After A White Man Was Beaten By a Mob in Cincinnati, the Police Chief’s Request

[Jack]

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.

[MLA]

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.

[Jack]

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.

[MLA]

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.

['andersom']

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.

[MLA]

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.

['andersom']

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.

[MLA]

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.

[Jack]

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.

[MLA]

I can't tell if you are joking now. 

Damn ass-burgers

[Jack]

Did I say something funny?

[Jack]

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?

['andersom']

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.

[Jack]

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.

[MLA]

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.