|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Hate Crimes? Thought Crimes? Crimethink? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Is 'hate crime' a slippery slope to 'hate speech' to simply 'crimethink'? No.
I don't think whatever perceived 'benefits' society might think it's getting out of these laws is worth the risk of finding out. You just did find out, 'cos I told you. There, it wasn't that bad, was it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I know this may offend your unbounded sense of self importance, but someone should probably break it to you that your statements are not a substitute for the play-out of reality. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Punching someone in the face for any reason is already a crime, that's the point. You punish for the act and the intent, you don't punish the motive. Hate Crimes seem to be the only crime where the motive factors in whatsoever. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
How is that different from any other 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
What I mean to say is that they should be reviewed in court only, not made in to a national law. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
And actually, if we look at radicalized Muslims as an example, could we charge them with either hate speech or terrorism based on their insistence for Jihad? Should holding up a sign stating "Death to Infidels" be protected speech or should that be a hate crime since it targets a specific demographic of people? Or should we charge them with terrorism because it could be construed as terroristic speech? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I support the notion that in terms of actions, if they are identical then they should be charged identically. Shooting someone in the face for racist ideology or for greed still leaves two people shot in the face that did nothing to deserve the execution. [...] And if there is no other take home from what I'm saying, the main thrust of my argument is that I would rather see both murders of identical crimes tried the same [...] 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The fact that you aren't acknowledging the acts the same and are focusing on the motive is how and why it is a slippery slope to a thought crime. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
The actions are identical, the motive was different. The actions are different, and constitute the only reason that we can distinguish between the motives, since we are not telepathic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
What does 'stand your ground' have to do with anything? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Those "thoughts" you are describing are actually actions and they are describing intent, not motive. A charge for conspiracy isn't charging them for their thoughts, it's charging them for their intent to commit an action. And very specific actions are necessary to demonstrate the willingness or intent to commit the act to completion. So stating that thoughts can be criminalized is misleading Did you not follow the link? Because I have no idea what you're talking about. "A charge for conspiracy"?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024