Thoughtcrime

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.
Click to expand...

But that makes the assumption that racism is a reliable indicator of whether someone is a continuing threat, which it is not.


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.
Click to expand...

But again here you have made another assumption. Being a racist does not mean that you are easily provoked. Cobray said that, "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." Thats a value judgement the law shouldn't take into account.

Making the statement that the racist is worse because he kills based on his prejudice is making a value judgement on the underlying idea which the government has no business doing. If a person has a clean record and commits a hate crime, do you truly have any evidence that the person is going to commit an additional crime other than you own personal value judgment that racism is a bad thing? The answer is no.

If a person has a clean record then their sentence should reflect this. If a person has a spotty record than their sentence should reflect this. There is NO reason to take "thought" into account.
 
To be guilty of most crimes, a defendant must have committed the criminal act (the actus reus) in a certain mental state (the mens rea). The mens rea of robbery, for example, is the intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property.

Mens rea means “a guilty mind,” and the criminal concept behind it is that, in order to be convicted of a crime, a defendant must have acted with an intent or purpose that makes him or her morally blameworthy. Most crimes require proof of a positive state of mind such as intent, recklessness, or willful blindness. However, it doesn’t matter whether you know that what you were doing was a crime, it only matters that you had the intent to commit the act.

Motive is not an element of a crime. Criminal statutes set forth the specific elements necessary to make out a prima facia case. These elements must be set forth in the indictment to sufficiently apprize the defendant of the charges against him. At trial the prosecution must present evidence that all the elements of the crime have been satisfied.

I do not mean to minimize the importance motive plays in the adjudication process, which has been amply demonstrated in prior posts, but I too wanted to voice my disdain for hate crime laws. Judges need discretion in sentencing to see that particularly heinous crimes are punished more severely and vice versa. The source of the perpetrator's animus should be inconsequential.

Dragging a man behind a truck until he is dead is equally horrifying irrespective of the motive behind it.
 
But that makes the assumption that racism is a reliable indicator of whether someone is a continuing threat, which it is not.
Click to expand...
No, it does not. It is saying that acting upon your racist beliefs with violence against another person in the absence of other mitigating factors is an indicator. Not the racism itself.

I myself have racist tendencies but I do not act on out violently because of them. Race alone is not enough reason for me to harm someone. If I shot an asian driver that cut me off in traffic I might be prejudiced against asian drivers but it took the aditional factor of him cutting me off to shoot him. If I shot the same man while he was standing on the street corner simply because he was asian that is a different story. I shot him with a great deal less provocation in the second scenerio and could therefore be seem as a greater danger to others because one could assume I do not even need to be provoked. I will shoot people simply for being.

It is kind of like the difference between a dog that will bite you if you come in his yard compared to a dog that will jump the fence and come after ou upon sight. One is considerably more dangerous and a bigger liability than the other.

You seem unable or unwilling to grasp the intricacies of the situation.
 
I'm Asian. And I'm a damn good driver. :D Just remember: Chuck Norris lost to Bruce Lee.

That being said, hatecrime legislation is dumb.
 
I'm Asian. And I'm a damn good driver. Just remember: Chuck Norris lost to Bruce Lee.
Click to expand...
Despite my upbringing, asian is actually not one of my own personal prejudices. My grandfather (who raised me) was a WWII, Korea, and Vietnam vet who was not what you would call "asian friendly".

I did not want to use one of my own personal preferences since it might be a little to revealing.

PS: Chuck Norris is a dweeb. Bruce Lee ruled. GREEN HORNET BABY!!!!
 
I myself have racist tendencies but I do not act on out violently because of them. Race alone is not enough reason for me to harm someone. If I shot an asian driver that cut me off in traffic I might be prejudiced against asian drivers but it took the aditional factor of him cutting me off to shoot him. If I shot the same man while he was standing on the street corner simply because he was asian that is a different story. I shot him with a great deal less provocation in the second scenerio and could therefore be seem as a greater danger to others because one could assume I do not even need to be provoked. I will shoot people simply for being.
Click to expand...

But the beautiful thing about hate crime legislation is that as a prosecutor, all I'd have to do is put one of your friends on the stand and have him testify to the fact that at some point in time he heard you say, "I can't stand dinks cause they can't drive" and presto bango we have a hate crime.

Thats the problem.
 
But the beautiful thing about hate crime legislation is that as a prosecutor, all I'd have to do is put one of your friends on the stand and have him testify to the fact that at some point in time he heard you say, "I can't stand dinks cause they can't drive" and presto bango we have a hate crime.
Thats the problem.
Click to expand...
C'mon...that is just not true. That is another extremist view point.

Any reasonable judge and jury is going to have to hear a lot more than a single random second hand comment or two to decide that is why the person commited the crime.

Plus, there would have to be an absence of other mitigating factors. The defense would have to be unable to come up with a more likely reason such as theft or any personal relationship. The prosecuter is going to have to show that the defendant acted solely on his desire to harm someone due to their race, creed, religion, or sexual orientation.

A prosecutor might try and make such a giant leap as to turn something into a hate crime with no more supporting evidence than a single second hand account of a passing slur, but they would not be very a very good one if they based a case on such flimsy a foundation.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Here is the unintended consequence of "Hate Crime" - Beneath all the PC, it's basically a law to stop white-on-black/jew/arab/etc. acts. So just like affirmative action, minorites once again have to deal with the notion that they need some sort of preferential treatment because they're nothing but a bunch of helpless victims, and the white man is out to get you.
 
C'mon...that is just not true. That is another extremist view point.

Any reasonable judge and jury is going to have to hear a lot more than a single random second hand comment or two to decide that is why the person commited the crime.

Plus, there would have to be an absence of other mitigating factors. The defense would have to be unable to come up with a more likely reason such as theft or any personal relationship. The prosecuter is going to have to show that the defendant acted solely on his desire to harm someone due to their race, creed, religion, or sexual orientation.

A prosecutor might try and make such a giant leap as to turn something into a hate crime with no more supporting evidence than a single second hand account of a passing slur, but they would not be very a very good one if they based a case on such flimsy a foundation.
Click to expand...

Sure its true. I've seen it happen first hand. Sometimes it sticks, sometimes it doesn't. All you need for a hate crime is a white male committing a crime against a minority, and some expression of prejudice whether during the crime or otherwise.

Its really that simple. Furthermore, the prosecutor doesn't have to show that race, creed, religion, or sexual orientation was the motivating factor. Some of the statutes are written to where this merely needs to be a factor, not necessarily an overriding one.


At the end of the day here's the point. If a person walks up and shoots someone, just for the sake of killing them, I think its safe to say that their behavior warrants a really tough sentence becuase their actions are really really bad. Even criminals don't normally just kill people to kill people. So if you have this situation, the actions themselves warrant the tough sentence, and not the bias behind it.

Between the nature of the crime and the history of the defendant, there is absolutely no need to take into account "hate" however one describes it.
 
Sure its true. I've seen it happen first hand. Sometimes it sticks, sometimes it doesn't. All you need for a hate crime is a white male committing a crime against a minority, and some expression of prejudice whether during the crime or otherwise.
Click to expand...
Cite me a case where a person was convicted of a hate crime on the testimony of a single person that claimed they once made a racist statement where there was other mitigating factors and motive also presented.
 
The rest of the article is equally as simplistic. You want to attck "thoughtcrime", then at least do it in an intellectual fashion
Click to expand...

Gosh ain't ya afraid you'll hurt feelings, talkin like that.

Must be a good feeeling to be so Superior to us average folk, was 'bout as far as I read that was enough its gonna be over my head.
 
Last edited:
Cite me a case where a person was convicted of a hate crime on the testimony of a single person that claimed they once made a racist statement where there was other mitigating factors and motive also presented.
Click to expand...

Well, what happened to my roommate's friend is almost identical with the execption that he made the statement during a fight. Does a single statement made while intoxicated and while in a figh constitute a hate crime? The judge and DA thought so. I sure as hell dont.

The even larger problem however, is not that it may not have yet happened, but that these laws make it possible for it to happen. Thats the issue, and thats whats wrong.
 
Does a single statement made while intoxicated and while in a fight constitute a hate crime? The judge and DA thought so. I sure as hell dont
Click to expand...


Exactly. Doesn't matter what is different with the other person when you drinking and mad enough to fight people just say WORDS it is only a word. If the other person is bald as me or fat or skinny or of another race or anything they can use in anger it gets said, it is NOT a hate crime. Its being so angry your out of control IMHO .

Hey Get Over It!!! stop being such a buncha sissy lala's

What ever happened to what we would say when we were kids
"sticks and stones" :bout time this political correctness stopped. It is gonna get worse too till you all pretty much had enough...

Went to school with a guy whose folks had named Chick, his given name, it got worse his last name was Little. You learned real quick not to tease him about it. Seemed to me he grew up just fine. We need more of that in the world and less of this,,, ohh please,,, take care of me cause what they say offends me...IMO grow up get over it

Now if you waylay someone because of their race or sexual preference or religion any other such ideals that is a hate crime, or have power over them and use it to your advantage your wrong, but not on the spot anger.

Sorry, I guess I got a tad angry at this bunch *&^% but I ain't real sorry lol
 
a single statement made while intoxicated and while in a figh(t)
Click to expand...

Are you aware that fighting is illegal? Are you aware that being intoxicated before a fight (usually you don't become suddenly intoxicated right at the moment) makes it pretty hard for the police to determine whether you are "fighting" or "self-defending"?

If you're from the school that thinks it's a good thing to get intoxicated and fight, then I think we have the answer for why you discount motive right there.

Your roommate's friend seems like just the kind of person who needs some jail time so as to be slapped awake, as if by a dead carp.
 
Last edited:
A white guy and a black guy get in a fight. White guy uses racial slurs and the black guy uses racial slurs. I bet you the white guy will be up on hate crime charges and the black guy won't. Same deal, if a gay and a straight get in a fight.

The crime is fighting, and punishment should be the same for both. How does hate come into play? Should the winner of the fight get punished more harshly?

There is just as much prejudice from minority classes towards others, you just never see the hate crimes prosecuted when the minority class is the perpetrator. Wonder why.......
 
The crime is fighting, and punishment should be the same for both. How does hate come into play? Should the winner of the fight get punished more harshly?
Click to expand...

Oh, boy. Two issues in one quote.

All else being equal, yes, the punishment should be the same for both. But, as you can see from the passage (instructions to prosecutors) I quoted previously, it is proper to consider not only the state of mind at fight time, but that of each individual's previously stated views of the category of opponent he's chosen to fight. This is not a hate crime thing. It is a thing prosecutors do. It gives them an idea of intent. Intent can be an aggravating factor or a mitigating factor in sentencing.

In reality, the winner of the fight usually is the one who goes to jail if there's a choice. Why do the police do this? Hell if I know. But let me hazard a guess.

The police arrive on the scene of a fight. There, standing, is the "winner". In considerably worse shape, probably not standing, is the "loser". Ask yourself this question. Why, if the winner didn't start the fight, is he still there? Why isn't he down the street, clear of the scene, in safety, reporting to the police what happened? Why is probably that he's ready and willing to continue to pursue the fight if the "loser" should get up. That means he's not defending himself, but still fighting. In front of the police. Which is illegal.

The "loser" is unable to leave. The "winner" looks unwilling to leave. So now who, if anyone, gets arrested?
 
A white guy and a black guy get in a fight. White guy uses racial slurs and the black guy uses racial slurs. I bet you the white guy will be up on hate crime charges and the black guy won't. Same deal, if a gay and a straight get in a fight.
Click to expand...

IF that's true, something needs to change, because sentencing shouldn't be a double standard.
 
Are you aware that fighting is illegal? Are you aware that being intoxicated before a fight (usually you don't become suddenly intoxicated right at the moment) makes it pretty hard for the police to determine whether you are "fighting" or "self-defending"?

If you're from the school that thinks it's a good thing to get intoxicated and fight, then I think we have the answer for why you discount motive right there.

Your roommate's friend seems like just the kind of person who needs some jail time so as to be slapped awake, as if by a dead carp.
Click to expand...

So because he made a stetement during a fight, he deserves a greater sentence that someone else who committed the same physical crime? I don't think go.

Sentence him for the fight. What he said is irrelevant. Especially since what he said is protected speech.
 
The only time race or sexual orientation should matter is in considering mitigation. If I am provoked by racial slurs into assaulting someone, I am still guilty of assault but the degree of provocation can be used to mitigate my culpability. Given sufficient provocation, I may even be found not guilty.

The reverse would be if I assaulted someone based only on their race or sexual orientation. I would deserve a harsher sentence not because of my bigotry but solely on the lack of provocation.

Hate crime laws are unnecessary and ironically seem to increase the discord between separate groups. These laws further divide us by making distinctions that unfortunately contribute to the evil sought to be eradicated.
 
Hate crimes

I am personally against this kind of legislation. While it may be laudable in its intent, it is excreable in its application. It is added punishment for a state of mind, which should not be.

Having no direct legal training, and discounting the legal training from the popular media, I do need to ask a simple question, and please, try and give me simple answer for this simple man to understand.

What crime isn't a hate crime?

It would seem to me that there is an element of hate in every crime. What seems to be the difference is the degree of hate, and the object of it.

A robber "hates" the fact that you have money/valuable objects and he doesn't. He may not hate you as an individual, he may hate you only as a representation of a group. A murderer hates their victim, either personally, or as a representative of something they hate.

Some crimes are committed because the criminal hates something about themselves. Even sexual predators hate the fact that their pleasures are forbidden by laws.

There is an element of hate in all crimes, at least as far as I can see.

Why some kinds and degrees of hate are "special" and deserve special punishment is beyond me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top