you aren't.... 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Legend responds to me:
quote: Incorrect. I quoted you the text of the bill:
(1) A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred. Tell us, Legend, what is the 24th word in that sentence? I read it as "intends." Surely you aren't being so disingenuous as to claim that the only way "intent" can be meant is if the specific sequence of letters, i-n-t-e-n-t, is invoked, are you? That "intends" doesn't really mean "intent"? Well, I guess you are because you've already established that when a law reads "intent," what they really mean is "motive." But since you are complaining, let's look at the entire law:
Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 2006 CHAPTER 1 CONTENTS Go to Preamble 1.Hatred against persons on religious grounds . 2. Racial and religious hatred offences: powers of arrest . 3. Short title, commencement and extent . ScheduleHatred against persons on religious grounds ...An Act to make provision about offences involving stirring up hatred against persons on racial or religious grounds. [16th February 2006] Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:.1 Hatred against persons on religious grounds .The Public Order Act 1986 (c. 64) is amended in accordance with the Schedule to this Act, which creates offences involving stirring up hatred against persons on religious grounds. 2 Racial and religious hatred offences: powers of arrest .In section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) (arrest without warrant by persons other than constables) after subsection (4) add (5) This section does not apply in relation to an offence under Part 3 or 3A of the Public Order Act 1986. . 3 Short title, commencement and extent .(1) This Act may be cited as the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. . (2) This Act comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument. . (3) An order under subsection (2) may make . (a) such supplementary, incidental or consequential provision, or . (b) such transitory, transitional or saving provision, . as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in connection with the coming into force of this Act. (4) This Act extends to England and Wales only. . Section 1 SCHEDULE Hatred against persons on religious grounds In the Public Order Act 1986 (c. 64), after Part 3 insert Part 3A Hatred against persons on religious grounds Meaning of religious hatred 29AMeaning of religious hatred .In this Part religious hatred means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief. Acts intended to stir up religious hatred 29BUse of words or behaviour or display of written material .(1) A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred. . (2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the written material is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and are not heard or seen except by other persons in that or another dwelling. . (3) A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under this section. . (4) In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for the accused to prove that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the written material displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling. . (5) This section does not apply to words or behaviour used, or written material displayed, solely for the purpose of being included in a programme service. . 29C Publishing or distributing written material .(1) A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred. . (2) References in this Part to the publication or distribution of written material are to its publication or distribution to the public or a section of the public. . 29D Public performance of play .(1) If a public performance of a play is given which involves the use of threatening words or behaviour, any person who presents or directs the performance is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred. . (2) This section does not apply to a performance given solely or primarily for one or more of the following purposes . (a) rehearsal, . (b) making a recording of the performance, or . (c) enabling the performance to be included in a programme service; . but if it is proved that the performance was attended by persons other than those directly connected with the giving of the performance or the doing in relation to it of the things mentioned in paragraph (b) or (c), the performance shall, unless the contrary is shown, be taken not to have been given solely or primarily for the purpose mentioned above. (3) For the purposes of this section . (a) a person shall not be treated as presenting a performance of a play by reason only of his taking part in it as a performer, . (b) a person taking part as a performer in a performance directed by another shall be treated as a person who directed the performance if without reasonable excuse he performs otherwise than in accordance with that person’s direction, and . (c) a person shall be taken to have directed a performance of a play given under his direction notwithstanding that he was not present during the performance; . and a person shall not be treated as aiding or abetting the commission of an offence under this section by reason only of his taking part in a performance as a performer. (4) In this section play and public performance have the same meaning as in the Theatres Act 1968. . (5) The following provisions of the Theatres Act 1968 apply in relation to an offence under this section as they apply to an offence under section 2 of that Act . section 9 (script as evidence of what was performed), section 10 (power to make copies of script), section 15 (powers of entry and inspection). 29E Distributing, showing or playing a recording .(1) A person who distributes, or shows or plays, a recording of visual images or sounds which are threatening is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred. . (2) In this Part recording means any record from which visual images or sounds may, by any means, be reproduced; and references to the distribution, showing or playing of a recording are to its distribution, showing or playing to the public or a section of the public. . (3) This section does not apply to the showing or playing of a recording solely for the purpose of enabling the recording to be included in a programme service. . 29F Broadcasting or including programme in programme service .(1) If a programme involving threatening visual images or sounds is included in a programme service, each of the persons mentioned in subsection (2) is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred. . (2) The persons are . (a) the person providing the programme service, . (b) any person by whom the programme is produced or directed, and . (c) any person by whom offending words or behaviour are used. . Inflammatory material 29GPossession of inflammatory material .(1) A person who has in his possession written material which is threatening, or a recording of visual images or sounds which are threatening, with a view to . (a) in the case of written material, its being displayed, published, distributed, or included in a programme service whether by himself or another, or . (b) in the case of a recording, its being distributed, shown, played, or included in a programme service, whether by himself or another, . is guilty of an offence if he intends religious hatred to be stirred up thereby. (2) For this purpose regard shall be had to such display, publication, distribution, showing, playing, or inclusion in a programme service as he has, or it may reasonably be inferred that he has, in view. . 