Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Killing Gays: Still Illegal [Hate Crimes]

2»

Posts

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Sentry wrote: »
    Oh Obama, hate crime legislation? Do you not watch South Park?

    If you beat someone up because you hate him, does the reason matter that much? You commited assault.

    Perhaps someone who takes their political cues from South Park isn't the best person to gauge whether or not something is a good piece of legislation?

    A simple assault has the effect of chilling a local community. A hate crime chills a much larger community and inspires others.

    So despite the action being the same the intent warrants a different punishment? If I kick the crap out of a white guy because he banged my sister its assault but if I do it to a black guy its a hate crime and I should be punished harder? Even if I didnt do it because he was black? No, hate crime sucks balls.

    Your scenario seems intentionally ridiculous. It's not like hate crime prosecutions are pursued willy-nilly. There is a certain level of evidence that needs to be reached to pursue hate crime prosecution. Shit, it's pretty likely that hate crimes are underreported because the statistics are voluntarily provided. Indianapolis has reported zero hate crimes for more than a few years, despite being a city of nearly 1 million people. I know the state of Indiana, and I find it hard as shit to believe that no hate crimes have happened in Indianapolis in a year.

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Sentry wrote: »
    Oh Obama, hate crime legislation? Do you not watch South Park?

    If you beat someone up because you hate him, does the reason matter that much? You commited assault.

    Perhaps someone who takes their political cues from South Park isn't the best person to gauge whether or not something is a good piece of legislation?

    A simple assault has the effect of chilling a local community. A hate crime chills a much larger community and inspires others.

    So despite the action being the same the intent warrants a different punishment? If I kick the crap out of a white guy because he banged my sister its assault but if I do it to a black guy its a hate crime and I should be punished harder? Even if I didn't do it because he was black? No, hate crime sucks balls.

    That's...not what hate crimes mean.

    Are you also disgusted at the existence of 'aggravated assault' when applied to someone showing indifference or willful disregard to human life?

    moniker on
  • Gabriel_PittGabriel_Pitt (effective against the Irish) Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Of course the underlying motivation matters.

    Gabriel_Pitt on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Oh Obama, hate crime legislation? Do you not watch South Park?

    If you beat someone up because you hate him, does the reason matter that much? You commited assault.

    I'm assuming this is snark. If you shoot someone dead, they are dead no matter what your intent or motivation. And yet we have distinctions for severity of that crime depending on motivation and intent.

    Cold blooded murder and emotional things should matter. if youve taken time to plan and murder someone then you're more dangerous than someone who attacked in the heat of hte moment.

    But if you plan out and beat up a black man it shouldnt be considered any harsher than a white or asian person being your target, you set out to plan and attack someone, thats the scenario. Your underlying motivation doesnt matter, its the forethought that does.

    Terrorism laws disagree with you.

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Chanus wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    Because you're making certain people "more valuable" than others.
    I don't see how that's the case. The laws could also be applied to gay-on-straight hate crime (kill all the breeders!). They have been applied to black-on-white hate crimes.

    I honestly did not know that (you guys teach me so much :P)

    That does gray my opinion a bit... but I'm still not convinced that murder out of hate is worse than murder out of greed.
    It's certainly difficult to quantify why it's worse. Here's a try: greed, by itself, is moderately socially damaging, but racism (by that I mean hard-core racism motivating hate crimes, not the unintentional racism we're all supposedly guilty of), sexism, homophobia, and prejudice against religion are extremely socially damaging.

    Wanting more money is often bad but not always. Prejudice and hate are always bad. Society has a greater interest in eradicating those memes than "money is good" meme.

    Qingu on
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Chanus wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    So despite the action being the same the intent warrants a different punishment? If I kick the crap out of a white guy because he banged my sister its assault but if I do it to a black guy its a hate crime and I should be punished harder? Even if I didnt do it because he was black? No, hate crime sucks balls.

    If you beat up a guy who slept with your sister who merely happens to be black that isn't a hate crime.

    I've made this argument before and was refuted with the idea that people aren't so dumb as to not recognize that... a point to which I conceded.

