Thoughtcrime

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.
Exactely, the person is punished for what they did..not what they though. But when it comes to sentencing judges are allowed some lattitude. This is when charater and intent come into play.

I am opposed to laws that say it is worse to kill one person more than it is wrong to kill another. I am just saying that people that would kill for no other reason than the fun of killing or because of someones color are more dangerous than people that require a great deal more motive.
 
No, what I said was motive is not an ELEMENT of a crime. I dont need to prove it to get a conviction.
But it is a huge element when it comes to sentencing. Which is what I have been saying. I have seen many judges say "you did the wrong thing for the right reason" and therefore be as leniant as possible in sentencing.

I have also seen them say "you did it for the worst possible reasons" and come down on them hard because of it.

Therefore motive is very relevant to the trial since it does indeed affect the outcome to a degree.

That is where it comes into play in hate crimes. It sort of falls into that "worst possible reason" catagory. It does not effect the verdict but it does effect the sentencing.

I would never want someone to get the impression that it was okay to kill some people but not others or that it was even somehow worse to kill some people tan it is to kill others. But I do understand the difference of killing someone because they are black, because I want their money, or because I thought they dissed me and killing someone because they just attacked your wide, pulled gun on you, or where in the act of killing someone else.

I think most hate crime proponents are more interested in sentencing than in convicting. It is not saying they are automatically guilty for a certan reason but that they are more dangerous and should be sentenced more harshly. I can agree with the mindset that says a person that kills for pleasure is a greater threat than a person that killed from jealousy. I can reasonably think that a seriel killer is more likely to harm me or a loved one than the guy that killed his girlfriend when he caught her in bed with his sister. I cannot agree that a value judgement should be made that sone life was more valuable.

I do hope we have both been arguing the right points this whole time and not each on a different point or I have gotten feta cheese all over my laptop keys for nothing (we had greek sald at our meeting and I was trying to type and eat).
 
Last edited:
I am just saying that people that would kill for no other reason than the fun of killing or because of someones color are more dangerous than people that require a great deal more motive.

Yes, agreed. For whatever reason, I couldn't coherently write that basically I think that in crimes that are as senseless as racist killings or previously mentioned "loanshark killings", killing or beating random hobos etc, the punishments doled out should be higher anyway because it demonstrates that the perpetrator is screwed up enough to be doing it.

But:
Exactely, the person is punished for what they did..not what they though.
I am opposed to laws that say it is worse to kill one person more than it is wrong to kill another.

I was under the assumption that there were laws on the books that make crimes motivated by hate a separate and more severe crime with higher minimum sentences? Very possible I'm wrong here.
 
But it is a huge element when it comes to sentencing. Which is what I have been saying. I have seen many judges say "you did the wrong thing for the right reason" and therefore be as leniant as possible in sentencing.

I have also seen them say "you did it for the worst possible reasons" and come down on them hard because of it.

Therefore motive is very relevant to the trial since it does indeed affect the outcome to a degree.

That is where it comes into play in hate crimes. It sort of falls into that "worst possible reason" catagory. It does not effect the verdict but it does effect the sentencing.

Then why in the world do we need extra laws that specifically focus on thought and ideas if judges already have this power.

If a murder is committed strictly out of racial prejudice, it's going to be pretty clear from the face of the record. You don't need extra laws to legislate what judges can already do.
 
Then why in the world do we need extra laws that specifically focus on thought and ideas if judges already have this power.

If a murder is committed strictly out of racial prejudice, it's going to be pretty clear from the face of the record. You don't need extra laws to legislate what judges can already do.
I never said we did need them. In my first post I was very clear that I did not have enough understanding of them or why they were necessary to be for or against them.

I was arguing against the idea that "why" someone does something is irrelevant. I think judges and juries should be aware of why someone did something.

In cases of hate crime I think that is evidence towards the character of the defendant and shows he is a greater danger to society as a whole than someone who commits a crime of passion or such and such.

The part I really object to is the term "thought crime". It is a misleading term that propagandists use to give the uninformed the false impression that people are being prosecuted for feelings or thoughts and not the actions the perform. The minimum sentences are put in place to keep racist judges from deciding that even though they were convicted all the did was "kill a negro/fag/wetback/homeless person/etc." and therefore give them an undeserved light sentence. Most people complain that bleeding heart or biased judges give too light of sentences so why would they object to them being given guidelines for sentencing.

