Hate crime=thought crime?

[MaryL]

How did such an vague and subjective catagory as (taa-daa) "HATE" end up as a modifier or category when it can't be proven substantially in a court of law? How? Nobody asked for it, and it makes ZERO sense legally, it's subjective as hell but seems to be a tool to target political opponents or rivals. We have to end this entire "hate crime" broad brush idiocy. End it.

 

[JGalt]

How did such an vague and subjective catagory as (taa-daa) "HATE" end up as a modifier or category when it can't be proven substantially in a court of law? How? Nobody asked for it, and it makes ZERO sense legally, it's subjective as hell but seems to be a tool to target political opponents or rivals. We have to end this entire "hate crime" broad brush idiocy. End it.

"Hate speech" is only illegal in shitholes like New Zealand, Australia, the UK, etc. We have that First Amendment in our Constitution, so we can get away with saying almost anything. Besides, it's not illegal to find someone disgusting based on whatever I find offensive about them, as long as I'm not making a provable threat.

 

[JoeB131]

How did such an vague and subjective catagory as (taa-daa) "HATE" end up as a modifier or category when it can't be proven substantially in a court of law? How? Nobody asked for it, and it makes ZERO sense legally, it's subjective as hell but seems to be a tool to target political opponents or rivals. We have to end this entire "hate crime" broad brush idiocy. End it.

First, it's kind of easy to determine a hate crime, because the people perpetrating them usually scream racial slurs when committing them.

Second, crimes committed for hate need to be punished more severely than let's say, property crimes.

 

[MaryL]

The legal system can find facts. Forensics, science. Facts. And use them to solve crimes. But, how does emotional states factor in? And HOW do you measure that? Episimologigaly, what is "hate", and what the hell does it have to do with the price of tea in China?

 

[Confederate Soldier]

If I ever commit a crime, I'll be sure to yell out some homophobic and racial slurs, just for the hell of it.


MAN ARRESTED FOR HATE JAYWALKING!

 

[MaryL]

First, it's kind of easy to determine a hate crime, because the people perpetrating them usually scream racial slurs when committing them.

Second, crimes committed for hate need to be punished more severely than let's say, property crimes.

Why? Who defines what "HATE" is? Or isn't? YOU? Hmm,The democrats, people that use it to stop criticism and vilify political opponents? THAT is what is happening! This is absurd. End the hate crime/speech category. End IT NOW.

 

[mamooth]

Yes, defending hate crimes is a sure vote-getter. Republicans, make sure to run on that.

 

[MaryL]

A black man dragged to death. James Byrd Jr, (black) murdered in the most heinous way ever.John William King (white) was found guilty of murder and executed. A hate crime? Darrel Brooks, a black man, targeted and ran down a bunch of old white people in a christmas parade. He got 6 life terms for killing 5 little old white ladies and kids. Not deemed a "hate crime". Excuse me?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

First, it's kind of easy to determine a hate crime, because the people perpetrating them usually scream racial slurs when committing them.

Second, crimes committed for hate need to be punished more severely than let's say, property crimes.

Sayeth one of the biggest antisemites in this entire forum.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

A black man dragged to death. James Byrd Jr, (black) murdered in the most heinous way ever. James Byrd Jr (white) was found guilty of murder and executed. A hate crime? Darrel Brooks, a black man, targeted and ran down a bunch of old white people in a christmas parade. Deemed "not a hate crime". Excuse me?

They are both hate crimes if one is applying the same standards.

I really don't have a terrible problem with the notion of a hate crime, since a hate crime acts to intimidate an entire community. The problem I do have is that which you point out -- the incredible hypocrisy in which the standards are applied.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

If I kill you because I want your shoes or I kill you because I don’t like your skin color, my misdeed is the same and my punishment should be the same.

“Hate crimes” are nonsensical bullshit that punish thoughts and motive - they are thought crimes, something that should be anathema to any fair minded, decent person, but we are scarce these days it seems.

Motive is just an element in crime theory, it certainly should not impact sentencing or add / remove charges. Letting it do so is Orwellian thought crime, end of story.

 

[MaryL]

"Hate crime" categories HAVE to end, there is no legal or rational basis for such a standard, and it's obviously used for political ends for those in power. End it.

 

[MaryL]

How, on gods green earth, is a insubstantial emotion become a basis for a legal catagory? Explain this to me. Why not, "Envy" crimes, "Sloth" or "Avarice" crimes? Do the math.

