Is assaulting an atheist a Hate Crime? Not in Canada

[TsarBomba]

Justing Trottier is director of the Center For Inquiry--Ontario and president of the Freethought Association of Canada. He was recently assaulted by a couple of young toughs while posting atheist-themed flyers at a Toronto university campus. It is clear from Justin's account of the incident that he was assaulted because he was posting the atheist literature.

Justin would like this handled as a hate crime, but the police and campus security have refused to do so. Some comentators in Canada have opined that assaulting (or, presumably, murdering) someone because of a lack of religious belief does not qualify as a hate crime under any circumstances. Can you imagine a similar argument if an atheist attacked a Christian because of religious belief, or if a Christian attacked a Muslim, et cetera, et cetera?

Here (http://media.www.thevarsity.ca/media/storage/paper285/news/2007/04/02/News/Atheist.Claims.Assault.Was.hate.Crime-2817715.shtml) is an article about it.

You can also hear Justin interviewed on this week's Dogma Free America (http://dogmafreeamerica.com) by clicking here (http://www.dogmafreeamerica.com/index.php?post_id=205717). If you have Itunes, you can play it by clicking here (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=208585331&s=143441&i=15599583).

[Marquis de Carabas]

I would prefer this not be prosecuted as a hate crime. Hate crimes are defined to be those crimes committed against one because of a social group to which they belong. I don't consider atheists a social group, anymore than I consider people who don't like banana pudding a social group.

[TsarBomba]

I would prefer this not be prosecuted as a hate crime. Hate crimes are defined to be those crimes committed against one because of a social group to which they belong. I don't consider atheists a social group, anymore than I consider people who don't like banana pudding a social group.

If a group of young [insert name of religious group of your choice] attacked a elderly [insert name of other religious group of your choice] because that elderly [insert name of other religious group of your choice] was a member of a different religious group, and maybe spray painted a message on the elderly person that indicated that he/she was assaulted because of membership/affiliation with a religious group, should that be a "hate crime?" I think that most people would say yes, and I think that the police who responded to Justin's assault would say yes, too. The fact that it would not be a hate crime when comitted against an atheist shows a perverse societal antipathy toward non-believers, even in supposedly moderate and tolerant Canada.

[Marquis de Carabas]

One of the things I like about being an atheist is that I am not a member of a religious group. Atheism is not a religion. And I would prefer it not start getting treated like one.

[ImaginalDisc]

One of the things I like about being an atheist is that I am not a member of a religious group. Atheism is not a religion. And I would prefer it not start getting treated like one.

Atheism, unless the atheist is completely naive to religion, constitutes a a set of beliefs about religion. Beating someone up for their beliefs constitutes a hate crime.

[Piscivore]

I would prefer this not be prosecuted as a hate crime. Hate crimes are defined to be those crimes committed against one because of a social group to which they belong. I don't consider atheists a social group, anymore than I consider people who don't like banana pudding a social group.

I think the key factor in determining if this is a "hate crime"- and I'm not at all sure that the idea isn't a bit foolish to begin with, because in the words of Stan Marsh "isn't all crime a hate crime?"- is that the victim here is not being assaulted because of whatever groups, classes, or political parties to which he belongs but because of the ones to which his assaulters do that he does not. They are "christian", and they are beating him up because he is not. The KKK are pale skinned and they hang black people because they are not.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Atheism, unless the atheist is completely naive to religion, constitutes a a set of beliefs about religion. Beating someone up for their beliefs constitutes a hate crime.
It does not constitute a "set of beliefs". It constitutes a single answer to a single question. Do you believe in God? No. That is it.

[ImaginalDisc]

It does not constitute a "set of beliefs". It constitutes a single answer to a single question. Do you believe in God? No. That is it.

It's the same answer to a vast sea of questions. "Do you believe in Krishna?" "Do you believe in Coyote?" The only difference between an atheist and anyone else is one extra "no" on the checklist.

[Marquis de Carabas]

It's the same answer to a vast sea of questions. "Do you believe in Krishna?" "Do you believe in Coyote?" The only difference between an atheist and anyone else is one extra "no" on the checklist.
Krishna's a what? Coyote's a what? You do not have to go down the list as an atheist and specifically disavow belief in each and every god someone decides to dream up. Perhaps to settle the pedants, I should have worded that "Do you believe in any gods?" The point remains. There is no set of beliefs.

[ImaginalDisc]

Krishna's a what? Coyote's a what? You do not have to go down the list as an atheist and specifically disavow belief in each and every god someone decides to dream up. Perhaps to settle the pedants, I should have worded that "Do you believe in any gods?" The point remains. There is no set of beliefs.

Let's concede your point for the sake of argument.

So, when people target atheists for violence because they are atheists, you think that should not qualify as a hate crime based on pedantry? Should I not be protected from being fired for my "beliefs" because my atheism isn't a "belief?"

[Marquis de Carabas]

Let's concede your point for the sake of argument.

So, when people target atheists for violence because they are atheists, you think that should not qualify as a hate crime based on pedantry? Should I not be protected from being fired for my "beliefs" because my atheism isn't a "belief?"
Hate crimes are not about individuals. They are defined specifically as being about the groups to which individuals belong. I do not wish for atheism to be included as one of those groups, because once it's in there for hate crimes, it's in there for everything. I am much more comfortable with atheism not being a religious group. I get sick enough of hearing it from fundies.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Or, we could go to the other extreme, and include everything as a group. If I choose to kill Vancouver Canucks fans, hate crime. Southpaws, hate crime. People who won't shake hands, hate crime.

[Mashuna]

Let's concede your point for the sake of argument.

So, when people target atheists for violence because they are atheists, you think that should not qualify as a hate crime based on pedantry? Should I not be protected from being fired for my "beliefs" because my atheism isn't a "belief?"

When people targets atheists, it should be counted as a crime. Do you get bonus points if you manage to prosecute someone because they used extra hate?

[Skeptic Guy]

If I was an African-American and someone beat the piss out of me, it would be a hate crime. There is nothing about "belief" involved in it. I am an Atheist, I get the piss beat out of me, it's a hate crime. You are hating someone for who they are, whether they are a Catholic, Jew, Hispanic, African American, etc. IMO

[ImaginalDisc]

When people targets atheists, it should be counted as a crime. Do you get bonus points if you manage to prosecute someone because they used extra hate?

When someone vandalizes a cemetery with crude jokes, it's a petty crime (IMO). When someone scrawls swastikas and Jewish markers in a cemetery, there's clearly a message meant to intimidate the Jewish community. When someone targets a person for murder because they hate that person, the crime is bad enough. When someone kills a person merely because that person is black, Asian, gay, or an atheist, the intention is to intimidate those people. The motive is different, and in our system of law, the motive matters. It spells the difference between manslaughter and murder, for example.

[jimlintott]

Personally I don't care for the concept of 'hate crime'. It tries to get into people's heads and examine their thoughts. Who cares what the guy was thinking? Assault is assault. Assaulting someone because they are different is the same as assaulting someone because they looked at you funny or were talking to your girlfriend. The problem with the hate crime concept is it belittles assaults that don't seem motivated by hate.

Once you try to look in people's heads don't we open a whole new can of worms? If a kid is raised by some bigot and that kid beats up some target of that bigotry can we go after the parent who brought him up that way? He started the hate. Why not just arrest people for hating why wait till they assault someone?

According to Phelps god hates fags. Maybe we should arrest god before he hurts someone.

It gets stupid. We already had laws regarding assault. They should all be treated the same.

[ClintonHammond]

Don't all crimes involve hate of some kind?

I gotta side with MdC here.... I'd rather atheism NOT be treated as a 'religion', cause it's not.

but...

"Trottier's nose was cut by the brim of one of their hats."
This guy reads like a total wimp.... Being a cry-baby like this gives atheists a bad name. This incident has really just made a martyr out of him...

:rolleyes:

[drkitten]

Personally I don't care for the concept of 'hate crime'. It tries to get into people's heads and examine their thoughts. Who cares what the guy was thinking?

Er, the prosecution, in literally every criminal case that has been prosecuted in the United States since its foundation.

"Mental state' (mens rea, more formally) is a key aspect of any prosectution.



Once you try to look in people's heads don't we open a whole new can of worms?

No. That particular can has been open since about the Magna Carta.

[tsg]

Hate crimes are not about individuals. They are defined specifically as being about the groups to which individuals belong. I do not wish for atheism to be included as one of those groups, because once it's in there for hate crimes, it's in there for everything. I am much more comfortable with atheism not being a religious group. I get sick enough of hearing it from fundies.

Whether you like it or not, groups are defined by what the individuals have in common. People who don't believe in any god are a group. It may not be a religious group, but it is a group of which the individual is being targeted for being a member.

The crime is motivated by the perpetrator's hatred of the characteristics the victim exhibits, whether it be skin color, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, or lack thereof. That is, the perpetrator would not have committed the crime on that particular individual if two things weren't true: the perpetrator hated that characteristic, and the individual exhibited that characteristic (or at least was perceived to by the perpetrator). If you are going to have hate crimes (and I'm not entirely sure it is a good idea to begin with), then it has to be consistent.

In this particular case, the victim was targeted because the perpetrator hates atheism. Period. End of story. It's a hate crime.

[tsg]

I gotta side with MdC here.... I'd rather atheism NOT be treated as a 'religion', cause it's not.

It doesn't have to be in order for this to be a hate crime, even a religiously motivated one.

[DangerousBeliefs]

I hate people who put flyers on cars. Not only is it invasive, but much of the "literature" ends up as litter.

I'm not condoning assault but I certainly sometimes wish I could do so.

This guy wants to "get the word out" then he can post it on the many bulletin boards around campus.

Personally, I think he is being an arrogant SOB... athiest or not.

[ClintonHammond]

Then ALL crimes are hate crimes....

It's pointless pedantry...

[Marquis de Carabas]

Whether you like it or not, groups are defined by what the individuals have in common. People who don't believe in any god are a group. It may not be a religious group, but it is a group of which the individual is being targeted for being a member..

The crime is motivated by the perpetrator's hatred of the characteristics the victim exhibits, whether it be skin color, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, or lack thereof. That is, the perpetrator would not have committed the crime on that particular individual if two things weren't true: the perpetrator hated that characteristic, and the individual exhibited that characteristic (or at least was perceived to by the perpetrator). If you are going to have hate crimes (and I'm not entirely sure it is a good idea to begin with), then it has to be consistent.

In this particular case, the victim was targeted because the perpetrator hates atheism. Period. End of story. It's a hate crime.
What a waste of a post. Not because there's anything wrong with it, but because I was musing about this as I was wandering campus just now, and already changed my mind. :p (Still, maybe somebody else will get something out of it. Well put.)

So, my musings...

I began by thinking atheists shouldn't be grouped together in this way because I really don't care about Mr Trottier's atheism in regards to his assault. It does not bug me more that an atheist was attacked than if any other random Joe was. So, I generalised this out to "I really don't care what happens to atheists for atheism's sake."

But, wait, I do care. If someone loses their job for being an atheist, I would be pissed, and they should have similar recourse as someone losing their job for being gay, or Muslim, or habitually late. (Well, maybe not that last one.)

So when someone is assaulted for being an atheist, why should they not also have similar recourse? No good reason at all.

(I still share some of the misgivings mentioned above about hate crimes in general, but that's a separate issue. If hate crimes are to be prosecuted, this one should count.)

[ImaginalDisc]

(I still share some of the misgivings mentioned above about hate crimes in general, but that's a separate issue. If hate crimes are to be prosecuted, this one should count.)

I understand the misgivings, but there's a difference, to me, between spray painting "Go Away N*****" on a black man's house and spray painting a less racially charged message. There are cases where the crime is clearly intended to terrify or attack more people than just the target.

[tsg]

Then ALL crimes are hate crimes....

It's pointless pedantry...

I don't disagree, but it's two different arguments. Whether differentiating hate crimes from non-hate crimes is a good idea is one argument (one in which we probably agree). Whether assault on a person because he is an atheist is a hate crime, once the differentiation has been made, is a different argument. In that the government in question has apparently already made the decision to prosecute hate crimes differently, the second argument seems to be more relevant.

Personally, I don't see how assault on a person because he believes in a different god than you do can be a hate crime while assault on a person because he doesn't believe in any god is not. They are both crimes born of intolerance for differing opinions on religion. That does not, however, make atheism a religion.

[Orangutan]

Ack! They don't' hate atheists they just don't believe in them. How can you hate something you don't believe in?
.
.
.
.
(too soon?)

