Hate Crimes

[Rogue]

Ok, lets say, hypothetically, I kill Telknuru.(sp)
I am convicted and sentenced to 20 years. (a light sentence because the judge knew Telknuru, just kidding )

Now let's say Telknuru was Green and I was a well known bigot against Green people.
I have spoken out numerous times for the protection of White, Black, Red and Yellow America from the Green people. Even supporting violence.

Now I kill Telknuru.
I get 20 years PLUS 20 more because hate motivated my killing of Telknuru.

I am therefore punished for my thoughts, not my actions.
When will I be punished for my thoughts alone?
Universities across the US have codes that provide for punishment if one merely offends some one else. Is the Law to follow?

Killing- 20 years
Killing while hating- 40 years
Hating- 20 years?

Is Hate Crime legislation the beginning of the "Thought Police"

[neevel]

It's not as though taking one's state of mind into assessing the severity of a crime (and hence the potential punishment) is a new thing-- the difference between first- and second- degree murder is an example. If you kill someone, and it was a premeditated killing you're up on 1st degree murder charges because you had been thinking and planning the murder. Just thinking about how you might kill someone is itself not a crime, so long as you ultimately take no action to carry out those thoughts. Motives and state of mind have also long been taken into account in sentencing-- someone who coldly kills an innocent bystander who was a witness to a crime to prevent them from testifying is very likely to draw a much more severe sentence than someone who kills a neighbor after finding that said neighbor had assaulted and raped his wife.

[ReverseLunge]

Beating up immigrants, and "hating" entire races, is not only stupid but ineffective. If you want non-native groups out of your natively ethnic society, be strong about it and simply say: we must preserve our ethnic consistency in order to avoid being bred into hybridization, which destroys us. You don't have to pass moral judgment over these people, something especially dangerous since not every society shares the same values. Cite statistics to me all day about how black people commit more crime; this is "crime" as defined by Indo-European society, and the same rules don't apply in other cultures. Let them have their culture, and you can have yours.

[Epee_Pox]

Neevel's right. In fact, mental state is the one thing that makes wrongdoing criminal. Without a certain culpable mental state, we don't punish acts even if they cause harm. Hence the (rarely successful) insanity defense -- you were incapable of knowing that what you did was wrong, so we're not going to punish you for it. For the same reason you don't throw a 4-year-old in jail if he takes a candy bar from a store without paying for it. If you couldn't know it was wrong, you shouldn't be punished.

Mental state is called "mens rea." The outlawed action itself is called the "actus reus." With very few exceptions, you need both before something can be punished. Mens rea, in and of itself, cannot be punished, so you don't have to worry about thought police. Actus reus without a culpable mental state can only be punished in such limited circumstances as statutory (underage) rape, where the harm to society is such that we don't care what you were thinking.

But it is the exception, not the rule, where we don't care what you were thinking. The severity of your punishment will depend, for a given act, on whether you acted negligently, recklessly, with depraved indifference, purposefully, intentionally, with a plan, in the heat of the moment, in self-defense, to protect another, under duress, and many more considerations.

So there is plenty of legal precedent and basis for adding "hate" to the list of mental states. Society has decided, through the legislature, that crimes committed with such a mental state need to be punished differently, because we just won't tolerate that kind of nonsense any more.

[gojujay]

You have espoused a "hatred" of a certain "race" of people. You have attended rallies and meetings where racial purity is preached. You receive "racist" literature in the mail.

You are asleep in your own home but are awakened by a noise. You get up, arm yourself and go to investigate (a somewhat foolish move I know, but this is all hypothetical). You see an intruder whom you are able to identify as a member of your "hated" race, opening the door to a loved one's room. You make the decision to attack this intruder, killing him as a result of your attack (defense of your home?).

Following a police investigation you are arrested and charged with murder plus hate crime enhancements because of the literature found in your home.

