The Fallacy of “Hate Crimes”
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-02-2015, 07:36 AM
RE: The Fallacy of “Hate Crimes”
(17-02-2015 07:32 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(17-02-2015 07:28 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  That's why we have psychiatrists and sociologists in the prison systems (or should in states where they don't) - Let them figure what's wrong with the scum.

Let the legal system do the job of getting the scum locked up.

I disagree with the entire process of this line of thinking. I don't view or deem is wise to view criminals as scum nor see ANY benefit to them or societies future by waiting til later steps in the process to use more psychological and deeper understandings of human minds/actions beyond result.


WHat do you want to do?? Give them a kiss on the head and tell them not to do it again???

Shocking

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2015, 07:37 AM
RE: The Fallacy of “Hate Crimes”
(17-02-2015 07:36 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(17-02-2015 07:32 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I disagree with the entire process of this line of thinking. I don't view or deem is wise to view criminals as scum nor see ANY benefit to them or societies future by waiting til later steps in the process to use more psychological and deeper understandings of human minds/actions beyond result.


WHat do you want to do?? Give them a kiss on the head and tell them not to do it again???

Shocking

Yes, exactly the implications of judging people based on studying their mental states and purposes for actions opposed to judging based on result nearly entirely.

What was it about torture? The thing that existed for thousands of years also, but has lessened and lessened to large degrees in the modern era? It still exists, sure but it's foolish to ignore how in historical context, that is being lessened out.

I guess I don't see a direct logical connection between considering intent to punishing thought

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2015, 08:32 AM
RE: The Fallacy of “Hate Crimes”
(17-02-2015 07:37 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(17-02-2015 07:36 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  WHat do you want to do?? Give them a kiss on the head and tell them not to do it again???

Shocking

Yes, exactly the implications of judging people based on studying their mental states and purposes for actions opposed to judging based on result nearly entirely.

What was it about torture? The thing that existed for thousands of years also, but has lessened and lessened to large degrees in the modern era? It still exists, sure but it's foolish to ignore how in historical context, that is being lessened out.

I guess I don't see a direct logical connection between considering intent to punishing thought

Intent doesn't include an emotional component.

Intent -- did the perpetrator INTEND to commit the crime?

We shouldn't care why - If they hate the victim, if they hated their mother, if they thought The Great Pumpkin told them to --- it's irrelevant.

They did it --on purpose (or not) - that's all the criminal courts need to figure out.

The "why" - is simply window dressing.

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2015, 08:34 AM (This post was last modified: 17-02-2015 08:44 AM by Blackout.)
RE: The Fallacy of “Hate Crimes”
Quote:Well, I've never been called "uninteresting" before here, so that's a forum first for me.

