Hate-crime = Thought crime?

I thought the whole "Obama admin passed a new hate-crime bill" part in the OP meant we were discussing US law. You've totally missed the argument. As you have discribed them, you're failing to see how its a crime of thought because you've conflated motive with intent. Criminalizing motive is like thought crime. You're saying intent is criminalized but your showing that you don't understand the difference between the two and avoiding understanding by refusing to consider the definitions. I've been arguing about the law and the law relies on specifically defined words. You can't take my argument and equivocate and still have a decent rebuttle.And you've avoided giving any specific example of this "timeless and universal aspects of human nature" that you're basing your principle on so I'm not really getting what you're typing about. Like what, specifically? The intentions are not a significant component of the crime. What!? The alien part is the part where the criminal's specific intentions (his motive) is an element of the crime. I've already supported the point that motive is not an element of crime so how am I not being forthcoming? I want to use the legal term "motive", which can be the person's specific intentions, but that is different than the legal definition of "intent" so it only confuses the issue when you use it.

Do you have any examples of any non-homocide crimes where the criminal's specific intentions we're used as an element of that crime?I say non-homocide because they're an exception due to them having 'degrees':

quote:

---

Motive is particularly important in prosecutions for homicide. First, murder is so drastic a crime that most people recoil from the thought of being able to do it; proof of motive explains why the accused did so desperate an act.

​

Moreover, most common law jurisdictions have statutes that provide for degrees of homicide, based in part on the accused's mental state. The lesser offence of voluntary manslaughter, for example, traditionally required that the accused knowingly and voluntarily kill the victim (as in murder); in addition, it must be shown that the killing took place in the "sudden heat of passion," an excess of rage or anger coming from a contemporary provocation, which clouded the accused's judgment. Homicides motivated by such factors are a lesser offense than murder "in cold blood."

---

I've been gone for a minute... I didn't know that specific intent was an actual legal term. Did you know that all along or did you look it up after I mentioned it?It seems that some crimes do require looking into the criminal's motive to determine a specific intent. Are you proposing that this is what hate crimes are doing?Because I don't think they are. Usually specific intent makes a non-crime a crime, ie stealing requires that you spefically intended to rid the person of their property otherwise you didn't steal. Also, the specification is usually illegal on its own, ie intending to rape.With hate crimes, it isn't a crime to just hate people and also there's a crime already without the need for the specific intentions.The exception I see is possession of drugs with intent to supply, but I think that one belongs in the thought crime pile as well. Although, supplying illegal drugs is illegal on its own.

I don't have a problem with that, in priciple, although I don't see it having much positive effect and understand the opposition, like Onifre's, to the increased divisiveness that results. Still though, that wider effect should be taken into account in the sentacing part of the process rather than creating a whole 'nother type of crime based on motivation, which is improper.Also, I don't think hate crimes are limited to those that intend to have an effect beyond that of the direct crime committed. No, all that isn't a part of my position. Althought those are a different actus reus, assuming they're the same I think that coming at it from the angle of the motivation of the former making it a different crime than the latter is the wrong way to do it. If the actus reus is simply graffiti, then the motivation should be taken in account during sentancing and not used to create a new crime.I think that the example we should be using is the one that inspired the legislation that inspired the OP, the murder of Matthew Shepard:

quote:

---

Shortly after midnight on October 7, 1998, Shepard met Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson at the Fireside Lounge in Laramie, Wyoming. McKinney and Henderson offered Shepard a ride in their car. After admitting he was gay, Shepard was robbed, pistol whipped, tortured, tied to a fence in a remote, rural area, and left to die. McKinney and Henderson also discovered his address and intended to burglarize his home. Still tied to the fence, Shepard was discovered 18 hours later by Aaron Kreifels, who initially mistook Shepard for a scarecrow. At the time of discovery, Shepard was still alive in a coma.

