|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Hate-crime = Thought crime? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3321 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Legend writes:
I'm sorry, did American English and British English really go down 2 separate paths far enough that you somehow thought I said the opposite of what I actually said?
So you think that a drunken idiot who called a cab driver a racial epithet after being asked to leave his cab, specifically went out to get members of a certain community, do you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5036 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
Legend writes: So you think that a drunken idiot who called a cab driver a racial epithet after being asked to leave his cab, specifically went out to get members of a certain community, do you?
Taz writes: I'm sorry, did American English and British English really go down 2 separate paths far enough that you somehow thought I said the opposite of what I actually said? No, I just wanted to confirm that you weren't having a drunken moment yourself when you said you really believed that a lout calling someone a racial epithet during a drunken fight specifically went out to get members of that certain community. Unfortunately, it seems you were sober. "We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Leg writes: But if that's not enough for you, here's another example of people terrorised by police about their moral views. So your latest example of thought crimes is of individual police officers misapplying the law and the people in question receiving considerable damages for them having done so? Well done Legend. Well done. What does this example tell us? That if you get wrongly accused of hate crimes you will not only not be convicted but that you may well receive considerable damages if the police act inappropriately. This is yet another fine example of everything you are saying about the legal system as a whole being completely untrue. Another example blowing up in your face. Would you abandon every law that the police have misapplied? Would we have any laws left if we did? Your position here is unteneble. How can you possibly think your examples support your position? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3321 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Legend writes:
No, that's not what I said. I said regardless of whether they specifically told themselves to go out and put a nigger in his place or simply just having a drunken night gone wild, the result is still the same. No, I just wanted to confirm that you weren't having a drunken moment yourself when you said you really believed that a lout calling someone a racial epithet during a drunken fight specifically went out to get members of that certain community.
Scenario 1 My buddies and I one night decide to go out and pick up a Korean chink to beat up. We find one and we jump him. While beating the crap out of him, we yell into his ears "GO BACK TO CHINA YOU FUCKING KOREAN CHINK!" Scenario 2 My buddies and I one night decide to go out to a bar. The bartender, which happens to be Korean, begins to refuse to serve us because we're too drunk and we're getting loud which is alarming everyone else in the bar. Having a fit, we jump the bartender and while beating the crap out of him we yell into his ears "GO BACK TO CHINA YOU FUCKING KOREAN CHINK!" Regardless of whether I'm a racist or not in either scenario, the result is the same. My friends and I just upped the terror alert in the local Korean community. Again, you are too caught up in this "but she was drunk" excuse.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Leg writes: Rrhain writes:
Simply for speech? No I haven't. Though here's one if you wamt one. Except you haven't shown a single example of anybody anywhere being tried and convicted simply for speech. Really? Shall we examine your latest example? Let's see if anyone is convicted of hate crimes for speech alone in your latest link.
Link writes: Calling herself the Lyrical Terrorist, they said she wrote and posted poems praising Osama Bin Laden, supporting martyrdom and describing gruesome subjects like beheading. Police also told the Old Bailey they found a "library" of extreme literature in her bedroom including The Al-Qaeda Manual and The Mujahideen Poisons Handbook. OK. There is a "speech" (in written form - but fair enough same difference) component. Could this finally be the example Legend has been searching for to support his hate crimes = thought crimes argument? Was she convicted of hate crimes for her poems?
Link writes: The jury found her not guilty of possessing articles for terrorist purposes. But they did convict of the lesser terror charge of collecting articles "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism". So was she convicted of hate crimes for her poems? No. So she wasn't actually convicted of anything that relates to any of the crimes under discussion and she wasn't convicted of anything that had to do with her poems or speech at all. Whatever anyones views on anti-terror laws what we have here is not relevant to the laws under discussion and not even an example of someone being convicted of speech.
Leg writes: Rrhain writes:
Simply for speech? No I haven't. Though here's one if you wamt one. Except you haven't shown a single example of anybody anywhere being tried and convicted simply for speech. Do you even read your own examples? It really doesn't seem like it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5036 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
Straggler writes: So your latest example of thought crimes is of individual police officers misapplying the law and the people in question receiving considerable damages for them having done so? Gosh Straggs, there's an awful lot of cases of police "misapplying the law", don't you reckon? You obviously see no connection with the police guidelines & definition of a hate-crime/incident as something "perceived by the victim or anyone else to be motivated by hate". Nope, that's just a coincidence according to you. Nothing to do with the police 'having a word' with people they (or anyone else) perceives to be motivated by hate. It just so happens by a diabolical twist of fate, according to you,.....riggghhhhtt!
Straggler writes: What does this example tell us? That if you get wrongly accused of hate crimes you will not only not be convicted but that you may well receive considerable damages if the police act inappropriately. Blimey Straggler, why didn't I think of this before?! I'm now writing a letter to my council complaining about the Mardi Gras celebrations. I'm looking forward to my visit by the police and consequently, to my damages compensation award. Hurray!!