[LostAngeles]

Personally I don't care for the concept of 'hate crime'. It tries to get into people's heads and examine their thoughts. Who cares what the guy was thinking? ...

Generally speaking, I have no idea what murderers, rapists, and thieves are thinking. We're talking about a person who thinks that taking the life or property of another or forcing themselves sexually on another person is a perfectly fine thing to do.

Sociologists have been trying to get inside the heads of criminals for years. For some reason, we have decided that you "bonus points" to your evil score if you commit the heinous act because a person is not a member of your group.

[jimlintott]

Er, the prosecution, in literally every criminal case that has been prosecuted in the United States since its foundation.

"Mental state' (mens rea, more formally) is a key aspect of any prosectution.




No. That particular can has been open since about the Magna Carta.

I do realize that. I would be surprised if literally every case cared but that doesn't matter. I see a difference between wanting to know what someone was thinking as it is part of the evidence of a crime. I don't care if a judge decides that what someone was thinking makes their crime particularly callous. I'm sure that defense attorneys may use what someone was thinking to mitigate punishment.

In none of those is the thought the crime itself. Hate crime makes the thoughts illegal. That makes hate crime a thought crime and I can never support the concept of thought crime.

[Piscivore]

For some reason, we have decided that you "bonus points" to your evil score if you commit the heinous act because a person is not a member of your group.

Sweet! Since by definition everybody else is not part of the group "Me", I can claim the bonus points on every heinous act I perpatrate on anybody. I'll get that free replay in no time. :D

[Marquis de Carabas]

Actually, I am a part of the group "Me".

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The concept of a "hate crime" implies that hating me and beating me up is worse than beating me up alone. Which implies that just hating me has some criminal value over and above beating me up. This is rather silly, no?


I understand the misgivings, but there's a difference, to me, between spray painting "Go Away N*****" on a black man's house and spray painting a less racially charged message. There are cases where the crime is clearly intended to terrify or attack more people than just the target.
Then there should be a crime called "stirring up racial emotions" or some such. That guy would be charged with vandalism and stirring up racial emotions (SURE). Then we can debate whether making SURE a crime is a violation of the First Amendment.

Laws should describe what people cannot do, rather than describing what people should not think.

~~ Paul

[LostAngeles]

Sweet! Since by definition everybody else is not part of the group "Me", I can claim the bonus points on every heinous act I perpatrate on anybody. I'll get that free replay in no time. :D

Actually, I am a part of the group "Me".

Crap, is this the whole, "Barber shaves every man in the town who does not shave himself," bit.

I'm going to have raise up Bertrand Russell's zombie...

[strathmeyer]

I would prefer this not be prosecuted as a hate crime. Hate crimes are defined to be those crimes committed against one because of a social group to which they belong. I don't consider atheists a social group, anymore than I consider people who don't like banana pudding a social group.

When people who don't like banana pudding start putting up fliers and assembling, they become a social group.

[Ladewig]

The concept of a "hate crime" implies that hating me and beating me up is worse than beating me up alone. Which implies that just hating me has some criminal value over and above beating me up. This is rather silly, no?

No. I don't see it as silly at all.

The criminal who beats and robs the first person who walks past a dark alley is rather different than the criminal who beats up the first black person who walks past the alley.

The criminal in New York City paints "Go Mets" on a person's garage is very different from the criminal who paints "Go back to Africa" on a black person's garage.

I do not know how hate crimes are handled in other countries, but that have been of some use in the United States. Because there are federal hate crimes, a local sheriff who drags his feet investigating the murder of a minority can have the case kicked to a federal crime. There have been instances of local law enforcement not bringing all their resources to bear on crimes that have an element of bigotry to them.

[Piscivore]

The criminal in New York City paints "Go Mets" on a person's garage is very different from the criminal who paints "Go back to Africa" on a black person's garage.

What if you paint "Go Mets" on a person's garage because that person is black?

What if you do this and you're in Delaware?

[Gurdur]

The concept of a "hate crime" implies that hating me and beating me up is worse than beating me up alone.
Wrong emphasis, actually. The entire concept is meant to give extra legal and social weight to combating crimes against groups.

The difference to what you are claiming it is is rather obvious. The concept of hate crime is there to further discourage crimes against groups, not to merely utter some moral judgment about one single act.
Laws should describe what people cannot do, rather than describing what people should not think.
D'oh, this is exactly what hate crime legislation is all about.
Or are you claiming that somehow hate-crime legislation magically prohibits certain thoughts? No? Anyone up on a charge for only thinking? Then your statement was rather meaningless, wasn't it?

Because hate crime legislation actually targets acts and their intent, just like there are differing legal degrees of murder and manslaughter acts according to intent, not just thoughts.

Now maybe we can debate the value or lack of it of such legislation without the rhetorical strawmen.

[Gurdur]

The FBI keep statistics on hate crimes against atheists in the USA --- it's useful for helping judge just how much comparative bigotry is acted upon against atheists.

Just a side-note.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The criminal who beats and robs the first person who walks past a dark alley is rather different than the criminal who beats up the first black person who walks past the alley.
Oh my, really? I mean, my desire for equality for all people makes me agree emotionally, but how can this be in practice? Does the prosecution have to show that the criminal used some criterion other than a random choice of victim? Can the victim claim to be a member of the group of people who walk in that alley, and thus make it a hate crime?

Once this box of frogs is opened, it can never be closed.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

D'oh, this is exactly what hate crime legislation is all about.
Or are you claiming that somehow hate-crime legislation magically prohibits certain thoughts? No? Anyone up on a charge for only thinking? Then your statement was rather meaningless, wasn't it?
Of course it doesn't magically prohibit anything, but it sounds as if it is increasing the penalty for a crime based on the thoughts of the criminal.


Because hate crime legislation actually targets acts and their intent, just like there are differing legal degrees of murder and manslaughter acts according to intent, not just thoughts.
Yes, but was it the criminal's intent to act against an entire group, or merely against the specific victim? As you said, isn't hate crime legislation based on the idea that the hate crime victimizes the entire group? And if that is the case, then don't lots of other crimes victimize more than just the immediate victim?

I sympathize with the idea of hate crimes. I just think it's a complicated mess.

Edited to add: Let's be careful when we use the word intent. It's a complicated word.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Oh geez, no wonder I'm going haywire. I'm participating in a thread that ought to be in Politics. Save me!

~~ Paul

[TsarBomba]

Oh my, really? I mean, my desire for equality for all people makes me agree emotionally, but how can this be in practice? Does the prosecution have to show that the criminal used some criterion other than a random choice of victim?
~~ Paul

Yes. Absolutely. Any hate crime statute will require the prosecution to prove intent, but this is not unusual. Many common crimes require the prosecution to prove intent. Here are two common examples:

Burglary is usally defined as breaking/entering into the dwelling of another with the intent to commit a crime therein.

Forgery is usually defined as creating or "uttering" a forged instrument with the intent to defraud.

Proving intent constitutes an "element" of the crime, which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt like all the other elements.

There are numerous ways that the prosecution can prove intent. Sometimes the defendant says what his/her intent is. Sometimes you can infer it from other actions. There are a multiude of ways of proving intent.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Burglary is usally defined as breaking/entering into the dwelling of another with the intent to commit a crime therein.
This is an intent to perform an action, not a motive/emotion on the part of the criminal.


Forgery is usually defined as creating or "uttering" a forged instrument with the intent to defraud.
This is also an intent to perform an action.


Proving intent constitutes an "element" of the crime, which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt like all the other elements.
Intent is a complicated word.

~~ Paul

[Katana]

I disagree with distinguishing "hate crimes" from other crimes, but, if you're going to do this, then do it uniformly.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Burglary is usally defined as breaking/entering into the dwelling of another with the intent to commit a crime therein.

This is an intent to perform an action, not a motive/emotion on the part of the criminal.
Now we'd be getting a little closer to a hate crime if we could show that the burglar robbed a particular house just because he hated rich people.

Oh wait, are rich people on the list of groups you can hate? :D

~~ Paul

[Taffer]

I find myself agreeing with MdC.

[TsarBomba]

This is an intent to perform an action, not a motive/emotion on the part of the criminal.

. . .

Intent is a complicated word.

~~ Paul

In the eyes of the law, "intent" and "motive" can be different things, or the same thing. For instance, the Model Penal Code (which has been adopted by something like 19 states) would define the crime of "harassment" as as taking any number of actions with the "intent to annoy, harass, or alarm" another person, including subjecting them to physical contact, making repeated phone calls at inconvenient times, etc. The "intent" of this crime is the same as the "motive" to commit this crime.

But "harassment" is not necessarily a hate crime, so lets look at a real hate crime statute, Colorado Revised Statutes Section 18-9-121 (2002), titled "Ethnic Intimidation." (I use Colorado's law because I happen to have an old Colorado statute book handy) Here's how the statute reads:


A person commmits ethnic intimidation if, with the intent to intimidate or harass another person because of that person's actual or perceived race, color, religion, ancestry, or national origin, he or she:
(a) Knowingly causes bodily injury to another person;
(b) By words or conduct, knowingly places another person in fear of imminent lawless action directed at that person or that person's property and such words or conduct are likely to produce bodily injury to that person or damage to that person's property; or
(c) Knowingly causes damage to or destruction of the peroperty of another person.


This law is pretty clear that it is the motive behind the crime that creates the requisite culpable mental state (i.e. intent). The motive is to intimidate or harass another person because of actual or percieved color, religion, ancestry, or national origin. They also need to knowingly injure, etc. the victim.

I would agree that athiesm is not a religion (as someone else put it in another thread, atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby). Using Colorado's law as a typical "hate crimes" law (which it may or may not be), the obvious question is whether a lack of religion would constitute a person's religion or perceived religion under the law. I have little doubt that the courts would interpret this law as protecting atheists.

[autumn1971]

No. I don't see it as silly at all.

The criminal who beats and robs the first person who walks past a dark alley is rather different than the criminal who beats up the first black person who walks past the alley.

The criminal in New York City paints "Go Mets" on a person's garage is very different from the criminal who paints "Go back to Africa" on a black person's garage.

I do not know how hate crimes are handled in other countries, but that have been of some use in the United States. Because there are federal hate crimes, a local sheriff who drags his feet investigating the murder of a minority can have the case kicked to a federal crime. There have been instances of local law enforcement not bringing all their resources to bear on crimes that have an element of bigotry to them.
The person in the first instance is commiting vandalism. In the second instance the intent to intimidate means that they are commiting assault. Hate crime legislation is simple-minded and ineffective. Explain to me how I can stab a person, but be relegated to a different catagory if I also say something derogatory. In America I have the right to believe and espouse any stupid-damn thing I want. If there are police officers who respond differently to incidents based on race or sexual preference, they are breaking the law and should be prosecuted. The problem isn't that some crimes are more despicable, but that these crimes have not been effectively prosecuted in the past. We shouldn't be creating special catagories that are more protected now, we should admit our past failures and vow to prosecute crimes that we may have ignored in the past as zealously as we would those who in the past were prosecuted.

[latent aaaack]

If all atheists had "atheist" written accross their forehead and if there was a recent history of them being targetted for violent crime then there might be an arguement for giving us hate crime inclusion. You're taking a principled emotional stand by saying "if those other groups get it then we should get it too" but in this case that ignores the reality of the differences between atheists and other groups.

I strongly agree with MdC about atheists being the farthest thing from a religion or even a descriptive identifer that should be embraced. I think of it more as a centuries old slur that should be sidestepped.

Agitating to be treated like an ethnicity or religion (especially in response to one or two guys getting beaten up for posting flyers about atheism, as if that compares to historic persecution) would do much more harm to atheists than not giving a harsher sentence to a once or twice a decade occurence of someone getting beaten up for posting atheism flyers.

[l0rca]

You damn liberals. Can't we live in a world where assault is judged by not what is on a person's mind, but by the action itself?

Pretty soon you'll all be screaming "thought crime!" when I see hot chicks on the street.

[Cheesejoff]

You damn liberals. Can't we live in a world where assault is judged by not what is on a person's mind, but by the action itself?

Of course we can. Using a rascist insult on a black person should have the same penalty as using the same insult on a white person.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

In the eyes of the law, "intent" and "motive" can be different things, or the same thing. For instance, the Model Penal Code (which has been adopted by something like 19 states) would define the crime of "harassment" as as taking any number of actions with the "intent to annoy, harass, or alarm" another person, including subjecting them to physical contact, making repeated phone calls at inconvenient times, etc. The "intent" of this crime is the same as the "motive" to commit this crime.
Well, that's pretty dicey, too, but at least it pertains to all victims and doesn't require the court to decide whether I hated the person. I wouldn't say the motive is the same as the intent; there doesn't appear to be any question as to my motive.