Are you trying to tell me this isn't a form of thought regulation? When we allow society to enhance punishments of criminal acts solely on the basis of the defendants opinions, doesn't this have a chilling effect on speech, and, where speech originates, thought?

Aren't we also saying to other victims, that because your assailant/victimizer didn't "hate" you, we aren't going to punish him/her as much? How comforting it must be to know, as a potential predator, that I can prey on my own race and it will not be as harshly punished as someone who "hates" them.

It is without a doubt, thought policing, and IMHO, should be fought at every turn.

[neevel]

Gojujay-

You're setting up a straw-man. The situation you posit is clearly a self-defense situation (intruder in your home). Unless there was unequivocal evidence that you'd done something along the lines of shoot the guy execution-style after he'd surrendered and was offering no resistance, you would not be brought up on murder charges. What you're doing is the equivalent of folks on the left arguing against the Patriot act by talking about black-shirted government agents breaking into people's homes and arresting them because they bought the 'wrong' book at Borders.

[mrbiggs]

Here's my opinion. I think.

Hate crimes and affirmative action, I beleive, are constitutionally wrong, but practically necessary. Sure, they don't make everybody equal, thus violating the principles they preach, but at the same time, going from a time of open hatred for a race to complete acceptance in two generations is very, very difficult. And I think that the hate crime laws, as well as affirmative action, must be temporarily put into place to compensate, so we might eventually acheive equality.

Here's the thing. You want to find some black people? Go into a city. In poor, inner-city schools, black people are oftentimes the majority. Meanwhile, the suburbs are almost completely white. Segregation, again. It's not open, and it's not accepted, which is a huge step forward. But we have to make it so that skin color and economic class or location are not in any way related if we are to truly acheive equality.

(One more thing. Some of the comments I made above could be misinterpreted as racist. I don't beleive that black people are naturally any stupider or less hard-working than white people.)

[MyrddinsPrecint]

this is yet another topic that i don't have a definitive opinion on becaus aaron sorkin hasn't spoon fed it to me.

PS- RL, you apparently forgot to switch to your "ok, i'm making real points" sn from your "i'm going to troll the behind off you and i can't spell words correctly" sn.

[telkanuru]

First, I must say I object to the premise of Rogue's argument. Any attempt by him to kill me will obviously end with the inverse occuring

Second, law is all about intentions and state of mind. Insanity plea, manslaughter, etc, etc, etc. are all based on what the person was thinking, rather than what they did. To say that one cannot put someone on trial for their thoughts is to deny reality.

[Schiavona]

Sometimes the law requires special punishments as an added deterent for a specific crime or a crime occourring in a specific place or manner. Anyone familar with 'Drug Free Zones'? If a drug crime happens within one of these areas(I think they are only arround schools) the penality is automaticly doubled. I.e. dealing crack=10 years, dealing crack in a Drug Free Zone=20 years. I believe the intent behind this and hate crime legislation is the same.

[Rogue]

As I understand it:

1st degree murder- premeditation- planning to perform the act, actively devising a way to kill and get away with it, forethought.

2nd degree murder- The intent to kill but no premeditation, crime of passion.

Manslaughter- unintentional killing due to carelessness, negligence etc.

Insanity- not knowing right from wrong.

These seem to be based on circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime. Not the criminals feelings/emotions/thoughts toward the victim.



What if I hate green people as before and hit one in my car?
Hate Manslaughter charge?

I plan and kill my business partner, who is not green.
1st degree murder 20 years.

I (Well known green people hater) plan and kill my neighbor who is green.
1st degree murder 20years,
PLUS 20 years because of my feelings/emotions/thought of him being inferior to me.

Why should I not get 20 extra years for murdering my business partner?
Was his life not as valued?
Was the crime less heinous because we were of the same race?

It seems to me that the thoughts/feelings/emotions are being put up as criminal.