Straggler writes: Would you abandon every law that the police have misapplied? The trouble for you here is that the police didn't misapply anything, they followed their own guidelines to the letter. While we're on the subject, have you got any examples of anyone benefiting from hate-crime laws?Any racist attacks stopped because of hate-crime legislation? Any victims stopped suffering because of hate-crime laws? Any other actual benefit achieved by hate-crime legislation? ....anything good at all? (other than you sleeping better at night because you're 'doing the Right Thing') "We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5036 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
Taz writes: Scenario 1 My buddies and I one night decide to go out and pick up a Korean chink to beat up. We find one and we jump him. While beating the crap out of him, we yell into his ears "GO BACK TO CHINA YOU FUCKING KOREAN CHINK!" Scenario 2 My buddies and I one night decide to go out to a bar. The bartender, which happens to be Korean, begins to refuse to serve us because we're too drunk and we're getting loud which is alarming everyone else in the bar. Having a fit, we jump the bartender and while beating the crap out of him we yell into his ears "GO BACK TO CHINA YOU FUCKING KOREAN CHINK!" Regardless of whether I'm a racist or not in either scenario, the result is the same. My friends and I just upped the terror alert in the local Korean community.
Scenario #1 is indeed a cause of alarm to the community. Scenario #2 is not as sinister as #1 but I can understand some people in the community getting alarmed by it. Of course what we've been talking about in the last few posts is Scenario #3: A woman goes out to celebrate, gets hopelessly drunk, gets a taxi home, the taxi driver asks her to get out because she's loud and drunk and she hits him while shouting "fucking paki". Now, I posit that this scenario wouldn't cause any alarm or fear to the community as a whole. Despite what you may think, people in the community have the ability to see this incident for what it is: a drunken, idiotic lout trying to verbally and physically hurt the driver who caused her 'offence'. Your assumption that the community will be cowering in fear after this incident is presumptuous and patronising and has been eloquently addressed by Onifre in Message 72 quote: Enough said already. "We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Leg writes: Gosh Straggs, there's an awful lot of cases of police "misapplying the law", don't you reckon? Is there? Any more so than any other law? Gosh Leg shall we look at all of the cases of all laws, rather than just the laws under discussion, to see how many failed convictions there are? How many cases of all laws where damages are paid out? How many where it is thought the police officer responsible should face disciplinary action? Do hate crimes have a disproprtionate rate of such occurrances? Or are you cherry picking? And even cherry picking your examples you can't make a case for your own argument. How can you find your own examples convincing? Have you actually read them?
Leg writes: Strag writes: Would you abandon every law that the police have misapplied? The trouble for you here is that the police didn't misapply anything, they followed their own guidelines to the letter. Wrong. According to your own examples. In one of your examples it was stated that the police officer responsible should face disciplinary action. In another considerable damages were paid out. So these examples obviously are misapplications of the law by any standard. Unless you are saying that police guidelines applied to the letter will result in disciplinary action and damages being paid out? In another of your examples the woman pleaded guilty. So no that wasn't a misapplication of the law. On that we can hopefully both agree. Finally we have an example of a failed conviction. Are all failed convictions misaplications of the law in your eyes? Would you abandon every law that has ever resulted in a failed conviction? Would you abandon every law that the police have ever misapplied? Would we have any laws left if we did?
Leg writes: It just so happens by a diabolical twist of fate, according to you,.....riggghhhhtt! A "diabolical twist of fate" that the misapplication of the law resulted in failed convictions, damages being paid out and possible disciplinary action for the police officer responsible? No that isn't a "twist of fate". It is the legal system operating as it supposed to. The same as with the misapplication of any law. Would you abandon every law that the police have ever misapplied? You obviously feel that the examples you have provided somehow justify your claim that we should all live in perpetual terror of committing thought crimes as we go about our daily business. You are welcome to this insane opinion. You are welcome to hide quaking under your duvet with an aluminium saucepan planted firmly on your head as you seek to evade hateful brain waves being detected by the thought police if you so wish. Personally I think your numerous examples of failed convictions, police officers facing disciplinary action, damages being paid out for misapplication of the law, your reliance on examples of people being convicted of crimes that are neither hate crimes nor based upon anything said and your example of someone who admitted to being guilty of an actual hate crime still getting sentanced in such a way as to have no practical effect unless further such crimes are committed - All show that the legal system is operating in such a way as to completely contradict your claims. The bottom line here is that I will continue to live utterly untroubled by the worry of committing "thought crimes" despite living in one of the most multi-cultural and socially diverse parts of the world. Unconcerned and untroubled because I genuinely find your notions of "thought crimes" truly ridiculous. Go figure. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5036 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
So far I've presented you with:
# 2 cases of people intimidated (i.e. home-interviewed) by the police for expressing an opinion about homosexuality.# 2 cases of people intimidated (i.e. home-interviewed) by the police for cracking an 'incorrect' joke. # 1 case of a woman who was charged and tried with a racially-aggravated crime because her opponent belatedly alleged to have been called a racial epithet. # 1 case of a woman who was charged, tried and convicted with a racially-aggravated crime because her drunken stupidity was deemed to be racist, or deemed to "try to subjugate the community" as you put it. # 1 case of a mugger who had his sentence multiplied because his actions were unfoundedly deemed to be hateful. Now, it just took me 10 minutes on Google to come up with these cases. I'm sure I can dig out many, many more if I dedicate some time to it. Your trying to dismiss these as isolated misapplications of the law is ludicrous as this would imply a massive and sudden breakdown of the checks and constraints within the police and judicial systems. Besides, in the last three cases it went to trial and in, the last two, to conviction. So no misapplication of the law there.