 

[MaryL]

First, it's kind of easy to determine a hate crime, because the people perpetrating them usually scream racial slurs when committing them.

Second, crimes committed for hate need to be punished more severely than let's say, property crimes.

Na. Um when black man deliberately murders 5 white people in a innocent Christmas parade, because they are WHITE, but that isn't "racism"? Explanation needed. Bigtime.

 

[JoeB131]

The legal system can find facts. Forensics, science. Facts. And use them to solve crimes. But, how does emotional states factor in? And HOW do you measure that? Episimologigaly, what is "hate", and what the hell does it have to do with the price of tea in China?

Let's get real. Establishing motive is a key element of any crime.

If you beat up a total stranger because you don't like his race, religion, nationality or sexual orientation, that is a hate crime.

The thing you are worried about is when we get to the enlightened stage where merely belonging to a hate group is a crime.

 

[JoeB131]

Na. Um when black man deliberately murders 5 white people in a innocent Christmas parade, because they are WHITE, but that isn't "racism"? Explanation needed. Bigtime.

Except no one established he mowed those people down because they were white. If he had, I'd be all for a hate crime aggrevator.

What was clear in that case was the man was mentally ill and trying to get away from the police.

 

[JoeB131]

How, on gods green earth, is a insubstantial emotion become a basis for a legal catagory? Explain this to me. Why not, "Envy" crimes, "Sloth" or "Avarice" crimes? Do the math.

Naw, the sloth crimes are usually to lazy to murder someone.

 

[JoeB131]

If I kill you because I want your shoes or I kill you because I don’t like your skin color, my misdeed is the same and my punishment should be the same.

“Hate crimes” are nonsensical bullshit that punish thoughts and motive - they are thought crimes, something that should be anathema to any fair minded, decent person, but we are scarce these days it seems.

Motive is just an element in crime theory, it certainly should not impact sentencing or add / remove charges. Letting it do so is Orwellian thought crime, end of story.

Except we already take motive into account when passing sentence.

If you were in reasonable fear for your life - or even an irrational fear in the case of Rittenhouse or Zimmerman - (No, I don't want to relitigate those caeses), then our system let's you off.

If you kill someone in the heat of passions, such as finding your wife in bed with the cable guy, we treat that differently than the guy who came up with an elaborate plot to kill his wife for the insurance money.

So if you kill someone over the color of their skin, that is a lot more heinous than if you had an argument over the neighbor's dog pooping on your lawn.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Except we already take motive into account when passing sentence.

We largely don’t and we shouldn’t. Not at all.

If you were in reasonable fear for your life - or even an irrational fear in the case of Rittenhouse or Zimmerman - (No, I don't want to relitigate those caeses), then our system let's you off.

That’s not a question of motive. There was literally no crime there. Motive is for crime theory; no motive, no intent, and no premeditation, literally just a guy shooting his attackers who had premeditation and intent to murder him with the motive of punishing him for opposing their violence and destruction by putting out fires and giving first aid.

If you kill someone in the heat of passions, such as finding your wife in bed with the cable guy, we treat that differently than the guy who came up with an elaborate plot to kill his wife for the insurance money.

That’s not motive, that’s premeditation or not premeditation.

So if you kill someone over the color of their skin, that is a lot more heinous than if you had an argument over the neighbor's dog pooping on your lawn.

No it isn’t. The murder is what is heinous.

 

[JoeB131]

We largely don’t and we shouldn’t. Not at all.

Oh, if it were up to me, merely being a member of the Klan or a Neo-Nazi would be a crime. Which is how they do it in Europe.

That’s not a question of motive. There was literally no crime there. Motive is for crime theory; no motive, no intent, and no premeditation, literally just a guy shooting his attackers who had premeditation and intent to murder him with the motive of punishing him for opposing their violence and destruction by putting out fires and giving first aid.

Well, no, what happened there was that a racist bad apple crossed state lines to find black people to murder, but only found some white people to shoot. It's too bad the jury never got to hear that story. But you just made my point. MOTIVE for the shooting does matter. So if you go out and shoot someone because you were defending something, that should be less serious than shooting someone because you don't like the color of their skin.

That’s not motive, that’s premeditation or not premeditation.

By your logic, why should that make a difference? I would say that the guy who caught his wife in bed with the cable guy and shot her is guilty, but not as guilty as the guy who came up with the elaborate plan to kill her for the insurance money. So one would get probably manslaughter or second degree murder vs. first degree murder.

No it isn’t. The murder is what is heinous.

A murder for racist reasons is more heinous.