Don't confuse jury sentencing with the statutory minimum sentencing because of the hate crime.
Hate crime sentencing is not up to the jury. If it's proven to be a "hate crime" there are immediate increases in the sentencing. These increases have nothing to do with the actual commission of the crime ONLY the persons thoughts/feelings/emotions cause the punishment to increase.

Thought Crimes?

[telkanuru]

Hate crimes work on the principle that killing someone is worse if you kill them because they look, act, feel a certain way. I think that this is worse, but this is obviously subjective. In any case, I agree that it is thought crimes. As I said before, thought crimes are already codified in law. For examples like the degrees of murder, it is true they are based around the circumstances around the event, but those circumstances exist primeraly in the mind.

Thought crimes.

[Inquartata]

The concept of the hate crime bothers me in the same way that rigid sentencing rules bother me: they substitute the discretion of politicians for those of judges.

Properly, racism or sexism or any bigotry ( like any state of mind or circumstance extraneous to guilt ) should be taken into account in the sentencing stage of a trial, as matters in aggravation, extenuation or mitigation. And they are properly matters which want the discretion of the judge hearing the individual case, not of a legislature making blanket decrees. IMO, that is.

Mens rea does not really involve fine discriminations of the thought process involved in forming criminal intent. It seems pointless to me to add to the criterion a debate about degree or kind of intent---it either exists, or it does not, and that should suffice for the determination of guilt.

[Schiavona]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

The concept of the hate crime bothers me in the same way that rigid sentencing rules bother me: they substitute the discretion of politicians for those of judges.

Properly, racism or sexism or any bigotry ( like any state of mind or circumstance extraneous to guilt ) should be taken into account in the sentencing stage of a trial, as matters in aggravation, extenuation or mitigation. And they are properly matters which want the discretion of the judge hearing the individual case, not of a legislature making blanket decrees. IMO, that is.

I agree completely. I believe that 'hate crimes' should by punished harshly and that punishment should be well publisized, but I have a bad feeling about legislated, manditory punishments. Going down that road, why have judges at all?

[scrapinpeg]

Originally Posted by Rogue

As I understand it:

1st degree murder- premeditation- planning to perform the act, actively devising a way to kill and get away with it, forethought.

2nd degree murder- The intent to kill but no premeditation, crime of passion.

Manslaughter- unintentional killing due to carelessness, negligence etc.

Insanity- not knowing right from wrong.

These seem to be based on circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime. Not the criminals feelings/emotions/thoughts toward the victim.

... Skip a bit ...

It seems to me that the thoughts/feelings/emotions are being put up as criminal.

Don't confuse jury sentencing with the statutory minimum sentencing because of the hate crime.
Hate crime sentencing is not up to the jury. If it's proven to be a "hate crime" there are immediate increases in the sentencing. These increases have nothing to do with the actual commission of the crime ONLY the persons thoughts/feelings/emotions cause the punishment to increase.

Thought Crimes?

You're about right with respect to the various homicide mental states, but these vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But you're missing a couple concepts.

Mental state is not about the circumstances surrounding the crime, but what was going on in the perpetrator's head when he did it. Mental state (mens rea) is the primary basis for differing levels of culpability.

The hate crime mens rea is a mental state that goes to the reason why you committed the crime. Not "you killed him and you hate his kind" but rather "you killed him because you hate his kind."

And the Supreme Court has recently ruled that enhanced sentencing that requires a factual determination must be decided by a jury. Therefore, a hate crime sentence must be supported by a jury determination that you committed a crime because you hate the victim's kind.

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.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

You're about right with respect to the various homicide mental states, but these vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But you're missing a couple concepts.

Mental state is not about the circumstances surrounding the crime, but what was going on in the perpetrator's head when he did it. Mental state (mens rea) is the primary basis for differing levels of culpability.

The hate crime mens rea is a mental state that goes to the reason why you committed the crime. Not "you killed him and you hate his kind" but rather "you killed him because you hate his kind."