    Sorry, I can't really parse what you're trying to say here. You've made which argument before, people aren't so dumb as to not recognise what, and what point did you concede?

    (It's probably not you, I'm tired)

    japan on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Chanus wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    I already said it before: if motivation can be considered for murder or terrorism, it can be considered for hate crimes.

    I'm fine with using "he beat the kid up for being gay" as "motive" in order to add to the chance of a conviction. I'm not fine with it being used for added punishment. I think there are Equal Protection issues there.
    I don't really understand what establishing motives as a basis for sentencing has to do with equal protection...

    Because you're making certain people "more valuable" than others.

    No you're not. The hate-crime enhancement exists for crimes where you're not just targeting a particular victim, but an entire selection of people. It's a crime whose intended victim is not just the single person you afflicted.

    Which is also the basis of terrorism charges.

    Conspiring to murder people is already illegal. Why should we have new laws to police the thoughts of terrorists?

    moniker on
  • ChanusChanus Ribbit! Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Qingu wrote: »
    It's certainly difficult to quantify why it's worse. Here's a try: greed, by itself, is moderately socially damaging, but racism (by that I mean hard-core racism motivating hate crimes, not the unintentional racism we're all supposedly guilty of), sexism, homophobia, and prejudice against religion are extremely socially damaging.

    Wanting more money is often bad but not always. Prejudice and hate are always bad. Society has a greater interest in eradicating those memes than "money is good" meme.

    I can agree there.

    Chanus on
    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Chanus wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    I already said it before: if motivation can be considered for murder or terrorism, it can be considered for hate crimes.

    I'm fine with using "he beat the kid up for being gay" as "motive" in order to add to the chance of a conviction. I'm not fine with it being used for added punishment. I think there are Equal Protection issues there.
    I don't really understand what establishing motives as a basis for sentencing has to do with equal protection...

    Because you're making certain people "more valuable" than others.

    No you really aren't. Hate crimes create a climate of fear for a group of people. "We don't take kindly to your type round here".

    It creates an inequality on a small scale in an attempt to create more social equality on a large scale

    override367 on
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    But if you plan out and beat up a black man it shouldnt be considered any harsher than a white or asian person being your target,
    It's not.

    Seriously, I think you need to step back a bit from this argument and realize that you are actually unfamiliar with the laws in question. Blacks have been punished for attacking whites under hate crime legislation.

    Qingu on
  • ChanusChanus Ribbit! Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    japan wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    So despite the action being the same the intent warrants a different punishment? If I kick the crap out of a white guy because he banged my sister its assault but if I do it to a black guy its a hate crime and I should be punished harder? Even if I didnt do it because he was black? No, hate crime sucks balls.

    If you beat up a guy who slept with your sister who merely happens to be black that isn't a hate crime.

    I've made this argument before and was refuted with the idea that people aren't so dumb as to not recognize that... a point to which I conceded.

    Sorry, I can't really parse what you're trying to say here. You've made which argument before, people aren't so dumb as to not recognise what, and what point did you concede?

    (It's probably not you, I'm tired)

    That beating up the black guy for sleeping with your sister is different than beating up the black guy for being black.

    And that people aren't so dumb as to not realize the difference when charging you with the crime.

    Chanus on
    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
  • Gabriel_PittGabriel_Pitt (effective against the Irish) Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    I already said it before: if motivation can be considered for murder or terrorism, it can be considered for hate crimes.

    I'm fine with using "he beat the kid up for being gay" as "motive" in order to add to the chance of a conviction. I'm not fine with it being used for added punishment. I think there are Equal Protection issues there.
    I don't really understand what establishing motives as a basis for sentencing has to do with equal protection...

    Because you're making certain people "more valuable" than others.

    No you're not. The hate-crime enhancement exists for crimes where you're not just targeting a particular victim, but an entire selection of people. It's a crime whose intended victim is not just the single person you afflicted.

    Which is also the basis of terrorism charges.

    Conspiring to murder people is already illegal. Why should we have new laws to police the thoughts of terrorists?
    Because their crimes have greater impact beyond 'standard' murder.

    Gabriel_Pitt on
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    If you beat a black man because he banged your sister, it's assault.

    If you beat a black man because he's black, it's a hate crime.

    I do think there's a legitimate worry here in the ability for the justice system to accurately determine the intent of a given individual in order to justify applying hate crimes legislation, as most cases brought before the justice system will not be clear black-and-white determinations. Thus, the issues over the appropriateness of hate crimes will always come back to differing interpretations of the intent of the individual.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    No you're not. The hate-crime enhancement exists for crimes where you're not just targeting a particular victim, but an entire selection of people. It's a crime whose intended victim is not just the single person you afflicted.

    Which is also the basis of terrorism charges.

    Conspiring to murder people is already illegal. Why should we have new laws to police the thoughts of terrorists?
    Because their crimes have greater impact beyond 'standard' murder.

    I was using you as a launching pad for a broader point targeted at Chanus and DW rather than rebutting you. If Hate Crime laws should not exist, then the same logic hold true for terrorism related laws.

    moniker on
  • RUNN1NGMANRUNN1NGMAN Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    You guys are mixing up motive (the why you killed someone) with the culpability (your mens rea or state of mind at the time you killed someone).

    But the last time I tried to point this out I got stomped all over--so I've decided that only law students care about the distinction :)

    RUNN1NGMAN on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Aegis wrote: »
    If you beat a black man because he banged your sister, it's assault.

    If you beat a black man because he's black, it's a hate crime.

    I do think there's a legitimate worry here in the ability for the justice system to accurately determine the intent of a given individual in order to justify applying hate crimes legislation, as most cases brought before the justice system will not be clear black-and-white determinations. Thus, the issues over the appropriateness of hate crimes will always come back to differing interpretations of the intent of the individual.

    That concern also carries through to a huge amount of crimes that nobody seems to have a problem with. The various degrees of murder, aggravated vs. regular assault, what constitutes a crime of passion, &c. If you refuse to give credence to the thought that the system can handle this kind of grey blurry haze, more often than not (it's never going to be perfect), how can you trust in it at all? And hate crimes is just another facet of considering intent, motive, history, and all that other squishy stuff that is taken into account during the trial and sentencing.

    moniker on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    RUNN1NGMAN wrote: »
    You guys are mixing up motive (the why you killed someone) with the culpability (your mens rea or state of mind at the time you killed someone).

    But the last time I tried to point this out I got stomped all over--so I've decided that only law students care about the distinction :)

    If you wait long enough, Crimsondude will come in here and tell you that you're wrong. He's a JD, so I'm assuming you'll take his word for it.

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    RUNN1NGMAN wrote: »
    You guys are mixing up motive (the why you killed someone) with the culpability (your mens rea or state of mind at the time you killed someone).

    But the last time I tried to point this out I got stomped all over--so I've decided that only law students care about the distinction :)

    State of mind tends to be related to motive. Most people do not plan self-defense killings months in advance. :P

    Incenjucar on
  • RUNN1NGMANRUNN1NGMAN Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    RUNN1NGMAN wrote: »
    You guys are mixing up motive (the why you killed someone) with the culpability (your mens rea or state of mind at the time you killed someone).

    But the last time I tried to point this out I got stomped all over--so I've decided that only law students care about the distinction :)

    State of mind tends to be related to motive. Most people do not plan self-defense killings months in advance. :P

    Well, yeah, but comparing levels of homicide (e.g., manslaughter, negligent homicide, murder) is not the same as hate/non-hate crime (murder is murder regardless of whether you killed someone because he owed you money or because he's gay).

    RUNN1NGMAN on
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    RUNN1NGMAN wrote: »
    Well, yeah, but comparing levels of homicide (e.g., manslaughter, negligent homicide, murder) is not the same as hate/non-hate crime (murder is murder regardless of whether you killed someone because he owed you money or because he's gay).
    That's a big ol' tautology. Whether or not such murder is in fact murder is the very subject of this debate.

