Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > Opinions & Editorials
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Opinions & Editorials Discuss Hate Crimes Are Thought Crimes at the General Forum; bottom line. Hate Crimes assume ....and some here have said... that the HEINOUSNESS of the motive should be considered and ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 02-28-2018, 08:04 PM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,908
Thanks: 9,699
Thanked 5,948 Times in 4,022 Posts
Default Re: Hate Crimes Are Thought Crimes

bottom line.
Hate Crimes assume ....and some here have said... that the HEINOUSNESS of the motive should be considered and given it's own punishment.
But that's simply punishing people for their thoughts.


2 problems with that.
1. NO ONE but God ever really knows a persons thoughts. We can get a good idea often, but people are very complex and CHANGEABLE.
A tenet of western culture culled from it's biblical roots is that you change people's MINDS with words and your example.
You discipline their ACTIONS with home punishments in youth, and then once they leave home social pressures and finally the full extent of the law.

2. the argument that racism, or sexism or homophobia makes a murder WORSE so it should be punished more doesn't make for EQUAL justice under the law.

Dylan Root went into a church and shot as many Blacks as he could becasue he's a racist.
Disgruntled postal worker went into the post office and shot as many as he could becasue he's fed up.

Seems to me the punishment should be exactly the same.

Nazis were hung for what they did to the Jews?
Should the punishment be less for the same crimes they did to the Poles?
Mao starved millions of his own people for the good of China. Is that somehow NOT as bad the Germans that starved Jews becasue they were racist?




FI66 you said Judges take the motive into account ANYWAY.
well OK if that's true then why add NEW HATE CRIME laws?
But in the cases I've seen Judges seem to lay more weight on their perceived attitude of the criminal toward the crime(s) itself. Are they genuinely remorseful? And also was it a crime of Passion in the heat of the moment? Was it a stupid youthful impulse? And often they lay a lot of weight on just how horrific was the crime was in general.

Dragging someone behind a truck to torture and kill them is horrific and goes to sentencing no matter if the victim is white, black, homosexual or a woman.
That Perp needs to die.
Doesn't matter shouldn't matter ...in sentencing ...if he's a racist of any color, gayhater, crazy femanazi out for justice, or fill-in-the-blank.
the crime itself speaks to sentencing.

It's not EQUAL justice to do otherwise.
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8

Last edited by mr wonder; 02-28-2018 at 08:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to mr wonder For This Useful Post:
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2018, 10:16 AM
GottaGo's Avatar
Sanity is overrated.
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Miles to go before I sleep
Posts: 12,052
Thanks: 9,877
Thanked 8,013 Times in 5,115 Posts
Default Re: Hate Crimes Are Thought Crimes

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Invariably in these conversations there are two approaches from people opposed to hate crime legislation.

a) Poster_A: I feel hate crime legislation is unconstitutional.
b) Poster_B: I don't like hate crime legislation.

Here, your response is not a), but rather b). As such, while I understand that you want things done your way, a majority in this country do not agree.
In fact, the majority is well established to the point that it's not even close. Gallup Poll: Most Americans support hate crimes laws

As such, it is incumbent upon you to persuade others why they should change their mind.




Google the difference between asking somebody to google something and actually making an argument.


I don't see how this is a cogent response to the actual point I was making.



You don't understand how some would see a killing to prevent pain and suffering as different (in "heinous" level) as compared to killing somebody motivated out of greed?




If you want to dig back into the history books...
Part of the problem revolves around an appreciation of legal history for how some courts in our history can look at the killing of a black person and receive (at best) a slap on the wrist.

Regardless, as I have mentioned, the goal is for the citizenry to send a message regarding their ideals on justice.
The law helps establish a punishment spectrum for a type of crime, according to the wishes of society.



I am really bored with people who try to attack the concept of "hate crimes" by whining about the phrase taken literally.

By that mindset, we could argue against "greenhouse gases" by pointing out they are not really gases exclusive to greenhouses. Ergo, it's flawed.



Again, it's not the person that is worth more.
It's the crime, incorporating the offender's motive which is viewed as more heinous.



Again you dodge the actual point being made.

So many people in this thread are whining that motive should not be used in crime sentencing.
But the only place you guys complain about it is on the subject of hate crime legislation.
The fact that motive is considered in the sentencing phase historically happens in every court-room across this country.
But none of you are bothered by that, even though you claim it's a problem.