This law is pretty clear that it is the motive behind the crime that creates the requisite culpable mental state (i.e. intent). The motive is to intimidate or harass another person because of actual or percieved color, religion, ancestry, or national origin. They also need to knowingly injure, etc. the victim.
If that is the way hate crime legislation reads, then I have two remarks. First, "hate crime" is a poor choice of words. Second, since there is no reference to causing harm to the minority group as a whole, but only to an individual, why do we need the law at all? The things the criminal did were already crimes.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Of course we can. Using a rascist insult on a black person should have the same penalty as using the same insult on a white person.
I presume prosecution for hate crimes would be color-blind.

But this is interesting. You've interpreted "racist insult" to be an action, not a thought. I wonder how this plays out with the First Amendment?

~~ Paul

[TsarBomba]

Second, since there is no reference to causing harm to the minority group as a whole, but only to an individual, why do we need the law at all? The things the criminal did were already crimes.
~~ Paul

I think that the proponents of "hate crime" legislation would have two rationales for laws like this: (1) The emotional impact of crimes like this is greater on victims, and therefore the consequences for doing it need to be greater and (2) The societal impact of hate crimes this goes far beyond mere assault of destruction of property, and we as a society have a compelling interest in stopping racist (or whatever "ist" you want to subsitute) thuggery, therefore we have a greater need to deter such crimes, hence greater penalties.

I think that both reasons are valid, and both would apply to attacks against someone for religious belief or lack of religious belief. If some random thug roughed me up, I wouldn't like it. If the random thug yelled at me "and take that, you ***** atheist!" I think that the emotional trauma would be greater and I would want the thug to face greater punishment.

[TsarBomba]

If all atheists had "atheist" written accross their forehead and if there was a recent history of them being targetted for violent crime then there might be an arguement for giving us hate crime inclusion.

Whether a person is wearing a sign that says "I am an atheist" or "There is no god" is hardly the point. What matters is the intent of the criminal, what he or she perceives the victim of their crime to be. Whether there have been recent attacks on atheists is beside the point. If a legislature is going to pass a law on this issue, they shouldn't look at it and say "well, here in our state, we have had a bunch of attacks on people based on national origin, so we will pass a national orgin hate crime bill, but no one has attacked people because of race, so we will wait until that happens before adding that." They would include any perceived status that they should should be subject to the protections of the act. To put it another way, you don't need an epidemic of car thefts before you pass an anti-car theft law.


You're taking a principled emotional stand by saying "if those other groups get it then we should get it too" but in this case that ignores the reality of the differences between atheists and other groups.

This is not about "groups." Hate crime is based on "status," which is not the same as being in a "group." The Colorado law I quoted above references "religion." A person can invent their own religion, and have no followers, and thus have this religion as their "status" without being a part of any group. The point is, if you are going to make it a higher penalty to attack someone because of their religious status, then any religious status should qualify, whether it is a believer or a non-believer. This is not emotional, just rational.



Agitating to be treated like an ethnicity or religion (especially in response to one or two guys getting beaten up for posting flyers about atheism, as if that compares to historic persecution) would do much more harm to atheists than not giving a harsher sentence to a once or twice a decade occurence of someone getting beaten up for posting atheism flyers.

There is nothing wrong with insisting that the law be applied evenhandedly.

[Katana]

You damn liberals. Can't we live in a world where assault is judged by not what is on a person's mind, but by the action itself?


Hmmm. Well, I'm probably more on the liberal end of the political spectrum, and I disagree with the "hate crime" designation.


Pretty soon you'll all be screaming "thought crime!" when I see hot chicks on the street.


Well, now that depends on what they look like.

:p

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I think that both reasons are valid, and both would apply to attacks against someone for religious belief or lack of religious belief. If some random thug roughed me up, I wouldn't like it. If the random thug yelled at me "and take that, you ***** atheist!" I think that the emotional trauma would be greater and I would want the thug to face greater punishment.
I suppose, but it's such a convoluted mess. The laws are trying to address two things at once: the harm to the individual and the societal harm. In the former case, it ought to be up to individuals to state whether the crime was just an ordinary sort of thing or a really grievous attack on their psyche. The law should not dictate what can be a grievous attack and what cannot. "Take this, you fat slob" might do it for one person, but weight is not in the list of hate crimes.

If the laws are also addressing the affect on the minority group as a whole, then the law should state that explicitly. But, of course, no lawmaker wants to get into that business.


This is not about "groups." Hate crime is based on "status," which is not the same as being in a "group." The Colorado law I quoted above references "religion." A person can invent their own religion, and have no followers, and thus have this religion as their "status" without being a part of any group. The point is, if you are going to make it a higher penalty to attack someone because of their religious status, then any religious status should qualify, whether it is a believer or a non-believer. This is not emotional, just rational.
But also impractical. A person can be in one or more of a million different statuses.

~~ Paul

[TsarBomba]

It ought to be up to individuals to state whether the crime was just an ordinary sort of thing or a really grievous attack on their psyche. The law should not dictate what can be a grievous attack and what cannot.


The law needs to be based on objective facts, which can be applied rationally in every case. We can't just leave this up to individuals to make the call. In most states individual victims have no decision making authority in what crime is charged, or how much punishment there will be, although they may have the right to be consulted by the DA or the judge depending on their state's victims' rights legislation. You need a statute where a police officer or a DA can look at it and say: "Yep, that's a hate crime, or Nope, that's just run-of-mill assault." It needs to be objective, not subjective.

[l0rca]

Hmmm. Well, I'm probably more on the liberal end of the political spectrum, and I disagree with the "hate crime" designation.

Oh, I was being ironical about the liberal part. I'm quite liberal myself.

Of course we can. Using a rascist insult on a black person should have the same penalty as using the same insult on a white person.

LOL?

See? Stupid liberals!

[qayak]

If all atheists had "atheist" written accross their forehead and if there was a recent history of them being targetted for violent crime then there might be an arguement for giving us hate crime inclusion. You're taking a principled emotional stand by saying "if those other groups get it then we should get it too" but in this case that ignores the reality of the differences between atheists and other groups.

I completely disagree. The law in Canada says that if you assault someone because of their religious belief, then you face prosecution for a hate-crime. Atheism is a religious belief. It is the atheist's stance on religion and should they be attacked for it, that is a hate crime.

The whole "group" thing that people are hung up on is a smoke screen. Everyone belongs to social groups, some they recognize, some they don't and some they don't even know about.

I strongly agree with MdC about atheists being the farthest thing from a religion or even a descriptive identifer that should be embraced. I think of it more as a centuries old slur that should be sidestepped.

They don't have to belong to a religious group. They only need to be assaulted for their religious beliefs for it to be a hate crime.

Agitating to be treated like an ethnicity or religion (especially in response to one or two guys getting beaten up for posting flyers about atheism, as if that compares to historic persecution) would do much more harm to atheists than not giving a harsher sentence to a once or twice a decade occurence of someone getting beaten up for posting atheism flyers.

It isn't agitating to be recognized as a specific group. It is agitating to have a set of religious beliefs be held equal under the law. Frequency of the crime is irrelevent, it falls under the protection of religious beliefs.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The law needs to be based on objective facts, which can be applied rationally in every case. We can't just leave this up to individuals to make the call. In most states individual victims have no decision making authority in what crime is charged, or how much punishment there will be, although they may have the right to be consulted by the DA or the judge depending on their state's victims' rights legislation. You need a statute where a police officer or a DA can look at it and say: "Yep, that's a hate crime, or Nope, that's just run-of-mill assault." It needs to be objective, not subjective.
I realize the law needs to be objective. Unfortunately, trying to be objective about an obviously subjective matter appears to be more arbitrary than objective. The law is trying to right a social injustice using specific individuals as exemplars. That's a tough job.

Also, even though the groups of people allowed to cry "hate crime" are specified, it's up to the individual victims to do so. It's still subjective.

Anyhoo, I've gotten sucked into a political debate. I don't care about this as much as it seems from my remarks.

~~ Paul

[Dilb]

I completely disagree. The law in Canada says that if you assault someone because of their religious belief, then you face prosecution for a hate-crime. Atheism is a religious belief. It is the atheist's stance on religion and should they be attacked for it, that is a hate crime.

No it doesn't. To quote the criminal code of Canada

Hate Propaganda

Advocating genocide

318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

And after a few definitions

Public incitement of hatred

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

A hate crime is specifically the communicated incitement of hatred or the promotion of genocide.

Much later, in the sentencing details
Other sentencing principles

718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:

(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,

(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor,

(ii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused the offender’s spouse or common-law partner,

(ii.1) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of eighteen years,

(iii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim,

(iv) evidence that the offence was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization, or

(v) evidence that the offence was a terrorism offence

shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances;

So while the judge may decide that the assaulters was motivated by hate, and impose a stricter sentence, there's no reason to charge them with a hate crime, anymore than someone would be charged with abusing someones husband or wife. By Justing Trottier's account, if nothing else his assailants didn't talk enough to be charged with a hate crime.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Since the incident has been referred to the Ontario Human Rights Commission I decided to check their site:
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/resources/news/NewsRelease.2006-05-25.8280435505/view

It appears that in about a year we will find our whether or not thid is a "hate crime" and, if it is, something like two years after that the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal wiill start to make decosion on the facts of the matter.. :boggled:

So we all have lots of time to sepculate until the decsion is made -- possibly in the next decade.

"The mills of the gods grind slow, but the mills of the government as so slowiy that they cannot be seen to move at all!" :D

[latent aaaack]

Whether a person is wearing a sign that says "I am an atheist" or "There is no god" is hardly the point. What matters is the intent of the criminal, what he or she perceives the victim of their crime to be. Whether there have been recent attacks on atheists is beside the point. If a legislature is going to pass a law on this issue, they shouldn't look at it and say "well, here in our state, we have had a bunch of attacks on people based on national origin, so we will pass a national orgin hate crime bill, but no one has attacked people because of race, so we will wait until that happens before adding that." They would include any perceived status that they should should be subject to the protections of the act. To put it another way, you don't need an epidemic of car thefts before you pass an anti-car theft law.


No, but you do need to have cars. Atheists are invisible to potential attackers. The only potential scenarios I can think of where an atheist could be attacked would be a mob approaching you and saying "hey you - are you an atheist?" or if you were publically announcing it by posting flyers about atheism. Both situations are so rare that it would be pointless making them a hate crime. If you think about what examples of crimes 'hate crimes' were invented to deal with you'll find that it doesn't translate logically over to atheists.

Comparing it to a state neglecting to protect a group with 'hate crimes' because it hasn't happened yet doesn't translate because they could still know that if said group immigrated to the state, or if some condition changed then they would have a greater number of attacks on that group. No condition could likely change that could put individual atheists in danger of being attacked and intimidated.


This is not about "groups." Hate crime is based on "status," which is not the same as being in a "group." The Colorado law I quoted above references "religion." A person can invent their own religion, and have no followers, and thus have this religion as their "status" without being a part of any group. The point is, if you are going to make it a higher penalty to attack someone because of their religious status, then any religious status should qualify, whether it is a believer or a non-believer. This is not emotional, just rational.


There is nothing wrong with insisting that the law be applied evenhandedly.

You're right that it 'should' apply in principle on the face of it but in reality there'd be no opportunity for it to be enforced because of the inherent differences between what lacking a belief in something means and what being part of a visible minority that's historically been the target of violence and exclusion means.

[DRBUZZ0]

So if I kill a black muslim woman because she black: I get a very harsh penalty.
If I kill the same black muslim woman because shes muslim I get a very harsh penalty. If I kill the same black muslim woman because she's female... I also get a very harsh penalty.

But... If I kill her because I don't like the hat she is wearing... well, that's not a hate crime, so it's not so bad. Unless the hat is somehow related to her race or religion... like if it's an naacp hat, then I get 20 years. But if it's a red sox hat... well then I get like 10.

Tell me how this makes sense?


Rather than making extra harsh laws for people who kill cops/kids/government workers or kill with an illegal firearm or in the midst of a robbery or who kill because of hate for a certain group... how about this:

ALL MURDERS GET VERY HARSH SENTENCES REGARDLESS OF THE REASON!


Also, if you can't insult someone for their religion... well I'm in trouble!