The laws I have read do not say it is worse to kill a gay/black/jew/etc...they just try and encourage liberal judges to actual give criminal the sentence they deserve.
 
The part I really object to is the term "thought crime". It is a misleading term that propagandists use to give the uninformed the false impression that people are being prosecuted for feelings or thoughts and not the actions the perform. The minimum sentences are put in place to keep racist judges from deciding that even though they were convicted all the did was "kill a negro/fag/wetback/homeless person/etc." and therefore give them an undeserved light sentence. Most people complain that bleeding heart or biased judges give too light of sentences so why would they object to them being given guidelines for sentencing.

The laws I have read do not say it is worse to kill a gay/black/jew/etc...they just try and encourage liberal judges to actual give criminal the sentence they deserve.

But it is a thought crime due to the fact that a person will recieve a tougher sentence than if they didn't have the bias.

And if we are going to take this into account when we punish someone, doesn't this mean that we should look at mitigating factors as well, such as maybe the fact that Richard Ramirez didn't get enough love as a kid. And what about crimes committed against people for reasons other than religious or racial reasons. What if I don't like the poor and I use them as an outlet for my rage. How large is the list going to be before we recognize that its never going to be large enough.

Moreover, you still haven't answered the question of why exactly the government has any business in making value judgements about ideas. If a killer has no remorse thats one thing. If he murdered someone in a particularly gruesome way thats one thing. However if someone still hates black people or harbors some other particular prejudice, why should their sentence be increased based solely on this fact. Its not a crime to hate black people and its not a crime to be prejudiced. Repugnant to some people no doubt, but perfectly acceptable to others. These are different in that they are generalized feelings, whereas the other sentiments relate directly to crime and show a propensity to commit further crimes.


As for racist judges, isn't that the whole point behind mandatory sentences? Whether a murder was committed for fun, out of bigotry, or for profit, if the sentence is the same then the need for hate crime legislation is irrelevant.
 
But it is a thought crime due to the fact that a person will recieve a tougher sentence than if they didn't have the bias.
No, it is not a "thought crime". That is a misleading nomenclature given to the concept by it's opponents. Much the same way anti-choice people like to call pro-choice people "pro-abortion". The person is not being punished for "thinking" a bad thing. They are being punished for committing a crime. Then the reasoning behind it comes into play only as a measure of character and how dangerous the defendant is to his community.
As for racist judges, isn't that the whole point behind mandatory sentences? Whether a murder was committed for fun, out of bigotry, or for profit, if the sentence is the same then the need for hate crime legislation is irrelevant.
I am not a fan of "general" madatory sentences. Such as I do not think all people accused of rape should receive a mandatory sentence. Especially since a great deal of men are accused of rape by there spouses upon advice from less that scrupulous council to win bigger divorce settlements or to guarantee winning child custody. But I believe people who rape children should receive a mandatory sentence. See the difference? You can't always count on a jury handing down a reduced sentence on a lesser offense under mitigating circumstance.

If it was a general mandatory sentence for manslaughter or homocide then a father who kills a man by beating him down after finding the man raped his 8yr old daughter would receive the same sentence as a man that went out and picked a random old jewish man and beat him to death. They really aren't the same thing and they do not show that the different men would pose the same amount of threat to the general population.

Therefore I do believe there should be laws that state that under certain circumstances there are larger minimum sentences for certain crimes. Hate crimes are just one possible example of such laws.

And if you do away with all minimum sentences (to allow people that deserve more of a second chance to get it) you run the risk of having the same thing happened that has happened up until very recent times in this country. The circumstance where good 'ol boy judges dismiss crimes against blacks by whites...only these days it is more likely the victim will be gay or hispanic.
 
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.

It's different because no CRIME was committed in holding the rally.
 
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.

But it does, Blanche, it does. Aggravating and mitigating factors. Read the LAW. It is written in stone.
 
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.

I don't think you understand motive. In those scenarios, altruism or gloryhogging might be the possible motives, not a speeding car or a burning building themselves.
 
But it does, Blanche, it does. Aggravating and mitigating factors. Read the LAW. It is written in stone.

No. Prior to hate crime legislation, the law did not make a value judgment on someone's thoughts and ideas. Only their actions. Remorse is an action. Killing someone someone in a deprave maner is an action. Having a bias towards a praticular race isn't an action.
 
No, it is not a "thought crime". That is a misleading nomenclature given to the concept by it's opponents. Much the same way anti-choice people like to call pro-choice people "pro-abortion". The person is not being punished for "thinking" a bad thing. They are being punished for committing a crime. Then the reasoning behind it comes into play only as a measure of character and how dangerous the defendant is to his community.

Sure it is. The length and severity of your punishment is increased not necessarily because of what you thought while committing the crime, BUT BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU THINK IN GENERAL.

The prosecutor isn't going to sit there an try and prove what was in the mind at the time of the crime. They are going to put on the stand someone who heard the defendant say at some point in time, "I hate blacks/jews/gays/etc" or some other slur. This statement is perfectly legal and contains nothing to suggest anyones propensity for crime.

This isn't right. You can't take a legally held idea or a legally expressed sentiment, and then tack it on to a crime to jack up the punishment. You wouldn't increase the sentence if a witness testified that the defendant said, "next time I see that piece I'm going to kill him". It may be a piece of circumstantial evidence to prove guilt, but its not guilt in of itself, and it certianly wouldn't be used to increase anyone's sentence.
 
No. Prior to hate crime legislation, the law did not make a value judgment on someone's thoughts and ideas. Only their actions. Remorse is an action. Killing someone someone in a deprave maner is an action. Having a bias towards a praticular race isn't an action.




C. Non-Statutory Aggravating Factors

[Both the Title 18 and Title 21 capital sentencing provisions allow the
government to rely on non-statutory aggravating factors. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3592(b)-(d), 21 U.S.C. § 848(h)(1)(B) & (n). Identify applicable non-
statutory factors by defendant and offense charged.]

1. Victim Impact Evidence.

2. [Non-Statutory Aggravating Factor. Describe why it applies
and the supporting evidence. The factor must be "sufficiently specific to provide
meaningful guidance to the jury" and have a "core meaning that a criminal jury
should be capable of understanding." Avoid pejorative adjectives that describe
the crime as a whole such as heinous, atrocious, cruel, vile, horrible, and
inhuman.]


MITIGATING FACTORS

A. Statutory Mitigating Factors

[For each death penalty-eligible offender, identify the statutory mitigating
factors that have been raised by the defense or are otherwise suggested by the
evidence in the case. The statutory mitigating factors for Title 18 and Title 21
capital sentencing offenses are set forth at § 3592(a)(1)-(7) and § 848
(m)(1)-(9) respectively. Distinguish mitigation by offense if appropriate.]


B. Non-Statutory Mitigating Factors

[18 U.S.C. § 3592(a)(8) and/or 21 U.S.C. § 848(m)(10) allow the
defendant to present evidence of other mitigating factors. Mitigating factors are
those aspects of a defendant's character, background or the circumstances of the
offense that reflect a reduced personal culpability for the offense or otherwise
mitigate against imposition of a death sentence. Identify the non-statutory
mitigators raised by the defense or suggested by the evidence.]


Well, judging by section B, Non-Statutory Mitigating Factors (this is to be applied to Title 18 USC in death penaly cases), it looks like "aspects of a defendant's character, background or circumstances of the offense" can be used as mitigating factors. So, it appears that the jury can consider, and is asked to consider, what kind of an angel the defendant is when deciding whether to cook him or not.

Something tells me, like the existence of "Non-Statutory Aggravating Factors", that they can also consider what kind of an ******* he generally is.

That was from a quick search. But it contains a lot of USC to look at if you want to prove I read it wrong.
 
But it is a thought crime due to the fact that a person will recieve a tougher sentence than if they didn't have the bias.

This is getting ridiculous.

Two men commit a murder, same type of victim doing the same thing, same type of weapon, same setting etc.

One man gets startled by the victim stumbling out of the darkness thinking he is being ambushed, pulls a gun, and fires, killing him.

2nd man sees the victim stumbling out of the darkness, sees he is black and start yelling his views on the black race, and shoots the man because he is black. He later admits this in court.

Obviously, though both of these men are murders, the latter deserves a far weightier sentence. Instead of being irresponsible, he is willing to commit a murder based on something as simple as race, and is probably psychotic.

