Hate Crimes? Thought Crimes? Crimethink?

All legal systems are socio-political - they are designed to show society's displeasure at certain activities and therefore do deliberately aim to socially-engineer. The concepts of deterrence and retribution are there to control anti-social activities. Laws reflect our values. This is generally regarded as 'a good thing'.At various points in time we decide to target particular crimes that we feel need special attention so we make old laws tougher or create new laws. Anti-terrorism is a new focus as is cybercrime. Knife crime here in the UK has been prioritised. Some laws are distinctly political - employment law and minimum pay regulations for example. Equality issues and crime against vulnerable victims are now given priority in an attempt to control discrimination. Most people wouldn't argue about most of this unless they have issues with government or particular policies.On the 'slippery slope' front, when hate crime becomes simply talking about disliking gay people in a mild and thoughtful fashion amongst likeminded individuals, causing no disturbance, there might be a point. For as long as it can only be an aggravating factor to a 'real' crime there's no problem.

Nailed it!Where hate crimes go too far is in legislating certain thoughts.When you devise laws that consider the thoughts of the actor, you are, by definition, creating thought crimes - even if you're wrapping it up inside some other kind of non-thought crime or making punishment of the thought crime dependent on the commission of some other kind of crime.And free societies really should have no place for such crap. Laws don't target crimes; they create them.Laws targeting particular actions criminalize those actions; hate crime laws target the thoughts of the actor and so, again by definition, criminalize certain thoughts - and again, it doesn't matter that they only criminalize the thoughts when accompanied by some action, hate crime laws still criminalize thoughts and that's what creates the situation of thought crimes.

Which of course is impossible and therefore never done even in the most repressive regimes. All crimes involve thought - when they don't, they are not crimes because the perpetrator is not mens reus and therefore can't be held responsible for their actions. Laws define actions we disaprove of. Most people agree with the principle. Thats the stuff of movies - a silly trivialisation, bumper sticker stuff. Hate crime law targets the actions of the actor, his thought are only known through his actions. He can think what he likes, he can say what he likes - within limits - but he can't beat someone up just because they're black, jewish, disabled or homosexual. Socity has said, up with this we will not put. And I agree.

Is it thoughts? Is it actions? Is it only one or the other?As far as thoughts go, there are many prejudiced and/or racist or sexist thinking people. We never are able to label them until they commit actions.Should an action be punished additionally because in the process of committing said action the thoughts behind it were revealed?

Are you suggesting that we should have freedom of thought?Im thinking that you feel you should not be judged...or targeted...because of your personal thoughts on certain individuals. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

So, for example, the stand-your-ground laws in various American states create thought crimes? Tsk. I don't remember you complaining about them, by the way, and saying how they have no place in a free society. But perhaps this doctrine only occurred to you when you found yourself in need of an argument against hate crime laws.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

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.

The fact that you aren't acknowledging the acts the same and are focusing on the motive is how and why it is a slippery slope to a thought crime.

As I have explained, the acts are not the same. If refusing to acknowledge something which isn't true puts me on a slippery slope, then I guess I shall have to point out the facts while wearing rubber soled shoes with plenty of traction.

The actions are identical, the motive was different.

The actions are different, and constitute the only reason that we can distinguish between the motives, since we are not telepathic.

We do it all the time Phat. A theft involving a lot of planning and thought is punished more than an opportuninist theft. Reckless actions are punished less than deliberate actions. If you deliberately attack a vulnerable person because they're easy targets - elderly, disabled, young, pregnant etc etc - expect to be punished more harshly.

No I did not say that. I have no problem with each of those situations receiving enhanced punishment. And I gave an example of exactly contrary to your propositon. We punish murders committed to remove witnesses from a felony using enhanced felony murder punishment. In other words we take into account the motive when assigning punishment.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

What does 'stand your ground' have to do with anything?

Impossible?What does that have to do with criminalizing something?It's impossible to detect or even be a witch, yet that never stopped many a witch hunt and subsequent execution.The fact that something is realistically impossible to detect doesn't mean it is impossible to criminalize and convict someone over it. Laws already existed targeting the actions relevant to hate crime laws. It wasn't like someone invented a new way to punch minorities in the face to which the legislature responding by creating special laws dealing with this special way of punching.There were already laws against assault. Separate laws against assault while thinking about how much you hate the victim because of the group s/he belongs to didn't deal with a separate act. Their only distinction was that they now made it possible for the legal system to consider (and punish based on) the presence of thoughts considered unsettling to the general public.We aren't talking about probing at people's thoughts to determine their degree of responsibility, but about probing at their thoughts do determine if they are 'unacceptable' and that just so we can punish them more severely because we don't like the thoughts.Ant that is wherein lies the thought crime.