[Achán hiNidráne]

One of the things I like about being an atheist is that I am not a member of a religious group. Atheism is not a religion. And I would prefer it not start getting treated like one.

So, by that rational, the American First Amendment protection of religious freedom don't apply to atheists because "Atheism is not a religion?"

I'm not a fan of "hate crime" laws myself, but it they do exist, the ought to applied equally. If a hate crime law punishes those who commits a violent crime because of the victim's religion it should punish those who use who commit violent crimes because victims profess to have none.

You are trying to make a distinction that has none.

[blutoski]

I do realize that. I would be surprised if literally every case cared but that doesn't matter. I see a difference between wanting to know what someone was thinking as it is part of the evidence of a crime. I don't care if a judge decides that what someone was thinking makes their crime particularly callous. I'm sure that defense attorneys may use what someone was thinking to mitigate punishment.

In none of those is the thought the crime itself. Hate crime makes the thoughts illegal. That makes hate crime a thought crime and I can never support the concept of thought crime.

I've had this discussion with coworkers before, and I wonder if there is some specific brain malfunction that makes people actually believe this. The intention of the accused is very important in even defining whether a crime has taken place.

If I trip and fall while hunting, and my gun goes off accidentaly and misses somebody by a couple of feet, this is a very different crime than if I bought a gun for the express purpose of killing the person, pulled the trigger, but missed because I'm a bad shot. The former scenario may not even be a crime; the latter is attempted homicide and carries a long sentence. We want people who think like this out of circulation pronto. Either way, the crime wasn't "property damage to a tree".

By the same token, if Trottier's nose was cut by somebody who was just in a hurry and they bonked heads, versus, say, a mugging, we'd be looking at different charges for certain. In this case, it was worse than just a mugging, because the purpose of the attack was to prevent Trottier's - and others' - ongoing activities, possibly forever.

The reason we distinguish 'hatecrimes' is that they're directed at a category, and the victim is usually only selected as a representative. The purpose of the attack is to intimidate others in the category. The KKK pretty much perfected this type of attack in the US: you only need to string up a few blacks to keep the rest in line. Or so the reasoning went.

Treating the assault&battery as a hatecrime does not 'turn atheism into a religion' any more than it turns atheism into a race or sexual orientation. But it does address the fact that the attack was intended to send a message to all of us, as members of this category, and is therefore more serious than a mere person-to-person dispute.

I find it difficult to understand how some atheists can on the one hand pout about not being treated as equals, but on the other hand be asked to be excluded as a special exception all the time. And especially since this type of law is our right and intended to address grievances of "mistreatment as a category" that we perennially kvetch about.

We are our own worst enemy sometimes.

One aspect of the Wired magazine interview was the observation by the journalist that there was a noticeable martyrdom streak among atheists.

[Beerina]

I would prefer this not be prosecuted as a hate crime. Hate crimes are defined to be those crimes committed against one because of a social group to which they belong. I don't consider atheists a social group, anymore than I consider people who don't like banana pudding a social group.

I've never been in favor of hate crimes as a rider on real crimes in any case.

If someone is beat up because they're black, or athiest, or whatever, I can't think their attacker should get a little bit more time than if they got beat up for their wallet. It isn't an issue of "too much", it's one of "not enough" -- any amount of time in addition for the hate crime should be the base time for the crime as a whole. If a hate crime should get 2 years, why should a "non-hate" version get 1.5?

Given hate crimes are much rarer, one could hardly use the argument that the increased punishment is designed to address a more severe problem, either. One that society wants to stamp out more.

[Dr Adequate]

The point is, I think, that a "hate crime" is a form of terrorism, because while it happens to an individual, its intention is to intimidate the group to which he belongs, and therefore has more victims than the guy who actually gets beaten up.

I don't know whether this principle applies in this particular case, but I don't see why it shouldn't apply generally to atheists or to any other group.

[PenguinWarrior]

Given hate crimes are much rarer, one could hardly use the argument that the increased punishment is designed to address a more severe problem, either. One that society wants to stamp out more.

Huh? So people can't have a greater desire to eliminate a problem that is more rare than another one? Nuclear war is more rare than spitting in the street, therefore the penalty for attempting to start a nuclear war should be less than spitting in the street?

There's a lot of strawmen around here, sadly, and two things that many people miss. The first is that there are two crimes being commited in a so-called hate crime 1. the physical assault/vandalism/whatever and 2. the intimidation of a group of people and/or the attempt to supress others beliefs by force. In the same way that if I beat you up and stole your stuff I would expect to get a more severe sentence than if I just beat you up, this applies (not that I'm planning to, so rest easy.:) ).

The second is that the law is there because the government wants to send a signal that racism/sexism/homophobia/religious intolerance/whatever resulting in criminal actions is not something to be accepted by society, and thus they highlight the problem by giving such criminal actions harsher penalties, hopefully raising awareness of the wrongness of such actions in society (whether this works or not is another discussion, but ignoring the intention is silly at best and dishonest at worst). This is the reason that attacking left-handed people for being left handed is not a hate crime - there is no great number of incidents of discrimination/intimidation/whatever against our left handred brethren. The discussion about whether attacking atheists should be a hate crime (assuming you accept the concept in the first place, which many don't) is not about whether atheism is a religion, but about whether atheists are a group who are likely to suffer discrimination or crime that the government wants to prevent.

[Gurdur]

Once this box of frogs is opened, it can never be closed.
It was opened once humans started formulating laws. That was an awful long time ago. Get used to it.

Of course it doesn't magically prohibit anything, but it sounds as if it is increasing the penalty for a crime based on the thoughts of the criminal.
No, it sounds as if it's judging intent and applying extra sanctions for extra general discouragement. That's already been said. Enough with the strawmen, do the point.
Intent is a complicated word.
"Objective" is also a complicated word, and you've misused it here below;
"subjective" is also a complicated word;
"crime" is also a complicated word.
Just deal with the points, we can't limit discussion to the terribly simple.
I realize the law needs to be objective.
I would LOVE to see TRUE objectivity in human law; you're going to need a hefty dose of magic to bring that about.
:p
Also, even though the groups of people allowed to cry "hate crime" are specified, it's up to the individual victims to do so. It's still subjective.
All in human affairs is subjective in the end, all, or better said, intersubjective.
Anyhoo, I've gotten sucked into a political debate. I don't care about this as much as it seems from my remarks.
Awful, isn't it, how much values influence every part of our lives and existence?

The limits of pure reason, the limits. ;)

[Taffer]

The point is, I think, that a "hate crime" is a form of terrorism, because while it happens to an individual, its intention is to intimidate the group to which he belongs, and therefore has more victims than the guy who actually gets beaten up.

I don't know whether this principle applies in this particular case, but I don't see why it shouldn't apply generally to atheists or to any other group.

Good point, Dr. A.

[strathmeyer]

Apparently assaulting an atheist doesn't happen all that often. Or maybe there just aren't enough atheists out there to assault. Or maybe they're just so hard to find.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/hctable1.htm

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

If I trip and fall while hunting, and my gun goes off accidentaly and misses somebody by a couple of feet, this is a very different crime than if I bought a gun for the express purpose of killing the person, pulled the trigger, but missed because I'm a bad shot. The former scenario may not even be a crime; the latter is attempted homicide and carries a long sentence. We want people who think like this out of circulation pronto. Either way, the crime wasn't "property damage to a tree".
But note that nowhere here does anyone ask about your motive for shooting the person, except insofar as to ensure that there was one, and that the crime was premeditated. The punishment is not made worse by your thoughts about the victim.


The reason we distinguish 'hatecrimes' is that they're directed at a category, and the victim is usually only selected as a representative.
If that is what hate crime laws intend to address, then they should state this explicitly. And, of course, the prosecution must prove that the criminal was directing his anger at the group, not merely the individual.


The point is, I think, that a "hate crime" is a form of terrorism, because while it happens to an individual, its intention is to intimidate the group to which he belongs, and therefore has more victims than the guy who actually gets beaten up.
In this case, had the VT murderer survived, his actions should have been prosecuted as a hate crime. I think he was clear that it was terrorism against rich people. But alas, rich people are not a group one can hate.

I think I'd be happier if the concept was addressed as terrorism rather than hate crime.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No, it sounds as if it's judging intent and applying extra sanctions for extra general discouragement. That's already been said. Enough with the strawmen, do the point.
Why do you keep accusing me of using a strawman? When I say "I think the penalty is based on the thoughts of the criminal," why is that a strawman? Either the purported thoughts of the criminal are relevant, or the hate crime laws have to list every specific action that constitutes a hate crime.


"Objective" is also a complicated word, and you've misused it here below;
"subjective" is also a complicated word;
"crime" is also a complicated word.
Just deal with the points, we can't limit discussion to the terribly simple.
I'm dealing with the points. What point am I not dealing with?


All in human affairs is subjective in the end, all, or better said, intersubjective.
So now everthing is subjective, but you don't seem to like the fact that I think the subjectivity of a particular aspect of this issue is being overlooked.

I repeat: It is difficult to formulate laws to rectify social injustice using specific individuals as exemplars. A specific individual is not the cause of the social injustice, and yet that individual is being punished for it.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Awful, isn't it, how much values influence every part of our lives and existence?
I don't mind values so much, it's the damn politics I can't stand! :D

~~ Paul

[Gurdur]

Why do you keep accusing me of using a strawman?
Because you do. The strawmen were detailed previously (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2539166&postcount=36).
When I say "I think the penalty is based on the thoughts of the criminal," why is that a strawman? Either the purported thoughts of the criminal are relevant, or the hate crime laws have to list every specific action that constitutes a hate crime.
Your previous sloganised statement implied thoughts were criminalized.
That simply is not true;
what is actually happening is that the thoughts behind an action (intent) are taken into account.

You also previously implied (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2539166&postcount=36) that laws were about stating what people can think. Not true again. It's about judging the severity of a criminal act as by intent.
I'm dealing with the points. What point am I not dealing with?
The points repeated just above, and the points I'll repeat just below.
So now everthing is subjective, but you don't seem to like the fact that I think the subjectivity of a particular aspect of this issue is being overlooked.
Come off it, what exactly are you trying to say? IMHO, you're appealing to a false notion of objectivity, a term you misused before, as noted already too (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2541897&postcount=70).
I repeat: It is difficult to formulate laws to rectify social injustice using specific individuals as exemplars. A specific individual is not the cause of the social injustice, and yet that individual is being punished for it.

This is gibberish; social injustice is furthered by specific individual acts, and it is exactly those acts that are criminalized.

Racist-motivated lynching is a social injustice, just for example. It is individuals who are prosecuted for that. Your statement is a rather wild red-herring. Hate-crime legislation tackles the intent behind specific crimes; the specific intent affecting groups behind specific acts.

Now deal with it.

[Gurdur]

I don't mind values so much, it's the damn politics I can't stand!
Let me see:
you come into a thread stating:

that in your opinion hate-crime legalization should not exist
you imply it exists for reasons which are not the actual reasons why it exists
when you are informed that judging intent is a great part of the legal system, and that it is greatly used outside of hate-crime legislation, you merely object to the use of the term "intent".

This is not a political argument; if anything, this is a philosophical argument, and also a factual one. I'm stating your view is not congruent with the actual social reality. But in any case, it's an argument you've started yourself. The only introduced politics are yours, eg. your objection to the use of intent, unless you wish to claim that my acceptance of a status quo is also a political stance, which would be rather difficult for you to do if you did, in that I accept a messy and complex reality comprising often diametrically opposing views.

[skeptifem]

I hate the idea of hate crimes. But they should apply to athiests if we are going to have those laws in place. its not any less hateful to attack someone for being an athiest than it is to attack someone for race, its the same old 'hate everyone who is x' type of hate that the laws are there to punish.


Sometimes I think someone may not be racist at heart at all but assault someone they are pissed off at who *happens* to be black, and decides to say the n word just because they are extremely angry and is trying to hurt that persons feelings and vent. it would be prosecuted as a hate crime even if the crime wasnt committed because of race. im sure its happened.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Because you do. The strawmen were detailed previously.
I don't see anything in what I said that is a strawman. You said there that I was putting the emphasis on the wrong thing, and you said that I should think of the intent in a hate crime like the intent in a murder. Where's the strawmen?


You also previously implied that laws were about stating what people can think. Not true again. It's about judging the severity of a criminal act as by intent.
Where, in the case of hate crimes, my intention is based on what I supposendly think about a group of people. In the case of murder, my intention is a question of premeditation.


