« The Real Story of Torture - Abu Ghraib | some dude named steevo's Blog | Doing Something Exotic... »
Hate Crimes are Thought Crimes
Only totalitarian societies punish citizens for thought. In a free society one is free to hate as well as love. Any person is free to think as they wish. Murder is currently illegal and should be punished with fairness and justice. Murder, the act itself, is the crime. The motive for the murder is not the crime. If one man chooses to kill another man in order to rob him, he should face the same punishment as the the other man who chooses to kill based on thoughts hate. If you punish the same acts differently because of the motivation of the killer, then you are, in essence, making thought a crime. It is wrong to punish thought.
Advertisement
I agree.
June 11, 2009 5:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Simple argument. Hard to disagree.
I think that history demonstrates that the series of legislation dealing with 'hate crimes' began as an attempt by the federal government to prosecute those felons whom the state governments were not prosecuting.
The white racist cop shooting a Black suspect.
Those guilty of lynching.
The end.
June 11, 2009 6:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a rather simplistic view and not the way most if not all countries deal with or define murder or most other crimes. I would hope that a lawyer would weigh in here but until someone with a greater understanding of the details posts I'll address in brief the way our and many other countries define murder.
One might think of the killing of one person by another person as murder, that seems to be the way you're defining it and is a common way of defining it. But no criminal code in any country that I'm aware of defines it that way. Even excluding hate crime legislation all criminal codes have multiple crimes that involve the killing of another and these crimes are based on the intent, the motivation, the thoughts of the killer. Thus we have murder in the first, second, and sometimes third degree, homicide, aggravated homicide, manslaughter, etc.
For example a son might kill his mother for the inheritance or insurance money and likely be charged with First Degree Murder. Or he might kill her because age and illness has left her with a life of endless pain and suffering and not be charged with murder at all. The crime charged might be manslaughter. The means used to cause the death might be identical but the motivation defines the crime and the eventual punishment differently.
He might run her over with a car in a fit of rage, or unintentionally while drunk, and be charged with murder in the second degree or manslaughter. Perhaps the car accident happened simply because he didn't see her. There might be no crime at all or reckless homicide if he was driving without reasonable care.
If a man decides to kill some random stranger on the street and subsequently robs them, or chooses to rob someone by killing them, or kills them with a fire arm without malice of forethought, or a scuffle ensues and the victim bangs their head while falling to the sidewalk and dies of the injury, or simply has a heart attack while being robbed our legal system would charge the robber with different crimes based on the intent, the motivation, the thoughts of the robber.
There simply is not just one crime, "murder," that is used anytime one person kills another.
All crime is thought crime, or thoughtless crime, and our legal system and the legal system of all other countries codify those thoughts, intentions, and motivations into their criminal code already. The criminal code is much more sophisticated and complex than you seem aware of. There might be legitimate objections to adding to that complexity with hate crimes legislation but your reasoning so far is specious.
June 11, 2009 7:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think your understanding of "thought" is different here.
In criminal justice, motive/intent and "thought" as you describe it are only relevant in connection to the criminal act.
Without the act itself, motive and thought has no legal meaning or should NOT have any legal meaning.
Proper system of criminal justice should deal with actions. Not feelings or thoughts.
June 11, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was using thought in a similar manner to the way the OP used it and for that reason only. Claims that hate crime legislation is "thought" crime is based on the view that consideration of intent and motivation is thought. Crimes are defined in terms of intent and motivation already. Hate crime legislation is no different in using intent and motivation to determine the crime than the use of intent and motivation we currently use.
June 11, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
But of course it's different!
When someone is accused of murder, prosecution would have to establish the following to get a conviction:
- you (not someone else) committed this act
- you actually intended to commit this act and it was not an accident or self-defense
But for hate crimes, an additional parameter: you ALSO intended to commit this act because of your ideological/political point of view.
June 11, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The crime is killing someone. Intent and motivation is used to determine the severity of the crime. The state of a person's mind is used to determine the severity of the crime. One may kill someone, intend to kill someone, have no justification to kill someone and not be guilty of murder due to state of mind.
The unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice. The unlawful killing of a human being without any deliberation, which may be involuntary, in the commission of a lawful act without due caution and circumspection.
Manslaughter is a distinct crime and is not considered a lesser degree of murder. The essential distinction between the two offenses is that malice aforethought must be present for murder, whereas it must be absent for manslaughter. Manslaughter is not as serious a crime as murder. On the other hand, it is not a justifiable or excusable killing for which little or no punishment is imposed.
http://law.jrank.org/pages/8428/Manslaughter.html#ixzz0I99QlGWM&D
I don't always agree with the law. At times I disagree with what constitutes adequate provocation to obtain a charge of manslaughter instead of murder. Knowledge of a spouse's adultery has been used as a defense against murder and people have instead been charged with manslaughter for killing a spouse. I don't believe knowledge of adultery is sufficient provocation to change a charge of murder into a charge of manslaughter.
Now you may have legitimate reasons that you object to hate crime legislation. But if your reasoning is that the law does not consider intent, motivation, and state of mind and the considering of such creates "thought crime" than your information is incorrect and your conclusion silly. The law has always considered motivation, intent, and state of mind in determining the severity of a crime.
June 11, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why not check the definition of malice aforethought?
As far as I understand it, it is the knowledge that the result of your action could cause someone's death. It's a kind of deliberate recklesness (as opposed to deliberate intent to kill). And that's the reason for the distinction between manslaughter and murder.
Secondly, I think you're also misunderstanding the legal concept of the state of mind.
Both of these terms do not even remotely support your point on hate crimes.
June 11, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You misunderstand me Lalo. I'm not attempting to make any points in support of hate crimes legislation. I don't know enough about the legislation or the legal system to either support or assail the laws. But I have read enough to see the gaping flaws in the original post and yours in so far as you agree with his conclusions.
I really have no desire to discuss this and as I said in my first post I wish a lawyer or someone with more legal knowledge then I would post here. But I faced a choice of allowing a common but exceedingly ignorant analysis to stand unchallenged or to push back with my inadequate knowledge.
Its pretty clear that no one who posted on this thread, including me, has the prerequisite knowledge to create a valuable or informative debate on the subject. Which is why I didn't rec this thread even though I took part in it.
June 11, 2009 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
We've always taken motive into account and we should. Kill in self defense and you're not punished at all. Kill during a "crime of passion" and you might be sentenced more lightly than if you kill for fun.
We view hate crimes differently because a hate crime has more than one victim. It's an attack not only on an individual but on an entire community. So one black man is beaten or killed in order to intimidate all of the other black people who live with or around the victim. If I punch you in the face with the goal of striking terror in the hearts of everyone like you, I'm committing a larger evil than simply punching you in the face.
June 11, 2009 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo:
Dude named Steevo, your post is based on a false premise of what hate crime is.June 11, 2009 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with destor's understanding of role and usage of intent.
The different examples of intent you are using do not determine the severity of the punishment. It's not like a laundry list of "kill for this reason - get this sentence".
The reason intent is important is to determine whether or not you actually intended to kill.
June 11, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, in a self defense case though, I can legitimately intend to kill, right?
June 11, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. In a case of self-defense, the intent is to defend yourself. That's the reason for the punishment (i.e. no punishment) you mention - because there was no deliberate intent to kill.
June 11, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may desire that the law did not consider intent or motivation to determine what crime has been committed or what the degree of possible punishments are but the law in every state and the federal government of the US as well as the laws of every country do. Both intent and motivation are used to define the crime and to list the range of the punishments possible. Criminal codes that do not include any hate crime provisions use intent and motivation to determine the crime as well as the possible penalties.
June 11, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oceankat - the severity of the punishment is determined by the severity of the crime.
The intent and motive is used to establish the crime.
What I disagree with is that intent and motive should be used ADDITIONALLY as something that incrementally increase the severity of the crime.
June 11, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
> We view hate crimes differently because a hate crime has more than one victim. It's an attack not only on an individual but on an entire community.
