Finally, you're more than free to be a bigot. You're just not allowed to impact someone else's life based on those attitudes. I've yet to hear an argument against hate crimes legislation that would not eviscerate one of the major elements of our whole judicial system.
Hate crimes legislation is one of our more absurd creations. It is somehow worse if I assault someone of a different race, because I hate them than it is if I assault someone of my own race who I merely 'dislike'?
Law does not necessarily take into account your own actions as if you acted in a bubble. It also takes into account the repercussions of your actions on a wider scale. Beating up somebody because he's black has much more far-reaching social effects than beating up somebody to take his wallet.
Edit: and if you want to talk about hate crimes, I suggest we start a new thread. I suspect this could lead to a derail.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Law does not necessarily take into account your own actions as if you acted in a bubble. It also takes into account the repercussions of your actions on a wider scale. Beating up somebody because he's black has much more far-reaching social effects than beating up somebody to take his wallet.
More far reaching social effects how? Someone gets beat up in both instances. The result is the same. The difference is that one was perpetrated by a bigot, and the other by someone who is simply greedy. Now we are putting a qualifier on motivation, and claiming a crime is worse based on that.
Also, the idea that physical abuse based on racism has any 'positive' effect for a racist agenda is bogus. What turned most of White America against segregation and Southern tyranny was not a logical argument against the system, but wide-spread publication of pictures and accounts of Southern lynchings and abuses perpetrated against (very often) blacks who were innocent of any crime. So I would agree that a crime motivated by racism does have wider scale social implications. Such a crime is far more likely to turn bystanders away from racism than just about any logical argument I could ever present.
Ignoring all of that why do we devalue the victim of a 'greed' attack simply, because he was attacked by someone of his own race or a non-racist?
The fact of the matter is that the entire concept of the Hate crime was thought up by politicians so that they could appear to be doing something on the Civil Rights front. The Hate crime neither intimidiates those racists who are willing to engage in them nor does it discourage others from becoming racists. A Hate crime does little other than to give politicians talking points and campaign adds.
Edit: and if you want to talk about hate crimes, I suggest we start a new thread. I suspect this could lead to a derail.
Hmm. That's possible. We'll see how it goes. If it expands we could do that.
What do you think the difference between manslaughter and murder is?
Intent not motivation. Manslaughter is when someone dies due to negligence or incompetence. The convict in a Manslaughter case did not mean to kill someone. The convict in a Murder case did mean to kill somone. The convict in a Hate crime case might have meant to beat somone up, because of racism. The convict in an armed robbery case might have meant to beat someone up, because of greed.
In the Hate crime and the robbery example both perpetraitors intended to beat some up. The only difference is their motivation. In the Manslaughter and the Murder example only the Murderer intended to do someone harm. The Mansluaghter convict was either foolish, ngeligent, or some other such thing. The Manslaughterer (is that a word?) did not set out to hurt anyone.
What do you think the difference between manslaughter and murder is?
Intent not motivation.
So don't you think that somebody who commits a hate crime does so because he intends to send a message to an entire community of people reinforcing that they're subhuman and unwanted?
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
What do you think the difference between manslaughter and murder is?
Intent not motivation.
So don't you think that somebody who commits a hate crime does so because he intends to send a message to an entire community of people reinforcing that they're subhuman and unwanted?
I think most people who commit hate crimes do so because they hate--unthinkingly. For every cold calculating hater there are probably a thousand who just hate because they want to be part of the whole hating crowd. This is an optimistic view. They might all be intractable haters but I hope not.
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
What do you think the difference between manslaughter and murder is?
Intent not motivation.
So don't you think that somebody who commits a hate crime does so because he intends to send a message to an entire community of people reinforcing that they're subhuman and unwanted?
That's speech tied up in assault/murder. If you feel it meets the definition of terrorism, which it probably does, call it that instead.
I think they're moral issues but I do acknowledge that basic civil liberty isues are different altogether from crap like "jesus hates condoms"
No, they're not. They are no different. They just have a longer history and more consensus support.
I don't know about that. Anti-condom sentiments and civil liberties are both certainly answers to moral questions. But I agree with MrMister. One of them almost certainly gets the question wrong, and one of them is almost certain to be correct:
If what you all really want to do here is discuss whether the government should legislate Christian morality and enact vice laws, then you should just say so. Because as has been pointed out innumerably, the question of what the law should be is itself a moral question, and can't be answered outside of a moral framework.
In that case, I think that no, the government shouldn't enact Christian morality. Because Christian morality is wrong, whereas secular morality is right. The government should enact secular morality.
The question is generally not "morality or not;" it's "my morality [which I'll call reason], or someone else's morality [which I'll call legislating morality]."
A woman's right to choose and fetus's right to life are both moral issues. They both can be argued rationally, but they aren't really held as rational options by the majority of either side, they are held as morality.
Protecting "rights" is legislating morality. That's what a "right" is - that which is morally right.
I don't think i've ever heard the idea of "legislating morality" as anything except a rather feeble attempt at finding another way to say "we're right and they're wrong."
I'm reading The Fourth Bear. It's quite darkly amusing.
A proper government exists to serve the people, not to tell them what to believe. Legislating morality, and by that I mean writing laws based on a set of arbitrary axioms instead of some sort of consistent logic...
Is morality just a set of arbitrary axioms? No. No it's not.
No shit? Are you sure? Wow. Could that maybe be why I clarified what exactly I meant by use of the code-word "legislating morality" before continuing? No way, I couldn't possibly have thought of that...
I think that to some extent we are confusing "what is moral for a government to do" and "what is moral for a person to do and therefore the government makes them do it."
What do you think the difference between manslaughter and murder is?
Intent not motivation. Manslaughter is when someone dies due to negligence or incompetence. The convict in a Manslaughter case did not mean to kill someone. The convict in a Murder case did mean to kill somone. The convict in a Hate crime case might have meant to beat somone up, because of racism. The convict in an armed robbery case might have meant to beat someone up, because of greed.
In the Hate crime and the robbery example both perpetraitors intended to beat some up. The only difference is their motivation. In the Manslaughter and the Murder example only the Murderer intended to do someone harm. The Mansluaghter convict was either foolish, ngeligent, or some other such thing. The Manslaughterer (is that a word?) did not set out to hurt anyone.
So I don't see them as comparable.
So, what's the difference between murder 2 and murder 1?
What do you think the difference between manslaughter and murder is?
Intent not motivation. Manslaughter is when someone dies due to negligence or incompetence. The convict in a Manslaughter case did not mean to kill someone. The convict in a Murder case did mean to kill somone. The convict in a Hate crime case might have meant to beat somone up, because of racism. The convict in an armed robbery case might have meant to beat someone up, because of greed.
In the Hate crime and the robbery example both perpetraitors intended to beat some up. The only difference is their motivation. In the Manslaughter and the Murder example only the Murderer intended to do someone harm. The Mansluaghter convict was either foolish, ngeligent, or some other such thing. The Manslaughterer (is that a word?) did not set out to hurt anyone.
So I don't see them as comparable.
So, what's the difference between murder 2 and murder 1?
Murder in the first degree is pre-meditated. That is, you intended to kill the person and took actions to effect it.
Murder in the second degree is unintentional. If you punched a guy in a bar fight and it happened to kill him, this is what you'd be charged with. You didn't intend to kill him, but you did do something which precipitated his death.
I think that to some extent we are confusing "what is moral for a government to do" and "what is moral for a person to do and therefore the government makes them do it."
Yes, exactly.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
What do you think the difference between manslaughter and murder is?
Intent not motivation. Manslaughter is when someone dies due to negligence or incompetence. The convict in a Manslaughter case did not mean to kill someone. The convict in a Murder case did mean to kill somone. The convict in a Hate crime case might have meant to beat somone up, because of racism. The convict in an armed robbery case might have meant to beat someone up, because of greed.
In the Hate crime and the robbery example both perpetraitors intended to beat some up. The only difference is their motivation. In the Manslaughter and the Murder example only the Murderer intended to do someone harm. The Mansluaghter convict was either foolish, ngeligent, or some other such thing. The Manslaughterer (is that a word?) did not set out to hurt anyone.
So I don't see them as comparable.
So, what's the difference between murder 2 and murder 1?
Murder in the first degree is pre-meditated. That is, you intended to kill the person and took actions to effect it.
Murder in the second degree is unintentional. If you punched a guy in a bar fight and it happened to kill him, this is what you'd be charged with. You didn't intend to kill him, but you did do something which precipitated his death.
And that is why you'll never be able to make an argument against hate crimes that doesn't invalidate one of the most importan legal concepts - mens rea.
What do you think the difference between manslaughter and murder is?
Intent not motivation. Manslaughter is when someone dies due to negligence or incompetence. The convict in a Manslaughter case did not mean to kill someone. The convict in a Murder case did mean to kill somone. The convict in a Hate crime case might have meant to beat somone up, because of racism. The convict in an armed robbery case might have meant to beat someone up, because of greed.
In the Hate crime and the robbery example both perpetraitors intended to beat some up. The only difference is their motivation. In the Manslaughter and the Murder example only the Murderer intended to do someone harm. The Mansluaghter convict was either foolish, ngeligent, or some other such thing. The Manslaughterer (is that a word?) did not set out to hurt anyone.
So I don't see them as comparable.
So, what's the difference between murder 2 and murder 1?
Murder in the first degree is pre-meditated. That is, you intended to kill the person and took actions to effect it.
Murder in the second degree is unintentional. If you punched a guy in a bar fight and it happened to kill him, this is what you'd be charged with. You didn't intend to kill him, but you did do something which precipitated his death.
We punish hate crimes worse than regular crimes for the same reason we consider terrorism worse than simple mass murder. What makes a hate crime a hate crime is the goal of intimidating a larger group of people, as opposed to just killing a dude.
And, contrary to what you seem to think, not every white person who kills a black person is charged with a hate crime.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
We punish hate crimes worse than regular crimes for the same reason we consider terrorism worse than simple mass murder. What makes a hate crime a hate crime is the goal of intimidating a larger group of people, as opposed to just killing a dude.
And, contrary to what you seem to think, not every white person who kills a black person is charged with a hate crime.
If nazzis or whatever are organized, as a group, and oppressing the shit out of minorities left and right, couldn't that activity be tried under organized crime law w/o regard to race?
What do you think the difference between manslaughter and murder is?
Intent not motivation. Manslaughter is when someone dies due to negligence or incompetence. The convict in a Manslaughter case did not mean to kill someone. The convict in a Murder case did mean to kill somone. The convict in a Hate crime case might have meant to beat somone up, because of racism. The convict in an armed robbery case might have meant to beat someone up, because of greed.
In the Hate crime and the robbery example both perpetraitors intended to beat some up. The only difference is their motivation. In the Manslaughter and the Murder example only the Murderer intended to do someone harm. The Mansluaghter convict was either foolish, ngeligent, or some other such thing. The Manslaughterer (is that a word?) did not set out to hurt anyone.
So I don't see them as comparable.
So, what's the difference between murder 2 and murder 1?
Murder in the first degree is pre-meditated. That is, you intended to kill the person and took actions to effect it.
Murder in the second degree is unintentional. If you punched a guy in a bar fight and it happened to kill him, this is what you'd be charged with. You didn't intend to kill him, but you did do something which precipitated his death.
I thought that was manslaughter.
manslaughter would be more like. . . letting an eldar die not through intentional neglect but because you are too dumb to read the labels on his medicine, or backing over a child in your car. Manslaughter is an avoidable accident. Second and third degree murders are still intentional, but without planning or tertiary criminal involvment. Walking in on your wife with another guy and strangling them both on the spot is second degree, shooting them a week later with a deer rifle is first degree.
edit: I'm leaving the typo. Letting an eldar die would be bad. They are not a numerous race.
We punish hate crimes worse than regular crimes for the same reason we consider terrorism worse than simple mass murder. What makes a hate crime a hate crime is the goal of intimidating a larger group of people, as opposed to just killing a dude.
And, contrary to what you seem to think, not every white person who kills a black person is charged with a hate crime.
If nazzis or whatever are organized, as a group, and oppressing the shit out of minorities left and right, couldn't that activity be tried under organized crime law w/o regard to race?
Probably, but (and I'd have to go read the statutes) I don't think that hate crimes stipulate organization. If I kill a black dude because I want to discourage blacks from moving into my neighborhood, that's still a hate crime.
Hate crimes aren't really a race-oriented thing; pragmatism has just led to statutes being written based on that, because we divide ourselves socially along racial lines. Witness recent legislation attempting to extend hate crimes protection to gays and lesbians, for example.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
edited August 2007
hate crimes aren't ABOUT race, they just coincidentally fall on race/status lines?
If there's no plausibility to the person's hate, no secondary effect, there's no point in prosecuting them for a "hate crime"
I mean, you killed a black dude. You're going to jail for murder, possibly getting killed by the state.
Does your motive come into it? Are you a worse murderer for believing black people need to stay on their side of town then you would be for believing all women are whores or that sinners need to be purged, or that the Voice of the Traveler within your brain will only be silenced by the souls of young male prostitutes?
Not intrinsically. Every homicide classified as murder has already been defined as an irational act, the motive invalidated by the definition of the crime.
If there's a pattern of willful racism or intimidation, then we have existing structures to deal with it.
If there's not, then it's just the reason for the murder. No racist is going to say "hay that hate crime law makes me reconsider my attitude" and no murderer is going to go "well, I killed a guy but they hit me with that hate crime law so I feel extra bad"
I do see a place for hate crime legislation, and it's in the lending of a serious offense to otherwise innocuous crimes that are part of a pattern of intimidation.
A cross burning is not "vandalism," "unlicensed burning" or "solicitation of religion in contravention of trespass sinage" for example.
I do see a place for hate crime legislation, and it's in the lending of a serious offense to otherwise innocuous crimes that are part of a pattern of intimidation.
A cross burning is not "vandalism," "unlicensed burning" or "solicitation of religion in contravention of trespass sinage" for example.
You're considering the motive here, but not for higher crimes. Why?
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
edited August 2007
Because there's no pretext to legislate the crime properly otherwise.
A cross burning as vandalism is a miscarriage of justice. Murder tried and prosecuted as murder is not. And mindset and motive are a major part of the highly discretionary sentencing for murder already.
So, you want to vacate consistency because... murderers are going to jail for a long enough time anyway?
Also, since what's going on in the criminal's head is under discussion anyway, I don't have a problem with the consequences of that being codified in statute as often as possible,
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I hate to interrupt the big hate-crime debate, but something came up in the news today that's relevant to the topic we're supposed to be discussing, so I thought I'd share:
JOHN Howard is going to spend $189 million on "cleaning up the internet" for Australian families, blocking pornography, upgrading the search for chat-room sex predators and cutting off terror sites.
Every Australian family will be provided with a free internet filter and the federal Government will enter an unprecedented partnership with service providers to filter pornography at the source.
Communications and Australian Federal Police resources will be boosted immediately to expand checks on internet chat rooms to detect child predators, and privacy laws masking sex offenders on the net will be altered.
The Prime Minister unveiled his new net commandments last night on a webcast to more than 700 churches and thousands of churchgoers around the country.
There it is: a concrete example of what (I think) the OP was trying to address. So! Is this an issue on which the government should legislate? Is it the state's duty to ensure its citizens aren't "accidentally" exposed to pornography, or is it the responsibility of the individual? I've got my own views, but I'd be interested to see what everyone else thinks before I post them.
If I have the option to sign up to an option on a family PC, so that my children have another control if they manage to get onto the computer without supervision. Thats fine, and a nice OPTIONAL feature.
Blocking porn at the ISP? I think thats not something they should do unless its exploitative child porn.
EDIT:
Blocking "terror" sites could be problematic, again - depending on ther criteria used. Its just a matter of time before we hear some blogger complaining that their harmless blog got shut down.
The people implementing the Howard thing don't know what they're talking about - I heard a couple of interviews on the radio, and they're really shaky in their language. While I would support initiatives to aid parents in dealing with new technology, I'm pretty sure this is mostly going to result in a huge waste of $190 million dollars.
As was already mentioned upthread, yes, intent and state of mind enter into the severity of the crime and how we deal with it.
Correct, but I disagree with how you are interpreting that. If a criminal sets out with the intent to kill someone they have that intent regardless of whether their motivation is racist or 'other'. Their intent and the potential outcome of their action is the same no matter why they were motivated. Perhaps they committed their crime in an attempt to keep Latinos from moving into their neighgborhood or perhaps they simply despised the individual in question. The motive, in this case, is irrelevant since their intent and outcome are identical.
The scenarios involving Manslaughter, Murder 1, and Murder 2 are different. In those instances the outcome is the same, but the intent and motivation are not. In a Manslaughter case the convicted had no intention of hurting anyone, and did so only through negligence or his own stupidity. The Manslaughter convict was not motivated by anything to do the victim harm.
Murder 1 and Murder 2 share the same similarity. They have the same outcome as Manslaughter (i.e. death), but far different motives and intent. Murder 2 is a situation we call "heat of the moment". Someone enters into a situation where they do not intend to kill someone or have not planned to kill someone, but in the end actually do kill someone. We differentiate this from Murder 1, because in Murder 1 the guilty part enters the situation with the intent and motivation to bring about the eventual outcome.
A Hate crime is the only instance, of which I am aware, that the government uses only motivation to determine the severity of the crime. In virtually all other laws motivation is irrelevant, but in Hate crimes it suddenly matters. Why? If I rob a bank to get money to help my sick child I am just as guilty of armed robbery as if I stole the money to buy coke. If I kill someone because I like to eat people I am just as guilty as if I did it because they were sleeping with my wife. The law makes no distinction between motivations for crime except in the case of Hate crimes.
Thus far I have seen nothing to actually justify Hate crime legislation other than politicians looking for a 'civil rights feather' to put in their cap.
Its just finding that magical line between protection and censorship.
We have some neighbours that have just got themselves set up with a PC, broadband etc. They have some kids around 8-10 years old that are mad for it. What surprises me is the parents complete lack of effort in getting involved with their child surfing habits. They are complete technophobes and will spout on at me about the latest fear-mongering article in UK TV about internet security - yet when I suggest talking to their kids about whats cool and whats not and learning about what that "messenger thing" is - they look at me like I just suggested they become astronaughts.
My fear is that Aussie will head down the same "Nanny-State" route that I found the UK to be in. Where parents want their government to look after their kids.
A Hate crime is the only instance, of which I am aware, that the government uses only motivation to determine the severity of the crime. In virtually all other laws motivation is irrelevant, but in Hate crimes it suddenly matters. Why? If I rob a bank to get money to help my sick child I am just as guilty of armed robbery as if I stole the money to buy coke. If I kill someone because I like to eat people I am just as guilty as if I did it because they were sleeping with my wife. The law makes no distinction between motivations for crime except in the case of Hate crimes.
Thus far I have seen nothing to actually justify Hate crime legislation other than politicians looking for a 'civil rights feather' to put in their cap.
I agree with your reasoning, but I also think that intent should be punished equally with outcome. That is, trying but failing to murder someone is just as bad as actually murdering them, and should be punished the same. In the same vein I also support hate crimes laws because hate crimes are worse that ordinary crimes of the same type.
...And re: politicians, the justification should be that a successful hate crimes conviction involves proving that the offender(s) committed the crime with the intent to intimidate an entire community. Breaking into someone's house is scary enough, but breaking into their house and scrawling "[insert minority here] get out of our town" is intentional terrorizing.
Zalbinion on
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
So, you want to vacate consistency because... murderers are going to jail for a long enough time anyway?
Also, since what's going on in the criminal's head is under discussion anyway, I don't have a problem with the consequences of that being codified in statute as often as possible,
The point is, the minor acts of vandalism shouldn't be prosecuted as such in those cases, or shouldn't be prosecuted only as such. They should be used as evidence that a pattern of intimidation exists so that the more severe crime of community intimidation can be prosecuted.
The vandalism (or the murder) could be tried as well, if you really wanted to throw the book at them.
Rather then skewing sentencing, based on what we try to establish as being in their heads, use their actions to establish a real pattern.
Then you can treat the pattern and actions as seperate crimes.
So, you want to vacate consistency because... murderers are going to jail for a long enough time anyway?
Also, since what's going on in the criminal's head is under discussion anyway, I don't have a problem with the consequences of that being codified in statute as often as possible,
The point is, the minor acts of vandalism shouldn't be prosecuted as such in those cases, or shouldn't be prosecuted only as such. They should be used as evidence that a pattern of intimidation exists so that the more severe crime of community intimidation can be prosecuted.
The vandalism (or the murder) could be tried as well, if you really wanted to throw the book at them.
Rather then skewing sentencing, based on what we try to establish as being in their heads, use their actions to establish a real pattern.
Then you can treat the pattern and actions as seperate crimes.
Then you get into the issue of having a 'pattern' be a crime, instead of actual actions. Someone could carry out a number of seperately legal actions, and suddenly become a criminal when a threshold is passed, which doesn't make any sense to me.
jothki on
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
So, you want to vacate consistency because... murderers are going to jail for a long enough time anyway?
Also, since what's going on in the criminal's head is under discussion anyway, I don't have a problem with the consequences of that being codified in statute as often as possible,
The point is, the minor acts of vandalism shouldn't be prosecuted as such in those cases, or shouldn't be prosecuted only as such. They should be used as evidence that a pattern of intimidation exists so that the more severe crime of community intimidation can be prosecuted.
The vandalism (or the murder) could be tried as well, if you really wanted to throw the book at them.
Rather then skewing sentencing, based on what we try to establish as being in their heads, use their actions to establish a real pattern.
Then you can treat the pattern and actions as seperate crimes.
Then you get into the issue of having a 'pattern' be a crime, instead of actual actions. Someone could carry out a number of seperately legal actions, and suddenly become a criminal when a threshold is passed, which doesn't make any sense to me.
The line of legality is pretty much the line between speech and intimidation. Not that intimidating all the black people out of your community without breaking the letter of ANY law is a nice thing to do or anything.
Its just finding that magical line between protection and censorship.
We have some neighbours that have just got themselves set up with a PC, broadband etc. They have some kids around 8-10 years old that are mad for it. What surprises me is the parents complete lack of effort in getting involved with their child surfing habits. They are complete technophobes and will spout on at me about the latest fear-mongering article in UK TV about internet security - yet when I suggest talking to their kids about whats cool and whats not and learning about what that "messenger thing" is - they look at me like I just suggested they become astronaughts.
You're exactly right - the entire point of this initiative is to save parents from taking responsibility for the technology used by their children. John Howard is spending $190 million to achieve what most people could do with a $40 content-filter and an hour spent on Google. All so he can secure the "family values" vote.
Just for this, I hope somebody defaces his website with hardcore scat porn. Nothing would make me happier than to see the words "The Hon. John Howard" above a picture of a dude pooping on someone's face. It'd be the perfect summary of his entire tenure as prime minister.
Which is exactly what I said: the majority determines what is and is not a civil right. If the majority of Americans had been against Freedom of the Press then it would never have been a part of the Bill of Rights. The majority determines what a human right is in society. Simply because those rights have been formulated in a standardized way and enforced sometimes against popular whims does not change the fact that those rights were and are still supported by a majority. Any law or standard in which a majority of people come to disagree will be rendered null and void through legal circumvention or by simply ignoring the previously considered 'right'.
Except, again, that the majority has already consented to put in place a system of law which prevents it from taking someone's rights away by a simple majority vote. The threshold for taking away the rights guaranteed to us under the constitution has been set very very high precisely to inhibit the majority from using the raw power of its numbers to do it. Persecuted minorities have on their side the bill of rights and the power of the judiciary, and those institutions have been given great preservative power as a balance against the fleeting passions that can take hold of the people. We - purposely, and consciously - place artificial limits on the strength of the majority's numbers because simple majority rule is not sufficient to secure our rights.
The post 1865 South is a perfect example of this principle. According to the Constitution the freed slaves of the former Confederacy should have been citizens equal to Southern whites. As well all know, of course, this was not the case. That is because a majority of American citizens, at the period, were white and were racist. Even though many Northern Whites did not agree with slavery they did not think that Blacks were equal to Whites. Thus the Northerners were not willing to do anything when the South instituted racist practices. All of this in spite of laws on the books that should have precluded such action by Southern legislatutes.
It is important to note that the American Civil Rights Movement did not gain real steam until after the Second World War and during the monumental prosperity of the 1950s. Also the Civil Rights Movement could not have been successful had not a majority of the American people during the time felt that the continued segregation in the South was both wrong and damaging to American international prestige. Thus when the Black minority in the United States was actually given rights in accordance with previously standing US law it was only because the majority of American citizens had come to view that as the 'right thing to do'.
It was because of the civil rights movement, and similar movements stretching back long before the civil war, that Americans gradually began to understand that segregation and racism were wrong in the firslt place. We can't wait for the majority to agree with us before we start demanding our civil rights, because at that point we won't need to demand them any more. Of course there was a virulent strain of racist resentments against blacks following the civil war, but that racism would have been encouraged and empowered had the federal government tolerated it (or tolerated it more) by failing to pass the 14th amendment.
For all its many faults, our legislative process really can act as the conscience of our society, simply by drawing out and rigorously examining it's own governmental philosophy in a way that average Americans are not required to do with their own attitudes. The whole reason we have a system of checks and balances is so that our policies will be subject to much higher level of scrutiny than a simple test of whether people want them or not.
There must be a body that the minority can go to for protection when the majority absolutely rejects their arguments for illogical reasons. For us, that body is the consitution and our judicial process.
Ineffective? The only reason such legislation was passed in the first place is, because such action did take place during the Civil Rigthts Movement and was effective. Politicians do not pass legislation, because they want to do the right thing. They pass it to reinforce popular public opinion/belief. If a majority of citizens had not been willing to work against discrimination in the public and private sectors then the laws would never have been passed.
The civil rights movement, from its origins, was not an action of the majority. In any such movement, a passionate minority brings its grievences before the society and demands redress. For that to take place in a satisfying way there has to be a forum within the government in which that discussion can take place, and which is empowered to hand the movement clear legislative victories or defeats based on how that discussion goes. Obviously the long-term goal is for the majority to accept the premise of the movement, but the legislation that was passed during the civil rights struggle served to amplify and expedite the course of that discussion.
It's not really acceptible to wait for the majority to get around to changing its mind, and one role of government is to facilitate that process and speed it along. The 14th amendment, the Civil Rights Act, and Brown. vs. Board helped to do that, even though many reacted against them at the time.
If there's no plausibility to the person's hate, no secondary effect, there's no point in prosecuting them for a "hate crime"
I mean, you killed a black dude. You're going to jail for murder, possibly getting killed by the state.
Does your motive come into it? Are you a worse murderer for believing black people need to stay on their side of town then you would be for believing all women are whores or that sinners need to be purged, or that the Voice of the Traveler within your brain will only be silenced by the souls of young male prostitutes?
Yeah, I think you are.
The whole idea behind hate crime legislation is that hate crimes do present us with a secondary effect. If you kill a man because he caught you trying to steal his TV, then you've killed one man. But if you kill a man because he's Jewish, then you've killed one man, and you've committed an act of terror against all Jews. The action you've taken amounts to a direct attack on the premise that we can exist as a pluralistic society, and that is a premise on which we desperately depend. That sounds very abstract, but it really isn't; If you look at violent crimes that were specifically motivated by this type of hate, and look at the community reaction, you start to realize why persecuting someone because of their race, religion or sexual orientation represents a particular danger to our culture as a whole. Given our history of racism and insititutionalized violence against minority groups, it's easy to see how killing a black guy because he's black kicks us in one of our most sensitive cultural spots, and deserves a special stigma.
If there's no plausibility to the person's hate, no secondary effect, there's no point in prosecuting them for a "hate crime"
I mean, you killed a black dude. You're going to jail for murder, possibly getting killed by the state.
Does your motive come into it? Are you a worse murderer for believing black people need to stay on their side of town then you would be for believing all women are whores or that sinners need to be purged, or that the Voice of the Traveler within your brain will only be silenced by the souls of young male prostitutes?
Yeah, I think you are.
The whole idea behind hate crime legislation is that hate crimes do present us with a secondary effect. If you kill a man because he caught you trying to steal his TV, then you've killed one man. But if you kill a man because he's Jewish, then you've killed one man, and you've committed an act of terror against all Jews. The action you've taken amounts to a direct attack on the premise that we can exist as a pluralistic society, and that is a premise on which we desperately depend. That sounds very abstract, but it really isn't; If you look at violent crimes that were specifically motivated by this type of hate, and look at the community reaction, you start to realize why persecuting someone because of their race, religion or sexual orientation represents a particular danger to our culture as a whole. Given our history of racism and insititutionalized violence against minority groups, it's easy to see how killing a black guy because he's black kicks us in one of our most sensitive cultural spots, and deserves a special stigma.
Hate crimes kick us in the social collective wibbly bits? That's an...interesting image.
That said, I think part of the problem is that people don't quite get mens rea. (And of course, IANAL.)
Mens rea, trans lated from Latin, means "state of mind". When used in a legal context, it refers to the state of mind of the perpetrator. We know of one application of the principal of mens rea - insanity. In an insanity plea, the defense is tasked with showing that the state of the defendant's mind was such that he or she did not know right from wrong. But it goes beyond that - for instance, premeditation falls under mens rea. How hate crime legislation works is that it adds hate to the types of mens rea in which the severity of the penalty may be increased, so that if a prosecutor can prove that some crime was motivated by hate, they can push for a harder penalty, much the same as they would if a crime was done for monetary or social gain as opposed to passion.
Also, it's hard to use murder as a good point of reference for hate crimes legislation, as murder pegs the punishment needle. In lesser crimes, like assault, the difference is clearer, since there's a wider range of punishment for assault.
Until you go and read up on mens rea, you don't get to talk about this anymore.
First off I can talk about whatever the fuck I want to talk about you cock-sucking fucktard. You, as a cock-sucking fucktard, have absolutely no ability to tell me what I will or will not talk about.
Well, talk about it and be taken seriously at any rate.
Mens rea! Mens rea! I don't care. Hate crimes are illogical, and do not help minorites AT ALL. You can scream Latin irrelevancies all day, but that doens't have anything to do with Hate crimes being stupid.
Until you go and read up on mens rea, you don't get to talk about this anymore.
First off I can talk about whatever the fuck I want to talk about you cock-sucking fucktard. You, as a cock-sucking fucktard, have absolutely no ability to tell me what I will or will not talk about.
Well, talk about it and be taken seriously at any rate.
Mens rea! Mens rea! I don't care. Hate crimes are illogical, and do not help minorites AT ALL. You can scream Latin irrelevancies all day, but that doens't have anything to do with Hate crimes being stupid.
Taking into account the perpetrator's state of mind, including their motivations for committing a crime, has been a fundamental aspect of law for almost as long as there has been law.
The fact that you consider mens rea a "Latin irrelevancy" is proof positive that you don't know what you're talking about.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Posts
Law does not necessarily take into account your own actions as if you acted in a bubble. It also takes into account the repercussions of your actions on a wider scale. Beating up somebody because he's black has much more far-reaching social effects than beating up somebody to take his wallet.
Edit: and if you want to talk about hate crimes, I suggest we start a new thread. I suspect this could lead to a derail.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
More far reaching social effects how? Someone gets beat up in both instances. The result is the same. The difference is that one was perpetrated by a bigot, and the other by someone who is simply greedy. Now we are putting a qualifier on motivation, and claiming a crime is worse based on that.
Also, the idea that physical abuse based on racism has any 'positive' effect for a racist agenda is bogus. What turned most of White America against segregation and Southern tyranny was not a logical argument against the system, but wide-spread publication of pictures and accounts of Southern lynchings and abuses perpetrated against (very often) blacks who were innocent of any crime. So I would agree that a crime motivated by racism does have wider scale social implications. Such a crime is far more likely to turn bystanders away from racism than just about any logical argument I could ever present.
Ignoring all of that why do we devalue the victim of a 'greed' attack simply, because he was attacked by someone of his own race or a non-racist?
The fact of the matter is that the entire concept of the Hate crime was thought up by politicians so that they could appear to be doing something on the Civil Rights front. The Hate crime neither intimidiates those racists who are willing to engage in them nor does it discourage others from becoming racists. A Hate crime does little other than to give politicians talking points and campaign adds.
Hmm. That's possible. We'll see how it goes. If it expands we could do that.
What do you think the difference between manslaughter and murder is?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Intent not motivation. Manslaughter is when someone dies due to negligence or incompetence. The convict in a Manslaughter case did not mean to kill someone. The convict in a Murder case did mean to kill somone. The convict in a Hate crime case might have meant to beat somone up, because of racism. The convict in an armed robbery case might have meant to beat someone up, because of greed.
In the Hate crime and the robbery example both perpetraitors intended to beat some up. The only difference is their motivation. In the Manslaughter and the Murder example only the Murderer intended to do someone harm. The Mansluaghter convict was either foolish, ngeligent, or some other such thing. The Manslaughterer (is that a word?) did not set out to hurt anyone.
So I don't see them as comparable.
So don't you think that somebody who commits a hate crime does so because he intends to send a message to an entire community of people reinforcing that they're subhuman and unwanted?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I think most people who commit hate crimes do so because they hate--unthinkingly. For every cold calculating hater there are probably a thousand who just hate because they want to be part of the whole hating crowd. This is an optimistic view. They might all be intractable haters but I hope not.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
That's speech tied up in assault/murder. If you feel it meets the definition of terrorism, which it probably does, call it that instead.
I don't know about that. Anti-condom sentiments and civil liberties are both certainly answers to moral questions. But I agree with MrMister. One of them almost certainly gets the question wrong, and one of them is almost certain to be correct:
A woman's right to choose and fetus's right to life are both moral issues. They both can be argued rationally, but they aren't really held as rational options by the majority of either side, they are held as morality.
Protecting "rights" is legislating morality. That's what a "right" is - that which is morally right.
I don't think i've ever heard the idea of "legislating morality" as anything except a rather feeble attempt at finding another way to say "we're right and they're wrong."
I'm reading The Fourth Bear. It's quite darkly amusing.
No shit? Are you sure? Wow. Could that maybe be why I clarified what exactly I meant by use of the code-word "legislating morality" before continuing? No way, I couldn't possibly have thought of that...
So, what's the difference between murder 2 and murder 1?
Murder in the second degree is unintentional. If you punched a guy in a bar fight and it happened to kill him, this is what you'd be charged with. You didn't intend to kill him, but you did do something which precipitated his death.
Yes, exactly.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
And that is why you'll never be able to make an argument against hate crimes that doesn't invalidate one of the most importan legal concepts - mens rea.
I thought that was manslaughter.
And, contrary to what you seem to think, not every white person who kills a black person is charged with a hate crime.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
If nazzis or whatever are organized, as a group, and oppressing the shit out of minorities left and right, couldn't that activity be tried under organized crime law w/o regard to race?
manslaughter would be more like. . . letting an eldar die not through intentional neglect but because you are too dumb to read the labels on his medicine, or backing over a child in your car. Manslaughter is an avoidable accident. Second and third degree murders are still intentional, but without planning or tertiary criminal involvment. Walking in on your wife with another guy and strangling them both on the spot is second degree, shooting them a week later with a deer rifle is first degree.
edit: I'm leaving the typo. Letting an eldar die would be bad. They are not a numerous race.
I host a podcast about movies.
Probably, but (and I'd have to go read the statutes) I don't think that hate crimes stipulate organization. If I kill a black dude because I want to discourage blacks from moving into my neighborhood, that's still a hate crime.
Hate crimes aren't really a race-oriented thing; pragmatism has just led to statutes being written based on that, because we divide ourselves socially along racial lines. Witness recent legislation attempting to extend hate crimes protection to gays and lesbians, for example.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
If there's no plausibility to the person's hate, no secondary effect, there's no point in prosecuting them for a "hate crime"
I mean, you killed a black dude. You're going to jail for murder, possibly getting killed by the state.
Does your motive come into it? Are you a worse murderer for believing black people need to stay on their side of town then you would be for believing all women are whores or that sinners need to be purged, or that the Voice of the Traveler within your brain will only be silenced by the souls of young male prostitutes?
Not intrinsically. Every homicide classified as murder has already been defined as an irational act, the motive invalidated by the definition of the crime.
If there's a pattern of willful racism or intimidation, then we have existing structures to deal with it.
If there's not, then it's just the reason for the murder. No racist is going to say "hay that hate crime law makes me reconsider my attitude" and no murderer is going to go "well, I killed a guy but they hit me with that hate crime law so I feel extra bad"
I do see a place for hate crime legislation, and it's in the lending of a serious offense to otherwise innocuous crimes that are part of a pattern of intimidation.
A cross burning is not "vandalism," "unlicensed burning" or "solicitation of religion in contravention of trespass sinage" for example.
I host a podcast about movies.
You're considering the motive here, but not for higher crimes. Why?
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
A cross burning as vandalism is a miscarriage of justice. Murder tried and prosecuted as murder is not. And mindset and motive are a major part of the highly discretionary sentencing for murder already.
I host a podcast about movies.
Also, since what's going on in the criminal's head is under discussion anyway, I don't have a problem with the consequences of that being codified in statute as often as possible,
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
There it is: a concrete example of what (I think) the OP was trying to address. So! Is this an issue on which the government should legislate? Is it the state's duty to ensure its citizens aren't "accidentally" exposed to pornography, or is it the responsibility of the individual? I've got my own views, but I'd be interested to see what everyone else thinks before I post them.
If I have the option to sign up to an option on a family PC, so that my children have another control if they manage to get onto the computer without supervision. Thats fine, and a nice OPTIONAL feature.
Blocking porn at the ISP? I think thats not something they should do unless its exploitative child porn.
EDIT:
Blocking "terror" sites could be problematic, again - depending on ther criteria used. Its just a matter of time before we hear some blogger complaining that their harmless blog got shut down.
Correct, but I disagree with how you are interpreting that. If a criminal sets out with the intent to kill someone they have that intent regardless of whether their motivation is racist or 'other'. Their intent and the potential outcome of their action is the same no matter why they were motivated. Perhaps they committed their crime in an attempt to keep Latinos from moving into their neighgborhood or perhaps they simply despised the individual in question. The motive, in this case, is irrelevant since their intent and outcome are identical.
The scenarios involving Manslaughter, Murder 1, and Murder 2 are different. In those instances the outcome is the same, but the intent and motivation are not. In a Manslaughter case the convicted had no intention of hurting anyone, and did so only through negligence or his own stupidity. The Manslaughter convict was not motivated by anything to do the victim harm.
Murder 1 and Murder 2 share the same similarity. They have the same outcome as Manslaughter (i.e. death), but far different motives and intent. Murder 2 is a situation we call "heat of the moment". Someone enters into a situation where they do not intend to kill someone or have not planned to kill someone, but in the end actually do kill someone. We differentiate this from Murder 1, because in Murder 1 the guilty part enters the situation with the intent and motivation to bring about the eventual outcome.
A Hate crime is the only instance, of which I am aware, that the government uses only motivation to determine the severity of the crime. In virtually all other laws motivation is irrelevant, but in Hate crimes it suddenly matters. Why? If I rob a bank to get money to help my sick child I am just as guilty of armed robbery as if I stole the money to buy coke. If I kill someone because I like to eat people I am just as guilty as if I did it because they were sleeping with my wife. The law makes no distinction between motivations for crime except in the case of Hate crimes.
Thus far I have seen nothing to actually justify Hate crime legislation other than politicians looking for a 'civil rights feather' to put in their cap.