Come off it, what exactly are you trying to say? IMHO, you're appealing to a false notion of objectivity, a term you misused before, as noted already too.
I will drop my contention that victims should decide what is a hate crime, although I am still uncomfortable with the government legislating who it's possible to hate and who it's not.


This is gibberish; social injustice is furthered by specific individual acts, and it is exactly those acts that are criminalized.
But those acts are already crimes. By making a few individuals explars of the overall social injustice, the emphasis is in the wrong place.


Now deal with it.
I believe I'm dealing with it by having this conversation, in which you are working very hard to bully me into agreeing with you.


Let me see:
you come into a thread stating:

that in your opinion hate-crime legalization should not exist
At no point did I say that.


you imply it exists for reasons which are not the actual reasons why it exists
No, I didn't. I do not pretend to read the minds of the legislators, and I do not think it is a conspiracy. What I said was that it smacks of legislating against certain kinds of thoughts/emotions, and you disagree with me. That's fine.


when you are informed that judging intent is a great part of the legal system, and that it is greatly used outside of hate-crime legislation, you merely object to the use of the term "intent".
I object for a specific reason. No one has presented me with another situation where the motive/beliefs/emotions of the criminal are taken into consideration. The word intent has multiple meanings. For murder, it is premeditation, which can also apply to a hate crime. Clearly then, it is a different sort of intention that the hate crime legislates against. I did not state some sweeping disagreement with considering all forms of intent.

~~ Paul

[TsarBomba]

In this case, had the VT murderer survived, his actions should have been prosecuted as a hate crime.

~~ Paul

Total nonsense. There is no evidence (at least that has been released) that he targeted his victims because of race, religion (or lack thereof), national origin, gender or sexual orientation. Not that it would matter much in Virginia for murder anyway, he would either get life without parole or death, regardless of whether it was a hate crime.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Total nonsense. There is no evidence (at least that has been released) that he targeted his victims because of race, religion (or lack thereof), national origin, gender or sexual orientation. Not that it would matter much in Virginia for murder anyway, he would either get life without parole or death, regardless of whether it was a hate crime.
Of course, I meant that such actions should be prosecuted as a hate crime, because he expressed hatred for a particular group of people. I realize that this particular group is not in the official list of groups you can hate. By "should" I meant in my opinion.

Folks, this is the philosophy forum, not the legal forum. I realize I'm making "suggestions" that contradict the actual laws. You don't have to keep telling me this. I spite of what Gurdur said, I'm not even suggesting the laws be eliminated.

Although, consider the Canadian law:

Public incitement of hatred
319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
...
Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
...
(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor, ...
Seems to be no restriction to a specified set of groups here.

Now, if you're saying that his manifesto raged against rich people, but he killed people at random, then that is a good point. However, note the language in the Colorado statute:

A person commmits ethnic intimidation if, with the intent to intimidate or harass another person because of that person's actual or perceived race, color, religion, ancestry, or national origin, he or she: ... [emphasis mine]
Complicated stuff.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

This is not a political argument; if anything, this is a philosophical argument, and also a factual one. I'm stating your view is not congruent with the actual social reality.
Perhaps this is at the heart of our disagreement. I have no idea which social reality you're referring to, nor whether my view disagrees with the philosophy or the facts.

~~ Paul

[Gurdur]

Of course, I meant that such actions should be prosecuted as a hate crime, because he expressed hatred for a particular group of people. I realize that this particular group is not in the official list of groups you can hate. By "should" I meant in my opinion.
Do you have any kind of coherent argument that is based on current legal philosophy to back up your opinion? Or is this just simply another derail? Another red herring?
Folks, this is the philosophy forum, not the legal forum.
No, really?
No particular Legal Forum exists on JREF. Philosophy of law is actually quite a big area in law and in general philosophy. So what exactly are you objecting to? Especially as you keep interjecting "opinions" that seem very political indeed? Making "suggestions" contrary to the established laws?
I realize I'm making "suggestions" that contradict the actual laws. You don't have to keep telling me this. I spite of what Gurdur said, I'm not even suggesting the laws be eliminated. Although, consider the Canadian law:
So you are making "suggestions that contradict the actual laws", but you're not supposed to be calling for laws to be eliminated? How about changed? What exactly are you saying then? Maybe you better clear up exactly what you want to say, for your sake as well as for ours.
Perhaps this is at the heart of our disagreement. I have no idea which social reality you're referring to, nor whether my view disagrees with the philosophy or the facts.
*sigh*
I can repeat the obvious that has already been said several times.
You are objecting to current hate-crime legislation, and to the philosophy of law that underpins that. You are therefore objecting to the current sociolegal status quo, especially given your statements on intent. You are therefore objecting to the social reality of the current sociolegal state. Is that clear?
I object for a specific reason. No one has presented me with another situation where the motive/beliefs/emotions of the criminal are taken into consideration.
That is simply not true.
You were presented with the examples of the different degrees of murder and manslaughter beforehand -- the links can be given --- and it was made clear that these differing degrees rest very much upon judging the "motive/beliefs/emotions of the criminal". So just why are you claiming no one presented you with such situations?

If A kills B, it may be malicious, it may be premeditated, it may be in the heat of the moment, it may be completely accidental, it may be in justifiable self-defence. All these distinctions are vital to judgment and to handling.

Such disinctions also rest at the base of many, many other legal judgments, such as deciding if "recieving stolen goods" was done innocently or not, such as deciding in cases of alleged blackmail, such as deciding in cases of alleged slander and libel. I could go right through the statute book, but I would say that at least everyone else gets it.

Really, perhaps you better acquaint yourself much more with what happens legally.
The word intent has multiple meanings.
No, really? Astonishing. But it has a single overall meaning, which is the meaning used here; whether the crime was intended or not, and what purpose was intended with it.
For murder, it is premeditation, which can also apply to a hate crime.
Wrong again. Intent in alleged murder can cover a huge amount of territory and even murder with intent does not necessitate premeditation. Murder in the heat of the moment but with intent is recognised.
Clearly then, it is a different sort of intention that the hate crime legislates against.
No, really. Specific ntentions differ, do they? How unutterably surprising. But the overall meaning of intent stays the same.
I did not state some sweeping disagreement with considering all forms of intent.
Twice in posts in this thread you did not answer points because you simply tried saying things like "Intent is a complicated word". Maybe you better simply clear up what you want to say.
I believe I'm dealing with it by having this conversation, in which you are working very hard to bully me into agreeing with you.
Dealing with points usually means tackling them square on, not throwing red herrings around like confetti, not trying to imply that thoughts are criminalised by themselves, not indulging in irrelevant rhetoric.

And you are flatly wrong in trying to claim I am trying to "bully" you into agreement with me. Keep your aspersions to yourself and stop whining, or make a damned good case that I am trying to "bully" you, since I reject both the accusation that I am bullying you, and in fact I care far more about the actual points than whether you personally agree or not; this is supposed to be a public discussion board where astonishingly people can debate, and your attempted personalization of the debate is both irrelevant an unwarranted. I prefer a civil discussion, and one which actually sticks to the points. Your agreement or disagreement is totally immaterial to me; only the actual points matter to me.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Do you have any kind of coherent argument that is based on current legal philosophy to back up your opinion? Or is this just simply another derail? Another red herring?
Here are my issues with hate crime legislation:

I don't see why the aggrieved groups should be limited to certain minorities.
I think it is difficult to judge whether a person hates a group or just the victim.
The laws do not clearly state that we are punishing an individual for a broad social injustice.
Many other sorts of crimes affect more than just the immediate victim.
I'm not sure whether it's a good idea to consider emotional motive.
Is this legislation really going to reduce social injustice?



So you are making "suggestions that contradict the actual laws", but you're not supposed to be calling for laws to be eliminated? How about changed? What exactly are you saying then? Maybe you better clear up exactly what you want to say, for your sake as well as for ours.
I'm simply discussing what I see to be issues with the laws. I can do that without calling for the laws to be changed. I also have issues with automobiles. I can discuss those without calling for automobiles to be eliminated. It's an amazing thing.


You were presented with the examples of the different degrees of murder and manslaughter beforehand -- the links can be given --- and it was made clear that these differing degrees rest very much upon judging the "motive/beliefs/emotions of the criminal". So just why are you claiming no one presented you with such situations?
As far as I can tell, you are saying:

There is legal precedent to consider one form of intent, namely premeditation.

Therefore there is legal precedent to consider all forms of intent (e.g., emotional motive).

Perhaps there is precedent to consider emotional motive. If so, I'll retract my objection.


But the overall meaning of intent stays the same.
What "overall meaning"?

1 a : the act or fact of intending : PURPOSE; especially : the design or purpose to commit a wrongful or criminal act *admitted wounding him with intent* b : the state of mind with which an act is done : VOLITION
2 : a usually clearly formulated or planned intention : AIM
3 a : MEANING, SIGNIFICANCE b : CONNOTATION 3


And you are flatly wrong in trying to claim I am trying to "bully" you into agreement with me. Keep your aspersions to yourself and stop whining, or make a damned good case that I am trying to "bully" you, since I reject both the accusation that I am bullying you, and in fact I care far more about the actual points than whether you personally agree or not; this is supposed to be a public discussion board where astonishingly people can debate, and your attempted personalization of the debate is both irrelevant an unwarranted. I prefer a civil discussion, and one which actually sticks to the points. Your agreement or disagreement is totally immaterial to me; only the actual points matter to me. [bolding in original]
Uncle.

~~ Paul

[blutoski]

But note that nowhere here does anyone ask about your motive for shooting the person, except insofar as to ensure that there was one, and that the crime was premeditated. The punishment is not made worse by your thoughts about the victim.

Sure it is. Identifying motive is a very important part of prosecution. It is also an important part of sentencing.

My wife is a psychiatrist. She spends hours in court every week describing the motivational capabilities of the accused.

Let me give you a personal example: last year, I broke into a stranger's car by smashing the window. Should I be charged with vandalism or B&E? Should I be charged at all?





If that is what hate crime laws intend to address, then they should state this explicitly. And, of course, the prosecution must prove that the criminal was directing his anger at the group, not merely the individual.

That's exactly how it works.


I think I'd be happier if the concept was addressed as terrorism rather than hate crime.

I agree. The KKK is classified as a terrorist organization for this reason. In the meantime, we just have to work with what we've got, and it appears likely that our man in Toronto was a victim of more than just battery.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Sure it is. Identifying motive is a very important part of prosecution. It is also an important part of sentencing.
Okay, I'll have to take everyone's word for it.


My wife is a psychiatrist. She spends hours in court every week describing the motivational capabilities of the accused.
So that the judge can adjust the sentence based on whether the criminal was mean, nasty, or extra nasty? Or just to convince the jury that the guy could have done it?

Do I get a longer sentence if I really hated the person I murdered, and a shorter one if he just annoyed me a bit?

This is interesting:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Canada-Anti-Terrorism-Law-Declared-Unconstitutional-38692.shtml

~~ Paul

[ponderingturtle]

One of the things I like about being an atheist is that I am not a member of a religious group. Atheism is not a religion. And I would prefer it not start getting treated like one.

Homosexuality is not a religion, but you can comit hate crimes against homosexuals. there does not need to be a religion involved for it to be a hate crime.

[ponderingturtle]

Then ALL crimes are hate crimes....

It's pointless pedantry...

Wrong. If I beat you up because you bumped into me that is not a hate crime. Hate crime is targeting someone not for who they are but for what they represent. By its nature it is impersonal as it does not matter who that person is, just that they fall into the hated group.

[ImaginalDisc]

Wrong. If I beat you up because you bumped into me that is not a hate crime. Hate crime is targeting someone not for who they are but for what they represent. By its nature it is impersonal as it does not matter who that person is, just that they fall into the hated group.

Vigilante lynchings of black men was an epidemic in the American South. The target in those situations was as much the black community at large as the man killed.

[ponderingturtle]

The concept of a "hate crime" implies that hating me and beating me up is worse than beating me up alone. Which implies that just hating me has some criminal value over and above beating me up. This is rather silly, no?


Then there should be a crime called "stirring up racial emotions" or some such. That guy would be charged with vandalism and stirring up racial emotions (SURE). Then we can debate whether making SURE a crime is a violation of the First Amendment.

Laws should describe what people cannot do, rather than describing what people should not think.

~~ Paul

So how do you feel about the differences between various degrees of murder and manslaughter? They are often about what people thought, depending on things such as premeditation. Should these be treated the same, as the crime was the same, killing someone, it was only the thought process that was different?

[ponderingturtle]

What if you paint "Go Mets" on a person's garage because that person is black?


