Explain how HATE is a factor in the judicial system:

[MaryL]

HOW is such an insubstantial and subjective emotional state a basis of a law? I never understood that. So does it open the door to prosecuting Voodoo or Witchcraft?

 

[Coyote]

Can you expand on that a little? Give an example?

 

[MaryL]

How is a fleeting undefinable unprovable emotional state a legal standard? How do you prove a mindset? Why is that punishable? Who determines that? Absurd on so many levels.

 

[MaryL]

Can you expand on that a little? Give an example?

Um, really? I don't need to disprove a negative. The onus is on you.

 

[Coyote]

Um, really? I don't need to disprove a negative. The onus is on you.

I’m not asking you to prove anything at all, much less a negative. I’m simply asking for an example of what you are talking about so I can understand what you are talking about.

 

[MaryL]

Coyote; In a fair and just legal system based on facts: HOW does a fleeting vague unprovable emotional state factor in?

 

[MaryL]

I’m not asking you to prove anything at all, much less a negative. I’m simply asking for an example of what you are talking about so I can understand what you are talking about.

OH, your tactic is you pretend to be dumb? The fact that fantasy legal categories exist at all, you should be concerned about. Not me pointing it out. But here we are.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Are you referring to hate crimes?

The notion behind hate crime legislation is that an attack on a random victim based upon their ethnicity or status in life affects more than just the individual as it actually instills fear in the entire community.

I actually support this in principle.

The problem with hate crimes has to do with how they are considered IN PRACTICE. There is such a double standard used in prosecuting hate crime laws based upon the identity of the perp and the identity of the victim that they have become all but useless.

 

[MaryL]

I've been a juror. Lawyers argue into evidence : article A, actual physical thing. A letter where the accused admitted to buying poison to kill, or a actual Bullet from a gun or the accused on cameral killed the victim. FACTS. How the hell does "HATE" factor into to any of that? My mind is boggled. HOW is this factored in legally? How do you gauge hate? By what litmus test? Level one hate, level ten hate? This is absurd.

 

[MaryL]

Are you referring to hate crimes?

The notion behind hate crime legislation is that an attack on a random victim based upon their ethnicity or status in life affects more than just the individual as it actually instills fear in the entire community.

I actually support this in principle.

The problem with hate crimes has to do with how they are considered IN PRACTICE. There is such a double standard used in prosecuting hate crime laws based upon the identity of the perp and the identity of the victim that they have become all but useless.

Great. Fine so, in practice, giving a emotional state legal gravitas is good and fine. Why? Politics? So, explain to me HOW you can PROVE objectively with facts someone's state of mind and why that is a category in the legal system. That is a rhetorical question. Its an oxymoron.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Great. Fine so, in practice, giving a emotional state legal gravitas is good and fine. Why? Politics? So, explain to me HOW you can PROVE objectively with facts someone's state of mind and why that is a category in the legal system. That is a rhetorical question. Its an oxymoron.

Intent is the backbone of the sort of moral reasoning behind our entire legal system.

A car hitting a person due to a malfunction is different than a driver falling asleep at the wheel and hitting a person, which is different than running a red light intentionally hitting a person which is different than deliberately running down a person to hit them.

Similarly, killing a person over a drug deal gone bad is different than killing a spouse that cheated on you is different than killing a person because you hate their ethnicity.

 

[MaryL]

Its odd. Blacks attacking asians, the huge black on black violence. And on and on. How are imaginary subjective categories like "hate" even a thing in the 22nd century?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Its odd. Blacks attacking asians, the huge black on black violence. And on and on. How are imaginary subjective categories like "hate" even a thing in the 22nd century?

When blacks attack Asians, they are committing a hate crime.

Like I TRIED to point out, the problem here isn't with the concept of hate crimes, but with the way they are interpreted. Of course, blacks commit more hate crimes per capita than other groups, but that does not mean there is a problem with the concept of hate crimes. The problem lies in the obvious double standards in how the concept is applied.

 

[MaryL]

I’m not asking you to prove anything at all, much less a negative. I’m simply asking for an example of what you are talking about so I can understand what you are talkThat is exactly what you are

When blacks attack Asians, they are committing a hate crime.

Like I TRIED to point out, the problem here isn't with the concept of hate crimes, but with the way they are interpreted. Of course, blacks commit more hate crimes per capita than other groups, but that does not mean there is a problem with the concept of hate crimes. The problem lies in the obvious double standards in how the concept is applied.

Good point. Sorry.

 

[MaryL]

I’m not asking you to prove anything at all, much less a negative. I’m simply asking for an example of what you are talking about so I can understand what you are talking about.

Define: Hate. And just how do you prove an emotional state? HOW? In a court of law, I don't want to be absurdist, and what does it have to do with anything? Absurd.

 

[PeterPilot]

I've been a juror. Lawyers argue into evidence : article A, actual physical thing. A letter where the accused admitted to buying poison to kill, or a actual Bullet from a gun or the accused on cameral killed the victim. FACTS. How the hell does "HATE" factor into to any of that? My mind is boggled. HOW is this factored in legally? How do you gauge hate? By what litmus test? Level one hate, level ten hate? This is absurd.

I agree with you that the notion of 'hate crimes' is specious at best.

A crime should be defined as an action against another, not thoughts about another person. It's completely absurd, but much in line with such things as 'affirmative action' and the present day WOKE dogma.