Hate Crimes

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

There cannot be a thought crime, because a criminal act requires some actual harm to be done to someone. We don't punish people for thinking bad things. We punish people for acting on bad thoughts.

At what point has harm been done? What kind of harm?
Physical harm?
Emotional harm?

Speech is the medium to express ones thoughts/emotions/feelings. More and more people claim that speech causes them harm. Should they be protected from that kind of harm? If so, won’t that law, however it reads, infringe on some one else’s free speech right.

There are Universities that have it in their Code of Conduct that students are subject to punishment for simply offending some other student i.e., types of speech. Sorry at the moment I don't have a link to offer you for reference. Google Mike Adams he writes a lot on University issues. Yes, from a conservative point of view.

Will these types of politically correct codes of conduct leave the campus and enter the law books?

[Epee_Pox]

Rogue, speech is not thought. Speech is one way of acting on a thought.

Certain kinds of speech are most certainly crimes and can get you thrown in jail. Inciting to riot. Divulging national security secrets. Fraudulent statements. Perjury. Harassment. The list is actually quite long.

But nobody is going to lock you up for thinking or believing something.

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by Philistine

The focus is not on the victim--but on the criminal.

Score one for victim's rights!

Originally Posted by Philistine

This type of thing is not unique to hate crimes. Additional punishment based on the victim is not uncommon--for instance certain crimes have more serious punishment where the victim is a police officer, a fireman, a public official, a child, etc.

--Philistine

I don't know of any crime that has more punishment if the victim is a child vs. an adult.

As to the other categories listed, these crimes are punished differently because they are viewed not as attacks on individuals, but on society at large.

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

Rogue, speech is not thought. Speech is one way of acting on a thought.

Read J.S. Mill, On Liberty.

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

But nobody is going to lock you up for thinking or believing something.

Yet.

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by gojujay

Quote:
Originally Posted by Epee_Pox
Rogue, speech is not thought. Speech is one way of acting on a thought.



Read J.S. Mill, On Liberty.

Read it. Wordy s.o.b., ain't he?

But thought is what goes on inside your head. Speech is the communication of thought to others. Do you not see the difference?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

There cannot be a thought crime, because a criminal act requires some actual harm to be done to someone. We don't punish people for thinking bad things. We punish people for acting on bad thoughts.

I would propose that some of the laws on child pornography come awfully close. They do not even require actual children to have been exploited---defendants have been prosecuted for possession of entirely computer-generated images and even for writing wholly fictional stories about sexual activity with minors. This is tantamount to prosecuting a writer of murder mysteries for murder, is it not?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

But thought is what goes on inside your head. Speech is the communication of thought to others. Do you not see the difference?

For the purposes of ( intended ) prosecutions the two are inseparable, because it is impossible to know the thought unless it is first expressed somehow. It may be strictly true that thoughts themselves are not prosecuted, but only because they are not known. Once made known, whether by word or deed, it is the underlying belief, not the act of speaking or doing, which is criminalized in so-called "hate crime" legislation. I used the example of a pedophile who wrote stories about having sex with children for his own gratification. The act of writing is not criminalized in that case, but rather the content of the writing, and the thought behind it. So too with hate crimes, or at least we are on that path with them, it seems to me.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by gojujay

I don't know of any crime that has more punishment if the victim is a child vs. an adult.

One example--in the federal system, minor (in degree, not age) assaults which result in "substantial bodily injury" to a person under 16 years old are given a sentence enhancement over those to persons over 16 years of age.

USSG § 2A2.3

As to the other categories listed, these crimes are punished differently because they are viewed not as attacks on individuals, but on society at large.

Perhaps hate crime laws are designed to be viewed as attacks on society as well?

--Philistine

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

Read it. Wordy s.o.b., ain't he?

Amen to that, brother.

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

But thought is what goes on inside your head. Speech is the communication of thought to others. Do you not see the difference?

Yes, I do see the difference, however, if you accept that man is a social animal, then isn't speech the natural outflow of thought in society? Speech is the attempt to find others of like thought and to test one's thoughts and reasoning. By sanctioning speech, you are, in effect, encouraging the prohibition of thought. The mind wanders and where it wanders may not be a reasonable place. Better to find out that a thought or idea that seemed worthy at first pass, when challenged, turns out not to be worth much after all.

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I would propose that some of the laws on child pornography come awfully close. They do not even require actual children to have been exploited---defendants have been prosecuted for possession of entirely computer-generated images and even for writing wholly fictional stories about sexual activity with minors. This is tantamount to prosecuting a writer of murder mysteries for murder, is it not?

Yes it is. It is one example of Liberty being destroyed for Order. Our society has judged this abridgment on Liberty a good thing. It's a good thing that it is a very specific abridgment.

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by Philistine

One example--in the federal system, minor (in degree, not age) assaults which result in "substantial bodily injury" to a person under 16 years old are given a sentence enhancement over those to persons over 16 years of age.

USSG § 2A2.3

Thanks for the link. I'm woefully uninformed as far as Federal Law.

Originally Posted by Philistine

Perhaps hate crime laws are designed to be viewed as attacks on society as well?

--Philistine

I should have been more specific. They are viewed as attacks on Society because the victims are representatives of organized society, i.e. the State. Sorry for the confusion.