It would be difficult to prove that had racism as a primary motivator then.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Homosexuality is not a religion, but you can comit hate crimes against homosexuals. there does not need to be a religion involved for it to be a hate crime.
Nor did I say there did. Hate crimes involve social groups which closely parallel the protected classes. Atheism obviously is not sex, sexual orientation, race, or age. If it is going to be classed as a hate crime to attack an atheist for their atheism, it is going to have to involve classification of atheism as a religious belief.

Now, I have already conceded the main point (that this should be prosecuted as a hate crime, if anything should), and it is here I made my original misstep. Atheism is a religious belief, insofar as it is a belief about a religious topic. That does not, of course, mean it is a religion. So, atheism should be protected as any other religious belief is.

[ImaginalDisc]

Now, I have already conceded the main point (that this should be prosecuted as a hate crime, if anything should), and it is here I made my original misstep. Atheism is a religious belief, insofar as it is a belief about a religious topic. That does not, of course, mean it is a religion. So, atheism should be protected as any other religious belief is.

I agree with you completely, but if someone were to beat Fred Phelps senseless because he believes gods hates f**s would that be a hate crime?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So how do you feel about the differences between various degrees of murder and manslaughter? They are often about what people thought, depending on things such as premeditation. Should these be treated the same, as the crime was the same, killing someone, it was only the thought process that was different?
I've already given my opinion on this. Premeditation is a reasonably objective evaluation of the plan of action. It need not delve into the motivations, emotions, or personality of the criminal. Trying to decide how much I hated my victim, and for what reasons, and whether I meant to target everyone in a group, seems different to me.

I'm told, however, that the courts delve into the motivations of criminals all the time. I'm wondering if they use this information to adjust the sentence, or simply as evidence that the criminal could have committed the crime.

~~ Paul

[ponderingturtle]

You damn liberals. Can't we live in a world where assault is judged by not what is on a person's mind, but by the action itself?

Pretty soon you'll all be screaming "thought crime!" when I see hot chicks on the street.

So you are infavor of removing all those levels of manslaughter and murder from the legal system? Then it would be based not on what was on the persons mind but on the action itself.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I agree with you completely, but if someone were to beat Fred Phelps senseless because he believes gods hates f**s would that be a hate crime?
Hang on, this is getting too complicated! Now you're proposing meta-hate crimes. We could also have hate crimes by proxy: I beat up someone because he doesn't hate Hispanics enough. And what if I beat up a gay hate crime legislator?

~~ Paul

[ImaginalDisc]

Hang on, this is getting too complicated! Now you're proposing meta-hate crimes. We could also have hate crimes by proxy: I beat up someone because he doesn't hate Hispanics enough. And what if I beat up a gay hate crime legislator?

~~ Paul

I don't think my question falls down a slippery slope. Phelps's hate-spew is, by his own admission, and inseparable part of his religious beliefs. If someone were to cold clock him, and I think we can agree that might happen at any time, would he be able to claim the assault was a hate crime?

[Marquis de Carabas]

I agree with you completely, but if someone were to beat Fred Phelps senseless because he believes gods hates f**s would that be a hate crime?
Well, let's see. It is his religious belief. It could certainly be argued that the assault was an attempt to intimidate others who believe like him. So it seems to me the answer must be yes.

[ImaginalDisc]

Well, let's see. It is his religious belief. It could certainly be argued that the assault was an attempt to intimidate others who believe like him. So it seems to me the answer must be yes.

That's what I thought. Suddenly, I don't like where this is going. I'm entirely in favor of prosecuting crimes meant to intimidate whole communities more harshly than other crimes, but doing so consistently and fairly seems problematic.

[ponderingturtle]

Vigilante lynchings of black men was an epidemic in the American South. The target in those situations was as much the black community at large as the man killed.

I am trying to figure out how this relates to my post or the thread in general. Could you please elaborate as to your intent.

[Marquis de Carabas]

That's what I thought. Suddenly, I don't like where this is going. I'm entirely in favor of prosecuting crimes meant to intimidate whole communities more harshly than other crimes, but doing so consistently and fairly seems problematic.
Well, the whole intimidation of a group thing is very problematic from the word go, because you now have to decide what counts as a group for this purpose. Stabbing someone on a subway train could arguably intimidate subway passengers as a whole. Should they be counted as a group? And if someone kills a black Catholic lesbian, and carves "dirty dyke ni:mad:er mackerel-snapper" in her forehead, can this be prosecuted more harshly than had he just carved "dyke". He's taking on three groups (four if you count unwashed poeple).

[ponderingturtle]

Nor did I say there did. Hate crimes involve social groups which closely parallel the protected classes. Atheism obviously is not sex, sexual orientation, race, or age. If it is going to be classed as a hate crime to attack an atheist for their atheism, it is going to have to involve classification of atheism as a religious belief.

Now, I have already conceded the main point (that this should be prosecuted as a hate crime, if anything should), and it is here I made my original misstep. Atheism is a religious belief, insofar as it is a belief about a religious topic. That does not, of course, mean it is a religion. So, atheism should be protected as any other religious belief is.

Why does hate crimes need to be based on a discrete set of classes? If you went out and found someone wearing a red socks cap and gave them a beating because you thought they where a red socks fan, shouldn't that be a hate crime even though it was not one of the classes? I think it should be.

As a general statement of this thread

There have been good examples of why factoring in the intent and motives of the crime can drasticaly change the crime and even determine if a crime happened at all. So unless people want to broaden this to include manslaughter and murder and not just hate crime, this is a finnished issue.

This does not mean that hate crime laws are a good thing but that the principles behind them are sound. You are not criminalizing thought anymore than not treating an accident as murder is not criminalizing thought.

[ImaginalDisc]

I am trying to figure out how this relates to my post or the thread in general. Could you please elaborate as to your intent.

Maybe I need to unpack that. You said that hate crimes target a person *merely* for being part of a hated group.

Black men were lynched in obscenely large numbers in the 1800's, and even into the first half of the 20th century. Almost all of of these lynchings can be classified as hate crimes, agreed?

Now, the majority of these men were not targeted solely for being black. Most were targeted for vigilante lynchings because they had been accused of crimes against white people. They were not randomly selected, and they were not targets of convenience. They were targets of vigilante justice. They were targeted for reasons that include racial hatred, but they were seldom targeted exclusively for reasons of racial hatred.

[ponderingturtle]

I agree with you completely, but if someone were to beat Fred Phelps senseless because he believes gods hates f**s would that be a hate crime?

No because it would be easy to show that you hated him for his actions, not his beliefs. Beating him senseless because he is shouting at you at a funeral or such changes the nature of it.

He is intentionaly provacative and that should make a difference.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Why does hate crimes need to be based on a discrete set of classes? If you went out and found someone wearing a red socks cap and gave them a beating because you thought they where a red socks fan, shouldn't that be a hate crime even though it was not one of the classes? I think it should be.
Whether they need to be or not, the fact is they are. I don't think you would have very much success trying to prosecute a crime against Red Sox Nation.

Name me the crime that does not affect some group or people, anyway. Therein lies the problem. If you don't limit what counts as a group, everything becomes a hate crime. If everything is a hate crime, nothing is.

[ImaginalDisc]

Well, the whole intimidation of a group thing is very problematic from the word go, because you now have to decide what counts as a group for this purpose. Stabbing someone on a subway train could arguably intimidate subway passengers as a whole. Should they be counted as a group? And if someone kills a black Catholic lesbian, and carves "dirty dyke ni:mad:er mackerel-snapper" in her forehead, can this be prosecuted more harshly than had he just carved "dyke". He's taking on three groups (four if you count unwashed poeple).

Well, I think it's very easy to classify something as a hate crime if the accused actually says, "I stabbed that dirty dyke ni:mad:er mackerel-snapper because she was a dyke ni:mad:er mackerel-snapper." That's obviously a crime where the motivation consisted of hatred against several groups. The trouble arises when the accused isn't as vocal as the typical KKK member at a rally.

[ImaginalDisc]

No because it would be easy to show that you hated him for his actions, not his beliefs. Beating him senseless because he is shouting at you at a funeral or such changes the nature of it.

Firstly, if you read my post carefully, you would see that I posited a scenario where Phelps is attacked "for believing god hates f***s" My hypothetical situation included nothing about his actions.

He is intentionaly provacative and that should make a difference.

That's not a defense. Really, that's like saying a rape victim was intentionally provocative, and didn't have a right to say no after a night of flirting and heavy petting.

ETA: Unless Phelps was actually physically threatening the attacker, the attack has no justification.

[ponderingturtle]

I've already given my opinion on this. Premeditation is a reasonably objective evaluation of the plan of action. It need not delve into the motivations, emotions, or personality of the criminal. Trying to decide how much I hated my victim, and for what reasons, and whether I meant to target everyone in a group, seems different to me.

I'm told, however, that the courts delve into the motivations of criminals all the time. I'm wondering if they use this information to adjust the sentence, or simply as evidence that the criminal could have committed the crime.

~~ Paul

Well your understanding and intent can matter. There was a interesting case where a woman stole a car, she thought it was her daughters and the keys fit. Now motive is exactly the issue here, did she intend to steal a car, no, but in terms of actions she did steal the car. So should she be charged with auto theft?

No these are not exactly the same as the difference between a hate crime and a non hate crime, but it is similar enough that you are making that sort of determination every day already. So adding hate crimes is not fundamentally adding something different to the considerations of a crime.

[Marquis de Carabas]

No because it would be easy to show that you hated him for his actions, not his beliefs. Beating him senseless because he is shouting at you at a funeral or such changes the nature of it.

He is intentionaly provacative and that should make a difference.
What if his assailant has not been the direct target of any of his antics? If I, who have had zero contact with the man, just beat the s:Dt out of him one day because I hate (yes, hate) what he stands for, that's a hate crime, no?

And if you leave this hatred "for his actions" bit lying around, what is to stop a man who beats a gay guy senseless from claiming that it was the acts of homosexuality that drove him to it, not the homosexuality itself? You've lost a classic example of hate crime.

[ponderingturtle]

Maybe I need to unpack that. You said that hate crimes target a person *merely* for being part of a hated group.

Black men were lynched in obscenely large numbers in the 1800's, and even into the first half of the 20th century. Almost all of of these lynchings can be classified as hate crimes, agreed?

Now, the majority of these men were not targeted solely for being black. Most were targeted for vigilante lynchings because they had been accused of crimes against white people. They were not randomly selected, and they were not targets of convenience. They were targets of vigilante justice. They were targeted for reasons that include racial hatred, but they were seldom targeted exclusively for reasons of racial hatred.

Ok I see what your point was now.

I see, I used a poor wording of it then. I guess it should be where the group was the determining factor in the decision to comit a crime.

[ponderingturtle]

Whether they need to be or not, the fact is they are. I don't think you would have very much success trying to prosecute a crime against Red Sox Nation.

Name me the crime that does not affect some group or people, anyway. Therein lies the problem. If you don't limit what counts as a group, everything becomes a hate crime. If everything is a hate crime, nothing is.

No becuase a hate crime is not based off of an action, it is based off of intent and motive. So some crime is individual and not targeted because the individual is a member of a group.

An interesting case would be people targeted for wearing gang colors in the wrong area. Is this a hate crime?

[Marquis de Carabas]

No these are not exactly the same as the difference between a hate crime and a non hate crime, but it is similar enough that you are making that sort of determination every day already. So adding hate crimes is not fundamentally adding something different to the considerations of a crime.
It does not seem at all similar to me. The question in the case of the woman stealing the car is one of intent. Did she mean to deprive someone unlawfully of their property? The question in a hate crime is the reason for the intent. The entire premise of a hate crimes precludes one from ever being committed by accident.

[ponderingturtle]

Well, I think it's very easy to classify something as a hate crime if the accused actually says, "I stabbed that dirty dyke ni:mad:er mackerel-snapper because she was a dyke ni:mad:er mackerel-snapper." That's obviously a crime where the motivation consisted of hatred against several groups. The trouble arises when the accused isn't as vocal as the typical KKK member at a rally.

This addresses the difficulty in proving the crime, not if the law is valid.

Manslaughter is much easier to prove than first degree murder, so why should we have the higher level crime? It is much harder to prove so lets just go with a more basic killing someone law?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

A song by the Mothers of Invention comes to mind.

~~ Paul

[ponderingturtle]

Firstly, if you read my post carefully, you would see that I posited a scenario where Phelps is attacked "for believing god hates f***s" My hypothetical situation included nothing about his actions.