1) Do you understand that motive has always been a factor considered in sentencing?
2) Can you explain why we only hear complaints about considering motive during sentencing on the issue of hate crimes, and never on the vast majority of situations it is applied elsewhere?
When you get off your high horse, and quit acting like you are someone's teacher, perhaps you could actually have a discussion on the subject.

I'm so glad you know what 'you all' think. I'm not sure who 'you all' are, but you do like your neat categories and labels.

I do not believe adding additional penalties to punishment for supposed hate crimes dissuade anybody from committing them. The crime, in and of itself, is what should be punished. I stand by my statement that adding punishments based on thoughts of the criminal, devalues other people who have been assaulted or killed. Not only do I disagree with it on a personal level, I question it's validity under legal bias.
__________________
Your life is the sum total of the choices you make.
If you don't laugh at yourself, a whole bunch of people will volunteer to do it for you
I never lose. I either win, or I learn....
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to GottaGo For This Useful Post:
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2018, 12:43 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,521
Thanks: 10,080
Thanked 15,233 Times in 9,233 Posts
Default Re: Hate Crimes Are Thought Crimes

Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaGo View Post
When you get off your high horse, and quit acting like you are someone's teacher, perhaps you could actually have a discussion on the subject.
There is no discussion when you keep repeating your b.s. propaganda points and refuse to address why they are wrong.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaGo View Post
I'm so glad you know what 'you all' think. I'm not sure who 'you all' are, but you do like your neat categories and labels.
I welcome you to point out where I did that improperly...

The truth is:
a) I talked about what YOU have said.
b) I also talked about what I have seen from others.
Your categorization of my words is inaccurate.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaGo View Post
I do not believe adding additional penalties to punishment for supposed hate crimes dissuade anybody from committing them. The crime, in and of itself, is what should be punished.
Part of the problem is you don't seem to understand the motive is part of the crime.

It's interesting to note that people have a reaction to terrorism that is actually disproportionate to the actual risk of being a terrorist victim.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.6b377ce005eb

Part of that reason is because of the effect that terrorism has on people. And it's a very real effect.
And in many ways, hate crimes also are similar in how that impacts people.
Hate crimes can have significant and wide-ranging psychological consequences, not only for their direct victims but for others as well. A 1999 U.S. study of lesbian and gay victims of violent hate crimes documented that they experienced higher levels of psychological distress, including symptoms of depression and anxiety, than lesbian and gay victims of comparable crimes which were not motivated by antigay bias.[12] A manual issued by the Attorney-General of the Province of Ontario in Canada lists the following consequences:[13]

Impact on the individual victim
psychological and affective disturbances; repercussions on the victim's identity and self-esteem; both reinforced by a specific hate crime's degree of violence, which is usually stronger than that of a common crime.
Effect on the targeted group
generalized terror in the group to which the victim belongs, inspiring feelings of vulnerability among its other members, who could be the next hate crime victims.
Effect on other vulnerable groups
ominous effects on minority groups or on groups that identify themselves with the targeted group, especially when the referred hate is based on an ideology or a doctrine that preaches simultaneously against several groups.
Effect on the community as a whole
divisions and factionalism arising in response to hate crimes are particularly damaging to multicultural societies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime

Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaGo View Post
I stand by my statement that adding punishments based on thoughts of the criminal, devalues other people who have been assaulted or killed. Not only do I disagree with it on a personal level, I question it's validity under legal bias.
As I have pointed out, the concepts used to arrive at that conclusion are quickly abandoned in every other legal context outside of hate crimes.

Motivation is used in sentencing.
Motivation used in hate crime sentencing? OMG that is awful and must stop.
Motivation continues to be used in general sentencing? Not a peep from people.

It's interesting to recognize the impact of your claimed train of thought into other areas, like terrorism.
Are we to abandon the terroristic motivation of those types of murders?
Should we insist that we as a population stop looking at those and instead treat each individual terrorist victim like any other victim of murder in this country?
If we did that, the actual impact would be profound!
But it's not done because it's not a real standard. It's just a hypocritical talking point that is quickly ignored on every other topic relevant to the standard.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2018, 01:24 PM
GottaGo's Avatar
Sanity is overrated.
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Miles to go before I sleep
Posts: 12,052
Thanks: 9,877
Thanked 8,013 Times in 5,115 Posts
Default Re: Hate Crimes Are Thought Crimes

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
There is no discussion when you keep repeating your b.s. propaganda points and refuse to address why they are wrong.
Do you actually read what you post? The arrogance is astounding. Refusing to address my beliefs because 'they are wrong' because I don't believe they are wrong! What part of that do you not understand? Rather then attacking based on something I don't agree with is not going to change my mind. Beating at something with a verbal hammer is more likely to make it splinter, rather then get bent into a shape acceptable to you. Comprende?