    Qingu on
  • RUNN1NGMANRUNN1NGMAN Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Qingu wrote: »
    RUNN1NGMAN wrote: »
    Well, yeah, but comparing levels of homicide (e.g., manslaughter, negligent homicide, murder) is not the same as hate/non-hate crime (murder is murder regardless of whether you killed someone because he owed you money or because he's gay).
    That's a big ol' tautology. Whether or not such murder is in fact murder is the very subject of this debate.

    And that's what I'm trying to point out. Whether a murder has been committed is independent of whether the killing was motivated by hate or greed/gang rivalries/jealousy/etc.

    RUNN1NGMAN on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    RUNN1NGMAN wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    RUNN1NGMAN wrote: »
    Well, yeah, but comparing levels of homicide (e.g., manslaughter, negligent homicide, murder) is not the same as hate/non-hate crime (murder is murder regardless of whether you killed someone because he owed you money or because he's gay).
    That's a big ol' tautology. Whether or not such murder is in fact murder is the very subject of this debate.

    And that's what I'm trying to point out. Whether a murder has been committed is independent of whether the killing was motivated by hate or greed/gang rivalries/jealousy/etc.

    All of which does have an influence on the severity of what you get sentenced with and the amount of time you spend behind bars. Aggravated assault is the same way. Everybody agrees that the dude kicked somebody's ass, but did he demonstrate willful disregard to life while doing it? That's 'policing thought' just as much as hate crimes legislation does.

    moniker on
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    RUNN1NGMAN wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    RUNN1NGMAN wrote: »
    Well, yeah, but comparing levels of homicide (e.g., manslaughter, negligent homicide, murder) is not the same as hate/non-hate crime (murder is murder regardless of whether you killed someone because he owed you money or because he's gay).
    That's a big ol' tautology. Whether or not such murder is in fact murder is the very subject of this debate.

    And that's what I'm trying to point out. Whether a murder has been committed is independent of whether the killing was motivated by hate or greed/gang rivalries/jealousy/etc.
    Well, the term "murder" generally refers to the legal context of the killing.

    And murder is already divided, legally, into different classes based on intent/motive.

    Qingu on
  • RUNN1NGMANRUNN1NGMAN Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    RUNN1NGMAN wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    RUNN1NGMAN wrote: »
    Well, yeah, but comparing levels of homicide (e.g., manslaughter, negligent homicide, murder) is not the same as hate/non-hate crime (murder is murder regardless of whether you killed someone because he owed you money or because he's gay).
    That's a big ol' tautology. Whether or not such murder is in fact murder is the very subject of this debate.

    And that's what I'm trying to point out. Whether a murder has been committed is independent of whether the killing was motivated by hate or greed/gang rivalries/jealousy/etc.

    All of which does have an influence on the severity of what you get sentenced with and the amount of time you spend behind bars. Aggravated assault is the same way. Everybody agrees that the dude kicked somebody's ass, but did he demonstrate willful disregard to life while doing it? That's 'policing thought' just as much as hate crimes legislation does.

    Yeah, I'm totally cool with punishing people more for hate crimes. Especially because it's not targeted at a specific victim. Often hate crimes are instigated by people who want to go "stomp some queers" or some such. So in a sense it is very much a different class of crime because it's so random and the victims are targeted for the most reprehensible reason possible.

    But saying hate-crime murder is to vanilla murder as murder is to manslaughter isn't really correct for the reason I pointed out.

    RUNN1NGMAN on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    RUNN1NGMAN wrote: »
    Well, yeah, but comparing levels of homicide (e.g., manslaughter, negligent homicide, murder) is not the same as hate/non-hate crime (murder is murder regardless of whether you killed someone because he owed you money or because he's gay).

    It is murder with an additional thing going on.

    If my dog craps on my neighbor's lawn because I am lazy it is not the same as if I drag my dog over to the neighbor's yard after feeding it prunes.

    Incenjucar on
  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Isn't this also partially to make sure that hate crime assaults are actually prosectuted?

    IE, this shuts down the 'Gay Panic' defense.
    japan wrote: »
    So why does it become thought policing when the list includes Gay People?

    Fixed to make a quick point. There was already Hate Crimes Legislation (based on race) on the books, this just adds to it.