That's not a defense. Really, that's like saying a rape victim was intentionally provocative, and didn't have a right to say no after a night of flirting and heavy petting.

ETA: Unless Phelps was actually physically threatening the attacker, the attack has no justification.

It's not a defense against the assault, but it is a defense against hate crime, becuase you can show that it was specific to him and his actions not just because of his beliefs. You are dealing with two crimes there, one is the hate crime and one is the assault. So it would be like claiming an instant attack of rage as a defense in a murder case to get a manslaughter convicition in stead of murder.

It does not mean you are not guilty of a crime, but it reduces the crime you are guilty of.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Well, I think it's very easy to classify something as a hate crime if the accused actually says, "I stabbed that dirty dyke ni:mad:er mackerel-snapper because she was a dyke ni:mad:er mackerel-snapper." That's obviously a crime where the motivation consisted of hatred against several groups. The trouble arises when the accused isn't as vocal as the typical KKK member at a rally.
It's certainly easy to classify as a hate crime, but my question is should it be classified as three? Is it worse to attempt to intimidate several groups with one crime than to just target one group, and should it be prosecuted more harshly?

[ponderingturtle]

It does not seem at all similar to me. The question in the case of the woman stealing the car is one of intent. Did she mean to deprive someone unlawfully of their property? The question in a hate crime is the reason for the intent. The entire premise of a hate crimes precludes one from ever being committed by accident.

And I have already commented that these to not map exactly, but that does not mean that they are not close enough to be concidered.

You are giving practical arguements now, not objections to the principle but objections to how hard it would be to show

[Marquis de Carabas]

And I have already commented that these to not map exactly, but that does not mean that they are not close enough to be concidered.
I recognised your comment that they were close enough. It is this I disagree with. One can be perfectly comfortable legally discriminating whether an action is or is not intentional while being uncomfortable with attempting to determine why an intentional act was committed. This one certainly is, in fact.


You are giving practical arguements now, not objections to the principle but objections to how hard it would be to show
No, I am not giving practical arguments (though those should certainly be considered). I object in principle to the idea that the reason one deliberately carries out an unprovoked assault should matter legally.

[drkitten]

I'm told, however, that the courts delve into the motivations of criminals all the time. I'm wondering if they use this information to adjust the sentence, or simply as evidence that the criminal could have committed the crime.


Both. Neither. Often, the difference between one crime and another is simply the presence or absence of a particular state of mind. Here's an example; Virginia defines "aggravated assault" as a class 6 felony, unlessit is committed "with malicious intent," in which case it goes up to a class 3 felony. Similarly, assaulting a police officer carries a one year minimum penalty if committted without malicious intent, and two years if commited with malicious intent.

Obviously, the VA courts have no qualms about trying to determine the emotional motivation behind a particular attack.

Similarly, Massachusetts defines that (Chapter 265, Section 21) "Whoever, with intent to commit larceny or any felony, confines, maims, injures or wounds, or attempts or threatens to kill, confine, maim, injure or wound, or puts any person in fear, for the purpose of stealing [...] shall [...] be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years.", which is substantially worse than the ordnary penalty for assault. Again, no particular problem with trying to define the crime in terms of the motivation.

[blutoski]

Okay, I'll have to take everyone's word for it.

This is what I meant when I said I wondered if some people really have something wrong with their brain about this. It is not something I would think needs explanation. I see it as 'self evident'.

I notice you ignored my question about the broken car window example. I'll revisit it because it's a relevant anecdote.

Last summer, I was driving along hwy 97, which is a desert region. It was very hot, and there was woman on the side of the road with her car, flagging passers-by. I stopped to see if she needed help.

Boy, did she need help. She had stopped to take a whizz, and her two-year old locked the doors from the inside. He had no passed out from the heat. My solution was to break the window immediately, without asking. I then treated the kid for heat exhaustion.

So: broken window in stranger's car. Did it on purpose. Crime?

Obviously not. The intention is material to the question of whether a crime even occured.






So that the judge can adjust the sentence based on whether the criminal was mean, nasty, or extra nasty? Or just to convince the jury that the guy could have done it?

Do I get a longer sentence if I really hated the person I murdered, and a shorter one if he just annoyed me a bit?

Well, now you're just being facetious. Killing somebody for money versus killing somebody by an act of omission (forgot to check the brakes and lost control of the semitrailer) are different motives, and translate into different crimes.



Self-defense is another 'motive' for injuring somebody. It seems strange to treat both the attacker and the attacked the same way in an altercation.



In the case of my wife's role in the justice system...

One example that comes to mind is a patient who injured her husband with a knife. The proximal cause was that she was having a rare side-effect to antimalarial drugs that cause psychotic episodes. She thought he was a demon. This patient is no real risk to herself or others, so there is no grounds to press charges, and there was no further justification for keeping her in jail. It was time for this poor woman to go home.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Both. Neither. Often, the difference between one crime and another is simply the presence or absence of a particular state of mind. Here's an example; Virginia defines "aggravated assault" as a class 6 felony, unlessit is committed "with malicious intent," in which case it goes up to a class 3 felony. Similarly, assaulting a police officer carries a one year minimum penalty if committted without malicious intent, and two years if commited with malicious intent.


This is what I meant when I said I wondered if some people really have something wrong with their brain about this. It is not something I would think needs explanation. I see it as 'self evident'.
I'm not sure what it has to do with brain damage. :D How does the law define malicious intent? Is that different from premeditation?

I guess I have a thing about this. I dislike the idea that a bunch of psychoanalytic crapola has to accompany criminal prosecution. I guess there's no choice.


So: broken window in stranger's car. Did it on purpose. Crime?

Obviously not. The intention is material to the question of whether a crime even occured.
Fair enough. Although, is it a crime to break a car window to extricate a person in danger? If not, then intention is moot, because there was no criminal act.


One example that comes to mind is a patient who injured her husband with a knife. The proximal cause was that she was having a rare side-effect to antimalarial drugs that cause psychotic episodes. She thought he was a demon. This patient is no real risk to herself or others, so there is no grounds to press charges, and there was no further justification for keeping her in jail. It was time for this poor woman to go home.
Innocent by reason of insanity, basically. I have no problem with that, so I guess I'm going to have to put up with all the crapola.

Something about this in the context of hate crimes still makes me uncomfortable.

~~ Paul

[drkitten]

I'm not sure what it has to do with brain damage. :D How does the law define malicious intent? Is that different from premeditation?

Absolutely. Answers.com gives a general definition of "malicious intent" as "the intent, without just cause or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another," which is probably good enough for folk music; the actual definition not only varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but probably from crime to crime as well.

But the key here is what I-the-criminal want to happen. It goes straight to motive. If I knock you on the head because I want to steal the wallet from your unconscious body, that's probably not malicious intent (under a strict reading of the law). If I knock you on the head because I want to fracture your skull, that's malicious intent.

But premeditation refers instead to planning. Same knocking you on the head scenario. But if it's kind of a spur of the moment thing -- you're there, you say something that makes me angry, I grab a stick from the ground and whack you, it's not premeditated. If, on the other hand, I scope out a spot where I can lie in wait for you with a hockey stick I bought specially for this circumstance so it can't be traced -- that's premeditated.




Fair enough. Although, is it a crime to break a car window to extricate a person in danger? If not, then intention is moot, because there was no criminal act.

Um, that's more or less the point that we've been making here, though.

There are two elements for every crime -- a guilty act and and a guilty mind. Breaking a window to extricate a person in danger is not a crime precisely because of intention.

Breaking a window is a criminal act, regardless of circumstances. However, it doesn't rise to a crime unless it's also accompanied by a criminal mindset -- the "mens rea." You didn't intend to commit a crime, and therefore, you didn't.

Similarly, hitting you with a hockey stick may or may not be a crime. If I'm doing it in self-defense, for example, then the act is present, but not the "mens rea" -- so there is no crime. If I'm doing it with intent to commit a guilty act -- the "mens rea" -- then it's a crime. And precisely what crime it becomes depends on what my intent is. Am I trying to kill you? Then it's attempted murder. Am I trying to scare you so I can commit another felony? Then it's "putting in fear" (or whatever MA calls it). Am I doing it because you're one of That Sort of People? Then it's a hate crime. Et cetera.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Breaking a window is a criminal act, regardless of circumstances.
Unless the law specifically allows for certain circumstances that are not criminal at all. For example, I suspect fire fighters are allowed to break windows while fighting fires, with indemnity against legal action.

But point taken. The courts are constantly evaluating people's motives and mindsets. I suppose a bit more of it can't hurt too much.

~~ Paul

[blutoski]

Unless the law specifically allows for certain circumstances that are not criminal at all. For example, I suspect fire fighters are allowed to break windows while fighting fires, with indemnity against legal action.

I've ripped the clothing off of teenage girls. I've broken ribs. I've kicked people in the stomach. I've jammed plastic down people's throats. I've injected chemicals into the unconscious without their consent.

Each time, I was doing my job as a lifeguard. These acts in any other context would deservedly result in a long stay at the greybar hotel.




But point taken. The courts are constantly evaluating people's motives and mindsets. I suppose a bit more of it can't hurt too much.

That's exactly what they're for.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

That's exactly what they're for.
I hope that the courts like to make decisions with as little psychoanalysis as possible. I'm sure they do prefer it when the evidence is cut and dried. People are notoriously bad at psychobabbling other people's minds. Witness some of the ridiculous comments people on this forum make about other members' states of mind (although I realize we are not professional psychiatrists).

I'll consider it a necessary evil to be avoided when possible. Unfortunately, as we try to make sentencing finer and finer grained, we'll have to do it more and more.


Each time, I was doing my job as a lifeguard. These acts in any other context would deservedly result in a long stay at the greybar hotel.
Yes, but it is a simple fact that you were doing these as a lifeguard. No motive analysis required.

When motive is nothing more than context, it's not all that difficult to determine.

~~ Paul

[drkitten]

Yes, but it is a simple fact that you were doing these as a lifeguard. No motive analysis required.

Er, no.

Just because someone is wearing a T-shirt saying "lifeguard" doesn't give them licence to, for example, "ripped the clothing off of teenage girls." The reason he can get away with stuff like that is purely motive analysis; it's an accepted part of lifesaving procedure in a situation that rationally calls for lifesaving.. He's doing it to save lives.

Motive is never context. But context often provides a very strong clue to motive.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Just because someone is wearing a T-shirt saying "lifeguard" doesn't give them licence to, for example, "ripped the clothing off of teenage girls." The reason he can get away with stuff like that is purely motive analysis; it's an accepted part of lifesaving procedure in a situation that rationally calls for lifesaving.. He's doing it to save lives.
Okay, I'll restate my point: It is a simple question of whether you were doing these as part of your duties as a lifeguard. Only trivial motive analysis required. A phalanx of shrinks is not necessary. We don't have to determine exactly how much the lifeguard hates the girl and whether he harbors general loathing for the category of people known as girls.

I'd say the lifeguard's motive is still clear from context. I suppose someone could argue that he manufactured the dangerous situation in order to molest the girl. Although they don't apply to lifeguards, this is one of the reasons Good Samaritan laws were invented.

I've given in to analysis of motive. I'd just rather have less analysis of emotional motive, rather than more. I smell the same sorts of questions that come up when we think about lie detector tests.

~~ Paul

[drkitten]

Okay, I'll restate my point: It is a simple question of whether you were doing these as part of your duties as a lifeguard. Only trivial motive analysis required. A phalanx of shrinks is not necessary. We don't have to determine exactly how much the lifeguard hates the girl and whether he harbors general loathing for the category of people known as girls.

A phalanx of shrinks is rarely necessary except in cases of insanity pleas; I've never seen a shrink testify in a hate crime case, in particular. This is verging on a red herring.



I suppose someone could argue that he manufactured the dangerous situation in order to molest the girl. Although they don't apply to lifeguards, this is one of the reasons Good Samaritan laws were invented.

Er, not quite. The main concern that Good Samaritan laws cover is civil liability, for which mens rea is not typically a requirement.


You really are making this much more difficult than it really is, and you're tying yourself into knots imagining distinctions that aren't there. (In particular, the phrase "emotional motive," as opposed to any other kind of motive, is meaningless as far as I can tell.)

It really does boil down to a simple question : Why did the (alleged) criminal do what he (allegedly) did?

Across the world, in any system based upon English common law, the prosecutor cannot make a criminal case without being able to answer that question. And this has been true for centuries. It' doesn't require elaborate psychological analysis or the testimony of shrinks. You had your hand in the cookie jar because you wanted a cookie.. You punched that man because he spilled your beer. You stole my wallet because you needed money.

