Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-20-2019 5:34 AM
18 online now:
Dredge, PaulK (2 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,059 Year: 15,095/19,786 Month: 1,818/3,058 Week: 192/404 Day: 6/73 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
9Next
Author Topic:   Hate Crimes? Thought Crimes? Crimethink?
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 131 (763242)
07-22-2015 11:28 PM


Dylann Roof has been charged with 'hate crimes'.

Do hate crimes punish thought? Are hate crimes an example of thought crimes?

And if so, are they moral?

Is hate crime a slippery slope to crimethink?

Edited by Jon, : No reason given.


Love your enemies!

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2015 11:53 PM Jon has responded
 Message 3 by Thugpreacha, posted 07-23-2015 12:07 AM Jon has responded
 Message 7 by Tangle, posted 07-23-2015 3:32 AM Jon has responded
 Message 21 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-23-2015 11:35 AM Jon has not yet responded
 Message 60 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-01-2016 4:32 AM Jon has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 2 of 131 (763243)
07-22-2015 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
07-22-2015 11:28 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 07-22-2015 11:28 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Jon, posted 07-23-2015 12:35 AM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 61 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-01-2016 4:45 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12678
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 3 of 131 (763244)
07-23-2015 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
07-22-2015 11:28 PM


First Some Definitions
You bring up a topic with some new terms.

What are thought crimes?

what the heck is crimethink??


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 07-22-2015 11:28 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Jon, posted 07-23-2015 12:39 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 131 (763245)
07-23-2015 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Dr Adequate
07-22-2015 11:53 PM


Well there's a difference between charging based on intention/accident and charging based on religious, political, social, etc. view points (which is what the 'hate crime' category amounts to).

In the first instance we debate how responsible a person should be for their actions based on how much in control of those actions they were.

In the second instance we debate how to charge a person based on their feelings toward the victim or some perceived class to which the victim belongs.


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2015 11:53 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by NoNukes, posted 07-23-2015 2:35 AM Jon has responded
 Message 8 by Larni, posted 07-23-2015 7:38 AM Jon has responded
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-23-2015 3:20 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 131 (763246)
07-23-2015 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Thugpreacha
07-23-2015 12:07 AM


Re: First Some Definitions
Well, Ninety Eighty-Four was published over half a century ago, so it's hard to say anything from it is 'new'.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Thugpreacha, posted 07-23-2015 12:07 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 6 of 131 (763254)
07-23-2015 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Jon
07-23-2015 12:35 AM


Well there's a difference between charging based on intention/accident and charging based on religious, political, social, etc. view points (which is what the 'hate crime' category amounts to).

I would suggest that you are wrong, particularly when we are considering homicide. It would be an extremely strange circumstance to have a killing motivated by hatred of gays for example, that could not be considered first degree murder. Almost certainly the required degree of malice of forethought exists unless you want to suggest that the perp suddenly started hating gays in a fit of anger. In such a case. What hate crime statutes do in that instance is remove some of the discretion from the judge and jury.

In the first instance we debate how responsible a person should be for their actions based on how much in control of those actions they were.

This is not completely correct. The difference between first degree murder and capital murder is not based on the amount of responsibility. It is instead based on society's view that certain classes of murder or more heinous than others. For example murders committed during commission of crime, or on a policeman, or by poisoning are examples of murders where we assign increased culpability without considering any additional elements of 'control over one's actions'. Terrorism charges are yet another example.

In my opinion, the idea that hate crimes are thought crimes is pure BS. You can hate all you want, just don't go out looking for victims because you hate them, because such activity is rightly judged to be malicious and pre-mediated.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Jon, posted 07-23-2015 12:35 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Jon, posted 07-23-2015 8:22 AM NoNukes has responded
 Message 62 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-01-2016 4:57 AM NoNukes has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7008
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 7 of 131 (763255)
07-23-2015 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
07-22-2015 11:28 PM


We don't use the term, but 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.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 07-22-2015 11:28 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Jon, posted 07-23-2015 7:53 AM Tangle has responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 8 of 131 (763256)
07-23-2015 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Jon
07-23-2015 12:35 AM


Did Roof intend to kill people?

Yes: so we can call it murder.

Did Roof intend to kill black people because they were black?

Yes: so we can call the murder a hate crime.

Seems simple enough.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Jon, posted 07-23-2015 12:35 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Jon, posted 07-23-2015 8:00 AM Larni has responded
 Message 63 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-01-2016 5:09 AM Larni has not yet responded

    
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 131 (763258)
07-23-2015 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Tangle
07-23-2015 3:32 AM


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.

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?


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Tangle, posted 07-23-2015 3:32 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by jar, posted 07-23-2015 8:28 AM Jon has responded
 Message 13 by Tangle, posted 07-23-2015 8:30 AM Jon has responded
 Message 22 by ringo, posted 07-23-2015 12:11 PM Jon has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 131 (763260)
07-23-2015 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Larni
07-23-2015 7:38 AM


The question wasn't whether hate crimes exist or whether Dylann Roof's thoughts and actions would meet the definition.

The question was whether hate crimes are an example of thought crimes and whether it's a slippery slope to, in Dr Adequate's words, "an Orwellian nightmare".


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Larni, posted 07-23-2015 7:38 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Larni, posted 07-23-2015 9:18 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 131 (763261)
07-23-2015 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by NoNukes
07-23-2015 2:35 AM


You can hate all you want, just don't go out looking for victims because you hate them, because such activity is rightly judged to be malicious and pre-mediated.

But that's not what hate crime laws say is it?

Being a hate crime isn't just about the crime being premeditated. Because there are already laws that deal with premeditation.

This is not completely correct. The difference between first degree murder and capital murder is not based on the amount of responsibility. It is instead based on society's view that certain classes of murder or more heinous than others. For example murders committed during commission of crime, or on a policeman, or by poisoning are examples of murders where we assign increased culpability without considering any additional elements of 'control over one's actions'. Terrorism charges are yet another example.

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.


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by NoNukes, posted 07-23-2015 2:35 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by NoNukes, posted 07-23-2015 9:18 AM Jon has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31177
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 12 of 131 (763262)
07-23-2015 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Jon
07-23-2015 7:53 AM


Jon writes:

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?

Now that is just silly Jon.

Where did "disapprove" come from?

A description is imply a description, a definition of the thing.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Jon, posted 07-23-2015 7:53 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Jon, posted 07-23-2015 8:38 AM jar has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7008
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 13 of 131 (763264)
07-23-2015 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Jon
07-23-2015 7:53 AM


Jon writes:

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?

It seems that your society also disapproves in the same way.

The application of the law is not purely for purposes of punishment - it also tries to rehabilitate, to protect society from further harm and to deter. It signals the behaviours it requires of its citizens through the penalties it places on the crime.

If its lawmakers have decided that a particular crime requires special treatment in order to rid society of it, it does that by increasing the penalty and signalling its displeasure.

Crime against individuals simply because of the colour of their skin or their sexual preferences or because they are a particular sex is something our societies have decided it doesn't want. So it increases the normal penalty to demonstrate that. It's a perfectly usual approach to sentencing.

If a teenager punched another teenager on the nose and another teenager punched a blind pensioner on the nose, the second offence would catch a steeper penalty than the first for exactly the same crime.

I doubt you would question that. It's the same logic. We judge the harm higher in the second than the first because we find it far more objectionable.


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Jon, posted 07-23-2015 7:53 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Jon, posted 07-23-2015 8:54 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 131 (763265)
07-23-2015 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by jar
07-23-2015 8:28 AM


Where did "disapprove" come from?

It came from Tangle's post; the one I replied to, where he said:

...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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by jar, posted 07-23-2015 8:28 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 07-23-2015 8:42 AM Jon has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31177
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 15 of 131 (763266)
07-23-2015 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Jon
07-23-2015 8:38 AM


More serious and disapprove are not synonymous.

If that same racist killed a white man because he hated white men it too would be a hate crime.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Jon, posted 07-23-2015 8:38 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Jon, posted 07-23-2015 9:00 AM jar has responded

  
1
23456
...
9Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019