What good does thought crime legislation do?

[Anarchist420]

For one, what's politically correctly called "hate crime legislation" says that the motive matters as much as the end result, which makes it anti-individualistic, and pro-collectivist.

For another, as more and more groups of people become minorities in some way, they can be added to the "protected" over time.

3rd, individuals should be recognized, not groups--it's divisive legislation.

4th, it's unlikely that tacking on 5 years for motive to a 10 year sentence for rape is going to deter anyone, especially if they already hate women.

Finally, it's impossible to read someone's thoughts.

It needs to die just like reverse discrimination needs to.

 

[Murloc]

if you accidentally run over someone with your car you have no motive.
I think that someone doing that on purpose needs to serve much more prison time.

is this thought crime?

anyway your post needs more substance, I mean, you point out a few things in an abstract manner. If you included an article about a controversial sentence it would be easier to discuss on the theme.

 

[Throckmorton]

Intent and motive matter.

Manslaughter isn't the same as murder, and murder isn't the same as terrorism. Hate crimes are like terrorism in that they target an entire group. A terrorist targets and attacks an entire country with his crime to send a message, just like someone committing a hate crime targets an entire group of people.


There are a lot of stupid misconceptions about hate crimes... for example, that all white on black crimes are categorized as hate crimes. Not true, the crime has to be racially motivated.

In reality, there are more black on white hate crimes per capita than white on black.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/hate_crimes

Statistics http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2009/index.html

In 2009, the racial breakdown of the 6,225 known hate crime offenders was as follows:

• 62.4 percent were white.
• 18.5 percent were black.
• 7.3 percent were groups made up of individuals of various races (multiple races, group).
• 1.0 percent were American Indian/Alaskan Native.
• 0.7 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander.
• 10.2 percent were of unknown race. (Based on Table 9.)

Racial bias
Among the single-bias hate crime incidents in 2009, there were 4,057 victims of racially motivated hate crimes.

• 71.5 percent were victims because of an offender’s anti-black bias.
• 16.5 percent were victims because of an anti-white bias.
• 3.7 percent were victims because of an anti-Asian/Pacific Islander bias.
• 2.1 percent were victims because of an anti-American Indian/Alaskan Native bias.
• 6.2 percent were victims because of a bias against a group of individuals in which more than one race was represented (anti-multiple races, group). (Based on Table 1.)

 

[shortylickens]

Feel-good legislation for ignorant Americans who think laws actually make life safer or better.

 

[Throckmorton]

Feel-good legislation for ignorant Americans who think laws actually make life safer or better.

Yes, let's get rid of all laws because they're worthless. :\

 

[Anarchist420]

Intent and motive matter.

Manslaughter isn't the same as murder, and murder isn't the same as terrorism. Hate crimes are like terrorism in that they target an entire group. A terrorist targets and attacks an entire country with his crime to send a message, just like someone committing a hate crime targets an entire group of people.


There are a lot of stupid misconceptions about hate crimes... for example, that all white on black crimes are categorized as hate crimes. Not true, the crime has to be racially motivated.

In reality, there are more black on white hate crimes per capita than white on black.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/hate_crimes

Statistics http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2009/index.html

Manslaughter IS murder. It shouldn't matter whether it's manslaughter or on purpose, the punishment should be the same.

 

[Throckmorton]

Manslaughter IS murder. It shouldn't matter whether it's manslaughter or on purpose, the punishment should be the same.

That's asinine

 

[shortylickens]

Yes, let's get rid of all laws because they're worthless. :\

Wow, thats a lovely little logical fallacy you got going there. Would you like me to tell you which one? I think you might remember better if you look it up yourself.

 

[Atreus21]

I agree with Throck. Intent and motive matter, or else manslaughter is no different than terrorism.

You can't judge on the ends alone. The means are important.

 

[piasabird]

You cant legislate thought.

Cant fix stupid either.

 

[Darwin333]

Manslaughter IS murder. It shouldn't matter whether it's manslaughter or on purpose, the punishment should be the same.

Accidentally hitting someone with your car, even if it is due to negligence, is not the same as intentionally burning someone alive.

 

[Texashiker]

What good does thought crime legislation do?

It pushes a social agenda that forces people to think a certain way.

Social engineering for the masses.

 

[jonks]

No one is punished for ""thought crime", you are punished for your acts. You can think racist shit all day long, no one cares, but if you act on it, you may face a stiffer penalty. That old softy lefty SCOTUS judge Rehnquist said regarding hate crime legislation (for a unanimous court) "this conduct is thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm.... bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest"

Finally, it's impossible to read someone's thoughts.