That aside, a few points on your response:
Don't take it personally

Quote:First, anti-discrimination laws are about societal equality. They are not criminal laws. The goal is to prevent people from not being able to get jobs, housing, service, etc. due to reasons dealing with race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc. All good and proper uses of the law in my opinion.
Actually some discriminatory procedures in Portugal and Europe are crimes. Anti-racism is a constitutional principle.
Quote:But, that has nothing to do with criminal law. I'm not a lawyer in the EU, much less Portugal, but I do know that EU law is based on the same general model penal codes that have been around for several decades, and are similar to the ones that I studied when I was in law school in the early 90s. Perhaps there is some crazy nuance in Portugal where anti-discrimination laws are also used as the basis for criminal law but I seriously, seriously doubt it.
Anti-discrimination isn't the basis for criminal law.
Quote: The EU charter has a lot to say on civil rights and while it doesn't meet the threshold of what is in the US Constitution, I'm fairly confident that "thought crimes" would raise some serious questions within the EU governing body about any country that tried to do that. So, I'm pretty confident you are wrong on that point.
This isn't about thought crimes - Though crimes is all about punishing someone for simply planning or thinking about committing a crime. Knowing the motive, the reason and the background (and the evidence) is not prosecuting a thought crime
Quote:And, that brings me to point two: the purpose of criminal law depends on who you ask, but most countries do tend to claim it is with a focus more on the preventive than the punitive (with the US with a much, much heavier focus on the punitive than it's European cousins). But, when we talk about "preventive" we are talking about preventing acts. Not thoughts. We are talking about preventing murders and assaults, not murders and assaults based on race or religion. The idea is to stop the criminal act.
Correct, and that justifies my argument that we need to know the reasons to rehabilitate people or, if it's not possible, punish them.
Quote:First, a little background on how criminal law generally works. English based common law (from which many of the modern penal codes, including I believe those utilized by the EU, are built) contemplates two distinct parts to a crime; the actus reus which is the criminal act itself; and the mens rea, which is the criminal intent. So, for example, if you hit a pedestrian with your car and the collision results in the death of that person, do you have a crime? And, what crime do you have? The actus reus is the act of hitting the person. No matter what the reason, the fact is that you hit someone with your car, and that person died. But, that doesn't tell us the whole story. The question of "why" is relevant, the mans rea determines what, if anything, you are guilty of. Did you see the person and say "hey, I'm going to hit that guy" and hit him? Or, did you think "I'd slow down and avoid him but he's black" and run him down. What if you thought "holy shit! Someone just stepped in front of my car!" and you stood on the break and tried to stop, but couldn't and hit him anyway. There are endless permutations you can go through here but, the point is, your intent when you hit the person with your car has a big impact on whether or not you are guilty of a crime.
Thanks for the information BnW Smile In every civilized country guilt is relevant. I can tell you 4 requirements for a crime in the EU:
- Action (human action)
- It has to be illegal
- It has to be predicted on a written law - You can't put someone in jail for something the law doesn't consider a crime
- Guilt - You have two kinds, negligence and intent/malice, the latter being worse.
Quote:So, getting back to your points on hate - I agree that hate can be important in understanding intent. But, it's not a crime in and of itself.
Hate isn't a crime by itself
Quote:And, you are not even arguing that it is. What you are arguing about is sentencing, not criminality. Sentencing is a completely different animal. For there to be a sentence, there must first be a conviction. If you are arguing that hate should be a factor in sentencing, that I can sort of see. But, within limits. I am perfectly ok with hate being a considering in deciding which of different penalty choices you are going to give someone. What I'm absolutely not ok with is hate being considered for a sentence that would not be given without it being due to hate.
That's a no brainer. If the individual didn't practice any crimes there's no sentence. Hate is merely aggravating the sentence, it is not a crime itself - it's a relevant reason.
Quote: When you do that, what you are effectively doing is creating special classes of people, which is the exact opposite of what anti-discrimination laws purport to be about.
The same way premeditated murder, murder for hire, murder to cover up a previous crime are all categories of special people.
Quote:Someone mentioned above Mathew Shepard. For those not familiar, he was a gay man in Wyoming who hit on two locals. They were rather upset about it so they kidnapped him, beat him up, and tied him to a fence post out in the middle of nowhere. He ended up dying due to a combination of his injuries and exposure. The two scumbags that did it were arrested and indicted for murder, and faced the death penalty. One of them copped a plea deal where in exchange for his guilty plea he served life in prison. The other guy decided to roll the dice in court, figuring he had nothing to lose. He went to trial and he lost, and was convicted. He very likely would have been given the death penalty but Shepard's own parents intervened on his behalf and asked for him to get life in prison. After this trial, the state of Wyoming tried to pass Hate Crime legislation, but it was shot down.

Two important things to take from the Shepard case:
1. the two killers denied his being gay was the motivation and said they simply wanted to rob him. They claimed they had never intended to kill him.
2. Justice was served without any hate crime laws at all. One of them cut a deal to spend the rest of his useless, miserable life in jail. The other would have been likely put to death if it wasn't for the mercy shown to him by the victims own parents.

Justice can be served without the hate part, but the hate part shouldn't be ignored. What you argued up there about hate being relevant for the sentence is exactly my position - A hate crime is a classification, but mere hate isn't a crime itself - Hate crimes are relevant the same way premeditated, negligent, passionate and other kinds of crimes are relevant at all. Individuals show different reasons for crimes, different degrees of individualized danger, and they all need different, adapted sentences.

I am not arguing that hate itself is a crime, I am arguing that if someone hates a group so much to kill them (or commit another crime) that shouldn't be ignored and it is relevant, just like someone who tortures the person before killing just for fun will probably get a higher sentence.

The way I see it works like this:
- Anti-discrimination is a constitutional principle and so is anti-murder, to the point some discrimination is considered a crime
- IF you kill someone for discriminatory reasons based on hate (racial,religious, etc) you are denying two values of society - The value of life and the value of "equality". Criminal law, as I learned, is about denying values - Crime is a denial of society's values/rules/norms - Someone who kills for hate is in a higher state of denial than someone who kills for accident. Another problem is rehab - People who kill for hate are usually brainwashed into a certain ideology - Let's imagine white supremacists - Most are convinced that white genocide is a thing and few methods will make them admit they're wrong, so they are more dangerous than the average criminal because they will continue to hate and possibly hurt other non-white groups.