Straggler writes: In one of your examples it was stated that the police officer responsible should face disciplinary action. The police officer who intimidated the christian woman did indeed ignore clause 29JA of the Racial and Religious Hatred, which I alluded to in Message 356. This section states that expressing opinion on homosexuality is not a crime. It is however, what the police defined in their own guidelines, as a 'hate incident' which someone (local councillor) complained about. So, on this occasion the letter of the law didn't cause the intimidation, but its spirit certainly played a part. Also, while we're on the subject, our government is currently trying to repel this clause. When it does, then any police officer will be well within their rights to grab this woman (or anyone else) who dares to express an opinion on homosexuality and drag their arse to the cells.
Straggler writes:
The article states that damages were paid out-of-court for 'inappropriate handling of the incident'. This doesnt necessarily mean that the police misapplied the law, it could simply mean that the attending officer was too forceful or rude, we can't tell unless we know the full details.
In another (example) considerable damages were paid out. Straggler writes:
That she pleaded guilty to racially-aggravated assault (probably to get a reduced sentence) doesn't mean that she is a racist who tried to "subjugate the whole community", as you put it. In another of your examples the woman pleaded guilty. So no that wasn't a misapplication of the law.The fact that no-one can show that she was (other than her utterance of one word), shows how vague (and therefore threatening and sinister) these laws really are. Straggler writes: You obviously feel that the examples you have provided somehow justify your claim that we should all live in perpetual terror of committing thought crimes as we go about our daily business. You are welcome to this insane opinion. You are welcome to hide quaking under your duvet with an aluminium saucepan planted firmly on your head as you seek to evade your hateful brain waves being detected by the thought police if you so wish. I don't have any hateful brain waves towards any race, religion or gender. That doesn't mean that I won't stand up for the right of others to have them.
Straggler writes:
Whether the convictions failed or not is not as important as the fact that they were prosecuted in the first place.
Personally I think your numerous examples of failed convictions.... Straggler writes:
Only in one instance and even that's bound to change soon if our government has its way.
..police officers facing disciplinary action for misapplying the law.. Straggler writes:
NO damages were paid, just an out-of-court settlement, not necessarily for misapplication of the law.
..damages being paid out for misapplication of the law.. Straggler writes:
...HUH? 'Racially-aggravated assault' IS a hate-crime. Haven't you been reading?
..your reliance on examples of people being convicted of crimes that are neither hate crimes.. Straggler writes:
...HUH?... Tweedy tried for what she said, Chester woman convicted for what she said, people visited by the police for what they said ?! ..nor based upon anything said ..Haven't you been reading? Straggler writes:
The point is that she was sentenced for something she said. Whether it had a practical effect or not is irrelevant and a red herring.
..someone who admitted to being guilty of an actual hate crime still getting sentanced in such a way as to have no practical effect... Straggler writes:
If you keep ignoring or dismissing all the examples of suppression I keep mentioning then of course you will. Ignorance is bliss!
..The bottom line here is that I will continue to live utterly untroubled by the worry of committing "thought crimes".. Straggler writes: Unconcerned and untroubled because I genuinely find your notions of "thought crimes" truly ridiculous. That's your prerogative. Just make sure you never say anything that can be perceived as 'hateful' by anyone and you should be ok. Just say nothing at all, talk about the weather, express no contentious opinions, that's your best bet. Enjoy your freedom! "We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
It still seems like you haven't actually read any of the examples that you have cited all the way through.
And can you name a law that we couldn't cite exampless of being misapplied? A friend of mine recently got caught by the police and spent the night in a cell for breaking into his parents house at their behest while they were away. According to your thinking we should throw "breaking and entering" out of the statute books because of such examples.
Straggler writes: The bottom line here is that I will continue to live utterly untroubled by the worry of committing "thought crimes" despite living in one of the most multi-cultural and socially diverse parts of the world. If you keep ignoring or dismissing all the examples of suppression I keep mentioning then of course you will. Ignorance is bliss! Ignorance? Taking reality over your cherry picked assertions that don't even successfully support your own argument? Are you mad? Seriously I have more than the occasional altercation with people (usually drivers as I ride my bike around London) and the chances of them being a different colour, race, religion or whatever are exceptionally high. I can seriously say that hate laws are not, never have been, and will not be at any point in the near future, a factor or even a consideration in my behaviour during these heated moments. Honestly and unequivocally.
Straggler writes: Unconcerned and untroubled because I genuinely find your notions of "thought crimes" truly ridiculous. That's your prerogative. Just make sure you never say anything that can be perceived as 'hateful' by anyone and you should be ok. Just say nothing at all, talk about the weather, express no contentious opinions, that's your best bet. Enjoy your freedom! But that is the entire point. I do enjoy my freedom. And I have every intention of continuing to do so. Because your arguments, and the deeply skewed conclusions that you have drawn from the examples you have cited, bear no relation to any reality I have ever seen or experienced. Nor do they bear any relation to the reality that the examples themselves support. You carry on living in fear with that metaphorical saucepan on your head if you want to. But there really is no need and I pity you for what seems to be your heartfelt belief to the contrary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Legend responds to me:
quote: (*sigh*) When are you going to learn to read your own sources before you post them:
The jury found her not guilty of possessing articles for terrorist purposes. The question now becomes: Do you think there is such a thing as "incitement"? Is that an actual crime? Because she was found guilty of "collecting articles 'likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'." So once again, you haven't been able to provide us with a single example of anybody anywhere being tried and convicted simply for speech.
quote: Because it is disingenuous at best to claim that a law is bad simply because somebody had to go through the process of a trial and be found not guilty. By this logic, we should do away with all crime statutes because every single one of them will eventually be prosecuted against an innocent person. We do not whine that there is a "chilling effect" simply because it is possible that someone might be incorrectly accused of murder. Why are you complaining that prosecuting people for terrorism will have such a chilling effect? We should coddle terrorists lest their pwecious feewings get hurt?
