Thoughtcrime

[STAGE 2]

But there are other victims too, as what I've done essentially amounts to a direct threat of violence against anybody else of that race in that community. Basically there's a difference between murder and murder with the intent to terrorize a community, and between vandalism and vandalism with the intent to terrorize a community.

And how is that any different than holding a KKK rally in a black neighborhood and spouting off their platitudes for a couple of hours. Answer: its not. You can't on one had say that the KKK has a right to say what they say (which is clearly intended to terrorize blacks and other minorities) but then punish someone more harshly because they are motivated by an idea which is perfectly legal to have.

All that aside, however, even if it could be shown that crimes motivated by hate do have extraneous consequences, you still are in the game of legislating thought. I don't care how you dress it up, you ar still legislating thought. You are making an idea illegal because some people, or even most people find it offensive. Thats just about the worst thing that could ever happen to a free society.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Stage2,

You seem to be missing some important parts. The KKK can hold a rally and state their opinion. They cannot however hold a rally and start provoking violence or call for people to inact violence on other people. Some things are not protected by free speech.

So just like their is a difference between preaching discrimination and provoking violense there is a difference between a common crime and a crime with intent to incite more crime or to terrorize a segment of the community.

I do not think the hate crime itself should determine the punishment (one beating should be treated like another) but the fact that the person committing the crime had nothing to gain (no monetary or property gain) from the crime and it was based solely on the desire to harm another person (a stranger with no personal relationship them) that should be a factor in determining the threat level the person presents to the community as a whole and how likely he is to repeatidly offend.

Noone is judging someone for what they "thought" they are judging them by how likely they are to be a persistant threat and how small a provocation it takes to have them resort to violence. This whole "thought crime" crap is just jargon to try and incite strong emotion in people that do not truely understand the premise by taking the idea to an absurd extreme.

 

[STAGE 2]

You seem to be missing some important parts. The KKK can hold a rally and state their opinion. They cannot however hold a rally and start provoking violence or call for people to inact violence on other people. Some things are not protected by free speech.

So just like their is a difference between preaching discrimination and provoking violense there is a difference between a common crime and a crime with intent to incite more crime or to terrorize a segment of the community.

I'm not missing anything. Thought and speech are protected. At least they should be. Provoking violence isn't protected because its not solely speech. Courts have drawn a distinction between provoking or inciting a riot, and speech that may provoke violence, but is not intentionally aimed at such.
Thats why the KKK gets to march.

What you are arguing makes an assumption that a person motivated by hate or bigotry is intending to cause terror to a segment of the community. Quite frankly, I don't think that people who are that small minded have the mental faculties to have such forethought.

Either way however, by stating that the person is "terrorizing" a segment of the population, you have automatically made a value judgment about the person's opinions, something the law is NOT supposed to do.

Noone is judging someone for what they "thought" they are judging them by how likely they are to be a persistant threat and how small a provocation it takes to have them resort to violence. This whole "thought crime" crap is just jargon to try and incite strong emotion in people that do not truely understand the premise by taking the idea to an absurd extreme.

Yes, people are judging others for what they thought. If the person in questions didn't think that all (insert racial or other epithet here) were (some sort of street vernacular) then they wouldn't be convicted under the same statutes and recieve less of a punishment.

Furthermore, we don't decide guilt or innocence based on a persons propensity for futue violence and certianly not how easily they are provoked. We don't decide punishment based on a persons propensity for future violence. To say such, flies in the face of our judicial system. We decide them on 1) whether they comitted the crime and 2) how violent or harmful the crime was to the specific victim in question. That's it.

Hate crimes are thought crimes. Period.

 

[Playboypenguin]

I'm not missing anything. Thought and speech are protected. At least they should be. Provoking violence isn't protected because its not solely speech

No, speech is not always protected. Even if all they do is stand and say "white people, go to the home a a black family and burn it down" they are not proteted. All they did was speak but their words are inciting violence and therefore not protected. Just as slander is not protected.

Yes, people are judging others for what they thought.