- I don't think hate is a crime itself, but it is relevant as a reason. Obviously if you don't commit crimes you cannot get sentenced, but what I'm arguing is that it is relevant to apply a correct sentence. If we used the logic of "the individual is dead either way" then all murders would be treated equally no matter the reason, method, duration, degree of guilt, etc - And that's idiotic - I'm a supporter of adapting sentences to criminals according to the degree of anti-social behaviour (by anti-social I don't mean clinical anti-social disorder but denial of basic laws)

Edit - I've just woken up so sorry if it's poorly written and grammatically inaccurate

"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything" - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2015, 08:36 AM (This post was last modified: 17-02-2015 08:49 AM by Blackout.)
RE: The Fallacy of “Hate Crimes”
(17-02-2015 08:32 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(17-02-2015 07:37 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Yes, exactly the implications of judging people based on studying their mental states and purposes for actions opposed to judging based on result nearly entirely.

What was it about torture? The thing that existed for thousands of years also, but has lessened and lessened to large degrees in the modern era? It still exists, sure but it's foolish to ignore how in historical context, that is being lessened out.

I guess I don't see a direct logical connection between considering intent to punishing thought

Intent doesn't include an emotional component.

Intent -- did the perpetrator INTEND to commit the crime?

We shouldn't care why - If they hate the victim, if they hated their mother, if they thought The Great Pumpkin told them to --- it's irrelevant.

They did it --on purpose (or not) - that's all the criminal courts need to figure out.

The "why" - is simply window dressing.

The why is relevant to the sentence. Someone who commits a crime by accident doesn't get the same jailtime as someone who commits a premeditated crime. We need to know the reason because it is relevant for rehabilitation

It is relevant who the victim is, if there was a relationship between her/him and the criminal, if it was intended, accidental, premeditated, thought, etc. In my country, for example, it is more serious to kill your son/daughter than a complete stranger - For obvious reasons - The law obligates parents to take special care with their children.

Online Biker, hate crimes isn't about punishing thoughts, it's about punishing motives that are specially dangerous and bigoted. Motives/reasons matter. If we followed your doctrine we would punisher every murderer equally. That's not an effective crime prevention policy. No one arrests you for hating someone, but it you hate to the point you commit a crime against them you will be arrested.

"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything" - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2015, 08:47 AM
RE: The Fallacy of “Hate Crimes”
(17-02-2015 08:32 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(17-02-2015 07:37 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Yes, exactly the implications of judging people based on studying their mental states and purposes for actions opposed to judging based on result nearly entirely.

What was it about torture? The thing that existed for thousands of years also, but has lessened and lessened to large degrees in the modern era? It still exists, sure but it's foolish to ignore how in historical context, that is being lessened out.

I guess I don't see a direct logical connection between considering intent to punishing thought

Intent doesn't include an emotional component.

Intent -- did the perpetrator INTEND to commit the crime?

We shouldn't care why - If they hate the victim, if they hated their mother, if they thought The Great Pumpkin told them to --- it's irrelevant.

They did it --on purpose (or not) - that's all the criminal courts need to figure out.

The "why" - is simply window dressing.

I don't forsee common ground, though I'm not one to say the whole lets agree to disagree, but again I'm of a total opposite mindset on this.

The why to me matters more than the results and action itself. To all degrees. I don't believe a legal system ought to work in a, you did this and this is a punishment view. I think we do need to use the whys up front in the legal system to actually study and interpenetrate the purposes and causation of these actions. I believe that having a stronger drive of questioning the psychology and why of a crime in it's punishment will lead to better results in helping solve crime issues by improving understanding and better fitting sentences.

You can view what you're seeing as orwelling and think it has it's dyer consequences. I view what has been done for centuries still being done and of that mindset, as damaging and Kafkaesque in a troubling manner. You get the actual person in court left asking themselves, why when they're punished for something they don't even understand what they did.

There are a lot of ways to look upon these things, and we shouldn't stop looking upon them at all various ways.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
18-02-2015, 07:16 PM
RE: The Fallacy of “Hate Crimes”
[quote='Blackout' pid='737550' dateline='1424183658']
[quote]Well, I've never been called "uninteresting" before here, so that's a forum first for me.

That aside, a few points on your response:[/quote]
Don't take it personally
[/quote]

Don't worry, I didn't. My comment was made in jest. And, I'm just about impossible to offend so you don't need to worry about my delicate sensibilities because I don't have any.

And, as a random side note, I'm actually not all that interesting. No, no, it's true. I'm a 46 year old, middle class lawyer who works on IT issues for a large financial behemoth with 2 kids, 2 dogs and only been married once (and am still married). Never been arrested, no obvious kinks (that I'm admitting to, at least), and am now undergoing a major home renovation that I refer to as "Project Bankruptcy". I'm about as uninteresting as it gets. Don't believe me? I've just given you the highlights of my life. That's as good as it gets.

Anyway, getting to the the relevant stuff....
....
....