Quote:
I welcome you to point out where I did that improperly...

The truth is:
a) I talked about what YOU have said.
b) I also talked about what I have seen from others.
Your categorization of my words is inaccurate.
The continued use of 'you all' indicates that I fall into a prefabricated group. Address ME, not others you think believe like I do.

Quote:
Part of the problem is you don't seem to understand the motive is part of the crime.

It's interesting to note that people have a reaction to terrorism that is actually disproportionate to the actual risk of being a terrorist victim.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.6b377ce005eb

Part of that reason is because of the effect that terrorism has on people. And it's a very real effect.
And in many ways, hate crimes also are similar in how that impacts people.
Hate crimes can have significant and wide-ranging psychological consequences, not only for their direct victims but for others as well. A 1999 U.S. study of lesbian and gay victims of violent hate crimes documented that they experienced higher levels of psychological distress, including symptoms of depression and anxiety, than lesbian and gay victims of comparable crimes which were not motivated by antigay bias.[12] A manual issued by the Attorney-General of the Province of Ontario in Canada lists the following consequences:[13]

Impact on the individual victim
psychological and affective disturbances; repercussions on the victim's identity and self-esteem; both reinforced by a specific hate crime's degree of violence, which is usually stronger than that of a common crime.
Effect on the targeted group
generalized terror in the group to which the victim belongs, inspiring feelings of vulnerability among its other members, who could be the next hate crime victims.
Effect on other vulnerable groups
ominous effects on minority groups or on groups that identify themselves with the targeted group, especially when the referred hate is based on an ideology or a doctrine that preaches simultaneously against several groups.
Effect on the community as a whole
divisions and factionalism arising in response to hate crimes are particularly damaging to multicultural societies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime


As I have pointed out, the concepts used to arrive at that conclusion are quickly abandoned in every other legal context outside of hate crimes.

Motivation is used in sentencing.
Motivation used in hate crime sentencing? OMG that is awful and must stop.
Motivation continues to be used in general sentencing? Not a peep from people.

It's interesting to recognize the impact of your claimed train of thought into other areas, like terrorism.
Are we to abandon the terroristic motivation of those types of murders?
Should we insist that we as a population stop looking at those and instead treat each individual terrorist victim like any other victim of murder in this country?
If we did that, the actual impact would be profound!
But it's not done because it's not a real standard. It's just a hypocritical talking point that is quickly ignored on every other topic relevant to the standard.
I don't agree that the definition of 'hate crime', as it's used today, is terroristic in nature. This is where some groups like to paint all others as part of a group when the majority of crimes committed unto them are individual in nature, not collective as would be with terrorism.

The hyperbole from the groups that promote the elevation of an assault or murder to 'hate crime' status want that grouping, pitting one group against another. Taking words said in anger and cloaking them in 'hate crime' status to up the ante when the actual 'hate' was generalized anger.

To the first one who says they have never said anything about someone's physical traits in anger that they honestly didn't mean, I'll call BS. From calling someone a fat/skinny/ugly whatever to statements involving the color of their skin, at some point in their lives they have. That doesn't mean they actually believe that.

Again, the only difference is between accidental and premeditated. The nature of the crime that would fall extenuating circumstances are, as one poster put it, dragging someone around a parking lot tied to the back of a truck - add willful torture. It doesn't matter WHY they did, it's the fact that they did it intentionally.
__________________
Your life is the sum total of the choices you make.
If you don't laugh at yourself, a whole bunch of people will volunteer to do it for you
I never lose. I either win, or I learn....
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2018, 05:24 PM
lurch907's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Alaska, the greatest place on earth.
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,628
Thanks: 1,041
Thanked 2,964 Times in 1,724 Posts
Default Re: Hate Crimes Are Thought Crimes

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
You are doing that thing (yet again) where you ignore what was pointed out to you and blindly repeat yourself.


This line of thought you present has been rejected repeatedly up to and including SCOTUS. Hate crimes do not "criminalize" thought.
If repeating the truth bothers you, that's your problem not mine.
The Scotus as ruled incorrectly before and repaired it later, I hope the same will happen here.

Quote:
I think you don't appreciate the real implications of your question...
Consider the following hypothetical scenario:
Jon and Mary are husband and wife. Mary is terminally ill with cancer and in the hospital, suffering in pain.
Jon kills Mary.

The defense argues that Mary wanted to have her misery ended and present evidence to that claim.
The prosecution argues that Jon killed Mary for financial reasons.

The judge declares Jon is guilty of premeditated murder.
Now, in this situation the motive is "not proven". And it doesn't have to be.
During sentencing stage, the judge would pick a sentence (in the sentencing spectrum for the crime) taking into account what he thinks regarding the motive.

This is obviously not as reliable (and some could argue not as just) as a requirement that the motive be proven...
Your comparing apples to oranges. In your story motive is being used in the sentencing phase, in the o.p. motive was used in the arraignment phase to determine what crimes were committed. This is a very important distinction you seem to have trouble understanding.

Quote:
As I have been pointing out, motive is used in the sentencing phase.
You guys just don't seem to appreciate what that means.
No, as has been pointed out to you several times, motive was used to determine what crimes had been committed and what charges would be brought. This happened long before the sentencing phase. These are separate stand alone charges that he had to be found guilty of.

Quote:
And more directly, your question is a misnomer. It's based on a false premise.
Consider Murder vs Manslaughter. Distinguished by motive
Murder => the killer wanted to kill the victim.
Manslaughter => the killer did not want to kill the victim and it was typically some form of accident.
Do you just make this stuff up as you go along? The difference between manslaughter and murder is not motive. There is absolutely no requirement to prove motive for a murder conviction. What your talking about is "intent" and is not the same as motive.
Here is some education for you from Nolo's legal dictionary:

Quote:
Intent
The mental desire to act in a particular way. Many crimes require that in order to be found guilty, the perpetrator must have intended to do what he did. An act may be one of many possible crimes depending on the intent of the perpetrator. For example, if A shoots and wounds B, the offense could be attempted murder (if A intended to kill B), assault with intent to cause great bodily injury (A was intending to merely wound B), a minor misdemeanor (A shot on purpose but could not have known that B was around), or no crime at all (A fired the gun completely by accident).
Quote:
Motive
The probable reason a person committed a crime, as when one acts out of jealousy, greed, or revenge. While evidence of a motive may be admissible at trial, proof of motive is not necessary to prove a crime.
Here is the real difference between manslaughter and murder, malice aforethought, again from Nolo.
Quote:
Manslaughter is an unlawful killing that doesn’t involve malice aforethought—intent to seriously harm or kill, or extreme, reckless disregard for life. The absence of malice aforethought means that manslaughter involves less moral blame than either first or second degree murder. (But plenty argue that some instances of felony murder, a form of first degree murder, involve less blameworthiness than some instances of manslaughter.) Thus, while manslaughter is a serious crime, the punishment for it is generally less than that for murder.
Your definition of manslaughter is actually a pretty accurate description of the difference between voluntary and in-voluntary manslaughter.

In the following link several lawyers give excellent descriptions of why motive is not necessary to a conviction, with rare exceptions. I was wrong when I said Hate crimes were the only one, I forgot about federal corruption. Federal corruption case get so convoluted I don't think anybody understands them.
https://www.quora.com/How-important-...nal-conviction
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to lurch907 For This Useful Post:
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2018, 06:35 PM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,908
Thanks: 9,699
Thanked 5,948 Times in 4,022 Posts
Default Re: Hate Crimes Are Thought Crimes

Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch907 View Post
If repeating the truth bothers you, that's your problem not mine.
The Scotus as ruled incorrectly before and repaired it later, I hope the same will happen here.

Your comparing apples to oranges. In your story motive is being used in the sentencing phase, in the o.p. motive was used in the arraignment phase to determine what crimes were committed. This is a very important distinction you seem to have trouble understanding.

No, as has been pointed out to you several times, motive was used to determine what crimes had been committed and what charges would be brought. This happened long before the sentencing phase. These are separate stand alone charges that he had to be found guilty of.

Do you just make this stuff up as you go along? The difference between manslaughter and murder is not motive. There is absolutely no requirement to prove motive for a murder conviction. What your talking about is "intent" and is not the same as motive.
Here is some education for you from Nolo's legal dictionary:
Quote:
Quote:
The mental desire to act in a particular way. Many crimes require that in order to be found guilty, the perpetrator must have intended to do what he did. An act may be one of many possible crimes depending on the intent of the perpetrator. For example, if A shoots and wounds B, the offense could be attempted murder (if A intended to kill B), assault with intent to cause great bodily injury (A was intending to merely wound B), a minor misdemeanor (A shot on purpose but could not have known that B was around), or no crime at all (A fired the gun completely by accident).
Quote:
Motive
The probable reason a person committed a crime, as when one acts out of jealousy, greed, or revenge. While evidence of a motive may be admissible at trial, proof of motive is not necessary to prove a crime.
Here is the real difference between manslaughter and murder, malice aforethought, again from Nolo.
Quote:
Quote:
Manslaughter is an unlawful killing that doesn’t involve malice aforethought—intent to seriously harm or kill, or extreme, reckless disregard for life. The absence of malice aforethought means that manslaughter involves less moral blame than either first or second degree murder. (But plenty argue that some instances of felony murder, a form of first degree murder, involve less blameworthiness than some instances of manslaughter.) Thus, while manslaughter is a serious crime, the punishment for it is generally less than that for murder.
Your definition of manslaughter is actually a pretty accurate description of the difference between voluntary and in-voluntary manslaughter.

In the following link several lawyers give excellent descriptions of why motive is not necessary to a conviction, with rare exceptions. I was wrong when I said Hate crimes were the only one, I forgot about federal corruption. Federal corruption case get so convoluted I don't think anybody understands them.
https://www.quora.com/How-important-...nal-conviction

all of that.
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to mr wonder For This Useful Post:
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2018, 07:39 PM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,518
Thanks: 1,459
Thanked 2,240 Times in 1,779 Posts
Default Re: Hate Crimes Are Thought Crimes

Quote:
Here’s the question before us. Does the hatred that motivated the crime—the thoughts that we can deduce were in Ayers’s head, the racial epithets that Riley spoke—make Ayers’s repulsive actions worse than they would be in the absence of bigotry?
Without the hate the crime (act of aggression against the person) wouldn't have occurred at all. That's the basis for hate crime prosecution. The hate itself is the key component of the of act of aggression against the person.

It's of some interest to me, an atheist, that Jesus (I believe) states that the thought itself is the sin. If you think of having sex with a child in "God's eyes" you're a pedophile regardless of whether you actually have sex with the child. Don't condemn me if I got this a little bit wrong because it's been almost 50 years since I abandoned Christianity and all other religions and memory can become a little fuzzy.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2018, 07:58 PM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,908
Thanks: 9,699
Thanked 5,948 Times in 4,022 Posts
Default Re: Hate Crimes Are Thought Crimes

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Motivation is used in sentencing.
Motivation used in hate crime sentencing? OMG that is awful and must stop.
Motivation continues to be used in general sentencing? Not a peep from people.
You're not reading my -and others- post then.


Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
...
It's interesting to note that people have a reaction to terrorism that is actually disproportionate to the actual risk of being a terrorist victim.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.6b377ce005eb

Part of that reason is because of the effect that terrorism has on people. And it's a very real effect.
And in many ways, hate crimes also are similar in how that impacts people.
Hate crimes can have significant and wide-ranging psychological consequences, not only for their direct victims but for others as well. A 1999 U.S. study of lesbian and gay victims of violent hate crimes documented that they experienced higher levels of psychological distress, including symptoms of depression and anxiety, than lesbian and gay victims of comparable crimes which were not motivated by antigay bias.[12] A manual issued by the Attorney-General of the Province of Ontario in Canada lists the following consequences:[13]

Impact on the individual victim
psychological and affective disturbances; repercussions on the victim's identity and self-esteem; both reinforced by a specific hate crime's degree of violence, which is usually stronger than that of a common crime.
Effect on the targeted group
generalized terror in the group to which the victim belongs, inspiring feelings of vulnerability among its other members, who could be the next hate crime victims.
Effect on other vulnerable groups
ominous effects on minority groups or on groups that identify themselves with the targeted group, especially when the referred hate is based on an ideology or a doctrine that preaches simultaneously against several groups.
Effect on the community as a whole
divisions and factionalism arising in response to hate crimes are particularly damaging to multicultural societies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime
As I have pointed out, the concepts used to arrive at that conclusion are quickly abandoned in every other legal context outside of hate crimes.

It's interesting to recognize the impact of your claimed train of thought into other areas, like terrorism.
Are we to abandon the terroristic motivation of those types of murders?
Should we insist that we as a population stop looking at those and instead treat each individual terrorist victim like any other victim of murder in this country?
If we did that, the actual impact would be profound!
But it's not done because it's not a real standard. It's just a hypocritical talking point that is quickly ignored on every other topic relevant to the standard.
I'm glad you brought this up. After 9/11 I brought this up often. And often to emotional DEAF ears that wanted safety and the blood of the perps.
But in the law “terrorism” IS simply a collection of various CRIMES.

Despite the emotional and political HYPE around it, LEGALLY "terrorist" are charged with things like:
"possession of bombs"
"Bombing"
"destruction of property"
various “Firearms” and “explosive materials” violations
various forms of “attempted” or actual “assault” and “murder” etc.
“conspiracy to” do the above
and more rarely
"possession of a weapon of mass destruction" and “sedition”


In one specific instance “the Shoe Bomber” had 8 charges against him:
•Attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction,
•Attempted homicide,
•Placing or transporting an explosive or incendiary device on an aircraft or public mass transportation vehicle,
•Attempted murder,
•Interference with flight crew members and attendants on an aircraft
•Attempted destruction of an aircraft or public mass transportation vehicle
•Using a destructive device during and in relation to a crime of violence, and
•Attempted wrecking of an aircraft or public mass transportation vehicle.

They aren’t put on trial for “terror” or “hate”.
notice the Shoe bomber wasn’t even put on trial for “Sedition” because it RARELY sticks. Even though traditionally terrorism is clearly a politically motivated crime.

But my main point here is that terrorist were …and STILL are… charged with various crimes. Few to none are charged based on “motive”. But they do go to intent.

And My Beef after 911 is that we didn’t and STILL don’t need “Military tribunals” “Gitmo” , trial-less “indefinite detentions”, “enhanced interrogation”, and the crap-load of other Unconstitutional laws and procedures that POPPED out of the Fed Executive and Legislative branches collective Arses.

The laws on the BOOKS BEFORE 9-11 can …and HAVE… been able to put terrorist away for LIFE, at both the State and federal levels, without “hate crimes” or other motives, or unconstitutional draconian changes being added to “keep us safe”.
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2018, 08:14 PM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,908
Thanks: 9,699
Thanked 5,948 Times in 4,022 Posts
Default Re: Hate Crimes Are Thought Crimes

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
Without the hate the crime (act of aggression against the person) wouldn't have occurred at all. That's the basis for hate crime prosecution. The hate itself is the key component of the of act of aggression against the person.

OK,
SO if a man catches his wife cheating, and tries to kill the other guy.
then he should be charged with a hate crime since most men that care about their relationship HATE all men that try to disturb it. And it wouldn't have occurred at all if he just didn't care?

Again when Hitler Killed Jews out of Racism and Russians the same way over politics should the motive count for extra?
Justice is supposed to be blind and judge corrupt actions regardless of the stupid motives.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
...It's of some interest to me, an atheist, that Jesus (I believe) states that the thought itself is the sin. If you think of having sex with a child in "God's eyes" you're a pedophile regardless of whether you actually have sex with the child. Don't condemn me if I got this a little bit wrong because it's been almost 50 years since I abandoned Christianity and all other religions and memory can become a little fuzzy.
You're not far off on the Biblical Quote, Jesus said
" “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
Jesus also said
“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment."
Here's the thing you're confusing.
Sins that God judges and wants each of us to control personally.
And sins that the STATE judges and punishes.

what goes on in our hearts and heads Is subject to God and us personally.
the Legal system judges the actual physical ACTS of adultery, murder, assault, discrimination etc .
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 03-02-2018, 07:29 AM
GetAClue's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Northern Ohio
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,267
Thanks: 4,002
Thanked 2,858 Times in 1,688 Posts
Default Re: Hate Crimes Are Thought Crimes

Hate Crime is a redundant term as crime by definition is hateful. There is no such thing as a "hate crime". This is simply a definition used to say that one group of people is more valued than another group of people. This is my opinion so I don't need to be lectured by those that disagree with me.
__________________
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead - Thomas Paine
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to GetAClue For This Useful Post:
Reply

Tags
are, crimes, hate, thought

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0