Hate Crimes? Thought Crimes? Crimethink?

No, no, yes, and no, respectively.There's no such thing as a hate crime as such, really: to be charged with a hate crime you have to commit an ordinary crime but for hatey reasons. The thought without the crime is not a crime.Now, there is nothing exceptional about considering someone's state of mind: we do so, for example, when deciding whether a homicide was murder, manslaughter, or self-defense. Indeed, for most crimes its a defense to say that one had no mens rea. We do not regard this as the slippery slope to an Orwellian nightmare.

Well, it still involves examining what a criminal is thinking. "Did Fred intend to kill Bob?" is a psychological question just as much as "Was Fred motivated by racism when he killed Bob?"

No. You just did find out, 'cos I told you. There, it wasn't that bad, was it?

They're an excellent substitute. You asked "Is 'hate crime' a slippery slope to 'hate speech' to simply 'crimethink'?" I said "no". Now let's look at the play-out of reality. We've had hate crime legislation for the last 47 years and haven't slid an inch down this supposed slippery slope. "The play-out of reality" also says "no". Reality should hire me as a spokesperson, and I should get some sort of official hat.

On the other hand, since it is not actually possible to read minds, what "factors in" in practice is whether the perpetrators go out of their way to make it clear that they are committing a hate crime.

If the perpetrators go out of their way to make it clear that they are committing a hate crime then there are two differences, one subtle, one obvious.The subtle one is that it has been argued that it takes much longer to recover psychologically from a hate crime than, say, a mugging that involved an equivalent amount of force. I haven't yet looked at the data behind this, but it seems extremely plausible.The obvious one is that in that case it's approaching terrorism. The fact that there are people in the neighborhood who are (for example) going around killing Jews for being Jews will naturally generally intimidate the Jews in the neighborhood, and is probably intended to do so. It inflicts death on an individual and fear on a group. (Whereas if you kill your wealthy uncle for the inheritance, then this will not intimidate uncles, or even wealthy uncles, in general.)Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, that only puts us an inch further down the slippery slope, doesn't it? Before there was legislation, courts could and sometimes did consider these things as aggravating factors. Well, either they are or they aren't, it can't be aggravating if you're being sentenced by Judge Smith but not by Judge Jones. So why not introduce some uniformity into the system?

It's not a hate crime because it's not a crime. A Muslim shooting people while holding up a sign stating "Death to Infidels" would be committing a hate crime. If he just holds up the sign, then he's just a jerk.

But as I point out, if we know that they had different motives, then they did not in fact act identically, nor will their crimes have identical consequences.

So, for example, the stand-your-ground laws in various American states create thought crimes? Tsk. I don't remember you complaining about them, by the way, and saying how they have no place in a free society. But perhaps this doctrine only occurred to you when you found yourself in need of an argument against hate crime laws.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

As I have explained, the acts are not the same. If refusing to acknowledge something which isn't true puts me on a slippery slope, then I guess I shall have to point out the facts while wearing rubber soled shoes with plenty of traction.

The actions are different, and constitute the only reason that we can distinguish between the motives, since we are not telepathic.

You wrote that "when you devise laws that consider the thoughts of the actor, you are, by definition, creating thought crimes [...] And free societies really should have no place for such crap."Now have a look at the laws of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, etc. Note that these laws specifically consider the thoughts of the actor, to the extent that having the right thoughts can make the difference between being guilty of murder and innocent of anything.

Did you not follow the link? Because I have no idea what you're talking about. "A charge for conspiracy"?