quote: What "numerous cases"? So far, you've only presented the single case of a woman who received a letter that everybody, including the police department, agree shouldn't have been sent. You're arguing that because a law was mistakenly applied, then it should be scrapped entirely. Great, then let's do away with murder charges because there are plenty of people who have been wrongly accused of murder.
quote: No, what I need to see is a single person whose speech was suppressed. So far, you haven't found anybody.
quote: Incorrect. You gave a single example where everybody concerned agreed that it was a mistake.
quote: Huh? Where are you finding this? I am looking at the official publication of the law and it doesn't have that anywhere. Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 You're talking about an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act.
quote: And why do you think that is? When was the last time you heard someone in a church going on and on about how the blacks are going to destroy the country? No, it's always the gays. The reason they made this point is precisely because the religious groups made a stink in trying to say that such legislation would criminalize their sermons on the evils of homosexuality. They put in that amendment because the previous act was to extend the Public Order Act to cover sexual orientation. And since homophobes are scared that they might get called out, they wanted a way to cover their terrorism under the guise of "freedom of religion."
quote: Huh? "Racial conduct"? What exactly is "racial conduct"? Black people don't put their pants on the same way as white people? Personally, I find the need to have this section attached is ridiculous. We don't coddle any other kind of bigotry, so why the special treatment made for homophobes? We know that racists are allowed to voice their racist opinions without fear of prosecution, so why should there be any difference in how homophobes are treated with respect to the law? If the KKK still exists without fear of prosecution, then so can the preacher. The reason this is brought up is precisely because those who dance quite close to the line of inciting terrorism are afraid that they're going to get called on it when they cross it. They want to have their pwecious feewings cloaked in the garb of "freedom of religion" as if that is justification for terrorism. It is completely inappropriate to single out gay people as being so disturbing to other people that we need to coddle their tormentors lest they find themselves shunned. We didn't need to do this for race, sex, or any other category. Why are people so afraid of gay people?
quote: You need to keep up. They've abandoned such attempts.
quote: On the contrary. What it shows is that the homophobes still run the show. We don't do this for any other category. What is especially threatening about gay people that the terrorist need to hide behind false claims of "freedom of religion"? White supremacy groups seem to be able to function just fine without running afoul of the law. Why are homophobes so scared that they're actually promoting terrorism? Why would actions that we wouldn't coutenance against any other group need to be acceptable simply because people claim to have a "religious objection" to gay people?
quote: Perhaps because the lower house was of the opinion that the laws protecting freedom of speech were assumed and didn't need to be singled out.
quote: I'm not sure what you mean, but for one of my interpretations, the people who have been released from death row because they were innocent would like to have a word. But if you are trying to say something else, then nobody has been charged or prosecuted for a hate crime just because someone said so. After all, one needs to commit an actual crime such as assault, vandalism, etc. Plus, one needs to provide physical evidence that the special circumstances of a hate crime are met which requires more than just somebody saying so. All crimes, even hate crimes, require evidence. Hearsay isn't evidence.
quote: And since hate crime isn't defined that way, one wonders what you're complaining about. Don't tell me you have confused "incident" and "crime" again, have you?
quote: Huh? Hate crimes are also judged and punished based upon the accused's actions and deliberation to act. In fact, it is the proof of deliberation that make it a hate crime.
quote: Since you haven't found anybody who has been convicted of such a thing, one wonders what you're complaining about. The closest you have come is a single letter sent to a woman that everybody, including the department who sent it, agrees shouldn't have happened. 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: Since evidence was required to be presented to prove that she had committed a crime, why are you complaining that evidence was required to be presented to prove that she had committed a hate crime? As I said, the incident had indications that something else was involved and thus, a jury needed to be employed to sort it out.
quote: Oh, please! I realize that you don't live in the US, but you have been in this thread and are aware of the McMartin Preschool Case (you did pay attention and do your homework, right?) The longest criminal trial in US history, all on the basis of what some people said even though there was absolutely no physical evidence of any kind. But more directly to the specific case, of course the accused is going to say they didn't do it. We wouldn't be having a trial unless they had pled not guilty. It then requires a jury to determine whether or not the various witnesses are reliable. And she was found not guilty.
quote: Huh? Racial attacks are not against a "whole community"? You seem to think that unless one is plotting something along the lines of a genocide, then it isn't really a terrorist attack.
quote: That if she was defending herself, nothing she did was a crime. This isn't a case where someone is saying that yes, it was a crime but that it wasn't a hate crime. Instead, this is a case where someone is saying that not only wasn't it a hate crime, but also that it wasn't a crime in the first place.
quote: And she was charged with a hate crime on the basis of evidence, too. So why are you complaining?
quote: So there is no such crime as incitement? And hate crimes aren't prosecuted on the basis of what you say. They are prosecuted on what you do. What you say is simply evidence for what you are doing. For example, it is rape to knowingly trick someone into thinking you are someone else in order to have sex. F'rinstance, to impersonate your twin in order to have sex with your twin's partner. A defense against this is that you didn't knowingly do it. It was late, we'd all been drinking, the partner came into my room and initiated it. But if we have evidence of you saying beforehand that you were planning on doing it, that blows your defense out of the water. The action is still the same, but it is your statements that are used as evidence that what you did was a crime. If there were no statements of you plotting this, then there would be no proof that it was a crime. A tragic accident, yes, but not a crime. Same thing for a hate crime. The actions remain the same, but your statements indicate that what you did was not simple criminal activity but was rather an act of terrorism.
quote: Self-defense isn't assault. There was evidence of a physical altercation. It required a trial to determine if a crime had been committed.
quote: And just because someone claims they didn't say what they said doesn't mean they didn't. And just because someone claims they didn't engage in their activities due to bias doesn't mean they didn't. That's why we have trials. If you aren't going to complain about the assault charge, why on earth are you complaining about the hate crime charge? It is in exactly the same situation.
quote: Incorrect. Evidence was presented. The statement is evidence that the act was more than a simple criminal act but rather something more. When the claim is that it couldn't have happened because you didn't mean to do it and we have evidence of you making statements that no, you really did, then your statements are evidence. It is then up to the jury to determine whether or not the witnesses to your statements are credible. We do this all the time with other crimes. Where is your complaint for them?
quote: And thus she shouldn't have to be subjected to it as if she had a right not to be subjected to trial. She wasn't put on trial on some whim. There was evidence to support it. If there weren't, the defense would be on that so fast that the dismissal would happen before the lawyer even got the words out.
quote: But that isn't what happens. People don't get accused of hate crimes out of the blue. A crime needs to be committed first. And then investigations have to be made to determine if there is evidence that something more than a simple criminal action took place. Yes, statements are going to be part of that, but statements are part of every criminal investigation. In fact, your statements will probably be brought in as evidence that what you committed was murder instead of manslaughter, was murder one rather than murder two. You don't complain about these statements being used to determine crime in any other area, so why are you complaining about it here? A car runs down the street, crashes into a house, and kills the person sitting in the living room. If you come running down that street screaming, "Oh, my god! No! My brakes!" then we're probably not going to charge murder. But if you were to come running down the street screaming, "Take that, you bastard!" well, that's something different. The exact same action, but your statements made during the crime shift it from manslaughter to murder. It's then going to go to the jury to decide whether or not the witnesses to your statements are reliable. Now, of course we might expect you to deny having said it. After all, a charge of murder is a serious thing. But the prosecution isn't going to go forward with a murder charge unless they have evidence to back it up. So "someone's allegation" is sufficient to back up a charge of murder as compared to manslaughter, why is it suddenly beyond the pale when backing up a charge of a hate crime as compared to a simple crime?
quote: No, we were discussing the case of a crime being committed and the statements made during the commission of the crime were evidence that the crime was beyond a simple crime but tread into the area of terrorism. It's the exact same process that allows us to distinguish murder and manslaughter and the various degrees of same. It wasn't simple speech that was being prosecuted. It was a crime in which the speech made during its commission indicated that it was more than a simple crime.
quote: Huh? You've been whining for weeks about "actions, not words," and when I point out that it is an action that is being prosecuted, then you have the audacity to complain? You can stand on the street corner and say whatever you want without fear of prosecution (barring incitement). Why? Because you haven't done anything. You have to commit an actual crime before your statements become important. But when you go and do something, then what you say has a lot to do with it because what you say lets us know what you were trying to do. For example, you might have been trying to do something really big but because you were incompetent, it fizzled. But because your statements let us know exactly how large the scope of your action was, we can prosecute you for grand larceny rather than petty theft.
quote: Says who? You? Why should we believe you? Is your argument that the entire judicial system is involved in a grand conspiracy to prosecute everybody of a hate crime? That the judges and defense attorneys have all gone insane and have forgotten the rules of evidence?
quote: Incorrect. Don't tell me you've confused an "incident" with a "crime" again.
quote: And if there were anybody anywhere who had been so charged and prosecuted, I'd be right there with you fighting it. But so far, you haven't been able to show a single person who has been. The closest you came was a single woman who had a letter sent to her that everyone, including the department who sent it, agreed shouldn't have been. Instead, hate crimes are prosecuted when a crime has taken place and there is evidence that the crime committed was more than just a simple crime but moved into the realm of terrorism. Your statements will be part of that evidence. This is exactly what happens in every other crime out there. Was it manslaughter or murder? Well, what did you say as the other person was dying at your hands? Was it theft or larceny? Well, what did you say as you were taking the property? So since we do the exact same thing for every other crime out there, why are you having such a problem with this example? The McMartin trial was completely based upon statements. No physical evidence of any kind. And yet, it spawned the longest, most expensive trial in US history. Just because the laws against sexual abuse of children were grossly misapplied in this case, I'm not going to say we need to get rid of them.
quote: You could start by showing me a single person who was prosecuted simply for speech.
quote: Already done. You will notice that I know your sources better than you because I actually read them. Do you have any evidence of anybody anywhere suffering what you claim hate crimes laws causes? So far, you haven't given us anybody. 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: Right, because the entire legal system has become incompetent where judges and defense attorneys have all forgotten about the rules of evidence and how to dismiss charges with prejudice. And because we need to have a special set of laws for famous people.
quote: So? It's still evidence.
quote: Which is what they're supposed to do when they don't find evidence convincing. What's the problem?
quote: So why did that charge make it to the jury at all? It's called a "motion to dismiss" and is made before it even gets to trial. Why did the defense not do this? Because the judge was in on the conspiracy? Or was it because there was enough evidence to warrant going to trial over this charge and thus, that was a question for the jury to decide, not a simple matter of law that the judge decides? If there truly was no evidence, then how on earth did it manage to get as far as it did? Unless you're going to assume incompetence or conpsiracy on the part of the defense/judiciary, then there must have been something else going on.
quote: You're the one complaining about reputations being destroyed by inappropriate charges being filed. Well, that's the case for every single law out there. The McMartins had their lives destroyed in one of the worst miscarriages of justice seen. And yet, I wouldn't dare call for a repeal of the laws involved. The reasons you are bringing forward as reasons to repeal the hate crimes laws can be applied to every single law out there. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If the use of statements as evidence and the threat to personal reputation are sufficient to strike hate crimes laws from the books, then every other law has to go to because all crimes use statements as evidence and all prosecutions result in loss of personal reputation.
quote: And they are. That's why we keep bringing up the murder statutes: What you say determines whether you get manslaughter or murder.
quote: Except they are. People are charged with them purely on someone's word. What you say lets us know what your intent is.
quote: Which your statements most decidely are. What you say in the commission of a crime helps us know what crime you actually committed.
quote: You act as if a drunken fight can't be an act of terrorism. The crime isn't the utterance. It's the fight. The utterance lets us know if the fight was just a simple crime or something more than that. "Oh, my god! No! My brakes!" That's manslaughter. "Take that, you bastard!" That's murder. Same act. The only thing that makes it different is your statement during the act.
quote: No, for me it is precisely what we do with every other crime out there. That you seem to want to complain about it is indicative that it's not about the crime or the prosecution of it.
quote: Did you or did you not say:
It's just that famous people are even more vulnerable to defamation than you or I as they make their living out of their popularity. quote: Did you or did you not say:
If no-one is charged with murder, manslaughter, robbery, assault, etc purely on someone's word quote: Because one is an actual crime for which you can be prosecuted and convicted while the other is just the police paying attention to what is going on in the neighborhood since things that aren't crimes now might escalate into crimes later. Don't tell me you want the police to maintain a perpetual state of naivete, are you?
quote: No, they're not. An incident is only about perception. A crime requires evidence. If they were both the same thing, why do you think the police don't arrest those who are only involved in an "incident"? Yes, that's right: Because they haven't committed a crime.
quote: Because you have confused an "incident" with a "crime." You are complaining that what is used to justify the police recording a hate "incident" is the same level of evidence required to prosecute a hate "crime." And that is not the case. Your own sources indicate the difference between the two. This is why I keep asking if you have bothered to read your sources before you post them because they literally do not say what you claim they do.
quote: Incorrect: "Oh, my god! No! My brakes!" That's manslaughter. "Take that, you bastard!" That's murder. Same act. The only thing that makes it different is your statement during your act. This is why I pointed out that you are arguing that there is no difference among reckless endangerment, manslaughter, and murder and the various degrees thereof. You are arguing that a person's statements aren't used in prosecution of these crimes but they are. They are often why a crime is being prosecuted as murder rather than manslaughter.
quote: No, because murder is prosecuted in exactly the same way. What you say is what let's us know that what you did was murder, not manslaughter. So if it isn't problematic with regard to murder, why does it suddenly become a problem with regard to hate crime? You aren't being charged with what you said. You're being charged with what you did. What you said simply lets us know the extent of what you were doing.
quote: But I'm not arguing against the crimes against sexual molestation of children. I want them to stay on the books. And while the McMartin case was a travesty, that wasn't the law's fault. It was the human beings who let the case get away from them. It happens all the time and for every single crime. Have you read up on the history of Fatty Arbuckle? A woman died and he was charged with first-degree murder on the basis of a single witness saying that the victim said, "Roscoe hurt me." This was after their primary witness wasn't put on the stand due to her horrendous background involving racketeering, fraud, and extortion made her an incredibly unreliable witness. The case was almost thrown out until the new witness made the claim. The first trial deadlocked and in the second trial, she testified that the prosecuting attorney subborned perjury from her. The third trial resulted in a unanimous verdict of not guilty after only six minutes of deliberation. The jury even apologized to Arbuckle. And yet despite all this, his career was ruined. But I'm not going to complain about the murder laws just because some human beings made a mistake in prosecuting them.
quote: And just because somebody says they didn't do it doesn't mean they didn't.
quote: But hate crimes laws don't make you culpable based merely on perception. You have confused an "incident" with a "crime" again.
quote: No, not "perception." Actual statements. Whom the prosecutors thought they had managed to get corroborated through other statements. The problem was the method by which these statements were being gathered. Children are easily convinced to say things that aren't true. The law needs to stay. The people charged with carrying out the law need to learn how to carry it out.
quote: Because an "incident" is not a "crime." The standards for having the police record an "incident" are not the same as those required for prosecuting a "crime." One is something that gets people arrested and possible sent to jail. The other is just the police paying attention to what's going on in the neighborhood. Are you saying that police shouldn't be paying attention to things that, while not crimes right now, might escalate into crimes in the future? Your own sources made the distinction between "incidents" and "crimes." It's a shame that you still haven't read them.
quote: All that'll do is get an "incident" filed. For a crime, you need more. You did read your own sources before you posted them, yes?
quote: No, it won't. It just gets an incident report.
quote: Huh? If it's a hate crime, then yes: It should be prosecuted differently than if it were a simple crime. Just like grand larceny should be prosecuted differently from petty theft; that reckless endangerment, manslaughter, and murder and the various degrees thereof should all be prosecuted differently, and sometimes based upon the statements made by the accused during the act that is being charged: "Oh, my god! No! My brakes!" That's manslaughter. "Take that, you bastard!" That's murder.