---

Do you really think that these guys murdered Shepard in an attempt to effect the entire gay community?What positive effects do you think would have resulted if these guys were punished for a hate crime instead? When I was younger and occasionally possessed illegal drugs, I remember that if we bought a large quantity we thought it be smarter to break it down into a few smaller portions, hidden seperately, so that if we got caught it could be for a smaller amount and we might get away with some of it... don't put all your eggs in one bsaket kind of thing. But then we learned that if you do that then you can get 'intent to distribute' and be charged with an even worse crime. The drugs were all for us and we didn't want to distribute them, but that would prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that we did intend to distribute and yet, we never did.On the other hand, I've seen an episode of Cops where a guy got busted with a huge bag of individually wrapped quarter-grams of crack and a whole wad of $20 bills and it was pretty obvious that he was selling.I don't know where I'm going with this or if I even had a point. I'm just going to stop typing.

I dunno, but I'm white and I wouldn't dare step foot in East St. Louis. There's places where I know that I just shouldn't be going. Being a gay in Hickville is just one of them (not that it makes it acceptable or anything).But what happened to your point that the intentions of the criminal are important here? Now you seem to be at: 'well, if they didn't intend it but it happened anyways...'

quote:

---

After admitting he was gay, Shepard was robbed, pistol whipped, tortured, tied to a fence in a remote, rural area, and left to die.

​

...

​

Shepard was discovered 18 hours later by Aaron Kreifels, who initially mistook Shepard for a scarecrow.

---

Very public?I suspect that their hatred allowed them to simply enjoy the torturing without any intentions of sending any kind of message, but speculating on their motive is a fruitless effort (which might have something to do with it not supposing to be an element of the crime). I think your clarity is unfounded. Like in the sentencing portion and not as a way to create a new crime, or not? They both have life in prison. What more do you want? And that could be accomplished with harsher sentences. I still don't think we need to create a whole 'nother crime and I still think its improper to do it the way it has been done (by using a non-criminal motive, or specific intent, to create a whole new crime that's on top of something that already criminal).On top of that there's the negative aspects that have been brought up by others. I kinda like it. It makes the discussions more intimate.

I understand. Although, its as if your saying these microevolutions to the law haven't resulted in a macroevolution. (which I find to be a common lefty problem, all these gradual erosions of our rights in good spirits and they don't even realize they're doing it)The 1969 law criminalized preventing a protected class from engaging in a protected activity. The 2009 law extended the classes and removed the requirement of it being a protected activity. Now I can get charged with a Hate Crime for calling a dude ghey (and not even meaning homosexual) while I beat him up, as opposed to a simple assault. I'm seeing a new crime there. Plus, its been opened up to be able to be taken even farther.

quote:

---

CS writes:

​

Do you really think that these guys murdered Shepard in an attempt to effect the entire gay community?

I don't know the details of that case at all but if you were gay would you go and live in that town?

---

That seemed to be saying that even if they didn't intend it, the effect is still present so you point still stood, but I suppose I misunderstood. Well we don't know what their motive was, and the jury didn't consider it, and we disagree on what it probably was so I think we're at an impasse here. I assumed you didn't support the death penalty. But this is THE hate crime case. They named the legislation after it. If the hate crime laws had been in effect, and they would have been irrelevant, then that only makes them look less necessary.Its not like these guys got away with anything. I'm not seeing the need.I'd rather focus on that than the problems.

---

Its snowing!!And its right at 0C with no wind so its not really even cold I love the snow, especially the way it makes everything look so cool.

I don't see what that has to do with Hate Crimes. And criminals typically pick easy targets anyways. I'm not sure how I feel about using additional punishment for one crime to deter another. That could be done without Hate Crime laws with tougher sentancing on extant crimes. Although I see your point with the extreme case(s). That's understandable and acceptable. Although, wouldn't positive reinforcement be a more noble method? Maybe the horses need more carrots and less whipping... I still don't see Hate Crimes being limited to those with wider intent...I think I should have the right to not fear my colloquial use of the word "ghey" because it might be seen as a hate incident. Sadly, it got a little warmer already and its getting awfully soupy out there.

Wow, you're comming at this from a completely different angle than the others. They've been arguing that that intention was why these crimes were worse.What do YOU think the Hate Crime laws say and do, sepcifically? What do you mean by an excuse? It doesn't excuse the behavior but it was the major reason it happened. Are those the kind of behaviors you think our hate crime laws are targeting? And do you think they'll succeed? Others have also insisted that this is not about protecting minorities. You have a strange perspective. You're a white guy, right?Have you read Onifre's posts on how he feels, as a minority, that they don't all feel threatened like that?