[quote='Blackout' pid='737550' dateline='1424183658']
The same way premeditated murder, murder for hire, murder to cover up a previous crime are all categories of special people.
[quote]

I know that's the way that the laws in the US and, I believe, the EU, try to frame it. But, what you are getting into is a level of proof that is often impossible.

Murder for hire is an obvious thing. Murder over passion is also an obvious thing. And, in pushing those as aggravating or mitigating factors, you don't have to create special classes of people who are more worthy of justice. That's the problem with the hate crime designations.

Take the recent shooting in NC of the 3 Muslims. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it goes to trial and the guy is convicted of murder and now we are on to the sentencing phase. In some states (and generally states that have capital punishment), sentencing has a separate trial where you get into motivations and what is a just punishment. I'm not sure if NC has that, but let's say it does. The killer is going to get on the stand and argue that this was the result of a dispute over a parking space (in addition to arguing he is mentally ill and doesn't deserve to die or the maximum sentence). Personally, I think killing 3 innocent people over a parking space is an aggravating enough factor to never, ever get out of jail, but let's say it's not. Do we really want have to prove that he killed them for being Muslim in order to get to that point?

The problem with getting into people's personal prejudices is you create impossible standards. While there are always going to be obvious cases where the hateful motivation is obvious, those are not going to be the norm. Most people don't where their prejudices out in the open like that. And, it shouldn't matter. You are creating whole knew classes of victims when you do this, and saying some victims are less worthy of others.

I am ok with exploring this in terms of understanding how much of a threat a person is going forward. A guy who walks in on his wife in bed with another man, flips out and shoots them both is, while certainly deserving of going to jail, is probably not as much as a societal threat as the guy who kills a stranger because of their race, sexuality, etc. So, yes, I'm ok with that. But, at the point that you start creating different levels of punishment, I have a real problem. Not only because of the evidence burdens you create but because you raise some victims to a status above others. And, that is before you get into the problem with basically criminalizing the wrong thoughts.

Beyond that, we are probably not that far apart so I'm happy to move on. Besides, I have dull things to go do now.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BnW's post
20-02-2015, 11:46 PM
RE: The Fallacy of “Hate Crimes”
When a person murders for revenge, its a despicable act.... When a person murders on basis of skin color, sex, religion, sexual orientation, or nationality, they lose all possibility of being a good person in my mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2015, 05:24 PM
RE: The Fallacy of “Hate Crimes”
As someone who's actually a victim of a hate crime, I have to disagree with your opinion that it's irrelevant. I was assaulted by a group of guys just because I'm transgender. They didn't want my money, I didn't do anything to tick them off, I said nothing to them, they don't know me, but because I'm transgender they felt the need to push me down to the floor and punch me, all the while shouting hateful slurs.

This all took place in a public place and nobody stepped in. Nobody said anything to these guys. Nobody seemed to care. I don't dare call the police myself because in a cops mind, trans and prostitute are synonymous words. They got away, I went home banged up. This is why I now conceal carry a firearm. The next time I'm attacked, there's a possibility they will try to kill me. I got lucky last time.

Hate crime laws are meant to provide a harsher sentencing on criminals who's only motivation for victimizing someone is because they're a minority.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like jojorumbles's post
01-03-2015, 07:52 AM
RE: The Fallacy of “Hate Crimes”
(28-02-2015 05:24 PM)jojorumbles Wrote:  As someone who's actually a victim of a hate crime, I have to disagree with your opinion that it's irrelevant. I was assaulted by a group of guys just because I'm transgender. They didn't want my money, I didn't do anything to tick them off, I said nothing to them, they don't know me, but because I'm transgender they felt the need to push me down to the floor and punch me, all the while shouting hateful slurs.

This all took place in a public place and nobody stepped in. Nobody said anything to these guys. Nobody seemed to care. I don't dare call the police myself because in a cops mind, trans and prostitute are synonymous words. They got away, I went home banged up. This is why I now conceal carry a firearm. The next time I'm attacked, there's a possibility they will try to kill me. I got lucky last time.

Hate crime laws are meant to provide a harsher sentencing on criminals who's only motivation for victimizing someone is because they're a minority.

You should be protected the same as anyone else under the law. Not special. Giving groups special protections is what separates, not unites.

And - as a person who has carried a firearm daily for 14 years - I suggest you get the training needed to carry legally. AND - I further advise you to know your firearm AND yourself better.

Train, train, train, then train some more. A firearm is a tool - and requires a great deal of skill to use it correctly. This includes WHEN to use it as much as how to use it.

If you've never fired a gun before - carrying one (statistically) is more dangerous to you, than NOT carrying one.

I cannot emphasize how important TRAINING is to your well-being.

(off soapbox)

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes onlinebiker's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: