INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Bastet on July 10, 2015, 08:19:48 PM
-
The media frenzies around a hate crime. They can’t miss an opportunity to manufacture a dialogue that narrates the minorities of America being oppressed by police, by the system, and by the majority.
But the City of Cincinnati, long known for its racial tensions, has decided to go against the grain, ignore the rhetoric, and do the right thing – even if it took some encouragement.
A man was nearly beaten to death by a group of African-American teenagers on July 4th in downtown Cincinnati. The victim, a white male, was left lifeless in Fountain Square, downtown’s social center. Some of the altercation was captured on tape.
Cincinnati Chief of Police, Jeffrey Blackwell, himself an African-American, is urging Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters to prosecute this case as a hate crime. Under the Ohio State Law, anything considered a hate crime carries a harsher penalty.
More of the story including video footage of the beating in link:
http://journal.ijreview.com/2015/07/245149-white-man-beaten-mob-cincinnati-police-chiefs-request-prosecutor-getting-attention/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Owned&utm_term=ijreview&utm_campaign=Crime
I'm glad they are doing the right thing. Al Sharpton and Jesse jackson are to blame for crap like this. Inciting racial tension with their money making propoganda.
-
Hate crime is thought crime, and hate crime penalties are a slap in the face to the very amendment which grants citizens equality in legal protection.
-
Hatespeech would be a thought crime. When you put your hands on someone else's body and injure them you should be punished.
-
What makes one innocent victim's assault worthy of harsher punishment than another innocent victim's equal assault? What the assailant was thinking?
-
I see what you mean but I do like it is being treated the same as a poc would if it happened. There's a double standard with white people particularly cis males.
-
What makes one innocent victim's assault worthy of harsher punishment than another innocent victim's equal assault? What the assailant was thinking?
So if I only have nice thoughts and say nice things about someone while beating someone I should get a lesser penalty :zoinks:
-
What makes one innocent victim's assault worthy of harsher punishment than another innocent victim's equal assault? What the assailant was thinking?
So if I only have nice thoughts and say nice things about someone while beating someone I should get a lesser penalty :zoinks:
What about sexual thoughts? What do they fall under?
-
I see what you mean but I do like it is being treated the same as a poc would if it happened. There's a double standard with white people particularly cis males.
It's true it's not an uncommon point of view that only whites are racist and commit racially motivated crimes, but trying to equal a playing field built of bullshit will never work. Trying to equalize an unconstitutional double standard isn't creating equality; it's simply fighting the unjust with euql unjust. Unjust for victims of non-racially motivated crime. The fourteenth amendment was created specifically to protect the equal legal rights of blacks as citizens; equality isn't good enough for some people.
-
What makes one innocent victim's assault worthy of harsher punishment than another innocent victim's equal assault? What the assailant was thinking?
So if I only have nice thoughts and say nice things about someone while beating someone I should get a lesser penalty :zoinks:
Only if you have a vagina. :zoinks:
-
What makes one innocent victim's assault worthy of harsher punishment than another innocent victim's equal assault? What the assailant was thinking?
So if I only have nice thoughts and say nice things about someone while beating someone I should get a lesser penalty :zoinks:
What about sexual thoughts? What do they fall under?
Sexual orientation motive falls under hate crime too, if that's what you mean.
-
What makes one innocent victim's assault worthy of harsher punishment than another innocent victim's equal assault? What the assailant was thinking?
So if I only have nice thoughts and say nice things about someone while beating someone I should get a lesser penalty :zoinks:
What about sexual thoughts? What do they fall under?
Sexual orientation motive falls under hate crime too, if that's what you mean.
I meant like getting off of beating the shit outta someone sorry should have been clearer dat laziness f mine :P.
-
What makes one innocent victim's assault worthy of harsher punishment than another innocent victim's equal assault? What the assailant was thinking?
I disagree with you...though not entirely.
I think if I dislike and fight someone AND they are black or Indian or female or Asian or whatever, all good. IF I dislike and fight someone BECAUSE they are black , Indian, female Asian or whatever THAT is an issue. The subtlety is minimal and it is a value thing, butvi there.
Same as it is with hate crimes.
The problem is what you've touched on. You can't police thoughts.
I strongly suspect the gentleman calling it a hate crime is 100% right. I suspect the hatred of white people was the core of it and it seems perfectly reasonable and rational to presume this.
But look at all the qualifiers in the above sentence.
-
What makes one innocent victim's assault worthy of harsher punishment than another innocent victim's equal assault? What the assailant was thinking?
So if I only have nice thoughts and say nice things about someone while beating someone I should get a lesser penalty :zoinks:
What about sexual thoughts? What do they fall under?
Sexual orientation motive falls under hate crime too, if that's what you mean.
I meant like getting off of beating the shit outta someone sorry should have been clearer dat laziness f mine :P.
That's alright. For some reason was thinking race and sexual orientation were really the only the only hate crime motives, but in looking it's also religion, nationality, disability, gender, whatever; victims of bigots in get more justice.
-
What makes one innocent victim's assault worthy of harsher punishment than another innocent victim's equal assault? What the assailant was thinking?
I disagree with you...though not entirely.
I think if I dislike and fight someone AND they are black or Indian or female or Asian or whatever, all good. IF I dislike and fight someone BECAUSE they are black , Indian, female Asian or whatever THAT is an issue. The subtlety is minimal and it is a value thing, butvi there.
Same as it is with hate crimes.
The problem is what you've touched on. You can't police thoughts.
I strongly suspect the gentleman calling it a hate crime is 100% right. I suspect the hatred of white people was the core of it and it seems perfectly reasonable and rational to presume this.
But look at all the qualifiers in the above sentence.
This conversation is reminding me of another thread here. Wasn't a member here at the time so couldn't comment. Hubert said it well.
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.
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.
-
I think there should be laws for extra penalties for love crimes. Committing a crime against a loved one is much worse of a crime than someone who is hated. :deadhorse2: I just noticed this smiley for the first time and wanted to use it. I that one guy eating the dead horse? :lol1:
-
What makes one innocent victim's assault worthy of harsher punishment than another innocent victim's equal assault? What the assailant was thinking?
I disagree with you...though not entirely.
I think if I dislike and fight someone AND they are black or Indian or female or Asian or whatever, all good. IF I dislike and fight someone BECAUSE they are black , Indian, female Asian or whatever THAT is an issue. The subtlety is minimal and it is a value thing, butvi there.
Same as it is with hate crimes.
The problem is what you've touched on. You can't police thoughts.
I strongly suspect the gentleman calling it a hate crime is 100% right. I suspect the hatred of white people was the core of it and it seems perfectly reasonable and rational to presume this.
But look at all the qualifiers in the above sentence.
This conversation is reminding me of another thread here. Wasn't a member here at the time so couldn't comment. Hubert said it well.
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.
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 do agree with all of the above.But I also agree with what I said too.
What I mean is when I said look at all the qualifiers above, I meant it. I KNOW that the qualifiers make it next to completely useless. I DO agree with the spirit of it though, if that makes sense. I also agree that it is REALLY open to misuse.
It is like I believe absolutely in the death penalty for the very worst of crimes and where there is absolute prove of such a crime.
Unfortunately here, it starts falling down and for similar reasons.
Fred West and Rosemary West, Josef Friezl(sp), Martin Bryant, The Burnies,......and so the list goes on. We KNOW what they did was animalistic. We know that they were absolutely guilty of the crimes. There is no ifs or buts. Why ought we feed and clothe these animals?
BUT then we take that position and sooner or later we have executed someone because we were sure, except we weren't because we were too eager to prosecute, someone lied, someone played with evidence, or whatever. More than likely though we ourselves started applying the same punishment in cases that just were not as clear cut as the ones mentioned here. So I KNOW it is flawed as well and would fail.
