|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Hate Crimes? Thought Crimes? Crimethink? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Dylann Roof has been charged with 'hate crimes'.
Do hate crimes punish thought? Are hate crimes an example of thought crimes? And if so, are they moral? Is hate crime a slippery slope to crimethink? Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
No, no, yes, and no, respectively.
There's no such thing as a hate crime as such, really: to be charged with a hate crime you have to commit an ordinary crime but for hatey reasons. The thought without the crime is not a crime. Now, there is nothing exceptional about considering someone's state of mind: we do so, for example, when deciding whether a homicide was murder, manslaughter, or self-defense. Indeed, for most crimes its a defense to say that one had no mens rea. We do not regard this as the slippery slope to an Orwellian nightmare.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
You bring up a topic with some new terms.
What are thought crimes? what the heck is crimethink??Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Well there's a difference between charging based on intention/accident and charging based on religious, political, social, etc. view points (which is what the 'hate crime' category amounts to).
In the first instance we debate how responsible a person should be for their actions based on how much in control of those actions they were. In the second instance we debate how to charge a person based on their feelings toward the victim or some perceived class to which the victim belongs.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Well, Ninety Eighty-Four was published over half a century ago, so it's hard to say anything from it is 'new'.
Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Well there's a difference between charging based on intention/accident and charging based on religious, political, social, etc. view points (which is what the 'hate crime' category amounts to). I would suggest that you are wrong, particularly when we are considering homicide. It would be an extremely strange circumstance to have a killing motivated by hatred of gays for example, that could not be considered first degree murder. Almost certainly the required degree of malice of forethought exists unless you want to suggest that the perp suddenly started hating gays in a fit of anger. In such a case. What hate crime statutes do in that instance is remove some of the discretion from the judge and jury.
In the first instance we debate how responsible a person should be for their actions based on how much in control of those actions they were. This is not completely correct. The difference between first degree murder and capital murder is not based on the amount of responsibility. It is instead based on society's view that certain classes of murder or more heinous than others. For example murders committed during commission of crime, or on a policeman, or by poisoning are examples of murders where we assign increased culpability without considering any additional elements of 'control over one's actions'. Terrorism charges are yet another example. In my opinion, the idea that hate crimes are thought crimes is pure BS. You can hate all you want, just don't go out looking for victims because you hate them, because such activity is rightly judged to be malicious and pre-mediated. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
We don't use the term, but if a normal crime involves an offence against a protected group such as gays or blacks AND the crime was motivated by their sexual or racial hatred of them, it then becomes an aggravating factor - ie makes it more serious.
That seems quite right to me, laws are intended to guide moral behaviour, they signal society's disapproval of various acts and are used to promote its values. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 163 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
Did Roof intend to kill people?
Yes: so we can call it murder. Did Roof intend to kill black people because they were black? Yes: so we can call the murder a hate crime. Seems simple enough. The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
That seems quite right to me, laws are intended to guide moral behaviour, they signal society's disapproval of various acts and are used to promote its values. So your society disapproves more of the murder of a black man by a racist than the murder of a white man by the same racist?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
The question wasn't whether hate crimes exist or whether Dylann Roof's thoughts and actions would meet the definition.
The question was whether hate crimes are an example of thought crimes and whether it's a slippery slope to, in Dr Adequate's words, "an Orwellian nightmare".Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
You can hate all you want, just don't go out looking for victims because you hate them, because such activity is rightly judged to be malicious and pre-mediated. But that's not what hate crime laws say is it? Being a hate crime isn't just about the crime being premeditated. Because there are already laws that deal with premeditation.
This is not completely correct. The difference between first degree murder and capital murder is not based on the amount of responsibility. It is instead based on society's view that certain classes of murder or more heinous than others. For example murders committed during commission of crime, or on a policeman, or by poisoning are examples of murders where we assign increased culpability without considering any additional elements of 'control over one's actions'. Terrorism charges are yet another example. Pointing to other things that may or may not be moral doesn't address the question of whether hate crimes are examples of thought crime and whether they are immoral.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Jon writes: So your society disapproves more of the murder of a black man by a racist than the murder of a white man by the same racist? Now that is just silly Jon. Where did "disapprove" come from? A description is imply a description, a definition of the thing. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Jon writes: So your society disapproves more of the murder of a black man by a racist than the murder of a white man by the same racist? It seems that your society also disapproves in the same way. The application of the law is not purely for purposes of punishment - it also tries to rehabilitate, to protect society from further harm and to deter. It signals the behaviours it requires of its citizens through the penalties it places on the crime. If its lawmakers have decided that a particular crime requires special treatment in order to rid society of it, it does that by increasing the penalty and signalling its displeasure. Crime against individuals simply because of the colour of their skin or their sexual preferences or because they are a particular sex is something our societies have decided it doesn't want. So it increases the normal penalty to demonstrate that. It's a perfectly usual approach to sentencing. If a teenager punched another teenager on the nose and another teenager punched a blind pensioner on the nose, the second offence would catch a steeper penalty than the first for exactly the same crime. I doubt you would question that. It's the same logic. We judge the harm higher in the second than the first because we find it far more objectionable.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Where did "disapprove" come from? It came from Tangle's post; the one I replied to, where he said:...if a normal crime involves an offence against a protected group such as gays or blacks AND the crime was motivated by their sexual or racial hatred of them, it then becomes an aggravating factor - ie makes it more serious. That seems quite right to me, laws are intended to guide moral behaviour, they signal society's disapproval of various acts and are used to promote its values.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
More serious and disapprove are not synonymous.
If that same racist killed a white man because he hated white men it too would be a hate crime.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024