29H Powers of entry and search .(1) If in England and Wales a justice of the peace is satisfied by information on oath laid by a constable that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has possession of written material or a recording in contravention of section 29G, the justice may issue a warrant under his hand authorising any constable to enter and search the premises where it is suspected the material or recording is situated. . (2) If in Scotland a sheriff or justice of the peace is satisfied by evidence on oath that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has possession of written material or a recording in contravention of section 29G, the sheriff or justice may issue a warrant authorising any constable to enter and search the premises where it is suspected the material or recording is situated. . (3) A constable entering or searching premises in pursuance of a warrant issued under this section may use reasonable force if necessary. . (4) In this section premises means any place and, in particular, includes . (a) any vehicle, vessel, aircraft or hovercraft, . (b) any offshore installation as defined in section 12 of the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971, and . (c) any tent or movable structure. . 29I Power to order forfeiture .(1) A court by or before which a person is convicted of . (a) an offence under section 29B relating to the display of written material, or . (b) an offence under section 29C, 29E or 29G, . shall order to be forfeited any written material or recording produced to the court and shown to its satisfaction to be written material or a recording to which the offence relates. (2) An order made under this section shall not take effect . (a) in the case of an order made in proceedings in England and Wales, until the expiry of the ordinary time within which an appeal may be instituted or, where an appeal is duly instituted, until it is finally decided or abandoned; . (b) in the case of an order made in proceedings in Scotland, until the expiration of the time within which, by virtue of any statute, an appeal may be instituted or, where such an appeal is duly instituted, until the appeal is finally decided or abandoned. . (3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(a) . (a) an application for a case stated or for leave to appeal shall be treated as the institution of an appeal, and . (b) where a decision on appeal is subject to a further appeal, the appeal is not finally determined until the expiry of the ordinary time within which a further appeal may be instituted or, where a further appeal is duly instituted, until the further appeal is finally decided or abandoned. . (4) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b) the lodging of an application for a stated case or note of appeal against sentence shall be treated as the institution of an appeal. . 29J Protection of freedom of expression .Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system. Supplementary provisions 29KSavings for reports of parliamentary or judicial proceedings .(1) Nothing in this Part applies to a fair and accurate report of proceedings in Parliament or in the Scottish Parliament. . (2) Nothing in this Part applies to a fair and accurate report of proceedings publicly heard before a court or tribunal exercising judicial authority where the report is published contemporaneously with the proceedings or, if it is not reasonably practicable or would be unlawful to publish a report of them contemporaneously, as soon as publication is reasonably practicable and lawful. . 29L Procedure and punishment .(1) No proceedings for an offence under this Part may be instituted in England and Wales except by or with the consent of the Attorney General. . (2) For the purposes of the rules in England and Wales against charging more than one offence in the same count or information, each of sections 29B to 29G creates one offence. . (3) A person guilty of an offence under this Part is liable . (a) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years or a fine or both; . (b) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both. . 29M Offences by corporations .(1) Where a body corporate is guilty of an offence under this Part and it is shown that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance of a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body, or a person purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. . (2) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (1) applies in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as it applies to a director. . 29N Interpretation .In this Part distribute, and related expressions, shall be construed in accordance with section 29C(2) (written material) and section 29E(2) (recordings); dwelling means any structure or part of a structure occupied as a person’s home or other living accommodation (whether the occupation is separate or shared with others) but does not include any part not so occupied, and for this purpose structure includes a tent, caravan, vehicle, vessel or other temporary or movable structure; programme means any item which is included in a programme service; programme service has the same meaning as in the Broadcasting Act 1990; publish, and related expressions, in relation to written material, shall be construed in accordance with section 29C(2); religious hatred has the meaning given by section 29A; recording has the meaning given by section 29E(2), and play and show, and related expressions, in relation to a recording, shall be construed in accordance with that provision; written material includes any sign or other visible representation. I see "intent" listed seven times:
Acts intended to stir up religious hatred A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred. A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred. If a public performance of a play is given which involves the use of threatening words or behaviour, any person who presents or directs the performance is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred. A person who distributes, or shows or plays, a recording of visual images or sounds which are threatening is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred. If a programme involving threatening visual images or sounds is included in a programme service, each of the persons mentioned in subsection (2) is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred. A person who has in his possession written material which is threatening, or a recording of visual images or sounds which are threatening, with a view to . (a) in the case of written material, its being displayed, published, distributed, or included in a programme service whether by himself or another, or . (b) in the case of a recording, its being distributed, shown, played, or included in a programme service, whether by himself or another, . is guilty of an offence if he intends religious hatred to be stirred up thereby. So is that your argument? Because the law uses the word "intends" rather than "intent," it doesn't really mean "intent" but rather means "motive"?
quote:quote: And the difference between your phrasing and mine is what, precisely? Your argument is that when the law uses the word "intent," it doesn't actually "show 'intent' in the legal sense of the word." Do tell: What other sense would it be using given that it is an actual law? See, this is why your little public relations announcements are failing you. A press release from the Home Office is not the law. So when they say, "motivated," we cannot be sure if they are using legalese or if they are using words that can be understood by people who are not trained in the law. This is in sharp contrast when reading actual legislation. There is no other context to read it in: It was written by lawyers for lawyers and can only be understood in a legal context. So do tell: What other sense could it possibly be invoking given that it is an actual law? Are you saying the law isn't intended (hah!) to be understood in a legal context?
quote: They don't. They believe it punishes intent. That is, after all, what the law says. Are are you about to say that because the letter sequence is i-n-t-e-n-d-s rather than i-n-t-e-n-t, it doesn't really mean "intent"? Or are you about to repeat your claim that the word "intent" when written into a law doesn't actually mean "intent" but rather means "motive"?
quote: You mean motive is never introduced into the courtroom? That's a bit strange as it is typically a defense tactic: "Why would I do the crime of which I was accused when I had no motive to do so?" The prosecution will often bring it up to provide justification for why the defendant is present at the crime scene. But at any rate, hate crimes laws don't go to motive. They go to intent. That's why the law says "intent," not "motive." I've quoted to you the entire law of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act. Where do you find the word "motive" or any variation of it listed? Why is it I can only find the word "intends"? Are you about to say that "intends" isn't actually a reference to intent but is really a reference to motive? That because the letter sequence is i-n-t-e-n-d-s instead of i-n-t-e-n-t, that it is supposed to be read as indicative of motive rather than intent?
quote: Oh, my god. You really are arguing that. You really are arguing that in an actual law written by lawyers for lawyers and can only be understood in a legal context, the word "intent" doesn't really mean "intent" but actually means "motive," even though every defense lawyer would jump upon this as failure of the prosecution to meet its burden, that they have only provided evidence of motive, not intent, and thus demand an immediate dismissal of all charges due to failure to meet the standard of proof. Your argument is that everybody is insane.
quote: No, for me, "intends" is enough to convince me that the law is about intent, not motive. It is, after all, a piece of legislation written by lawyers for lawyers and can only be understood in a legal context and thus, the word "intent" can only be interpreted to mean a reference to intent, not motive. That is, after all, what the discussion regarding the law was about. You did read your own sources, yes?
It appears that the fundamental dispute is that the Lords require there to be an intent to stir up hatred, rather than the intention to, say, crack a funny joke which the police happen to believe could be likely to stir up hatred. [emphasis in the original] The original text simply said that the action would be "likely to stir up racial or religious hatred." They rewrote it specifically to ensure that everybody knows that the law was referring to intent. So since everybody involved in the creation of the law seemed to understand that they were talking about intent, not motive, why is it you're the only one capable of reading their minds to find out that they were lying?
quote: Um, are we talking about a law? No? Then your entire argument fails. You're engaging in the logical error of equivocation. In common vernacular, "motive" and "intent" have overlapping meanings. But in the law, they are different. That's why they law says, "intent," not "motive." But you are capable of reading the minds of the entire British parliament and judiciary and have managed to determine that they have all gone insane and when a piece of legislation that was written by lawyers for lawyers and can only be understood in a legal contact says, "intent," it really doesn't mean it...even though there is official recording of debate on the law to rewrite it specifically to point to intent rather than to leave it vague. Stirring up religious hatred is a crime. It's essentially incitement. Are you saying that incitement isn't a crime? The hate crimes legislation makes sure that actions committed with the intent to incite are a crime.
quote: If "because you want" is the same as "intent," then yes. Remember, the legislation was written by lawyers for lawyers and can only be understood in a legal context. You're the one trying to claim that a law doesn't actually convey the obligation to interpret it within a legal context and that all defense attorneys have gone insane and are universally incompetant so that they have all neglected to point out that the law specifically and directly says, "intent," not "motive," and that the prosecution has not introduced any evidence for intent and thus all charges should be dismissed as the prosecution has failed to meet the standard of proof. Your argument is that everybody else is insane.
quote: Incorrect. It isn't criminalizing a motive. It's criminalizing an action: Incitement. Specifically, stirring up religious hatred. Or are you saying incitement isn't a crime?
quote: Physician, heal thyself! How typical of a conservative: Quickly accuse the opposition of doing precisely what it is that you are doing in the hopes of getting them on the defensive and making a big enough distraction so that everybody forgets about the main point. You were the one insisting that the law was punishing motive. But when we looked at the actual law, we see that it never mentions motive but only intent. You then declared that when a piece of legislation written by lawyers for lawyers uses the word "intent," it doesn't actually mean it in a legal context. Oh, no. A law is not to be interpreted legally but in the vernacular. Never mind that we have record of the legislators debating the very point you are accusing them of mismanaging. Never mind that it shows that they were specifically focused upon intent. They didn't really mean it. Everybody has lost their mind and only you are sane enough to realize that when they went out of their way to say, "intent," they really meant "motive." Nice try. You're the one latching onto words: "Motive" and "intent." And now that you've been shown that the law doesn't actually mention "motive" at all but rather "intent," you're going nuts trying to prove that a piece of legislation written by lawyers for lawyers isn't supposed to be interpreted in a legal context so that you can convert "intent" into "motive." You are the very thing you are complaining about. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Legend writes:
quote: Right. Because a piece of legislation that was written by lawyers for lawyers and had a debate specifically about the concept of intent cannot possibly have its use of the word "intent" be interpreted in a legal context. No, it must be interpreted in a vernacular sense so that it can be confused with "motive." And not one single defense lawyer has figured this out in order to get charges dropped due to the prosecution being unable to meet the standard of proof. Or if they have, all the judges are in on it, too, and have tossed such arguments out. Of course, we can't even find any examples of anybody anywhere being charged for motive, but that's irrelevant. That's exactly what is happening. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes:
quote: Actually, we do. It is still legal to torture gay people in this country. And, in fact, the very people who turn you over to the torturers are your parents. We still have the police deliberately raiding gay bars under pretenses of "public sex," even though their own investigators are unable to provide any evidence of it taking place. The very people who are supposed to be protecting people are the ones who are carrying out the acts of terrorism. Shouldn't our legislation be doing something about that? Surely you aren't seriously claiming that because a black person was elected president, there is no racial problem in this country, are you? Have you not seen the teabaggers? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Legend writes:
quote: So your argument is that a piece of legislation that was written by lawyers for lawyers is actually a fraud upon the entire jurisprudence in the use of the word "intent" and that not a single defense attorney has figured this out in order to show that the prosecution hasn't met the standard of proof, only providing evidence of motive rather than intent as the statute requires? That all the judges involved are in on the fraud? That the entire legal profession is engaged in a Grand Conspiracy to Suppress the Truth (C) where all uses of the word "intent" in the law are actually interpreted as "motive"? And you, someone who is not trained in the law, not charged with interpreting the law, not given the task of writing the law, you know better than all of them to be able to tell them that they are getting it all wrong? Yeah, sure. To quote someone: Why don't you come back once you understand what motive and intent are.
quote: She was found not guilty. So by your logic, because a person was found not guilty of a crime, we should do away with the law that defined the crime lest anybody else be forced to go through a trial only to be found not guilty. Yeah, sure.
quote: No, you don't. Where in your source do you find justification for your claim of "sheer conjecture"? You do realize that a prosecutor can be charged with misconduct for knowingly filing charges that cannot be supported, yes? That the defense will immediately call for dismissal if the prosecution cannot meet the standard of proof required for filing charges, yes? You will note that the defense is not claiming that the attacks weren't carried out based upon age. They're claiming that he didn't do it at all. So your argument is that everybody in this case is an incompetent boob. Yeah, sure. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2514 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Incorrect. He did no such thing. What he did was provide an instance of a woman receiving a letter from an official. No arrest was made. No charges filed. No prosecution of any kind. Let's also remember that this took place in the UK where they have an ENTIRELY different set of laws and where the US Constitution has no power. Last time this story was brought up people were railing about how her 1st amendment rights had been violated by the police warning her that her letter had been deemed inappropriate. No 1st amendment rights if you don't live in the US - sorry campers. This story is fail tall, fail long and fail deep.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2514 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
That's unreality. If all we found was a tagged wall, how do we know it was you? We don't simply arrest people off the street hoping we found the right guy. You don't get charged with a hate crime unless there is evidence to back it up. If you were, then there necessarily is more evidence than simply paint on a wall. The spray paint scenario is pretty sad. "Tagging" isn't writing hate speech. "Tagging" is signing your name to something in order to score points with other taggers based on how hard the target was. A typical tagger will hit dozens of spots in an area. I've gone out in the morning to find the same three initials on every tree and street sign between my house and the 7-11. If a wall of a religious structure were "tagged", then surely the rest of the neighborhood would likewise be "tagged" and we'd know that the building was being treated as a building - no more significant than a park bench or a moving van. However, if instead of "tagging" they had written a message specifically directed to the people who primarily use the building, we'd have context for the crime. But, unfortunately, he wants to keep the scenario so limited as to have it be nonsensical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
xongsmith Member  Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
Hyroglyphx notes:
I'll even change my offensive avatar for you. LOL when i first saw your new one!Well done! - nate
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Straggler Member  Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Leg writes: Straggler writes: Then why is it called "with intent to defraud"? I tell you what, let's call it "in order to defraud". He "committed arson in order to defraud". There, better now? No let's call it what it is actually called. Namely "with intent to defraud".
Why don't you come back once you understand what Motive and Intent are? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Hyro writes: I don't know what an "intent-based crime" is. 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?
The distinction between these two sections is the requirement of specific intent for section 18. For this reason the offence under section 18 is often referred to as "wounding with intent" or "causing grievous bodily harm with intent". See Intention in English law for a discussion of the modern test to determine whether any particular consequence is intended. GBH Here is another link about intent and the law.
In Criminal Law the concept of criminal intent has been called mens rea, which refers to a criminal or wrongful purpose. If a person innocently causes harm, then she or he lacks mens rea and, under this concept, should not be criminally prosecuted. Although the concept of mens rea is generally accepted, problems arise in applying it to particular cases. Some crimes require a very high degree of intent, whereas others require substantially less. Larceny, for example, requires that the defendant intentionally take property to which the person knows he or she is not entitled, intending to deprive the rightful owner of possession permanently. On the other hand, negligent homicide requires only that the defendant negligently cause another's death. Criminal law has attempted to clarify the intent requirement by creating the concepts of "specific intent" and "general intent." Specific Intent refers to a particular state of mind that seeks to accomplish the precise act that the law prohibitsfor example, a specific intent to commit rape. Sometimes it means an intent to do something beyond that which is done, such as assault with intent to commit rape. Intent Is that enough on intent for you?
Straggler writes: 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. No I don't treat them identically because one can reasonably be construed as a threat and the other as simple vandalism. 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?
What constitutes subjugation? Where does the line begin and end? 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.
Hyro writes: It's employing backwards thinking and setting a dangerous precedence to solve the greater problem of bigotry. And really all it ends up doing in reality is invents more reason to compartmentalize people. 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.
Hyro writes: Slashing a persons throat so can rob them is bad, but slashing their throat because you hate asians is extra bad. Uh, what?!?! 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?
SCENARIOImagine 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.
Hyro writes: This bill places the cart before the horse and says that it is worse to hate someone for a specific reason - reasons that are, by the way, protected ordinarily. 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?
Hyro writes: Pretty soon it will be illegal altogether to merely dislike someone of another race, or gender, or sexual orientation at even the slightest hint of bias. Let the false accusations abound. A simple bar fight could land you in prison for 20-years. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Legend Member (Idle past 5028 days)  Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
Legend writes: The word "Intent" appears exactly 0 times!
Rrhain writes: Incorrect. I quoted you the text of the bill: Tell us, Legend, what is the 24th word in that sentence? I read it as "intends." it is indeed "intends.". Like I said, the word "Intent" appears exactly 0 times. Which is TRUE. What is your problem? We're doing word counts here, aren't we?
Rrhain writes: I see "intent" listed seven times Wrong! "Intent" is listed 0 times! What's the problem? You start to play word games and when I join in you cry blue murder?!
Rrhain writes: Surely you aren't being so disingenuous as to claim that the only way "intent" can be meant is if the specific sequence of letters, i-n-t-e-n-t, is invoked, are you? Hold on....You're claiming it's disingenuous to state that "intends to" doesn't refer to "Intent" in the context of Criminal Law but at the same time you're supporting that the presence of "intends to" in reference to a follow-on action to the primary Act means "Intent to commit the Act". Who's really being disingenuous here?
Rrhain writes: That "intends" doesn't really mean "intent"? "Intending to" achieve a specific goal after the Act is not the same as the *design or deliberation to commit the Act*, which is what the definiton of general Intent is. I'm quoting you Criminal Law here and you're responding with "ah yes, but look it says 'intends to' here, therefore it's the Intent to commit the Act in question". Last time I came across this argument it was on the Biblical fora! If you think that the definitions of Motive and Intent I'm supplying are invalid then now's the time to explain why and how. If you think that the "intends to" bit refers to the primary Act in the paragraph then now's the time to explain why and how.
Rrhain writes: I see we're repeating the "intend" doesn't actually mean "intend" argument.
Legend writes: No, we're repeating that "usage of the word 'intends' here doesn't show Intent in the legal sense of the word".
Rrhain writes: And the difference between your phrasing and mine is what, precisely? You're arguing that my position is that 'X' doesn't mean 'X'. I'm claiming that "acting with intent to achieve X" is different to "acting with purpose or deliberation to act", i.e. 'Intent' in the legal sense. I'm also arguing that "acting intending to achieve X" is conceptually and effectively akin to "acting because of a desire to achieve X", i.e. 'Motive' in the legal sense. Further down in this post I'm showing you why this is a correct interpretation and that respectable lawmen, as well as me, also think along these lines.
Rrhain writes: Your argument is that when the law uses the word "intent," it doesn't actually "show 'intent' in the legal sense of the word." My argument is that when the law says "intends to", it isn't referring to the primary Act, (i.e. Actus Reus, i.e. threatening behaviour) but to a sub-sequent aim, It is therefore *not* the general Intent of the Act, as defined by Criminal Law . If you think that the "intends to" bit refers to the primary Act in the paragraph then now's the time to explain why and how.
Rrhain writes: See, this is why your little public relations announcements are failing you. A press release from the Home Office is not the law. the Home Office are the people who *made* the law. They are the people responsible for the enforcement the law. Are you seriously suggesting that they don't know what their very own laws are all about!?!. That *YOU* know better? Blimey, just how conceited are you exactly?
Rrhain writes:
If the Home Office web-site says "motivated" you can be pretty sure that it's used in the colloquial sense as that's the web-site's intended audience. It's not for lawyers, it's for the general public. The same also goes for the FBI site I linked to. Not that it matters much in this case as the legal usage of "Motive" doesn't differ from the colloquial one anyway. So when they say, "motivated," we cannot be sure if they are using legalese or if they are using words that can be understood by people who are not trained in the law. So yes, when the people who made the law tell you what their law is all about, you choose to not believe them and latch onto a technicality in the letter of the law that you think supports your interpretation. Right......!
Rrhain writes: This is in sharp contrast when reading actual legislation. There is no other context to read it in: It was written by lawyers for lawyers and can only be understood in a legal context. Oh really? Then why do you think the law feels the need to give definitions of common terms and words that are used in the text?
quote: If such a term as "publish" can only be understood in a legal context then what's the point of clarifying it's usage here when the term is already well used and understood in a legal context? Could it be because the term has a specific meaning here besides its colloquial sense? And why is the term "intend to" not defined here? Could it because it's just used in it's old-fashioned colloquial sense. Not that it matters much as "intend to" here is not referring to the primary Act in the first place, but nevertheless I just wanted to point out that you're talking crap.
Rrhain writes:
It's meant to be understood in the context it's written in. If the law refers to threatening behaviour aiming to stir up religious hatred then the "stir up hatred" bit is describing what in legal terms is called a 'specific Intent', which is the state of mind causing the accused to act in that specific way in order to achieve something beyond the primary Act. The distinction between specific intent and Motive is often blurred and artificial, as I point out below. What causes the accused to act, (i.e. the Motive) is the desire to "stir up hatred". Just because it's worded differently doesn't mean that it isn't the reason why the accused acted the way he did. Are you saying the law isn't intended (hah!) to be understood in a legal context? This from the Buffalo Criminal Law Review :
quote: (emphasis is mine) In other words, even distinguished lawmen admit that the "specific intent" term is often tautologous with "motive" but it's a preferred term for reasons of "convenience". Even distinguished lawmen admit that laws sometimes single out certain motives merely on the basis of practicality and ease of application. But not you, you 've just seen the phrase "intends to" and are hanging on to it as if it was the last life-raft on Titanic!
Legend writes: what does whether everyone in the legal profession believe that such laws punish motive instead of intent have to do with it?
Rrhain writes: Oh, my god. You really are arguing that. You really are arguing that in an actual law written by lawyers for lawyers and can only be understood in a legal context, the word "intent" doesn't really mean "intent" but actually means "motive," even though every defense lawyer would jump upon this as failure of the prosecution to meet its burden, that they have only provided evidence of motive, not intent, and thus demand an immediate dismissal of all charges due to failure to meet the standard of proof. Which is exactly why the law is written the way it's written. The lawyers have to prove or disprove 'specific intent' which is fine and dandy as there are already other laws setting such a precedent. Of course what is actually being punished is the motive of the accused, i.e. the reason why he acted the way he did. But it doesn't matter, as long as it's expressed as specific intent then no one can claim that the standard of proof isn't being met. Someone uses threatening behaviour. What caused him to act?1) A desire to extort money 2) a need to prevent a witness at a trial from testifying 3) a sadistic enjoyment of causing fear in people 4) a desire to stir up racial hatred All of the above are motives and to argue that ONLY the last one can be plucked out and given special treatment is to make an argument of equivocation that all the first three are indeed reasons why the Act was commited while only the last one is somehow a "specific goal" unrelated to the cause of the primary Act!
Rrhain writes: They don't. They believe it punishes intent. Whether the lawyers believe the law to punish motive or intent is completely irrelevant. Punishing motive may be unethical, sinister and harmful but it's not illegal, quite the opposite. The law clearly says that threatening with intent to stir hatred is illegal. The lawyers will try to prove or disprove that the accused's aim was to achieve the "stirring up of hatred" they won't stand up and claim "M'lawd, this law clearly punishes Motive and therefore I refuse to prosecute the defendant!". So do us a favour and stop throwing red herrings into the forum.
Rrhain writes:
Not everyone. Just you. Your argument is that everybody is insane. After all *you* are the person suggesting that the Home Office and FBI really don't know what the laws they are making/enforcing are all about!
You are the one suggesting that countless legal dictionaries and web-sites are wrong and *you* are the only one really understanding that hate-crime laws don't really punish Motive!
You are the one claiming that something worded as a secondary aim and subsequent to the Act itself is the actual Intent of the Act, despite what the legal definition of Intent is.
The Legal Dictionary writes:
A Hate Crime is one crime that requires proof of a certain motive. Generally, a hate crime is motivated by the defendant's belief regarding a protected status of the victim, such as the victim's religion, sex, disability, customs, or national origin. In states that prosecute hate crimes, the prosecution must prove that the defendant was motivated by animosity toward a protected status of the victim. Hate-crime laws are exceptions to the general rule that proof of motive is not required in a criminal prosecution.
The Law Dictionary writes:
A crime motivated by racial, religious, gender, sexual orientation, or other prejudice.A hate crime is based, at least in part, on the defendant's belief regarding the status of the victim. Legal Definitions website writes:
A hate crime is usually defined by state law as one that involves threats, harassment, or physical harm and is motivated by prejudice against someone's race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability. "We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