quote: It's not a question of "refuse." It's a question of the law specifically saying it punishes intent. Of course, you're the one that is claiming that when a law that was written by lawyers, for lawyers, and is carried out by lawyers says, "intent," what they really mean is "motive." And your justification for this is that the sequence of letters is "i-n-t-e-n-d-s" rather than "i-n-t-e-n-t."
quote: The police say that an "incident" is not a "crime." You did read your own source, yes?
quote: No, specifically because a press release is not the same as the law. Ah, but in your mind, a law written by lawyers for lawyers and is carried out by lawyers really didn't mean "intent" when it said "intent" and the entire legal profession has gone insane.
quote: (*chuckle*) Nice try but when it comes to the law, the law trumps what everybody else says. If the law says, "intent," it doesn't mean "motive."
quote: Yep. So far you still haven't managed to show me where in the law it says anything but "intent." Your only argument so far is that because the sequence of letters is not "i-n-t-e-n-t," that means the law is referring to motive.
quote: Neither of which supported your claim. In fact, they supported mine: Not one case of anybody convicted simply for speaking. The closest you have come is a single woman who received a letter that everybody, including the department that sent the letter, agrees should never have been sent.
quote: And your evidence of this is? And the cops shouldn't be talking to people that are running really close toward breaking the law that they might want to pay attention to what they're doing? The cops should never pay attention to what is going on in the neighborhood lest things that aren't crimes now escalate to crimes later?
quote: Indeed...evidence in support of my position. I'm still waiting for the person who was prosecuted simply for speech. All you've got is a letter that everybody, including the department that sent it, agrees shouldn't have been sent. Such laws have been on the books for decades here in the US and despite all this "chilling of speech" that you have been railing against, we still have white supremacist groups having their parades and gatherings where they set up PA systems to broadcast their missives to the world at large. Where are the people being arrested for what they said on Speaker's Corner?
quote: Huh? I believe what they are saying. I just understand the difference between a press release sent out to people who don't know what "intent" and "motive" are and the law. I understand that the entire judicial profession has simultaneously developed insanity such that when the law says, "intent," they read it as "motive." 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5036 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
quote: Rrhain writes:
Yes. Unfortunately the legal definition covers a very broad spectrum of words and actions.
The question now becomes: Do you think there is such a thing as "incitement"? Rrhain writes:
Yes, one I have great concerns about for the reason outlined above.
Is that an actual crime? Rrhain writes: Because she was found guilty of "collecting articles 'likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'." And that's exactly why I have such grave concerns about this law. It's so wonderfully vague and subjective that it can be used against anyone and anything at all. Heck, my neighbour's just bought large quantities of fertiliser and his son has a map of the football stadium. I'll be expecting armed police to raid at dawn and carry them both off in handcuffs.
Rrhain writes: So once again, you haven't been able to provide us with a single example of anybody anywhere being tried and convicted simply for speech. This woman was arrested for posting poems on a web site FFS! That's how they found the other articles used to charge her with. Her poems and words were used as evidence against her in court. Her speech led to her arrest and trial! If you want to wait until people start getting arrested and tried without any excuses and pretexts that's fine, but by then it'd be too late to reverse the tide. I've already provided many examples of people getting intimidated by the authorities because they expressed an opinion. You can keep pretending that it's just a benign coincidence and ignore it. I refuse to. Besides, you still haven't answered: why does someone need to be convicted for speech to concede that certain speech is persecuted?
Legend writes: Besides why is it that you need for someone to be convicted for speech to concede that certain speech is persecuted?
Rrhain writes: Because it is disingenuous at best to claim that a law is bad simply because somebody had to go through the process of a trial and be found not guilty. By this logic, we should do away with all crime statutes because every single one of them will eventually be prosecuted against an innocent person. We do not whine that there is a "chilling effect" simply because it is possible that someone might be incorrectly accused of murder. No, because in the vast majority of cases where people have been wrongly prosecuted for some crime it's been either because of a failure of the system or a failure of the people implementing the system. Someone, somewhere, misapplied or misinterpreted something -innocently or maliciously- and this led to the wrongful arrest or conviction. This is something I can accept as inherent risk of system/people failure, though I'm obviously not happy about it. But these hate/incitement/witch-hunt laws are something totally different: they actually promote and foster prosecution based simply on *perception*, the perception of the accuser, not the accused's I may add. It's not what you've done that matters is what your accuser *thinks you've done* or are about to do that will have you arrested and tried. And the most scary part is that all the accusers need to justify their perception is your verbal or written expression. Your thoughts and opinions can easily land you in a police cell or worse. If you are foolish or naive enough to state your opinion about certain subjects you can expect a police visit and the possibility of charges. It's not a matter of the system breaking down or of someone misapplying/misinterpreting the law. It's -terrifyingly- a matter of the law being applied as written. That's what happened to the Christian anti-gay-parade woman.That's what happened to the councillor who told an 'anti-gay' joke. That's what happened in the drunken girl race-epithet case. Even worse, sometimes it's not even your own opinions that can land you into trouble. It's just others' views and allegations about your opinions or actions. That's what happened in the Tweedy case.That's what happened in the NJ mugger case. That's what can happen to any of us. The primary effect of these laws is to suppress free speech, curtail freedom of expression and generally impose a climate of fear and subjugation to the public at large.How many times have you heard the phrase "can you say that?" in a conversation, even in family/social context. This is a sure sign of a society where freedom of speech exists only on paper. In a truly free society, this phrase would never be heard, not even contemplated. That's why I 'm not complaining about the existence of murder, theft and other laws, despite them being occasionally applied against the innocent: because such laws have been created to protect the public and they mostly do. Hate-crime laws, on the other hand, are created to oppress the public, instill a feeling of terror and supporting a certain ideology and mindset.