    MuddBudd on
    steam_sig.png
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    Isn't this also partially to make sure that hate crime assaults are actually prosectuted?

    IE, this shuts down the 'Gay Panic' defense.
    japan wrote: »
    So why does it become thought policing when the list includes Gay People?

    Fixed to make a quick point. There was already Hate Crimes Legislation (based on race) on the books, this just adds to it.

    Yeah, but most people aren't opposed to gays being incorporated into hate crimes legislation they're opposed to hate crimes legislation generally. Other than a few hypocrites who support it for groups that they fall under who are homopobes, but that's less fun to debate. Particularly since 'douchebag' is not going to become a protected class.

    moniker on
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    RUNN1NGMAN wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    RUNN1NGMAN wrote: »
    You guys are mixing up motive (the why you killed someone) with the culpability (your mens rea or state of mind at the time you killed someone).

    But the last time I tried to point this out I got stomped all over--so I've decided that only law students care about the distinction :)

    State of mind tends to be related to motive. Most people do not plan self-defense killings months in advance. :P

    Well, yeah, but comparing levels of homicide (e.g., manslaughter, negligent homicide, murder) is not the same as hate/non-hate crime (murder is murder regardless of whether you killed someone because he owed you money or because he's gay).

    Except that's not true. Motive can define not only additional punishment but level of crime.
    (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree.

    Why you kill someone can define a crime already. Its already federal murder 1 if your motive is to get paid (murder for hire). There's no reason murder motivated by racial/ethnic/religious/orientation hate should be excepted from similar consideration

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Just putting it out there; there are no protected classes in hate crime. A white person is just as protected as a black person under hate crime legislation. If a black man attacks a white man because of his race he is just as guilty of a hate crime as a white person attacking a black man. Same with gender, orientation and religion.

    The reason we don't hear about blacks attacking whites and being charged with hate crimes is because they are much rarer events. They are also less acceptable to society and therefore the law usualy intervenes without outside prompting. Wich is the real shame, because it shows that the idea of equal justice is still a dream.

    Kipling217 on
    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • RUNN1NGMANRUNN1NGMAN Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    RUNN1NGMAN wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    RUNN1NGMAN wrote: »
    You guys are mixing up motive (the why you killed someone) with the culpability (your mens rea or state of mind at the time you killed someone).

    But the last time I tried to point this out I got stomped all over--so I've decided that only law students care about the distinction :)

    State of mind tends to be related to motive. Most people do not plan self-defense killings months in advance. :P

    Well, yeah, but comparing levels of homicide (e.g., manslaughter, negligent homicide, murder) is not the same as hate/non-hate crime (murder is murder regardless of whether you killed someone because he owed you money or because he's gay).

    Except that's not true. Motive can define not only additional punishment but level of crime.
    (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree.

    Why you kill someone can define a crime already. Its already federal murder 1 if your motive is to get paid (murder for hire). There's no reason murder motivated by racial/ethnic/religious/orientation hate should be excepted from similar consideration

    You didn't contradict anything I've said. What you quoted said "Murder is unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought." The italicized part defines the culpability required for a killing to be murder. Then, it defines what categories of murder are first-degree murder. Just because an unlawful killing with malice aforethought didn't fall into those categories, it would still be murder. It wouldn't become manslaughter.

    Also, I am in favor of hate crime legislation. My point was that comparing them to different levels of culpability is not accurate.

    RUNN1NGMAN on
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    RUNN1NGMAN wrote: »
    You didn't contradict anything I've said. What you quoted said "Murder is unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought." The italicized part defines the culpability required for a killing to be murder. Then, it defines what categories of murder are first-degree murder. Just because an unlawful killing with malice aforethought didn't fall into those categories, it would still be murder. It wouldn't become manslaughter.

    But that's not actually the distinction. You're forgetting the Felony Murder Rule. If you commit what would otherwise be manslaughter in the perpetuation of a felony, it becomes murder under federal law.

    But I may be misunderstanding you - are you simply saying that factors that effect sentencing and factors that change the charge are not the same thing?

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    RUNN1NGMAN wrote: »
    Also, I am in favor of hate crime legislation. My point was that comparing them to different levels of culpability is not accurate.

    I think you may be reading more than is intended into the analogy. "Manslaughter is not punished the same as intentional murder, herego motive and state of mind are relevant in punishment." I don't think anything more than that was intended.

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • RUNN1NGMANRUNN1NGMAN Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    RUNN1NGMAN wrote: »
    You didn't contradict anything I've said. What you quoted said "Murder is unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought." The italicized part defines the culpability required for a killing to be murder. Then, it defines what categories of murder are first-degree murder. Just because an unlawful killing with malice aforethought didn't fall into those categories, it would still be murder. It wouldn't become manslaughter.

    But that's not actually the distinction. You're forgetting the Felony Murder Rule. If you commit what would otherwise be manslaughter in the perpetuation of a felony, it becomes murder under federal law.

    But I may be misunderstanding you - are you simply saying that factors that effect sentencing and factors that change the charge are not the same thing?

    Well, sort of. And felony murder rule is a really bad example because it pretty much contradicts all theories of modern criminal law and is a pretty horrible concept when you look at its effect in some cases.

    When I say culpability, what I mean is sort of the "responsibility" or intent someone has for their actions. So when the murder statute says "malice aforethought" is a required element of murder, that means that for a murder to occur, the killer must have formed the desire to kill at some time in the past, had acted on that desire, and the desire could be considered "malicious." That's kind of a loose description, but the "malice aforethought" element is a notoriously vague notion and is a holdover from the common law.

    On the other hand, if the killing was done in the heat of the moment without forming a conscious desire to kill, even if it was unlawful it could not be murder. Rather it would be some form of manslaughter.

    In the examples above, the reason for the killing is irrelevant to the extent that its not used to prove the element of culpability. For instance, jealousy could motivate a murder or a manslaughter and might go towards proving culpability, but the fact that jealousy was the motivation for the killing wouldn't itself determine whether it was murder or something else.

    RUNN1NGMAN on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I'm lukewarm on the subject of hate crime being illegal, rather than intent simply being a mitigating factor in sentencing, but I get the reasoning for it. And if we're going to have hate crime legislation, it makes sense to include sexuality in the definition. So if nothing else, yay for consistency.

    edit: More to the point, I don't like the idea of "protected classes" as recognized by hate crime legislation. The most convincing argument in favor of such laws is that the act itself constitutes a kind of terrorism. You're not simply beating up a black dude, you're sending a message to all blacks that they better watch out because they're not safe.

    Okay, that makes sense. But then shouldn't any attack against a member of any identifiable group because of membership in that group also qualify as a hate crime? If I murder a gay guy and nail his corpse to a tree with a sign saying, "Fuck you, faggots," that's a hate crime. If I murder a liberal and nail his corpse to a tree saying, "Fuck you, liberals," isn't that pretty much the same? The only difference is that violence against gays is semi-common, while violence against liberals is less so. But that seems a somewhat lacking reason to not recognize that anti-liberal violence has the exact same sort of underlying intent as anti-gay violence.

    And really, it would seem to make it even easier to craft the legislation. Instead of having to explicitly name every single group that can plausibly be the victim of hate crime, you just create some general language about "actions against a person meant to intimidate or terrorize all members of a distinguishable group," or something. Bam, done.

    Yes, yes, anti-<random group> crime isn't an epidemic, so crafting such legislation isn't a huge priority. But I would like such laws better if they were designed as such.

    So, you'd like it if the terrorism laws were used against domestic terrorists instead of just muslims?

    Yeah, so would I. I'd like to see them applied against the census worker killers, abortion clinic bombers, anti-immigration militias, etc etc

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    RUNN1NGMAN wrote: »
    In the examples above, the reason for the killing is irrelevant to the extent that its not used to prove the element of culpability. For instance, jealousy could motivate a murder or a manslaughter and might go towards proving culpability, but the fact that jealousy was the motivation for the killing wouldn't itself determine whether it was murder or something else.

    Right. Except when it does.
    As used in this chapter—
    (1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
    (A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
    (B) appear to be intended—
    (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
    (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
    (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
    If I set off an explosive device because I'm an idiot kid and it almost kills someone I'd be in trouble. If I did so because that building was part of the HQ of Nazi Obama blah blah blah I'm in trouble for a different charge.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • MahnmutMahnmut Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Qingu wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    Because you're making certain people "more valuable" than others.
    I don't see how that's the case. The laws could also be applied to gay-on-straight hate crime (kill all the breeders!). They have been applied to black-on-white hate crimes.

    I honestly did not know that (you guys teach me so much :P)

    That does gray my opinion a bit... but I'm still not convinced that murder out of hate is worse than murder out of greed.
    It's certainly difficult to quantify why it's worse. Here's a try: greed, by itself, is moderately socially damaging, but racism (by that I mean hard-core racism motivating hate crimes, not the unintentional racism we're all supposedly guilty of), sexism, homophobia, and prejudice against religion are extremely socially damaging.

    Wanting more money is often bad but not always. Prejudice and hate are always bad. Society has a greater interest in eradicating those memes than "money is good" meme.

    This is an interesting angle, but it's not the rationale for hate crime legislation as I understand it.

    My understanding is that murder out of hate of a certain class is worse than murder out of greed because terrorism is worse than theft.

    Mahnmut on
    Steam/LoL: Jericho89
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2009
    Mahnmut wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    Because you're making certain people "more valuable" than others.
    I don't see how that's the case. The laws could also be applied to gay-on-straight hate crime (kill all the breeders!). They have been applied to black-on-white hate crimes.

    I honestly did not know that (you guys teach me so much :P)

    That does gray my opinion a bit... but I'm still not convinced that murder out of hate is worse than murder out of greed.
    It's certainly difficult to quantify why it's worse. Here's a try: greed, by itself, is moderately socially damaging, but racism (by that I mean hard-core racism motivating hate crimes, not the unintentional racism we're all supposedly guilty of), sexism, homophobia, and prejudice against religion are extremely socially damaging.

    Wanting more money is often bad but not always. Prejudice and hate are always bad. Society has a greater interest in eradicating those memes than "money is good" meme.

    This is an interesting angle, but it's not the rationale for hate crime legislation as I understand it.

    My understanding is that murder out of hate of a certain class is worse than murder out of greed because terrorism is worse than theft.

    There is no "special cless" outside of "targets."

    On that note, though, why don't prosecutors go for the terrorism charge more often, given that they're the same thing and terrorism has a harsher punishment?

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • logic7logic7 Registered User
    edited October 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I'm lukewarm on the subject of hate crime being illegal, rather than intent simply being a mitigating factor in sentencing, but I get the reasoning for it. And if we're going to have hate crime legislation, it makes sense to include sexuality in the definition. So if nothing else, yay for consistency.

    edit: More to the point, I don't like the idea of "protected classes" as recognized by hate crime legislation. The most convincing argument in favor of such laws is that the act itself constitutes a kind of terrorism. You're not simply beating up a black dude, you're sending a message to all blacks that they better watch out because they're not safe.

    Okay, that makes sense. But then shouldn't any attack against a member of any identifiable group because of membership in that group also qualify as a hate crime? If I murder a gay guy and nail his corpse to a tree with a sign saying, "Fuck you, faggots," that's a hate crime. If I murder a liberal and nail his corpse to a tree saying, "Fuck you, liberals," isn't that pretty much the same? The only difference is that violence against gays is semi-common, while violence against liberals is less so. But that seems a somewhat lacking reason to not recognize that anti-liberal violence has the exact same sort of underlying intent as anti-gay violence.

    And really, it would seem to make it even easier to craft the legislation. Instead of having to explicitly name every single group that can plausibly be the victim of hate crime, you just create some general language about "actions against a person meant to intimidate or terrorize all members of a distinguishable group," or something. Bam, done.

    Yes, yes, anti-<random group> crime isn't an epidemic, so crafting such legislation isn't a huge priority. But I would like such laws better if they were designed as such.

    my name is logic7 and I support this message.

    logic7 on
Sign In or Register to comment.