This logic is faulty.
First, the only person dead is the person(s) that got murdered. I think this part is most obvious.
Second, if it is intimidation on an entire community, it's done by a very limited amount of people; usually one. An entire community vs. one person. I know who I'm putting my money on.
If you're willing to kill someone, you're willing to kill someone no matter what your thoughts are. Murder is murder; this does not include assisted suicide or manslaughter.
Furthermore, those "crimes of passion" things are just bullshit lawyers make up to try to get the defendants off the hook. They're still murderers.
July 3, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, thought in itself....is not a crime. You are adopting a ridiculous argument here, sorry. I can be just as pissed off as the day is long at you, not ever do anything to you, and I have committed no crime. Simple, no?
You aren't even correct in saying that only totalitarian societies punish for thought crimes, as they can't even do that, because without some physical evidence from your actions, no one knows exactly what you're thinking.
Think this through, try again.
June 11, 2009 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I am defining Hate Crimes incorrectly, then someone please post the actual definition. I just think all the Hate Crime legislation I have read about punishes people more severely based on the thought behind their actions.
And anyone who speaks or writes has given physical evidence of their thoughts.
June 11, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
If by thoughts you mean intent, motivation, or state of mind as you did in the original post then I understand your meaning and accept it. By that definition our criminal code already commits thought crime. You state, "If you punish the same acts differently because of the motivation of the killer, then you are, in essence, making thought a crime." Yet we do in fact punish the same crime differently many times because of the motivation of the killer.
Again the example I used above.
A son might kill his mother for the inheritance or insurance money and likely be charged with First Degree Murder. Or he might kill her because age and illness has left her with a life of endless pain and suffering and not be charged with murder at all. Some might consider the crime justifiable homicide. The law would likely consider it a form of manslaughter. The crime may be identical, say poison administered in a cup of juice but the crime charged and the punishment would be different based on the motivation of the killer.
June 11, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's amusing to see those favoring hate crimes legislation contort themselves into knots to defend, as you rightly observe, criminalization of thought.
The only way "hate crimes" can be prosecuted, the only way to prove a crime is motivated by officially certified "hate", is if the accused is proved to be a racist, or anti-Semite, or homophobe, etc. The law actually requires prosecutors to charge the accused with holding certain beliefs we've deemed socially (and politically) objectionable and prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that those beliefs were the reason the accused committed the offense — along with all the other elements of the crime itself.
Up to know, thought has been a factor in criminal trials only to the extent it indicates motive for the crime, and the legitimate purpose of showing motive at trial traditionally has been to diminish any reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury that the accused committed the crime. Motive, up to now, never has been criminalized separately, although it can determine the severity of the crime and, so its punishment. Motive indicates that the offense:
- is planned beforehand
- is not planned beforehand and is an act of momentary compulsion - "a crime of passion".
- that is the unintended result of other criminal action.
By proving an offender guilty of obnoxious thought, we are punishing them not for the crime they committed - that is a separate charge - but for their sociopolitical worldview. We are prosecuting them not for what they did, but for who they are.
No legislative instrument is more an affront to democracy.
June 11, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most jurisdictions have several different classes of these crimes. Most common are:
1st degree murder. Murder committed with intent and premeditation and an aggravating circumstance such as multiple victims. Example: A decides to kill B and C prior to killing B and C, even if the intent was formed an instant before.
2nd degree murder. Murder in the commission of a felony. States often prosecute drunk driving killings as second degree murder.
In some areas, there is also 3rd degree but many places would class these acts as manslaughter.
Jurisdictions differ on classification and the terms used to describe these levels of killing i.e. Capital murder, felony murder etc.
What was done in the recent shootings was 1st degree murder. The victim was selected at least in part because of who they were. Killing of an doctor because he performed abortions and a security guard because of his special status as a LE officer qualify these acts as 1st degree.
The hate crime enhancements in effect create a separate class of higher culpability, but according to the original interpretation these crimes are just first degree murder.
June 11, 2009 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink