Hate Crimes? Thought Crimes? Crimethink?

Yes, hate crimes are ultimately additional punishment on top of the act itself.Is it more or less moral to murder someone in cold blood if the motive is for robbery versus for some social or political motive? The fact of the matter is two people are still brutally slain, but one is trivialized more than the other.Enhancement laws are unnecessary since courtrooms take many different things in to account during the sentencing phase, such as the brutality of the crime. Obviously someone that tortures their victim prior to death might be tried more severely versus someone who poisoned anonymous victims.Here, actions are being taken into consideration whereas Hate Crimes look at actions and thoughts. But motive =/= intent, and from judicial point of view, it is important not to confuse the two.

You are confusing motive with intent. Motive only has one purpose... and that's to determine why someone committed the crime, and often knowing it helps to establish guilt. Intent determines what their, well, intent was.If you punch someone, did mean for them to die? That probably was not your intent, in which case you're still charged with a 3rd degree murder or first degree manslaughter.The motive is, I killed him because he was Asian, and I hate Asian people. The motive is, I killed him during the robbery because he saw my face and I didn't want to leave a living witness who could testify against me.As to Hate Crimes, what relevance does the motive have once you've determined their actions and their intent? If it is not a crime to be racist or homophobic, then why is it an enhancer if murder and their intent is already a crime? You therefore are criminalizing thought, which leads to a slippery slope that potentially jeopardizes the freedom of speech and thought.

Agreed. So then aren't we charging them for their actions and deeds above their motive? The motive doesn't kill, the action does. Is it worse to shoot someone in the face for anti-Semetic reasons versus someone motivated by greed? The net result is still two innocent people shot in the face, is it not? So should the perpetrator that shot the Jew necessarily be tried more severely than the one who shot the 7-11 clerk?We are charging them based on their ACTIONS, not their thoughts, and the net result in both actions is premeditated homicide with malice aforethought, in which case both should be tried based on the extent and intent of their respective crime(s).

Is murder a crime and was murder a crime before the introduction of Hate Crime laws? Yes.Is it a crime to hate someone because they are black? No.Is it a crime to murder someone because they are black? Yes.Is it a crime to murder anyone for any reason at all? Yes.So why is it extra bad to murder someone for racist reasons versus murdering them for ANY reason? You're inadvertently placing the motive in higher regard than the act itself.Any aggravating circumstances are reviewed in court already and have been used in the past quite vigorously. The problem with Hate Crime laws is not that they aren't well-intentioned. We all understand the purpose of them and can appreciate what they are attempting to do, however, it potentially leads to a slippery slope where it criminalizes racism or whatever other ism exists. And to be sure, this isn't about protecting racists or any other 'ists' out there, it's about protecting Freedom of Thought and Expression, regardless of how repulsive it might be. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

Then it criminalizes something that isn't a crime and trivializes other heinous crimes of similar actions.

I'm referring to the Freedom of Thought and Expression. It's not a crime to be a racist. I understand that it's a law, we are just arguing the theoretical implications of it. This is more a philosophical argument. It trivializes the murder victim and their families who is murdered for other motives that don't fall under the purview of hate crime laws. Again, if you have two identical murders in terms of intent (both executed by being shot in the face), and the only thing that changes is the motive (one killed because of racist ideology and the other for greed) should the racist murderer be tried for Life while the one who murdered for greed be charged for 25 years? Remember, the murder itself was identical. That sounds like a miscarriage of justice to me, not righting a wrong.

Punching someone in the face for any reason is already a crime, that's the point. You punish for the act and the intent, you don't punish the motive. Hate Crimes seem to be the only crime where the motive factors in whatsoever. Purely theoretical, although it wouldn't surprise me if I could find a few case studies to support it. I might look for some tonight. I agree, so what is the need or purpose of the hate crime other than to punish people for their social ills that, by themselves, are not crimes at all? Agreed, which is why there is the judicial difference between Intent and Motive -- something people think are synonymous and often conflate.

And we are both in agreement with everything that you've stated. Where we part ways is that I think Hate Crime laws lead to a slippery slope argument and that aggravating circumstances can be reviewed in court.

No, I don't agree with that either. I don't understand why it magically becomes Capital Murder to kill a cop but not generally the general public. Rape is not just rape. There are aggravating or mitigating factors too. Touching someone's breasts while they're asleep is not quite the same as a violent rape. The same goes with rape of a minor. All of those deal with Intent in combination with actions, whereas the critical difference with Hate Crimes is that it deals with intent, actions, and motive.

How is that different from any other crime?

I've stated in this topic that motive helps to establish either guilt or innocence. I'm referring to sentencing, however, because motive and culpability has already been determined. At this juncture, the actions of the guilty party is what will condemn them. So then are you saying that it is more reprehensible to kill someone because they are a Jew more than it is to kill someone just to watch them die? I'm saying if we're trying to be objective here, murdering someone should always be applied with the full weight of their actions, without regard to their motive.

That it potentially criminalizes the Freedom of Expression, Thought, and Speech. What I mean to say is that they should be reviewed in court only, not made in to a national law. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

I'm not sure I agree with terrorism laws either, again, not that I'm an advocate for either terrorism or hate crimes.Terrorism laws seem nebulous and rather undefined. I mean, is it even necessary when the act of blowing up a building (for instance) isn't bad enough all on its own? Again, the reason I'm cautious is because of how easily a charge of terrorism could be used inappropriately.And actually, if we look at radicalized Muslims as an example, could we charge them with either hate speech or terrorism based on their insistence for Jihad? Should holding up a sign stating "Death to Infidels" be protected speech or should that be a hate crime since it targets a specific demographic of people? Or should we charge them with terrorism because it could be construed as terroristic speech?

Because it is unnecessary and there is a case by case basis for everything. I support the notion that in terms of actions, if they are identical then they should be charged identically. Shooting someone in the face for racist ideology or for greed still leaves two people shot in the face that did nothing to deserve the execution. Why they did it seems like a postscript to the act itself. THAT they did it at all seems of more relevance to me.And if there is no other take home from what I'm saying, the main thrust of my argument is that I would rather see both murders of identical crimes tried the same versus having the one who murdered for racism charged more severely than the one who murdered for greed when both their premeditated acts are identical. Anything less is punishing the taboo of racism in higher regard than for some other motive.My ancillary argument is that it seems like a slippery slope that could be manipulated in the future.

If it is an unspecific threat, then it is just speech. If it is a direct threat, then it is a crime. So perhaps my should have read something more specific.