We have some neighbours that have just got themselves set up with a PC, broadband etc. They have some kids around 8-10 years old that are mad for it. What surprises me is the parents complete lack of effort in getting involved with their child surfing habits. They are complete technophobes and will spout on at me about the latest fear-mongering article in UK TV about internet security - yet when I suggest talking to their kids about whats cool and whats not and learning about what that "messenger thing" is - they look at me like I just suggested they become astronaughts.
My fear is that Aussie will head down the same "Nanny-State" route that I found the UK to be in. Where parents want their government to look after their kids.
/rant.
This is one of my pet peeves.
I agree with your reasoning, but I also think that intent should be punished equally with outcome. That is, trying but failing to murder someone is just as bad as actually murdering them, and should be punished the same. In the same vein I also support hate crimes laws because hate crimes are worse that ordinary crimes of the same type.
...And re: politicians, the justification should be that a successful hate crimes conviction involves proving that the offender(s) committed the crime with the intent to intimidate an entire community. Breaking into someone's house is scary enough, but breaking into their house and scrawling "[insert minority here] get out of our town" is intentional terrorizing.
The point is, the minor acts of vandalism shouldn't be prosecuted as such in those cases, or shouldn't be prosecuted only as such. They should be used as evidence that a pattern of intimidation exists so that the more severe crime of community intimidation can be prosecuted.
The vandalism (or the murder) could be tried as well, if you really wanted to throw the book at them.
Rather then skewing sentencing, based on what we try to establish as being in their heads, use their actions to establish a real pattern.
Then you can treat the pattern and actions as seperate crimes.
I host a podcast about movies.
Then you get into the issue of having a 'pattern' be a crime, instead of actual actions. Someone could carry out a number of seperately legal actions, and suddenly become a criminal when a threshold is passed, which doesn't make any sense to me.
The line of legality is pretty much the line between speech and intimidation. Not that intimidating all the black people out of your community without breaking the letter of ANY law is a nice thing to do or anything.
I host a podcast about movies.
You're exactly right - the entire point of this initiative is to save parents from taking responsibility for the technology used by their children. John Howard is spending $190 million to achieve what most people could do with a $40 content-filter and an hour spent on Google. All so he can secure the "family values" vote.
Just for this, I hope somebody defaces his website with hardcore scat porn. Nothing would make me happier than to see the words "The Hon. John Howard" above a picture of a dude pooping on someone's face. It'd be the perfect summary of his entire tenure as prime minister.
For all its many faults, our legislative process really can act as the conscience of our society, simply by drawing out and rigorously examining it's own governmental philosophy in a way that average Americans are not required to do with their own attitudes. The whole reason we have a system of checks and balances is so that our policies will be subject to much higher level of scrutiny than a simple test of whether people want them or not.
There must be a body that the minority can go to for protection when the majority absolutely rejects their arguments for illogical reasons. For us, that body is the consitution and our judicial process.
The civil rights movement, from its origins, was not an action of the majority. In any such movement, a passionate minority brings its grievences before the society and demands redress. For that to take place in a satisfying way there has to be a forum within the government in which that discussion can take place, and which is empowered to hand the movement clear legislative victories or defeats based on how that discussion goes. Obviously the long-term goal is for the majority to accept the premise of the movement, but the legislation that was passed during the civil rights struggle served to amplify and expedite the course of that discussion.
It's not really acceptible to wait for the majority to get around to changing its mind, and one role of government is to facilitate that process and speed it along. The 14th amendment, the Civil Rights Act, and Brown. vs. Board helped to do that, even though many reacted against them at the time.
Until you go and read up on mens rea, you don't get to talk about this anymore. Well, talk about it and be taken seriously at any rate.
The whole idea behind hate crime legislation is that hate crimes do present us with a secondary effect. If you kill a man because he caught you trying to steal his TV, then you've killed one man. But if you kill a man because he's Jewish, then you've killed one man, and you've committed an act of terror against all Jews. The action you've taken amounts to a direct attack on the premise that we can exist as a pluralistic society, and that is a premise on which we desperately depend. That sounds very abstract, but it really isn't; If you look at violent crimes that were specifically motivated by this type of hate, and look at the community reaction, you start to realize why persecuting someone because of their race, religion or sexual orientation represents a particular danger to our culture as a whole. Given our history of racism and insititutionalized violence against minority groups, it's easy to see how killing a black guy because he's black kicks us in one of our most sensitive cultural spots, and deserves a special stigma.
Hate crimes kick us in the social collective wibbly bits? That's an...interesting image.
That said, I think part of the problem is that people don't quite get mens rea. (And of course, IANAL.)
Mens rea, trans lated from Latin, means "state of mind". When used in a legal context, it refers to the state of mind of the perpetrator. We know of one application of the principal of mens rea - insanity. In an insanity plea, the defense is tasked with showing that the state of the defendant's mind was such that he or she did not know right from wrong. But it goes beyond that - for instance, premeditation falls under mens rea. How hate crime legislation works is that it adds hate to the types of mens rea in which the severity of the penalty may be increased, so that if a prosecutor can prove that some crime was motivated by hate, they can push for a harder penalty, much the same as they would if a crime was done for monetary or social gain as opposed to passion.
Also, it's hard to use murder as a good point of reference for hate crimes legislation, as murder pegs the punishment needle. In lesser crimes, like assault, the difference is clearer, since there's a wider range of punishment for assault.
First off I can talk about whatever the fuck I want to talk about you cock-sucking fucktard. You, as a cock-sucking fucktard, have absolutely no ability to tell me what I will or will not talk about.
Mens rea! Mens rea! I don't care. Hate crimes are illogical, and do not help minorites AT ALL. You can scream Latin irrelevancies all day, but that doens't have anything to do with Hate crimes being stupid.
Taking into account the perpetrator's state of mind, including their motivations for committing a crime, has been a fundamental aspect of law for almost as long as there has been law.
The fact that you consider mens rea a "Latin irrelevancy" is proof positive that you don't know what you're talking about.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.