Are hate crime enhancements fair?

[bodie]

I dunno.   Crazy.

[odeon]

Hate crime enhancements create thought crimes.  I understand what purpose they are trying to serve, but my personal philosophy on the law is that it should always remain as subjective as possible.  If you strike someone in the face you have committed the crime of striking someone in the face.  If you strike someone in the face and the prosecutor can convince a group of 6-12 partially engaged citizens that you were thinking hateful thoughts about that person's race when you hit him, then the crime is worse?  That doesn't make sense to me, and runs the risk of destabilizing the entire system.  The most important asset the law has going for it is that it is accepted by all as inherently fair.  When that is lost, the whole thing comes crashing down.

There have been many cases where people have been severely beaten or killed for no other reason than their sexual orientation or the colour of their skin. IMO, something like that needs to be taken into account.

How do you prove motivation?  It's far easier to prove objective facts.  Is it really a worse crime to have your teeth knocked in because you are gay, than to have your teeth knocked in because someone mistook you for someone who owes him money?

Yes, IMHO, because such things feed further hate crimes while the mistaken identity cases rarely cause further crimes.

[bodie]

How could it be illegal to burn a poppy? 

better than burning poopy methinks

[midlifeaspie]

Hate crime enhancements create thought crimes.  I understand what purpose they are trying to serve, but my personal philosophy on the law is that it should always remain as subjective as possible.  If you strike someone in the face you have committed the crime of striking someone in the face.  If you strike someone in the face and the prosecutor can convince a group of 6-12 partially engaged citizens that you were thinking hateful thoughts about that person's race when you hit him, then the crime is worse?  That doesn't make sense to me, and runs the risk of destabilizing the entire system.  The most important asset the law has going for it is that it is accepted by all as inherently fair.  When that is lost, the whole thing comes crashing down.

There have been many cases where people have been severely beaten or killed for no other reason than their sexual orientation or the colour of their skin. IMO, something like that needs to be taken into account.

How do you prove motivation?  It's far easier to prove objective facts.  Is it really a worse crime to have your teeth knocked in because you are gay, than to have your teeth knocked in because someone mistook you for someone who owes him money?

Yes, IMHO, because such things feed further hate crimes while the mistaken identity cases rarely cause further crimes.

The assumption here being that the criminal is already being prosecuted.  If you take the stance that the prison sentence handed out for the actual crime is punitive in nature, and not rehabilitative, then I guess it makes sense that you want this criminal away from society for longer due to his motivation.  I prefer to hope that incarceration serves a rehabilitative function, and as such the criminal is given the same chances to make positive changes whether or not he gets an extra year because he was thinking something non-PC when he committed the crime.  I know this is fantasy in my country, but this conversation is theoretical anyway.

By the same stance, do you think that certain motivations warrant life sentences without parole?  The pedophile who is arrested for loitering around a playground?  His crime is minor, but his motivation is never going to go away, and will only lead to greater crimes.  Does the citizen have the presumption of innocence until he commits a crime, or should we preemptively incarcerate?

[odeon]

Hate crime enhancements create thought crimes.  I understand what purpose they are trying to serve, but my personal philosophy on the law is that it should always remain as subjective as possible.  If you strike someone in the face you have committed the crime of striking someone in the face.  If you strike someone in the face and the prosecutor can convince a group of 6-12 partially engaged citizens that you were thinking hateful thoughts about that person's race when you hit him, then the crime is worse?  That doesn't make sense to me, and runs the risk of destabilizing the entire system.  The most important asset the law has going for it is that it is accepted by all as inherently fair.  When that is lost, the whole thing comes crashing down.

There have been many cases where people have been severely beaten or killed for no other reason than their sexual orientation or the colour of their skin. IMO, something like that needs to be taken into account.

How do you prove motivation?  It's far easier to prove objective facts.  Is it really a worse crime to have your teeth knocked in because you are gay, than to have your teeth knocked in because someone mistook you for someone who owes him money?

Yes, IMHO, because such things feed further hate crimes while the mistaken identity cases rarely cause further crimes.

The assumption here being that the criminal is already being prosecuted.  If you take the stance that the prison sentence handed out for the actual crime is punitive in nature, and not rehabilitative, then I guess it makes sense that you want this criminal away from society for longer due to his motivation.  I prefer to hope that incarceration serves a rehabilitative function, and as such the criminal is given the same chances to make positive changes whether or not he gets an extra year because he was thinking something non-PC when he committed the crime.  I know this is fantasy in my country, but this conversation is theoretical anyway.

By the same stance, do you think that certain motivations warrant life sentences without parole?  The pedophile who is arrested for loitering around a playground?  His crime is minor, but his motivation is never going to go away, and will only lead to greater crimes.  Does the citizen have the presumption of innocence until he commits a crime, or should we preemptively incarcerate?

Good point. First of all, I don't really believe in rehabilitation, but that's neither here nor there. Second, I could argue that yes, while my views do include motivation, yours do away with premeditation. I'd suspect that the way to go would be somewhere between the two.

But I can't say I have thought through all the ramifications of what I'm saying.

[bodie]

I think rehabilitation is possible.  Not in all cases.

Prison is something i would only use when that person is considered a danger to the public.

[midlifeaspie]

Hate crime enhancements create thought crimes.  I understand what purpose they are trying to serve, but my personal philosophy on the law is that it should always remain as subjective as possible.  If you strike someone in the face you have committed the crime of striking someone in the face.  If you strike someone in the face and the prosecutor can convince a group of 6-12 partially engaged citizens that you were thinking hateful thoughts about that person's race when you hit him, then the crime is worse?  That doesn't make sense to me, and runs the risk of destabilizing the entire system.  The most important asset the law has going for it is that it is accepted by all as inherently fair.  When that is lost, the whole thing comes crashing down.

There have been many cases where people have been severely beaten or killed for no other reason than their sexual orientation or the colour of their skin. IMO, something like that needs to be taken into account.

How do you prove motivation?  It's far easier to prove objective facts.  Is it really a worse crime to have your teeth knocked in because you are gay, than to have your teeth knocked in because someone mistook you for someone who owes him money?

Yes, IMHO, because such things feed further hate crimes while the mistaken identity cases rarely cause further crimes.

The assumption here being that the criminal is already being prosecuted.  If you take the stance that the prison sentence handed out for the actual crime is punitive in nature, and not rehabilitative, then I guess it makes sense that you want this criminal away from society for longer due to his motivation.  I prefer to hope that incarceration serves a rehabilitative function, and as such the criminal is given the same chances to make positive changes whether or not he gets an extra year because he was thinking something non-PC when he committed the crime.  I know this is fantasy in my country, but this conversation is theoretical anyway.

By the same stance, do you think that certain motivations warrant life sentences without parole?  The pedophile who is arrested for loitering around a playground?  His crime is minor, but his motivation is never going to go away, and will only lead to greater crimes.  Does the citizen have the presumption of innocence until he commits a crime, or should we preemptively incarcerate?

Good point. First of all, I don't really believe in rehabilitation, but that's neither here nor there. Second, I could argue that yes, while my views do include motivation, yours do away with premeditation. I'd suspect that the way to go would be somewhere between the two.

But I can't say I have thought through all the ramifications of what I'm saying.

Good conversation   At the very least we prove that us old folks aren't completely boring

I haven't done Crim yet, but the only crime I am aware of so far that takes premeditation into account is homicide.  There is something of a legal fiction involved in that premeditation can be formed in the split second before you bean someone in the head with a shovel, but that's another conversation.  Personally, I can see how homicide would be the poster child against hate enhancements.  The victim is equally dead, there isn't anything worse that can be done to him.  Is it really "fair" to give a lesser sentence to someone who killed your kid because he owed him money than you would give to someone who killed your kid because he is gay, or black, or Norwegian?  Isn't that devaluing certain homicides in light of others?  Why is my kid's life worth less than yours just because your kid's killer was thinking something different from my kid's killer?  They are both equally dead.

[odeon]

Good conversation   At the very least we prove that us old folks aren't completely boring

I haven't done Crim yet, but the only crime I am aware of so far that takes premeditation into account is homicide.  There is something of a legal fiction involved in that premeditation can be formed in the split second before you bean someone in the head with a shovel, but that's another conversation.  Personally, I can see how homicide would be the poster child against hate enhancements.  The victim is equally dead, there isn't anything worse that can be done to him.  Is it really "fair" to give a lesser sentence to someone who killed your kid because he owed him money than you would give to someone who killed your kid because he is gay, or black, or Norwegian?  Isn't that devaluing certain homicides in light of others?  Why is my kid's life worth less than yours just because your kid's killer was thinking something different from my kid's killer?  They are both equally dead.

Yes, I agree it's devaluing homicide and that makes me doubt myself--my sense of right and wrong suggests it's somehow more wrong to kill because the victim is gay or black or Norwegian, but you make an excellent point.

You'll make a better lawyer than me.

[Pyraxis]

I haven't done Crim yet, but the only crime I am aware of so far that takes premeditation into account is homicide.  There is something of a legal fiction involved in that premeditation can be formed in the split second before you bean someone in the head with a shovel, but that's another conversation. 

What is the legal fiction - that it is possible to form premeditation in that split second, or that it is not possible?

[midlifeaspie]

I haven't done Crim yet, but the only crime I am aware of so far that takes premeditation into account is homicide.  There is something of a legal fiction involved in that premeditation can be formed in the split second before you bean someone in the head with a shovel, but that's another conversation. 

What is the legal fiction - that it is possible to form premeditation in that split second, or that it is not possible?

The legal fiction, in my opinion, is that "premeditation" can mean whatever the state wants to to mean.  Leaving it to a jury to decide what the intent was at the moment that someone hit someone with a brick, as compared to the second before, causes me the same heartburn as the conversation above.  A legitimate finder of fact can never point to evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" as to what someone was thinking in one second of their life.

[RageBeoulve]

Rage, I wasn't going after religion as a scapegoat - but giving examples of how far-fetched human reasoning can easily be. Dumbness comes easy with people

Hyke, writing it down is practical. People have different opinions as to what is common sense. Like I said, many people simply do not consider death to even be a big deal. Terrorists will typically be fanatical and often full of "spiritual" beliefs, leading them to consider human lives - their own and others - to be entirely expendable, a mere effect in a message. All opinions are NOT valid - strictly speaking.
In science you come across this often: Many people think it's "lame" that "birds are dinosaurs", but this is not open for debate - opinion is powerless and irrelevant. People are FULL of opinions and angles and points of views, and it's up to society to come to a consensus regarding many things, such as laws and rules of conduct, and put down a firm frame around it - one that is immune to varying opinion.

I hate to use a scapegoat myself man, but if the shoe fits..

Let me clarify.  Religion is another situation where people find an outlet for whatever it is in their minds that makes them want to make rules and labels for EVERYTHING. As its been said before in this thread, this can easily be twisted around to the benefit of these kind of people.

I like your general way of thinking. Society is full of opposing thoughts and views, but you seem to believe there is essentially one "true" truth at the core of every issue. And it can be found using science, reason, and good old common sense.  I personally believe that we shouldn't have to pay taxes here in my country for people to sit on their fat asses in a comfy chair all day and come up with new ways of telling people what to do. Every day.

[Pyraxis]

What is the legal fiction - that it is possible to form premeditation in that split second, or that it is not possible?

The legal fiction, in my opinion, is that "premeditation" can mean whatever the state wants to to mean.  Leaving it to a jury to decide what the intent was at the moment that someone hit someone with a brick, as compared to the second before, causes me the same heartburn as the conversation above.  A legitimate finder of fact can never point to evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" as to what someone was thinking in one second of their life.

Got it.

[TheoK]

I haven't done Crim yet, but the only crime I am aware of so far that takes premeditation into account is homicide.  There is something of a legal fiction involved in that premeditation can be formed in the split second before you bean someone in the head with a shovel, but that's another conversation. 

What is the legal fiction - that it is possible to form premeditation in that split second, or that it is not possible?

The legal fiction, in my opinion, is that "premeditation" can mean whatever the state wants to to mean.  Leaving it to a jury to decide what the intent was at the moment that someone hit someone with a brick, as compared to the second before, causes me the same heartburn as the conversation above.  A legitimate finder of fact can never point to evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" as to what someone was thinking in one second of their life.

The whole law is made up so that the state can "interpret" it by will. The law is there to keep people in check, not to create justice.

[midlifeaspie]

I haven't done Crim yet, but the only crime I am aware of so far that takes premeditation into account is homicide.  There is something of a legal fiction involved in that premeditation can be formed in the split second before you bean someone in the head with a shovel, but that's another conversation. 

What is the legal fiction - that it is possible to form premeditation in that split second, or that it is not possible?

The legal fiction, in my opinion, is that "premeditation" can mean whatever the state wants to to mean.  Leaving it to a jury to decide what the intent was at the moment that someone hit someone with a brick, as compared to the second before, causes me the same heartburn as the conversation above.  A legitimate finder of fact can never point to evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" as to what someone was thinking in one second of their life.

The whole law is made up so that the state can "interpret" it by will. The law is there to keep people in check, not to create justice.

In my country the state prosecutes and a jury interprets fact while a judge interprets law. No one-sided interpretations here as we operate on an adversarial trial system.

[TheoK]

No, no, it works the way I told in every country.