And the Supreme Court has recently ruled that enhanced sentencing that requires a factual determination must be decided by a jury. Therefore, a hate crime sentence must be supported by a jury determination that you committed a crime because you hate the victim's kind.

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.

Just further to that there is the element of random violence that exists in a hate crime that does not exist in other crimes. For example, it is first degree murder if I plan to murder the quickie mart guy and then go out and actually do just that, following my plan as best as I'm able. It is a first degree murder hate crime if I plan to murder a white guy, any white guy, and the quickie mart guy satisfies that criteria and then I actually go and do it.

The random element makes the crime more heinous because there is generalised hate instead of a specific hate. It makes the perpetrator more dangerous because there can be only one Jerry Lee-Smith who is Mr. Lee-Smith's brother (and so only one potential target for first degree murder of Jerry Lee-Smith) but there are many white guys who are potential targets of a white guy hating criminal who is prepared to act on that hatred.

In the case of the straw man before, you could argue that you chose to kill the intruder instead of simply calling the cops or tackling them BECAUSE you felt that they were more dangerous BECAUSE of their race. If that's the case, then the jury must take into account your self-defense plea when you chose to attack the intruder and kill them instead of attack and subdue them or not attack at all. They must also take into account how you felt about the threat level and whether you reacted accordingly. In fact, you could probably make a good case about self-defense and not manslaughter precisely because you received hate literature and so felt more threatened by the intruder then you would have had they been of a different race. In this case, your hatred of the race translated into greater fear and not greater affront.

If the prosecution, however, can prove that you acted on hate and not fear then you are up ****e creek and your self-defense in fact becomes a perceived relatively safe opportunity for manslaughter. It's why juries trials are so tenuous: you don't have to prove anything, merely convince a bunch of people that the facts are as you want them to be.

Just some thoughts.

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by ReverseLunge

Beating up immigrants, and "hating" entire races, is not only stupid but ineffective. If you want non-native groups out of your natively ethnic society, be strong about it and simply say: we must preserve our ethnic consistency in order to avoid being bred into hybridization, which destroys us. You don't have to pass moral judgment over these people, something especially dangerous since not every society shares the same values. Cite statistics to me all day about how black people commit more crime; this is "crime" as defined by Indo-European society, and the same rules don't apply in other cultures. Let them have their culture, and you can have yours.

Isn't this the same RL who posted the bile discriminating and hurtful racist comments against the Southeast Asians in the Tsunami thread??

Seems to me you're living so deep in crud that you don't even know which way is up anymore!

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by neevel

Gojujay-

You're setting up a straw-man. The situation you posit is clearly a self-defense situation (intruder in your home). Unless there was unequivocal evidence that you'd done something along the lines of shoot the guy execution-style after he'd surrendered and was offering no resistance, you would not be brought up on murder charges. What you're doing is the equivalent of folks on the left arguing against the Patriot act by talking about black-shirted government agents breaking into people's homes and arresting them because they bought the 'wrong' book at Borders.

Guilty as charged on the first part, although some would not say that the situation was not CLEAR self-defense/defense of others. Also would it be a straw man if; the loved one's room into which the "intruder" was going, was an adult, who, as the situation is made clear, had a consensual relationship with the "intruder", which may or may not have been known by you?

No thoughts on the second part? The elevation of one victims tragedy over another's? I don't understand how that can reasonably be justified.

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Hate crimes work on the principle that killing someone is worse if you kill them because they look, act, feel a certain way. I think that this is worse, but this is obviously subjective. In any case, I agree that it is thought crimes. As I said before, thought crimes are already codified in law. For examples like the degrees of murder, it is true they are based around the circumstances around the event, but those circumstances exist primeraly in the mind.

Thought crimes.

As to the degree of homicide, it is a question of intent, not of thought. The two ideas are similar but there are subtle differences between them. Thought can be passive while intent is more active.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by gojujay

{snip}
No thoughts on the second part? The elevation of one victims tragedy over another's? I don't understand how that can reasonably be justified.

The