|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,794 Year: 4,051/9,624 Month: 922/974 Week: 249/286 Day: 10/46 Hour: 1/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Hate Crimes? Thought Crimes? Crimethink? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
It seems that your society also disapproves in the same way. So I've noticed.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
More serious and disapprove are not synonymous. No, but disapprove and disapproval are. Since you seem to be missing it, here it is again with the necessary emphasis:...if a normal crime involves an offence against a protected group such as gays or blacks AND the crime was motivated by their sexual or racial hatred of them, it then becomes an aggravating factor - ie makes it more serious. That seems quite right to me, laws are intended to guide moral behaviour, they signal society's disapproval of various acts and are used to promote its values.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
But that's not what hate crime laws say is it? What do they say, Jon?
Being a hate crime isn't just about the crime being premeditated. Because there are already laws that deal with premeditation. There are already laws about premeditation, but that still does not prevent the law from declaring that certain types of murder, such as killing by poisioning or laying in wait are considered capital offenses. Let's consider the case in question in which the perp murdered nine people in a cold calculating manner. Is there some level of punishment that he is going to receive that is outside the range of punishment for which he is already eligible? In the case of homicide, there is simply no danger of hate crime laws being thought crime laws.
Pointing to other things that may or may not be moral doesn't address the question of whether hate crimes are examples of thought crime and whether they are immoral. And making bogus arguments about current law does not advance your point. The examples were given to point out that the explanation you gave about how we currently treat mental state in assigning punishment was not correct. You need to provide a different reason why hate crimes are unlike non hate crimes if you have one. Quite frankly, I don't see how the current case fails to qualify as terrorism. Dylann's stated intent was to start a civil war. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But I still don't see where you are getting anything more than a description. What makes you think society disapproves of hate crimes more than other crimes?
Get over it. It is simply a label.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
But I still don't see where you are getting anything more than a description. What makes you think society disapproves of hate crimes more than other crimes? Tangle said his society did. So I asked him about it.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I think that Dylann Roof is the worst example to bring up to talk about whether or not having hate crime laws is bad.
He killed a bunch of people and admitted that hate was behind it. Calling this a hate crime is of little to no consequence. Its the minor shit that gets "hate crime" thrown on top of it that pisses me off. I remember back when I was in college, there was a bar fight one night between two guys. It occasionally happens and its not that big of a deal. But it turned out that the guy who lost the fight was gay, and then he made a big deal out of it and said the guy beat him up simply because he was gay. They wanted to charge the guy with a hate crime and throw the book at him. There wasn't any evidence that it actually was a hate crime other than the loser of the fight being a huge bitch about it.
That, is a bit of a slippery slope in my opinion. But calling this Roof case a hate crime doesn't matter in the slightest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jon writes:
Our society disapproves more of a murder committed because of racism. Or hate in general. So your society disapproves more of the murder of a black man by a racist than the murder of a white man by the same racist? The math isn't simple but it's clear: hate has zero value as a crime but it adds to the value of a crime.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9509 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Cat Sci writes: But I still don't see where you are getting anything more than a description. What makes you think society disapproves of hate crimes more than other crimes? I can't speak for the US but in the UK, society does not disaprove of hate crime more than other crime, it's not a crime itself, it's an aggravating factor ontop of the basic crime. So a simple common assault has a penalty, if that assault was caused by the offender's dislike of Asian people, it would attract a higher punishment. That's because the law believes that the message "this society dislikes crimes against minorities and would like it to stop" needs to be heard.
Get over it. It is simply a label. It's a label that increases the penalty for an offence. Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
The math isn't simple but it's clear: hate has zero value as a crime but it adds to the value of a crime. And that's the messy bit. 'Hate speech' is a crime in some countries. Is 'hate crime' a slippery slope to 'hate speech' to simply 'crimethink'? I don't think whatever perceived 'benefits' society might think it's getting out of these laws is worth the risk of finding out.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9509 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
What risk?
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
As some warn victory, some downfall
Private reasons great or small Can be seen in the eyes of those that call To make all that should be killed to crawl While others say don't hate nothing at all Except hatred. from the same song at the end: And if my thought-dreams could be seenThey'd probably put my head in a guillotine But it's alright, Ma, it's life, and life only. - xongsmith, 5.7d |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1051 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
I can't speak for the US but in the UK, society does not disaprove of hate crime more than other crime, it's not a crime itself, it's an aggravating factor ontop of the basic crime. So a simple common assault has a penalty, if that assault was caused by the offender's dislike of Asian people, it would attract a higher punishment. That's because the law believes that the message "this society dislikes crimes against minorities and would like it to stop" needs to be heard. This isn't quite right. You're correct about the motivation behind the introduction of racially aggravated offences, as the justifications offered in Parliament were mostly about 'sending a message'. However, hate crimes are not just an aggravating factor - the Crime and Disorder Act (1998) created new offences for racially motivated crimes. There's a long debate on the topic from the House of Lords in 1998 here on Hansard. I haven't read the whole thing, but the main argument as to why to create a new offence rather than rely on treating racial motivation simply as an aggravating factor (which had been done in the UK long before 1998), other than simply 'to send a message', was offered by Lord Ackner:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
'Hate speech' is a crime in some countries. Do those countries have a first amendment?
Is 'hate crime' a slippery slope to 'hate speech' to simply 'crimethink'? Apparently not. So far you don't seem to be have any evidence or argument for your position. We have such laws now. Do you have any discussion or references suggesting abuse? There are hate crime statutes in 45 of fifty states. Surely you have some track indicating a sliding along a slippery slope. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1051 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
Do those countries have a first amendment? Yes. It's not called 'the first amendment', obviously, but almost every modern democratic country has freedom of speech enshrined in their constitution. And yet some of these countries, such as France since 1990, also have laws against hate speech. The French Constitutional Court has, for reasons I might understand better if I spoke French, confirmed that laws against hate speech and against Holocaust denial do not violate the constitution. The same court, however, ruled that the 2012 law criminalising denial of the Armenian Genocide is unconstitutional on free speech grounds. Make of that what you will.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024