Hate Crime

[beanieboy]

But premeditated murder isn't hate crime. Or am I just lost?

But premeditated murder, vs. nonpremeditated murder, is based on thought.

Hate crime is based on targeting one person from a group in order to create terror within that community.

 

[Caledvwlch]

It does have something to do with hate crimes. I just can't see why we don't consider all crimes to be "hateful". Why would you want to commit crimes against your loved ones?

If all crimes were considered "hateful" I suppose there would be no need for this discussion at all.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Joe runs over his wife because he hates her.
He says, "I didn't see her."

From a court perspective, are they going to try to prove that it was an accident or murder based on the act (running her over with a car) or the intention (what he was thinking when he committed the act)?

The act (running her over) is identical for both accident and murder.

Don't forget, they will look for motive too. Uing various forensic methods they can also test the circumstances of the "accident" to see if his story stands on solid ground.

Was there a motive? Would he have any moentary gain? If so how much? Did he have a girlfriend that he was trying to move in? Was she cheating on him?
See you have more circumstances and evidence to look at than you mention.

 

[beanieboy]

Why don't we call all acts of violence "terrorism"?
A guy who shoots his wife is "terrorism" because it causes fear in the community and the victim, right?
Most people would be terrorized if a gun was put to their head.

But we don't. Because terrorism is an act of violence meant to create fear among people, such as a car bomb set off by rebels.

 

[beanieboy]

Don't forget, they will look for motive too. Uing various forensic methods they can also test the circumstances of the "accident" to see if his story stands on solid ground.

Was there a motive? Would he have any moentary gain? If so how much? Did he have a girlfriend that he was trying to move in? Was she cheating on him?
See you have more circumstances and evidence to look at than you mention.

But motive is a thought.
It is not an action.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

But premeditated murder, vs. nonpremeditated murder, is based on thought.

Hate crime is based on targeting one person from a group in order to create terror within that community.

In some cases they are the same thing.

 

[Caledvwlch]

Personally, I think a murder off the cuff, so to speak, should carry the same penalty as that of a premeditated murder. When it's all over, someone is still dead. An ACCIDENT on the other hand, is totally different.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

But motive is a thought.
It is not an action.

You are trying to twist things beyond reality, quit it.

Test your theory in a court of law. Let us know what you find out from your observation or study.

Whether you believe it or not, motive isn't always equated to "thought".

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Personally, I think a murder off the cuff, so to speak, should carry the same penalty as that of a premeditated murder. When it's all over, someone is still dead. An ACCIDENT on the other hand, is totally different.

Yes, murder is different from an "accident".

 

[beanieboy]

Yeah, but then, if I wanted to murder you, I would just wait outside for you, then run you down, and say, "it was an accident." Is there a difference between an accident and murder? Yes. The thought of the person doing the action.

If you prove the motivation, it is my thoughts, not my actions, that damn me.

 

[beanieboy]

btw - I don't mean to be "retarded." I'm unclear where I stand.

I'm just trying to argue both sides, and see what I learn.
How one can prove "hate crime" is unclear to me, but I also think there is something wrong about committing a crime to be symbolic and create fear in others.

 

[Caledvwlch]

btw - I don't mean to be "retarded." I'm unclear where I stand.

I'm just trying to argue both sides, and see what I learn.
How one can prove "hate crime" is unclear to me, but I also think there is something wrong about committing a crime to be symbolic and create fear in others.

Tis a vague concept. Which is why I prefer to stay on the side of someones rights to think and feel whatever the heck they want, and only be punished for the crime committed.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Yeah, but then, if I wanted to murder you, I would just wait outside for you, then run you down, and say, "it was an accident." Is there a difference between an accident and murder? Yes. The thought of the person doing the action.

If you prove the motivation, it is my thoughts, not my actions, that damn me.

Maybe you should go and sit in a few murder trials because you are wrong. I've been there, done that.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

btw - I don't mean to be "retarded." I'm unclear where I stand.

I'm just trying to argue both sides, and see what I learn.
How one can prove "hate crime" is unclear to me, but I also think there is something wrong about committing a crime to be symbolic and create fear in others.

Crime creates a fear of the community around us. Using the death sentence as a form of punishment is meant to deter those commiting crimes where the death sentence can be used as a form of punishment.

 

[Servo]

Hate crimes. I thought that we couldn’t regulate morality....

 

[PureX]

Hate crimes. I thought that we couldn’t regulate morality....

We can't. We can only regulate behavior, and even then only if most folks agree to cooperate.

 

[PureX]

My beef with "hate" crimes, so called, is that they place a premium on a given group, for no reason other than some wacko minority bigots happen to really loathe them. Why, exactly, do we think it's a good idea to put some victims on a pedestal and dismiss others as just "typical" victims of "average" crime?

Bombing a synagogue or school is a heinous act regardless of who gets maimed or killed. Elevating one group of victims over another is irrational, inappropriate, and muddies the waters.

I think it's because violence based on irrational bigotry is violence against everyone. It's an attack on the very ideal of equality, freedom, and fairness. It's not that the victim group is "special", it's that we know they could have been any one of us.

 

[Servo]

We can't. We can only regulate behavior, and even then only if most folks agree to cooperate.

So you are for forcing people to behave a certain way?

 

[PureX]

Tis a vague concept. Which is why I prefer to stay on the side of someones rights to think and feel whatever the heck they want, and only be punished for the crime committed.

But the function of the law isn't primarily to "punish" anyone, it's to protect us from each other. That's why motives matter ... there is a different degree of danger to society from a habitually violent criminal and a first time violent offender. They are both dangerous, but the first time offender might still change his behavior, while the habitual offender is far less likely to change, and is therefor for more likely to be a future threat. The same is true of a "hate" criminal. And our system needs to take this into account, as the primary function of our laws is to protect us from each other.

 

[PureX]

So you are for forcing people to behave a certain way?

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything, at the moment. Why are you trying so hard to be antagonistic?