But I DO believe in it, in spirit.
Dunno if that ramble makes any sense.
-
An unmentioned aspect of "hate crime" is that it incites political activity.
Muggery, random "blind violence" does not incite further action, but an organized, racially inspired pogrom - one night - to beat the crap out of a jew, more jews, or as many jews as possible, have a danger of inspiring further politically motivated attacks.
In my understanding, this is the main reason for separating "hate crime" from all other violence - it has a danger of directly inspiring further organized attacks, something ordinary "blind" violence does not (well, serial-murder is similarily "inspiring" because of its unique nature)
-
In my understanding, this is the main reason for separating "hate crime" from all other violence
There's nothing wrong with determining the motivation for any crime, but if that's the reasoning for penalty enhancements then it's a poor reasoning unworthy of creating an imbalanced system of punishment and inequality in who deserves what justice. The prospect of incarceration doesn't decrease criminal activity, and stricter penalties don't either. In the US, adulthood brings along much higher odds of prison sentences and stricter penalties, though studies have shown there's no decrease in arrest rates connected to turning eighteen.
Dunno if that ramble makes any sense.
No it didn't completely make sense, because am not making the point that stiffer penalties for a criminal's biased thoughts are bad process because the court might be mistaken about their motive and give higher penalties to someone who wasn't deserving of sentence enhancements.
Though, to both of you, I realize it might be hard to understand how criminal penalty enhancements are a different problem in the US than other countries. It's the constitutional right of every citizen to be provided equal protection under the law. I feel like echoing that a thousand times like an idiot yelling at someone who doesn't speak my language. Don't really know how to explain what it means to be an American and how outrageously patriotic this topic inspires me. I wish Semicolon was here. Thinking he might chant it with me. This is bullshit. Every citizen has the constitutional right to equal protection under the law! This is bullshit. Every citizen has the... :laugh:
-
In my understanding, this is the main reason for separating "hate crime" from all other violence
There's nothing wrong with determining the motivation for any crime, but if that's the reasoning for penalty enhancements then it's a poor reasoning unworthy of creating an imbalanced system of punishment and inequality in who deserves what justice. The prospect of incarceration doesn't decrease criminal activity, and stricter penalties don't either. In the US, adulthood brings along much higher odds of prison sentences and stricter penalties, though studies have shown there's no decrease in arrest rates connected to turning eighteen.
It's not so much about determining the reason - it kindov is more about additional punishment:
You are punished for violence-against-anybody
and
You are also punished for incitement for further violence - by having visually, clearly and deliberately chosen your victim from a political/ideological point of view, and knowingly made so publicly.
Two-in-one. I agree with how you think, don't misunderstand, I've thought the same many times, crime is crime, violence is violence, a victim is a victim.
Think of free speech as a similar thing - you are not only expressing your free opinion, but you are inspiring others to do crime. What if my hate speech is very direct? "Go buy a rifle today! Start hunting brownies! Cut the tall trees! Cut the tall trees NOW!"
That was the code-word to commence the massacre in Rwanda, for example - was that merely free speech? Of course not, it was a pre planned terrorist event of unimaginable proportion. Can you imagine free speech unleashed in Germany, where they explicitly ban all and any Nazi propaganda? I can assure you, it would look different than a KKK rally, these guys actually had the practice, history and memory of a Europe engulfed in flames, and they want it back.
Then it is needless to add - I obviously agree with a general free speech, but surely you can see how at least some places may prefer to limit it, for the sake of national security - people aren't always in control, speech may incite them.
And, if a "hate crime" is meant as an example to go by, as they sometimes are, many of the perpetrators admit to wanting to ignite a race war or something, they should be treated as more than solely the act of violence.
Maybe it's just a bit poorly defined, as a law. Maybe it could be just violence + incitement to terrorism, for example, instead of "hate crime"
-
Freedom of speech also has its limitations in the US, but those are separate charges which criminalize certain types of speech. It's not uncommon for criminals to face multiple criminal charges for a single act. Hate crime isn't a separate criminal charge, rather the application enhanced penalties to acts which are already crimes with set penalties. Not sure about other countries, but the rationale for penalty enhancements in the US is partially based in the assertion that victims of biased motivated crime suffer more psychologically than other victims of the same criminal act. It's clearly a prioritization of victimhood.
-
There are also states which consider homeless status among hate crime. Who will be the next preferred group? When will all groups be included and crime be considered equally hateful again regardless of the motive of the criminal, the perceived weakness of the victim, or the impact on society as a whole?
-
In my understanding, this is the main reason for separating "hate crime" from all other violence
There's nothing wrong with determining the motivation for any crime, but if that's the reasoning for penalty enhancements then it's a poor reasoning unworthy of creating an imbalanced system of punishment and inequality in who deserves what justice. The prospect of incarceration doesn't decrease criminal activity, and stricter penalties don't either. In the US, adulthood brings along much higher odds of prison sentences and stricter penalties, though studies have shown there's no decrease in arrest rates connected to turning eighteen.
Dunno if that ramble makes any sense.
No it didn't completely make sense, because am not making the point that stiffer penalties for a criminal's biased thoughts are bad process because the court might be mistaken about their motive and give higher penalties to someone who wasn't deserving of sentence enhancements.
Though, to both of you, I realize it might be hard to understand how criminal penalty enhancements are a different problem in the US than other countries. It's the constitutional right of every citizen to be provided equal protection under the law. I feel like echoing that a thousand times like an idiot yelling at someone who doesn't speak my language. Don't really know how to explain what it means to be an American and how outrageously patriotic this topic inspires me. I wish Semicolon was here. Thinking he might chant it with me. This is bullshit. Every citizen has the constitutional right to equal protection under the law! This is bullshit. Every citizen has the... :laugh:
It is the legal right here too.
The problem as I put it, how do you know what the person was thinking when they did the crime? Unless they were screaming "Die (X) scum" but even then was that indicative that they killed because they were X or that they were killing them for whatever reason and the fact that the person I believe in the principle but it'd be hard to regulate
-
It is the legal right here too.
The problem as I put it, how do you know what the person was thinking when they did the crime? Unless they were screaming "Die (X) scum" but even then was that indicative that they killed because they were X or that they were killing them for whatever reason and the fact that the person I believe in the principle but it'd be hard to regulate
Still don't see the point in believing in the principle, regardless of the problems with penalty for thoughts. It's not only a thought police issue, it's a victim bias issue, and a principle based in gauging the level of badness of the bad guy. Some people might agree with a principle of stricter sentences for thieves who aren't poor, but an inequality in the punishment standards of criminals creates an inequality of justice for victims. If bigotry is a crime, then it should be a separate criminal charge with its own separate penalty.
-
After a further two years of criminal law I can say that my previous statement was simplistic, but I still agree with it.
-
After a further two years of criminal law I can say that my previous statement was simplistic, but I still agree with it.
Your previous statement is non existent in this thread.
That must be the ultimate form of simplicity.
:zoinks:
-
What makes one innocent victim's assault worthy of harsher punishment than another innocent victim's equal assault? What the assailant was thinking?
I disagree with you...though not entirely.
I think if I dislike and fight someone AND they are black or Indian or female or Asian or whatever, all good. IF I dislike and fight someone BECAUSE they are black , Indian, female Asian or whatever THAT is an issue. The subtlety is minimal and it is a value thing, butvi there.
Same as it is with hate crimes.
The problem is what you've touched on. You can't police thoughts.
I strongly suspect the gentleman calling it a hate crime is 100% right. I suspect the hatred of white people was the core of it and it seems perfectly reasonable and rational to presume this.
But look at all the qualifiers in the above sentence.
This conversation is reminding me of another thread here. Wasn't a member here at the time so couldn't comment. Hubert said it well.
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.
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.
I guess I should have quoted it as it was up there a ways. :autism:
-
I still agree with it.
Good. Do you feel like arguing you point of view; would be willing to take the stance of apposing my own view. :laugh:
-
What makes one innocent victim's assault worthy of harsher punishment than another innocent victim's equal assault? What the assailant was thinking?
So if I only have nice thoughts and say nice things about someone while beating someone I should get a lesser penalty :zoinks:
Obviously. Just tell them that it's for their own good. :zoinks:
-
What makes one innocent victim's assault worthy of harsher punishment than another innocent victim's equal assault? What the assailant was thinking?
I disagree with you...though not entirely.
I think if I dislike and fight someone AND they are black or Indian or female or Asian or whatever, all good. IF I dislike and fight someone BECAUSE they are black , Indian, female Asian or whatever THAT is an issue. The subtlety is minimal and it is a value thing, butvi there.
Same as it is with hate crimes.
The problem is what you've touched on. You can't police thoughts.
I strongly suspect the gentleman calling it a hate crime is 100% right. I suspect the hatred of white people was the core of it and it seems perfectly reasonable and rational to presume this.
But look at all the qualifiers in the above sentence.
This conversation is reminding me of another thread here. Wasn't a member here at the time so couldn't comment. Hubert said it well.
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.
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.
I guess I should have quoted it as it was up there a ways. :autism:
Thank you. I only looked for posts you made. Did not look at posts quoted from elsewhere by others.
-
I still agree with it.
Good. Do you feel like arguing you point of view; would be willing to take the stance of apposing my own view. :laugh:
Sure :zoinks:
-
This conversation is reminding me of another thread here. Wasn't a member here at the time so couldn't comment. Hubert said it well.
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.
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.
The justice system already takes thought into consideration, and that's why there's varying degrees of crime which have degrees of severity in penalty. Even when leaving the point of accidental negligence out of the equation, the criminal justice system simply isn't structured for justice; it's structured for punishment based on thoughts which occur before and during crimes. Why is one person's life worth more than another because of what the killer was thinking and planning before the crime? They're both equally dead. Hate crime penalties fit into the current structure as an immorality step above the degree.
-
The justice system already takes thought into consideration, and that's why there's varying degrees of crime which have degrees of severity in penalty.
Example? Are you referring to negligent manslaughter versus reckless homicide versus premeditated murder?
Even when leaving the point of accidental negligence out of the equation, the criminal justice system simply isn't structured for justice; it's structured for punishment based on thoughts which occur before and during crimes.
Expound please.
Why is one person's life worth more than another because of what the killer was thinking and planning before the crime? They're both equally dead.
This sounds like you are agreeing with me.
Hate crime penalties fit into the current structure as an immorality step above the degree.
I'm not sure I follow.
-
Example? Are you referring to negligent manslaughter versus reckless homicide versus premeditated murder?
Yes, degrees of crime based on thought. That's what hate crime is.
Expound please.
Why? It's a concise statement. The criminal justice system is largely structured to the rights of the accused because it has to be, innocent until proven guilty and all. Sentencing is also structured to the accused and how bad the degree of their thoughts. It doesn't matter if victims suffer the same damage; charges and sentences are based on the degree of the accused's thought processes.
This sounds like you are agreeing with me.
No, it's a question. What makes hate crime penalties any different than premeditated crimes getting stricter penalty than a crime of passion or opportunity?
I'm not sure I follow.
The current system is already structured to accommodate penalties based on thought.
-
Expound please.
Why? It's a concise statement. The criminal justice system is largely structured to the rights of the accused because it has to be, innocent until proven guilty and all. Sentencing is also structured to the accused and how bad the degree of their thoughts. It doesn't matter if victims suffer the same damage; charges and sentences are based on the degree of the accused's thought processes.
I don't think it is, that's what I mean. I am unfamiliar with how you are arriving at this conclusion. All crimes require a Mens Rea (a guilty mind). Traditionally no one can be convicted of a crime they did not intend to commit. This is getting muddled by new strict liability standards, but the courts will generally only uphold those at the level of an infraction as the Constitution requires adequate due process, meaning that one has to know (or have ample opportunity to know) that their action was a crime. So yes, each criminal had to intend his actions, but that is not the same as differentiating the crime based on the motivation for his actions.
This sounds like you are agreeing with me.
No, it's a question. What makes hate crime penalties any different than premeditated crimes getting stricter penalty than a crime of passion or opportunity?
Hate crime penalties are enhancements, not crimes unto themselves. They don't have elements that have to be met, they simply say that the exact same action taken by two different people is going to be punished differently based on what we THINK you were thinking at the time.
The only premeditated crime I can think of right now is murder, and the genesis of that difference is rooted in the gravity of the crime. If causing another person's death was enough to qualify one for the maximum punishment (your own death) then we would be executing everyone from somewhat neglectful new mothers to corporate executives who trim costs on the ignition switches they install in your vehicle. The premeditated standard used to classify first-degree murder is not an enhancement to murder, it is a tool to take most deaths out of the realm of a capital crime.
-
If a crime is used to promote hate, and actions based on that hate, would that make it different? Because it is not only aimed at the victims, but also at society/the public.
Thinking about that guy killing people because he wanted to start a racial war.
On the other hand, disrupting society, and mass-murder should be enough to convict him thoroughly.
-
If a crime is used to promote hate, and actions based on that hate, would that make it different? Because it is not only aimed at the victims, but also at society/the public.
Thinking about that guy killing people because he wanted to start a racial war.
On the other hand, disrupting society, and mass-murder should be enough to convict him thoroughly.
Inciting a riot is a separate crime that can be charged in addition to the murders, if he succeeded. I think unsuccessfully attempting to start a riot is such a minor crime as to be meaningless as an additional charge to 9 counts of murder. Either way, he is going to rot in prison for the rest of his life with or without the added charges.
-
If a crime is used to promote hate, and actions based on that hate, would that make it different? Because it is not only aimed at the victims, but also at society/the public.
Thinking about that guy killing people because he wanted to start a racial war.
On the other hand, disrupting society, and mass-murder should be enough to convict him thoroughly.
Inciting a riot is a separate crime that can be charged in addition to the murders, if he succeeded. I think unsuccessfully attempting to start a riot is such a minor crime as to be meaningless as an additional charge to 9 counts of murder. Either way, he is going to rot in prison for the rest of his life with or without the added charges.
Sometimes I think new regulations are just to keep the masses calm. There is now a limited burqa prohibition in my country. Does not ad anything to the regulations that were already there for balaclavas and such. In public spaces, in court, in public jobs etc, one has to have a visible face. All within reason.
-
If a crime is used to promote hate, and actions based on that hate, would that make it different? Because it is not only aimed at the victims, but also at society/the public.
Thinking about that guy killing people because he wanted to start a racial war.
On the other hand, disrupting society, and mass-murder should be enough to convict him thoroughly.
Inciting a riot is a separate crime that can be charged in addition to the murders, if he succeeded. I think unsuccessfully attempting to start a riot is such a minor crime as to be meaningless as an additional charge to 9 counts of murder. Either way, he is going to rot in prison for the rest of his life with or without the added charges.
Sometimes I think new regulations are just to keep the masses calm. There is now a limited burqa prohibition in my country. Does not ad anything to the regulations that were already there for balaclavas and such. In public spaces, in court, in public jobs etc, one has to have a visible face. All within reason.
Sounds reasonable, but over here that kind of prohibition only applies in sensitive areas. A business owner can refuse to let you in if your face is covered, but nobody could force you to uncover your face just because you were in public.
-
I don't think it is, that's what I mean. I am unfamiliar with how you are arriving at this conclusion. All crimes require a Mens Rea (a guilty mind). Traditionally no one can be convicted of a crime they did not intend to commit. This is getting muddled by new strict liability standards, but the courts will generally only uphold those at the level of an infraction as the Constitution requires adequate due process, meaning that one has to know (or have ample opportunity to know) that their action was a crime. So yes, each criminal had to intend his actions, but that is not the same as differentiating the crime based on the motivation for his actions.
No crimes don't require a guilty mind; people are able to be found guilty without criminal intentions based on negligence. Accidents aren't crimes, anger and greed aren't crimes, bias isn't a crime, and plotting and planning aren't crimes, but the charges and respective penalties of crimes are based on the thought processes of the accused, and hate can be considered a degree of crime.
The only premeditated crime I can think of right now is murder, and the genesis of that difference is rooted in the gravity of the crime. If causing another person's death was enough to qualify one for the maximum punishment (your own death) then we would be executing everyone from somewhat neglectful new mothers to corporate executives who trim costs on the ignition switches they install in your vehicle. The premeditated standard used to classify first-degree murder is not an enhancement to murder, it is a tool to take most deaths out of the realm of a capital crime.
Assault is another example of crime with degrees based on thought process. The point of enhancement can almost be dismissed as a semantic point, because if bias were called a degree then it wouldn't be an enhancement. Hate crimes have established penalty structure just like degrees of crime. The justice system sets its own precedent for thought crime with degrees of crime, based on what the court thinks, believes, and determines to be true about what the accused was thinking.
-
I can't tell if you are joking now. :tinfoil:
Damn ass-burgers
-
Did I say something funny?
-
Sounds reasonable, but over here that kind of prohibition only applies in sensitive areas. A business owner can refuse to let you in if your face is covered, but nobody could force you to uncover your face just because you were in public.
Not even in public owned spaces, court, school?
-
Sounds reasonable, but over here that kind of prohibition only applies in sensitive areas. A business owner can refuse to let you in if your face is covered, but nobody could force you to uncover your face just because you were in public.
Not even in public owned spaces, court, school?
That was what I meant with public spaces.
-
Sounds reasonable, but over here that kind of prohibition only applies in sensitive areas. A business owner can refuse to let you in if your face is covered, but nobody could force you to uncover your face just because you were in public.
Not even in public owned spaces, court, school?
That was what I meant with public spaces.
Thought that's what it was.
-
Sounds reasonable, but over here that kind of prohibition only applies in sensitive areas. A business owner can refuse to let you in if your face is covered, but nobody could force you to uncover your face just because you were in public.
Not even in public owned spaces, court, school?
Local school districts are given wide latitude to make their own rules due to the special environment of children, so could go either way though it would be tough. Court - almost certainly not as it would be a direct violation of the free exercise clause. Public spaces such as parks, etc? No.
-
Sounds reasonable, but over here that kind of prohibition only applies in sensitive areas. A business owner can refuse to let you in if your face is covered, but nobody could force you to uncover your face just because you were in public.
Not even in public owned spaces, court, school?
Local school districts are given wide latitude to make their own rules due to the special environment of children, so could go either way though it would be tough. Court - almost certainly not as it would be a direct violation of the free exercise clause. Public spaces such as parks, etc? No.
Guessing the other topic is dead then. Testifying in court with face hidden seems highly problematic. What about driver's license photos?
-
Sounds reasonable, but over here that kind of prohibition only applies in sensitive areas. A business owner can refuse to let you in if your face is covered, but nobody could force you to uncover your face just because you were in public.
Not even in public owned spaces, court, school?
Local school districts are given wide latitude to make their own rules due to the special environment of children, so could go either way though it would be tough. Court - almost certainly not as it would be a direct violation of the free exercise clause. Public spaces such as parks, etc? No.
Guessing the other topic is dead then. Testifying in court with face hidden seems highly problematic. What about driver's license photos?
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/x4d_z5MIJS0/hqdefault.jpg)
Driving isn't a right that triggers a liberty interest I don't believe, so they could make rules about license photos if they wanted and then see how it turns out in court. My guess is that a ban on burkas for drivers license photos would likely be seen as discriminatory as devout Muslim women would be essentially banned from driving on account of the exercise of their religion.