Congrats! You just eliminated the need to prove mens rea from all crimes!

 

[drebo]

Motive should only matter in so far as whether or not something was premeditated.

If you hit someone with your car and they die, that's an accident, and is completely separate from whether or not you got in to your car with the intention of killing a particular person. The former, while aweful, is not as bad as the latter. We are correct in punishing them differently.

Where our laws fail, though, is in classifying motive. That killing a man because he is black is a worse offence than killing a man because he spited you is a travesty of justice. Murder is murder. Justice is supposed to be blind, and yet we force race/gender/age/religion in at every possible stage.

 

[sandorski]

Given the Quality and Quantity of your Threads, not much at all.

Thought Crime = Convicting someone based upon their Thoughts alone, regardless of their Actions.

It would be a Capital Crime for Thinking of Murdering someone. The Victim would be in the Court room applauding as the Judge sentences you to Death.

 

[sandorski]

Motive should only matter in so far as whether or not something was premeditated.

...

Where our laws fail, though, is in classifying motive. That killing a man because he is black is a worse offence than killing a man because he spited you is a travesty of justice. Murder is murder. Justice is supposed to be blind, and yet we force race/gender/age/religion in at every possible stage.

Disagree. Murdering someone based upon some deeply held Prejudice is clearly worse than if one was spited. The Prejudice against a Group makes one more likely to commit the Crime again. That same person may not be spited again though, thus decreasing the liklihood they'll Murder again.

 

[drebo]

Disagree. Murdering someone based upon some deeply held Prejudice is clearly worse than if one was spited. The Prejudice against a Group makes one more likely to commit the Crime again. That same person may not be spited again though, thus decreasing the liklihood they'll Murder again.

Well, that's why Murder as a crime of passion is different than a completely premeditated murder.

Perhaps I chose my words poorly. A deep seated predjudice can exist for nearly anything. That the predjudice was related to the color of a person's skin should not matter. If a murder was planned, start to finish, it should be the same, regardless of the races/genders/whatevers involved.

 

[sandorski]

Well, that's why Murder as a crime of passion is different than a completely premeditated murder.

Perhaps I chose my words poorly. A deep seated predjudice can exist for nearly anything. That the predjudice was related to the color of a person's skin should not matter. If a murder was planned, start to finish, it should be the same, regardless of the races/genders/whatevers involved.

It should most definitely matter, especially given History. That's the kind of thing that needs removed from Society.

 

[Throckmorton]

Well, that's why Murder as a crime of passion is different than a completely premeditated murder.

Perhaps I chose my words poorly. A deep seated predjudice can exist for nearly anything. That the predjudice was related to the color of a person's skin should not matter. If a murder was planned, start to finish, it should be the same, regardless of the races/genders/whatevers involved.

So terrorism should be treated like regular old murders, and handled by local authorities?

 

[sandorski]

So terrorism should be treated like regular old murders, and handled by local authorities?

<snickers>

 

[jhu]

Neither news nor politics. Should be in OT. Someone please move it.

 

[drebo]

So terrorism should be treated like regular old murders, and handled by local authorities?

Whatever the local jurisdiction is, yes.

Also, "terrorism" is nothing more than the assemblage of various crimes. If the penalty for a crime is death, does it matter that you might classify that crime as "terrorism"?

 

[Rainsford]

Well, that's why Murder as a crime of passion is different than a completely premeditated murder.

Perhaps I chose my words poorly. A deep seated predjudice can exist for nearly anything. That the predjudice was related to the color of a person's skin should not matter. If a murder was planned, start to finish, it should be the same, regardless of the races/genders/whatevers involved.

I suppose the obvious question is WHY shouldn't that prejudice matter? You, and most people arguing against hate-crime laws, seem to accept that degree of planning should make murder a worse charge, and an absence of motive or planning at all should be less than an intentional killing, so why shouldn't prejudice against skin color, gender, etc, make a difference?

Obviously I think it should. Premeditation or intent at all are worse than accidentally killing someone from a societal point of view, even thought a person is dead either way, because it changes the amount of impact the death has. A hate crime can be worse still, since unlike other types of killing, a hate crime targets not an individual, but an often large group. It's a violent action against a large number of people, even if only one of them dies. I suppose because the limiting factor could be that the killer simply didn't have access to more people. And beyond that, I would argue that there is practical value in having laws that discourages group based violence more strongly than individual violence.

Hate-crime laws can go too far, and assume that ALL violence against a protected group is a hate-crime. But used properly, they're a valuable tool.