No, they are being judged for their actions and their motives as is every criminal. Motive is a very important part of any criminal defense and prosecution. That is a fact that cannot be denied. So what they are saying is some motives (killing or maiming just for the fun of it) are much more vile than other motives (robbing someone for money or killing someone during a dispute). Someone who kills or injures other for "fun" is a larger danger than someone who beats up their wife's secret boyfriend. Juries are always taking the motive into account and deciding if there is any way to say "I might have done the same thing" when they pass sentence.

Furthermore, we don't decide guilt or innocence based on a persons propensity for futue violence and certianly not how easily they are provoked. We don't decide punishment based on a persons propensity for future violence

Absolutely untrue. That statement shows a complete lack of understainding of the judicial process. In many cases judges are called upon to decide how likely a person is to present a continued threat to his or her community when deciding sentencing. It is why some people get released on bail and some do not. It is why some people get probation and others get jail time. If some shows no remorse for a violent crime they often get a stiffer sentence simply because a judge and jury can see a remorsless criminal as more likely to repeat his offense.

 

[STAGE 2]

No, speech is not always protected. Even if all they do is stand and say "white people, go to the home a a black family and burn it down" they are not proteted. All they did was speak but their words are inciting violence and therefore not protected. Just as slander is not protected.

Pure speech and inciting violence aren't the same things. If I stand on a street corner in the middle of Alabama, get up on my soap box and say that "blacks are a bunch of inferior monkeys and deserve to be enslaved". That is protected speech. Even though I might incite agner from passersby, I'm not trying to incite a riot. Conversely, if I get up on my box and said what you said, then that isn't protected speech because its enouraging action, specifically a crime. Thats the difference.

Hate speech doesn't make any distinction. If you have a defendant who beat up a black guy for fun, who has been overheard on several occasions saying "I hate darkies", he is going to be convicted and given a harsher sentence for a belief he is LEGALLY entitled to express.

No, they are being judged for their actions and their motives as is every criminal. Motive is a very important part of any criminal defense and prosecution. That is a fact that cannot be denied.

Motive isn't an element in any crime. Its a piece of circumstantial evidence that is thrown in to make guilt more or less likely. It is by no means necessary to establish guilt or innocence. If a complete racist is on trial for the murder of a black guy, the prosecutor doesn't have to prove motive to establish guilt. Likewise, if the defense attorney can establish a valid alibi, then he doesn't need to negate motive. Motive is only important on TV and in the movies.

So what they are saying is some motives (killing or maiming just for the fun of it) are much more vile than other motives (robbing someone for money or killing someone during a dispute). Someone who kills or injures other for "fun" is a larger danger than someone who beats up their wife's secret boyfriend. Juries are always taking the motive into account and deciding if there is any way to say "I might have done the same thing" when they pass sentence.

Bingo. And thats the problem. The law isn't supposed to make a value judgment on why the crime was comitted. Whether you kill someone for money or for their race, or for fun, it doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not you pulled the trigger.

The fact that you think that a jury has the right to mitigate a sentence based on "whether they might have done the same thing" is completely ridiculous. Lawyers are expressly prohibited from telling the jury to put themselves in the defendants shoes.

Absolutely untrue. That statement shows a complete lack of understainding of the judicial process. In many cases judges are called upon to decide how likely a person is to present a continued threat to his or her community when deciding sentencing. It is why some people get released on bail and some do not. It is why some people get probation and others get jail time. If some shows no remorse for a violent crime they often get a stiffer sentence simply because a judge and jury can see a remorsless criminal as more likely to repeat his offense.

Well, since we aren't talking about medical issues, but rather judicial issues you wouldn't mind if I asked you whether you have your JD or not.

Either way, whether someone's motivation for a crime was racial has nothing to do with any remorse they might have. If the crime itself was incredibly deprave, then increase the sentence because the defendant shot the victim 42 times, rather than the fact that he was a racist. If he sits there in court during the sentencing phase and says that would kill the victim again without a second thought then increase his sentence because he has no remorse.

To do otherwise makes a value judgment on ideas that are held. Even worse, basing a sentence on the alleged beliefs of a person, even if they are proven to have been held at trial, prejudges the defendant in that it assumes that these beliefs can't change or be reversed. In essence, the law is doing exactly what it is forbiding other to do.


Justice should be blind. That means we punish the actual harm and not the motivation behind it.

 

[gc70]

The fact that you think that a jury has the right to mitigate a sentence based on "whether they might have done the same thing" is completely ridiculous.

Jurors are human beings; it is a grave error to think they will not act as such.

 

[STAGE 2]

Jurors are also given instructions, and its reversible error for an attorney to tell the jury to "step into the shoes of the defendant".

 

[Playboypenguin]

Pure speech and inciting violence aren't the same things. If I stand on a street corner in the middle of Alabama, get up on my soap box and say that "blacks are a bunch of inferior monkeys and deserve to be enslaved"

What in the world is "pure speech"??? Some speech is not protected...plain and simple. Citing cases where is protected does not change the fact that some is not.

The fact that you think that a jury has the right to mitigate a sentence based on "whether they might have done the same thing" is completely ridiculous. Lawyers are expressly prohibited from telling the jury to put themselves in the defendants shoes.

Prosecuters cannot tell jurors to put themselves in the defendants shoes but they also cannot tell them not to do that very thing. Jurors do this all the time and they are allowed to do so. They have to decide whether they think the defendant was just in doing what he did or unjust.

Well, since we aren't talking about medical issues, but rather judicial issues you wouldn't mind if I asked you whether you have your JD or not.

I worked for CPS for years and spent a great deal of time in a court room. Other than social workers I would say only cops, judges, and lawyers spend more time in court.

Motive isn't an element in any crime.

Motive IS an element of a crime. Motive is an element of circumstance. Motive is simple a question of "what circumstances caused this person to do a certain thing?" If the motive for killing someone was they came at you with a knife it is very relevant. If the motive was "they like to kill black people" that is a completely different matter and does not shine as good a light on there case.

The law isn't supposed to make a value judgment on why the crime was comitted. Whether you kill someone for money or for their race, or for fun, it doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not you pulled the trigger

It not only matters that they did it. It matters greatly WHY they did it. Are yo trying to say motive and circumstance have no bearing? Then why are there trials for people that admit to a crime? Why do people get off on reasons of self defense?

You seem to be missing the fact that the people on here and I are saying that "hate" is a motive that shows a likelyhood or repeating their offense. It is not used to determine the severity of the crime but instead the character of the defendant and how dangerous they will be in the future. Judges DO use their judgement to decide the level of threat a person present to society as they are supposed to do. Many times in court I have had to sit and listen to how the defendent was good guy with no previous offenses. This is all to try and convince the judge and jury that this is a one time occurence and the defendent does not make a habit of being a "bad" guy.

 

[Mad Martigan]

Can we go ahead and legislate lighter sentencing for Love Crimes? I love several people's guts so much that they are going to have to die.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Can we go ahead and legislate lighter sentencing for Love Crimes? I love several people's guts so much that they are going to have to die.

I might be able to get behind that. Did I mention that I love Pat Robertson so much that I could just "kiss" him with a hammer all day.

 

[STAGE 2]

Prosecuters cannot tell jurors to put themselves in the defendants shoes but they also cannot tell them not to do that very thing. Jurors do this all the time and they are allowed to do so. They have to decide whether they think the defendant was just in doing what he did or unjust.

Umm, no they cant. The judges instructoins strictly prohibit this. I don't know what you've seen on TV but this doesnt fly.

I worked for CPS for years and spent a great deal of time in a court room. Other than social workers I would say only cops, judges, and lawyers spend more time in court.

So the shorter and more correct answer is no. I knew the answer before I asked the question, and I'll demonstrate why below.

Motive IS an element of a crime. Motive is an element of circumstance. Motive is simple a question of "what circumstances caused this person to do a certain thing?" If the motive for killing someone was they came at you with a knife it is very relevant. If the motive was "they like to kill black people" that is a completely different matter and does not shine as good a light on there case.

No its not. No its not. Not its not. Any 1st year law student can tell you that motive is not an element of a crime. If I have a case involving larceny, or murder, or assault, I will never have to put on any evidence of motive. It certianly may help, but its not required. Why? Because motive is not an element of any crime.

There is no such thing as a surprise witness, and motive is not an element of a crime no matter what LA Law, Perry Mason, or Matlock say.

It not only matters that they did it. It matters greatly WHY they did it. Are yo trying to say motive and circumstance have no bearing? Then why are there trials for people that admit to a crime? Why do people get off on reasons of self defense?

Again. No it doesnt. Offering an affirmative defense is not the same as making a value judgment of an idea behind a crime. Self defense is an action. Its an action in response to someone elses action. The world's biggest racist can have a valid case of self defense agains a black guy even though he may relish in the fact that he's killing a black guy.

Thought crime would punish the racist even though he had a valid reason for defending himself.

Motive and circumstance are useful in identifying whether a particular person actually comitted a crime. They have no bearing in determining what kind of punishment a person should recieve, and certianly are not independent factors in determining guilt.

 

[Number 6]

Misinformation

Motive IS an element of a crime. Motive is an element of circumstance. Motive is simple a question of "what circumstances caused this person to do a certain thing?" If the motive for killing someone was they came at you with a knife it is very relevant. If the motive was "they like to kill black people" that is a completely different matter and does not shine as good a light on there [sic] case.

WRONG. Motive is NOT an "an element of crime" - ANY crime. INTENT is a motive of "true" crime; i.e., common law offenses. These are distinct from statutory offenses, for which even intent is not required; merely having committed them is sufficient. Hence the distinction between those offenses which are malum per se and merely malum prohibitum.

Killing someone who is attacking you is NOT "motive;" it is an affirmative defense to a charge of homicide.

Killing someone because of race may be the "motive" for the killing; it is still a killing. The charge will be, first and foremost, MURDER. To the extent race is relevant, it will be as a compounding factor, turning a murder into a hate crime.

The fact that he killed without legally cognizable cause is what must be proved to support a charge of homicide.Whether the killer targets another race because he considers them inferior or the spawn of satan or aliens is not the issue; that his killings were racially targeted and unprovoked are the facts that would be proven for a hate crime.

"Motive" is regardless, either way. It's a great way to explain the crime to a jury, which seeks to impose a rational interpretation on even irrational acts, but it is NOT a required element of proof.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Again. No it doesnt. Offering an affirmative defense is not the same as making a value judgment of an idea behind a crime.

You have eluded (but not said) that you are a law student. Drop out now if you really think that the WHY does not matter when I crime is commited.

I am sitting here now (on my laptop) after just finishing a meeting with my business partner (an attoney with 30 yrs experience) and he has found your arguments faulty. He says you are misunderstanding the meaning of the conversation and trying to use semantics and a misrepresentation of terms to defend an invalid argument.

He also says that motive is VERY important if you look at motive as an element of circumstance (as I mentioned before). He says you are missing the big picture. If someone is motivated to shoot another person because that person was trying to kill them then how is that not important in deciding punishment? If you jaywalked to push a child out from in front of truck how is that not relative? if you kicked someone front door in and entered their home without their knowledge because their house was on fire and they were asleep upstairs how is that not relative? (These are his examples) Care to explain how if you were defending the guy who broke in the door and entered the home you would completely leave out the part about the fire or saving the occupent? because if motive is irrelevant these things would not matter to a jury.

My business partner has also aked me to ask you directly your legal qualifications(adding that you are definately not a defense attorney). He said if you are an attorney you might want to keep such flawed analysis of the law to yourself for the sake of your career and if you are a lawstudent you might want to wait until you graduate.

Umm, no they cant. The judges instructoins strictly prohibit this. I don't know what you've seen on TV but this doesnt fly.

he also says that the judges statements do not deny a juror the right to use their own judgement to decide if a crime was committed or to decide if a crime was done for a defendabe reason. The only way to do this is through deciding if someone acted appropriatly for a given circumstance and there is no way for someone to do this without considering the defendants perspective (aka putting themselves in the defendants shoes such as deciding if someone really did have cause to fear for his or her life in a defensive shooting case). He also stated that if all a jury was allowed to do was say yes or no to whether a crime was committed there would not be much use for lawyers.

Just out of curiosity...how would you prepose a jurer (if presiding over a self defense shooting case) decide whether a person was justified in fearing for their life or not without looking at it from the perspective of the defendant???

It can' possible all come down to set perimeters. In a case were a person shoots someone that is threatening them because they pulled out a plastic gun they would have just shot someone that posed no real threat since they did not have a real gun. You have to decide if the defendant had reason to believe that the gun was real. Therefore you have to look at it from his perspective.

 

[Mad Martigan]

I might be able to get behind that. Did I mention that I love Pat Robertson so much that I could just "kiss" him with a hammer all day.

Are you starting to see how silly specifically legislating the concurrence of a feeling and an action really is?


(This is aside from the reflexive repulsion everyone on this planet should feel at the idea of law concerning feelings.)

 

[Playboypenguin]

Are you starting to see how silly specifically legislating the concurrence of a feeling and an action really is?

What I am saying is I would willing get behind anything that allowed me to legally whack Pat Robertson with a hammer. No more...no less.

 

[STAGE 2]

You have eluded (but not said) that you are a law student. Drop out now if you really think that the WHY does not matter when I crime is commited.

I am sitting here now (on my laptop) after just finishing a meeting with my business partner (an attoney with 30 yrs experience) and he has found your arguments faulty. He says you are misunderstanding the meaning of the conversation and trying to use semantics and a misrepresentation of terms to defend an invalid argument.

Yes I am a practicing attorney. And if your friend didn't hit you over the head for saying that motive is a necessary element of the crime then I would take with a grain of salt everything else he's told you.

He also says that motive is VERY important if you look at motive as an element of circumstance (as I mentioned before). He says you are missing the big picture. If someone is motivated to shoot another person because that person was trying to kill them then how is that not important in deciding punishment? If you jaywalked to push a child out from in front of truck how is that not relative? if you kicked someone front door in and entered their home without their knowledge because their house was on fire and they were asleep upstairs how is that not relative? (These are his examples) Care to explain how if you were defending the guy who broke in the door and entered the home you would completely leave out the part about the fire or saving the occupent? because if motive is irrelevant these things would not matter to a jury.

Your friend clearly needs to explain to you how affirmative defenses work cause both of you are way way off the mark. Either way, none of this really has anything to do with hate crimes and legislating thought. Pushing a child is an action. Running into a building is an action. The circumstances that have been "left out" are of course mitigating, but they are real present circumstances... the building being on fire, and the truck driving towards the kid. Someone's inner thoughts and personal views are not nearly as tangible. They are separate from the crime in that they are not physical present conditions causing someone to act.

My business partner has also aked me to ask you directly your legal qualifications(adding that you are definately not a defense attorney). He said if you are an attorney you might want to keep such flawed analysis of the law to yourself for the sake of your career and if you are a lawstudent you might want to wait until you graduate.

Like I said above, I'm a practicing attorney. I appreciate your "friends" concern, but my career is plenty fine.

He also says that the judges statements do not deny a juror the right to use their own judgement to decide if a crime was committed or to decide if a crime was done for a defendabe reason.

Which is not the same thing as placing yourself in the shoes of the defendant.

The only way to do this is through deciding if someone acted appropriatly for a given circumstance and there is no way for someone to do this without considering the defendants perspective (aka putting themselves in the defendants shoes such as deciding if someone really did have cause to fear for his or her life in a defensive shooting case). He also stated that if all a jury was allowed to do was say yes or no to whether a crime was committed there would not be much use for lawyers.

Have your friend explain the reasonable person standard to you. It ought to clear some things up.

Just out of curiosity...how would you prepose a jurer (if presiding over a self defense shooting case) decide whether a person was justified in fearing for their life or not without looking at it from the perspective of the defendant???

See above. Just don't say that its the same thing as putting yourself int he defendants shoes, cause its not.

It can' possible all come down to set perimeters. In a case were a person shoots someone that is threatening them because they pulled out a plastic gun they would have just shot someone that posed no real threat since they did not have a real gun. You have to decide if the defendant had reason to believe that the gun was real. Therefore you have to look at it from his perspective.

And yet all of this has NOTHING to do with thouht crime. A racist killing is no different than a killing by someone who has just snapped. The motivation may be different, but the result is the same, the crime is the same and the punishment should be the same.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Your responses are just semantics.

You don't clarify any statement or answer questions you just add addition information and circumstances without addressing previous concerns.

You like to change the semantics of something (like the term "reasonable person standard") without denying or confirming that even though the labels are different the action and result are similar. How does a person determine if someone was reasonable without placing themselfe in that situation and think "what would I do?" The person would consider their own judgement to be reasonable and use that as a basis for such a judgement.

You said very clearly before that motive was not relevant when considering a crime. The definition of motive is as follows...
1. something that causes a person to act in a certain way, do a certain thing, etc.; incentive.

Therefore a burning building, a child about to be hit by a car, etc actually are motives. They are the motivating factor. if the building was not on fire or the child was not in front of a car the person would not have acted as they did. once again you are just playing a semantics game.

And yet all of this has NOTHING to do with thouht crime. A racist killing is no different than a killing by someone who has just snapped. The motivation may be different, but the result is the same, the crime is the same and the punishment should be the same.

So you are trying to say someone that has a pyschotic break and kills someone is to be treated the same as a mass murderer?

 

[STAGE 2]

Your responses are just semantics.

You don't clarify any statement or answer questions you just add addition information and circumstances without addressing previous concerns.

You like to change the semantics of something (like the term "reasonable person standard") without denying or confirming that even though the labels are different the action and result are similar. How does a person determine if someone was reasonable without placing themselfe in that situation and think "what would I do?" The person would consider their own judgement to be reasonable and use that as a basis for such a judgement.

And it seems like that because you really don't know what you are talking about.

First, the fact that you are comparing mitigating circumstances/affirmative defenses to a persons mental state when they are commiting a crime is ridiculous. They aren't related at all.

Second, you really don't understand how a jury is to judge guilt or innocence. If a person admits to a crime, and claims something such as self defense or necessity, the jury does NOT put themselves in the position of the defendant. They analyize the situation form the standpoint of the reasonable person. Would a reasonable person have percieved a threat? Would a reasonable person have been in fear for their life.

If the defendant is on trial for murder and is hypersensitive, his actions may not have been reasonable. This is the very reason why we don't put ourselves in the shoes of the defendant, but in the shoes of a reasonable person. While it may have been reasonable to the hypersensitive defendant, it is not so to the reasonable person and thus the defendant is guilty.

However none of this really comes into play if you have a defendant who has plead not guilty to a crime. Whether he's the worlds biggest racist doesn't really have anything to do with innocence or guilt. Why? Because we aren't convicting him of being a bigot, we're convicting him of taking someone's life.

Thats the essence of thought crimes. We are going to punish you for the crime, and then we are going to punish you extra for the thought behind it.

So you are trying to say someone that has a pyschotic break and kills someone is to be treated the same as a mass murderer?

Once again, I ask for answers to the questions I put forth in my previous posts.

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on how many murders, how depraved the killings were, whether they were premeditated or not. Things like that. I don't really care whether they were racially motivated any more than I care if the killer never got any hugs from daddy.

Its not the governments place to punish people for what are otherwise protected ideas and speech. Racist and bigoted ideas are still protected speech.

 

[CobrayCommando]

Fundamentally, don't these laws exist to "beat the racism" out of people?

I don't think the penalty should be greater for killing because of racism or homophobia then randomly killing a homeless person, or killing someone because they owe you money.

It does seem to me to be a thought crime. As long as you don't act on it (harassing black or gay (or white) employees, killing random gay men, discriminatory hiring practices etc) I don't think racism should be illegal or punished, and when it is acted upon, for example in the case of a murder, it should be treated like any other murder trial IMO.

A white man killing a white man because he owed him money or insulted him, and a white man killing a black man because he is black are both fairly senseless crimes and should have the same kind of punishments.

To me, doling out more severe punishments for hate crimes is more profane then banning sodomy and alcoholic consumption in the privacy of ones own home, because it isn't even punishing action, but thought.

 

[STAGE 2]

You said very clearly before that motive was not relevant when considering a crime. The definition of motive is as follows...
1. something that causes a person to act in a certain way, do a certain thing, etc.; incentive.

Therefore a burning building, a child about to be hit by a car, etc actually are motives. They are the motivating factor. if the building was not on fire or the child was not in front of a car the person would not have acted as they did. once again you are just playing a semantics game.

No, what I said was motive is not an ELEMENT of a crime. I dont need to prove it to get a conviction. Real big difference.