-
Still guessing the other topic is dead then. It's difficult to argue in favor of something I disagree, much less make it sound somewhat sensible; figured it would be fairly easy to tell me why that's incorrect. Anyway, burkas. Are they actually a religious practice or simply a cultural custom? Wasn't really talking about driving as a right, but rather the use of a photo identification, like situations where a driver's license is used to identify a person. How does that work?
-
Still guessing the other topic is dead then. It's difficult to argue in favor of something I disagree, much less make it sound somewhat sensible; figured it would be fairly easy to tell me why that's incorrect. Anyway, burkas. Are they actually a religious practice or simply a cultural custom? Wasn't really talking about driving as a right, but rather the use of a photo identification, like situations where a driver's license is used to identify a person. How does that work?
It is a cultural custom. A lot of religious practices have roots in a local custom. Burqa makes sense in an environment where sand gets everywhere. Covering ones face makes sense in Arctic areas too.
The use of the burqa is growing. Getting more wide spread, and in very fundamentalistic muslim groups. So, the religious meaning of the burqa is getting heavier.
Countries where the burqa is obliged for women, the question of drivers-licences may be a moot point. Often women in those countries are not allowed to drive a car, so it is not a problem.
:zoinks:
-
Countries where the burqa is obliged for women, the question of drivers-licences may be a moot point. Often women in those countries are not allowed to drive a car, so it is not a problem.
Do they have some alternate method of identifying who women are, or does it not matter and also a moot point?
-
Countries where the burqa is obliged for women, the question of drivers-licences may be a moot point. Often women in those countries are not allowed to drive a car, so it is not a problem.
Do they have some alternate method of identifying who women are, or does it not matter and also a moot point?
Don't know.
Could of course delve into that, but not today, maybe later.
-
Countries where the burqa is obliged for women, the question of drivers-licences may be a moot point. Often women in those countries are not allowed to drive a car, so it is not a problem.
Do they have some alternate method of identifying who women are, or does it not matter and also a moot point?
Don't know.
Could of course delve into that, but not today, maybe later.
It's my understanding passport photos do not allow covered face for anyone and the photos for women with burkas are taken by women, so it stands to reason they allow their identity to be verified in situations where it's required; just don't know how they do it in their own country.
-
Reading on burqas just saw that haredi Jewish women have taken on wearing the burqa too.
Wonder if one can drive safely wearing one, btw. How can you look aside and behind well with only such a little window to peek through. All peripheral sight taken away. And all direct sight blurred.
:dunno:
-
Assumed they don't obscure vision, as a vision test is part of obtaining a driver's license.
-
Still guessing the other topic is dead then. It's difficult to argue in favor of something I disagree, much less make it sound somewhat sensible; figured it would be fairly easy to tell me why that's incorrect.
You were stating legal conclusions as fact rather than actually making an argument. I thought you were playing with me :)
Anyway, burkas. Are they actually a religious practice or simply a cultural custom? Wasn't really talking about driving as a right, but rather the use of a photo identification, like situations where a driver's license is used to identify a person. How does that work?
My understanding is that they are religious practice. I am no Muslim scholar though. If not then my argument falls apart.
-
Countries where the burqa is obliged for women, the question of drivers-licences may be a moot point. Often women in those countries are not allowed to drive a car, so it is not a problem.
Do they have some alternate method of identifying who women are, or does it not matter and also a moot point?
In most of these countries, they just ask the man walking with her who she is. If she is alone, they stone her to death.
-
You were stating legal conclusions as fact rather than actually making an argument. I thought you were playing with me :)
Stating opinion in the form of fact is my writing style; this isn't surprising or new. Are you going to tell me why it's incorrect? Of course am playing with you, and willing to present a viewpoint I disagree for the sake of the game; thought that was clear.