The length and severity of your punishment is increased not necessarily because of what you thought while committing the crime, BUT BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU THINK IN GENERAL.

Now, I don't know much about the law so the actual charges brought against the first man may be different than those brought against the 2nd. What I'm trying to do is demonstrate that if you are crazy enough to kill someone because of racism, if your "general thinking" on racism is strong enough to motivate a killing, your sentence should be higher. Not necessarily higher then another similarly senseless killing that is not a hate crime, but higher then your run of the mill convenience store robbery gone bad.

Also, I genuinely want to know, what makes remorse an action?
 
what makes remorse an action

I was going to ask that, but I got busy showing that mitigations and probably aggravations can be based on thoughts not only during the crime, but on how you think generally.
 
Sure it is. The length and severity of your punishment is increased not necessarily because of what you thought while committing the crime, BUT BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU THINK IN GENERAL
Absolutely untrue. You are not getting a stiffer sentence because you are a racist. You are getting a stiffer sentence because you have shown you are the type of racist that is willing to committ murder because of your racism. You have proven you require very little provocation to committ a horrible crime.

It all goes back to the resonable person argument. A judge and jury can say to themselves that a reasonable person could be distraught by finding their wife cheating on them, after learning their child was molested, after a loved one is attacked, and so on. But a reasonable person is not distraught simply because someone else is black, or gay, or jewish.
 
You can deny it, but that doesn't change the fact. Most times a prosecutor will need to rely on testimony from witnesses that weren't there when the crime was committed, but were present during other times when the defendant made racial remarks.

That is criminalizing thought. Especially if you have an individual who has not been in trouble with the law before. Case in point. Back in college a friend of my roomate got a little drunk and started mixing it up with some guys in a parking lot. Both sides were probably at fault, but while he was scrapping, he made some racial remarks. Due to that he was charged with a hate crime, and at his trial, the judge made a wonderful grand stand about racial sensitivities and how this was not an ordinary assault. And as a result she increased his punishment. All this for someone who was an honors student at a major university who had never been in trouble with the law before.

Did he truly mean his remarks, or was he drunk and fighting. I really don't know. What I do know is that his record showed no propensity for violence, and there was no indication that he was going to repeat the same crime. However, all because he said a couple of things, he was somehow deserving of a greater sentence, even though the facts didn't bear this out.

The greater point in all of this, is that a person's prejudices aren't a reliable way of determining whether or not they are going to repeat a crime. (Of course this assumes that you feel that the primary purpose of punishment is deterrence, which I dont). In truth, you have no idea whether the racist with the clean record is going to commit another crime. The normal sentence may very well deter future crimes. If a racist is a repeat offender, then give him a harsher sentence because he has demonstrated he will continue breaking the law.

There are plenty of bigoted people in this world that have never acted on their views. There are plenty of people who commit crimes just for the sake of doing so.
 
You can deny it, but that doesn't change the fact. Most times a prosecutor will need to rely on testimony from witnesses that weren't there when the crime was committed, but were present during other times when the defendant made racial remarks.
That is criminalizing though
No, the defendant is not being tried for what he said. The testimony regarding his past actions are serving only to speak to his character and his motive. And as we have said before, character and motive are very relevant in sentencing.

Often witnesses are brought in to speak to how the man who killed his wife was a good man, kind to his neighbors, good to his family and wam to his friends. It is not lessening his crime. It is speaking to his character and trying to convince the judge and jury he is a good person that did a bad thing and therfore deserves leaniency. The previous is doing just the opposite. It is speaking to the character of the defendant as being a hateful and easily provoked person who is not a good man and does not deserve leaniency.

Neither circumstance is putting more or less weight on the crime itself or piunishing them for what they "thought". They are simply making the destinction between a person that is more likely to be a continuing threat to others and one that is not.

It is just like the scenerio I posted before where I put forth that a man who beats his child's rapist to death when he catches him in the act of attacking his 8yr old daughter does not pose the same threat to society that a man that goes out and indescriminantly kills a stranger for the color of his skin.
 
It all goes back to the resonable person argument. A judge and jury can say to themselves that a reasonable person could be distraught by finding their wife cheating on them, after learning their child was molested, after a loved one is attacked, and so on. But a reasonable person is not distraught simply because someone else is black, or gay, or jewish.

In this country, it is still legal(ftm) to feel unreasonably.
 
Back
Top