Rrhain writes:
Bullshit! Prosecuting people for terrorism...? I have no problem with that, throw the book at them, lock'em up for ever! Why are you complaining that prosecuting people for terrorism will have such a chilling effect? We should coddle terrorists lest their pwecious feewings get hurt? Prosecuting people for writing poems, no matter how distasteful and disagreeable they are? No, I'm not going along with that. You obviously are, so I fully expect you to support the prosecution of thousands of gangsta-rappers out there (remember "Kill da police"?), because the incitement in their lyrics is just as great as in that woman's poems.
Rrhain writes: So far, you've only presented the single case of a woman who received a letter that everybody, including the police department, agree shouldn't have been sent. Wrong. So far I've presented you with: # 2 cases of people intimidated (i.e. home-interviewed) by the police for expressing an opinion about homosexuality.# 2 cases of people intimidated (i.e. home-interviewed) by the police for cracking an 'incorrect' joke. # 1 case of a woman who was charged and tried with a racially-aggravated crime because her opponent belatedly alleged to have been called a racial epithet. # 1 case of a woman who was charged, tried and convicted with a racially-aggravated crime because her drunken stupidity was deemed to be racist, or deemed to "try to subjugate the community" as you put it. # 1 case of a mugger who had his sentence multiplied because his actions were unfoundedly deemed to be hateful. Now, it just took me 10 minutes on Google to come up with these cases. I'm sure I can dig out many, many more if I put some time to it. How many do you need to be convinced? As for the woman receiving the letter let's make one thing clear: she was visited by police and had a telling off.
quote: So it's not merely a case of an over-zealous council official, as you wrongly keep suggesting.
Rrhain writes: You're arguing that because a law was mistakenly applied, then it should be scrapped entirely. No, any law can be mistakenly applied, that's not the problem here. I'm arguing that these specific laws: 1) create crimes of perception, witch-hunt offences, where anyone owning a black cat and a broomstick is assumed guilty and thrown to the lake to either float or drown, the end-result being their death either way.2) suppress free speech and freedom of expression. 3) lack supporting evidence that these laws have any deterrent effect, that they protect the public. 4) only increase social and racial tensions by adding special weight on crimes dependent on the race/religion/sexuality of the victim. 5) punish an anticipated impact on the community which, apart from patronising, is unproven and often simply not true, i.e these laws punish ghost-crimes. For all these reasons and more I find these laws counter-productive and sinister and want them to be scrapped. "We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5036 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
adding on to my previous post:
your attempt to equate my objection to hate-crime laws with an objection to murder laws is ridiculously wrong and based on a false premise. Murder convictions are based on (i) evidence that a killing has been commited by the defendant (i.e. a body, a weapon, witnesses to the act) and (ii) evidence that the killing was planned and intentional, that's what makes it murder as opposed to manslaughter. Hate-crime convictions on the other hand are based on the perception of the victim or anyone else that the crime was motivated (specifically-intented, if it makes you feel better) by hate on race/religious/etc grounds. Whereas physical evidence is -generally speaking- objective, (e.g. there either is murder weapon/body or there isn't), perception is -by its own nature- entirely subjective. So when you allow perception of a crime, especially if it's the victim's perception which is naturally going to be biased, to be counted as the actual crime, what you have is a very flawed law, to put it mildly. Take the Cheryl Tweedy case, for instance: the victim claimed that Tweedy called her a 'black bitch'. There was no external evidence to support that, but still this allegation was the cause to charge and try Tweedy with a hate-crime. Now you and other posters keep claiming that hate-crime laws punish the alleged impact on the whole community, that's why they're needed. So I'm asking you: Where is the evidence in the Tweedy case (or any other case I've brought up) that the accused (i) planned to terrorise the whole community and (ii) did indeed manage to terrorise the whole community? Were there any witnesses claiming that Tweedy planned to do this? No. Any blog/diary entries to that effect? No.Was an assesment of the impact on the black community undertaken? No. Did many black people came up and claimed they were afraid to go outside after what happened? No. Same thing with the drunken idiotic woman who called the cab driver a racist epithet. it was assumed that she planned and did terrorise the community. Of course the community itself having the common sense and awareness that the law condescendingly presumes they're lacking, ignored the incident and went about its normal business. But, hey, a 'hateful racist' was convicted so it's a better world, right?! To put this in the context of a murder case, since you so much love drawing parallels between the two, this would be the equivalent of someone calling the police claiming that you murdered someone. The police arrive, they find no body, no blood, no weapon, nothing at all other than someone's perception that you committed a murder. Still, they arrest and charge you and you go to court. If you're lucky, you're found not guilty and you have only suffered the enormous stress of the trial and the damage to your reputation, career and family life. If you're unlucky you get convicted of murder because the whole system has assumed you're something you're not based on someone else's perception. Thankfully, murder offences aren't pursued with the same zealotry as hate-crime offences, require much more stringent standards of evidence than hearsay and conjecture and punish the actual act instead of the motivation behind it. Which is why no-one opposes murder statutes but many oppose hate-crime ones. "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