And, of course, the defense can argue otherwise. You had your hand in the cookie jar because,.... um, you were putting a cookie back Yeah, that's right! So there wasn't any criminal intent, and the prosecution is invalid. The jury will make up its mind whom they believe, and render judgement accordingly.

In the case of a hate crime, it's really just as simple. I say you punched him because he was black. You say you punched him because he spilled your beer. If the jury believes me, you are guilty of a racially-motivated assault (a hate crime). If they believe you, you're innocent of the hate crime (although probably still guilty of assault).

[Jon.]

There's a big distinction that I think is being missed in a lot of posts on this thread, and that is the difference between intent and motive, at law.

Intent, also known as mens rea, is an element of almost every criminal offence. It refers to the mental state of acting intentionally, as opposed to unconsciously or reflexively. A person who commits an illegal act while sleepwalking, for instance, does not have the mens rea to have committed a crime. "Not guilty by reason of insanity" most often refers to a lack of capacity to form the necessary intent.

Motive goes to why the person acted the way they acted. For most offences, it is irrelevant to whether or not a crime was committed, although it is very often relevant when it comes to sentencing. It may also be relevant to certain defences, such as self-defence, emergency, consent, or some insanity pleas.

With "hate crimes", motivation is part of the elements of the offence, though. As evidenced by this thread, it can be a very difficult element to prove and AFAIK successful prosecutions for hate crime are fairly rare.

One of my philosophical problems with hate crimes is that we seem to be saying that a murder committed for profit, for instance, is not as bad as a murder committed because of personal prejudices. I'm not sure I agree.

And yes, I am a lawyer (though I don't practice criminal law).

[drkitten]

There's a big distinction that I think is being missed in a lot of posts on this thread, and that is the difference between intent and motive, at law.

That's because the disinction is not as relevant as you seem to think -- nor is the language as clearly defined as you have drawn it.


Intent, also known as mens rea, is an element of almost every criminal offence. It refers to the mental state of acting intentionally, as opposed to unconsciously or reflexively. A person who commits an illegal act while sleepwalking, for instance, does not have the mens rea to have committed a crime. "Not guilty by reason of insanity" most often refers to a lack of capacity to form the necessary intent.

Motive goes to why the person acted the way they acted. For most offences, it is irrelevant to whether or not a crime was committed, although it is very often relevant when it comes to sentencing. It may also be relevant to certain defences, such as self-defence, emergency, consent, or some insanity pleas.

Er, no. Your very example shows the confusion. The reason that self-defense or necessity are valid defense is precisely because they lack the necessary mens rea element. Motive is "mens rea" and vice versa.

"Mens rea" does not simply imply "acting intentionally"; it implies not only intention, but intention to commit a criminal act. An act that you genuinely (and reasonably) believe to be non-criminal is, by that very fact, not a crime.

Of course, this doesn't mean that you won't be prosecuted. Actual innocence doesn't mean you won't be prosecuted -- if The Man believes that you did have the necessary mens rea, then he can file charges and you both have to stand up and tell your story, just as if you've got an alibi that The Man doesn't believe.


With "hate crimes", motivation is part of the elements of the offence, though. As evidenced by this thread, it can be a very difficult element to prove and AFAIK successful prosecutions for hate crime are fairly rare.

Of course, this is not confined to hate crimes. Many jurisdictions (Louisiana is one) distinguish "arson with intent to defraud" from straight-up "arson." As an element of the crime, the state is required to prove not only that you set the fire, but your motive in setting the fire. (And please note that the word "motive" is appropriate; the key is not that you set the fire "intentionally," but, in your words, "why the person acted the way they acted."


One of my philosophical problems with hate crimes is that we seem to be saying that a murder committed for profit, for instance, is not as bad as a murder committed because of personal prejudices.

That is indeed what we are saying. Similarly, we're saying that rape is or is not as serious a crime as kidnapping, depending upon how the penalties are structures in the statutes. That's part of the legislature's job, to decide what sort of criminal behavior is more serious than others.

Given the relative frequencies of murder-for-hire and hate crime killings, as well as the number of people emotionally affected by the two types of crime, I think I'm happy with making this statement. If you disagree -- well, you have a phone and you know how to contact your congressmen. But since part of the job of the legislature is to respond to constituent concerns, and this is demonstrably a major issue in a number of communities, I'd be surprised if the legislature would not come to a decision along those lines.

Crimes that ick people out tend to be punished severely, precisely because people get icked out and then write letters.

[Jon.]

That's because the disinction is not as relevant as you seem to think -- nor is the language as clearly defined as you have drawn it.

At law, the distinction between motive and intent is very relevant and very clear - and taught in the first week of law school; at least, it was at the one I went to.

Er, no. Your very example shows the confusion. The reason that self-defense or necessity are valid defense is precisely because they lack the necessary mens rea element. Motive is "mens rea" and vice versa.

Wrong. Self-defence is a positive defence - it requires the accused to prove something. Same with necessity. However, the initial onus is on the prosecution to prove the elements of the crime - the mens rea and the actus reus. If I swing my fist and hit someone, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I intended to swing my fist and that I was at least reckless or wilfully blind as to whether or not it would hit someone (as the mens rea - they also have to prove the actus reus of hitting). If they do so, the onus shifts to me to prove any positive defences such as self-defence or necessity. That is where motive would enter the equation. The prosecution does not have to prove that I had a motive to hit - although doing so may assist them in proving that I did so intentionally.

"Mens rea" does not simply imply "acting intentionally"; it implies not only intention, but intention to commit a criminal act. An act that you genuinely (and reasonably) believe to be non-criminal is, by that very fact, not a crime.

Again, wrong. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Even honest belief that the law is opposite of what it actually is is no excuse, unless "officially induced." Mens rea does not mean intent to commit a crime, but intent to do the act. In other words, I cannot plead that I intended to swing my fist at someone but I honestly thought it was legal to do so in that jurisdiction - unless my belief was induced by a person of authority.

Of course, this doesn't mean that you won't be prosecuted. Actual innocence doesn't mean you won't be prosecuted -- if The Man believes that you did have the necessary mens rea, then he can file charges and you both have to stand up and tell your story, just as if you've got an alibi that The Man doesn't believe.

True. Anyone can be prosecuted for anything.

Of course, this is not confined to hate crimes. Many jurisdictions (Louisiana is one) distinguish "arson with intent to defraud" from straight-up "arson." As an element of the crime, the state is required to prove not only that you set the fire, but your motive in setting the fire. (And please note that the word "motive" is appropriate; the key is not that you set the fire "intentionally," but, in your words, "why the person acted the way they acted."

True. Break and enter with intent to commit an indictable offence and possession of narcotics for the purpose of trafficking are other examples where motive is an element of the crime. However, it is not always an element, and in most cases there is a lesser included offence that does not require proof of motive (arson simpliciter, mischief and possession simpliciter in these examples).

[mijopaalmc]

I thought these definitions for Law.com's legal dictionary might help:

intent (http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=995&bold=||||)
n. mental desire and will to act in a particular way, including wishing not to participate. Intent is a crucial element in determining if certain acts were criminal. Occasionally a judge or jury may find that "there was no criminal intent." Example: lack of intent may reduce a charge of manslaughter to a finding of reckless homicide or other lesser crime.

motive (http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?typed=motive&type=1&submit1.x=0&submit1.y=0&submit1=Look+up)
n. in criminal investigation the probable reason a person committed a crime, such as jealousy, greed, revenge or part of a theft. While evidence of a motive may be admissible at trial, proof of motive is not necessary to prove a crime.

[drkitten]

True. Break and enter with intent to commit an indictable offence and possession of narcotics for the purpose of trafficking are other examples where motive is an element of the crime. However, it is not always an element, and in most cases there is a lesser included offence that does not require proof of motive (arson simpliciter, mischief and possession simpliciter in these examples).

I think we're mostly on the same page here. And similarly, assault simpliciter doesn't require proving a racial motive on the part of the assailant.

So getting back to Paul's central objection, the idea that the law somehow cannot or should not be looking at "motive" is unsupported.

[Darth Rotor]

The point is, I think, that a "hate crime" is a form of terrorism, because while it happens to an individual, its intention is to intimidate the group to which he belongs, and therefore has more victims than the guy who actually gets beaten up.

I don't know whether this principle applies in this particular case, but I don't see why it shouldn't apply generally to atheists or to any other group.

Good point, Dr. A.
I'd like to add to this point a practical matter: when the DA prosecutes this crime, he has an added burden of proof in getting a conviction on a hate crime, or a more rigorous and difficult burden of proof than he would need for the simpler case of assault.

If there is evidence of this added element in the crime, strong enough evidence of this particular motive and agency that cannot be disputed, or defeated, in court, then the DA will probably wish to pursue the hate crime charge. Me, I concur with assault as assault, but as noted above, the law states otherwise at present.

As a nice bit of leverage for the DA, a hate crime initial charge may yield a plea deal, quickly, to a simple charge of assault.

Of course, the perp may walk if the DA goes for "the hate crime" case and conviction, but is only able to show strongly to a jury the simpler crime of assault. Depending on how the charges are preferred, that may kill the case.

DR

[Jon.]

I think we're mostly on the same page here. And similarly, assault simpliciter doesn't require proving a racial motive on the part of the assailant.

So getting back to Paul's central objection, the idea that the law somehow cannot or should not be looking at "motive" is unsupported.

Agreed. The courts look at motive all the time; sometimes it's an element of the crime, sometimes it's a piece of evidence that is used to prove or disprove an element of the crime.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So getting back to Paul's central objection, the idea that the law somehow cannot or should not be looking at "motive" is unsupported.
A "should not" doesn't require support, it's just my opinion. :D

If this definition is reasonable:

motive
n. in criminal investigation the probable reason a person committed a crime, such as jealousy, greed, revenge or part of a theft. While evidence of a motive may be admissible at trial, proof of motive is not necessary to prove a crime.
then hate crimes are some kind of exception, since proof of motive is necessary.

I understand I'm making a big deal out of this now, but hey, this is the Philosophy forum. I swear that if this was the Politics forum, I would not be bothering all y'all at all.


As a nice bit of leverage for the DA, a hate crime initial charge may yield a plea deal, quickly, to a simple charge of assault.
Oh my, this does not make me feel better about hate crimes.

~~ Paul

[Gurdur]

Here are my issues with hate crime legislation: I don't see why the aggrieved groups should be limited to certain minorities.
You've been given the reasons, you simply don't like them -- and what is more, you haven't even bothered to fulfill your moral obligation to acquaint yourself with the area before you pronounce your prejudices about it.
I think it is difficult to judge whether a person hates a group or just the victim.
The laws do not clearly state that we are punishing an individual for a broad social injustice.
This is what courts and evidence are for; and since you don't appear to actually know the legal scene well, maybe you should specify just which particular law you're complaining about before you start bitching about it.
I'm not sure whether it's a good idea to consider emotional motive.
I'm bloody sure you should know more about the legal scene -- in particular the medicolegal scene -- before you whine about it.
Is this legislation really going to reduce social injustice?
Murderers in the South USA prompted by racism have been brought to justice under new Federal laws decades after their crimes, after the local justice and police systems failed. That is certainly bringing in more justice and less social injustice.
I'm simply discussing what I see to be issues with the laws. I can do that without calling for the laws to be changed. I also have issues with automobiles. I can discuss those without calling for automobiles to be eliminated. It's an amazing thing.
How disingenuous. You constantly reiterate your dislike of certain laws and how you don't think they should exist, in fact you call for an entire legal area to be removed -- the judgment of intent -- and yet you try wriggling out of it. Amazing.
Perhaps there is precedent to consider emotional motive. If so, I'll retract my objection.
Meh, how many times does the example of judging the degree of murder charge -- and therefore severity of punishment -- need to be repeated to you?

I assume you are aware of the different degrees of murder and manslaughter charges (let alone "justifiable homicide"). If you aren't, you better acquaint yourself with them quicksmart. Otherwise you're telling us what you dislike about an area about which you know nothing about.
What "overall meaning"?
Oh puh-leeeze. Why these games? "Intent" has an overall meaning here of:
1 a : the act or fact of intending : PURPOSE; especially : the design or purpose to commit a wrongful or criminal act *admitted wounding him with intent* b : the state of mind with which an act is done : VOLITION
2 : a usually clearly formulated or planned intention : AIM

All you've done so far is object to say that there are different specific intentions, which is like objecting to the overall term "apple" because there are apples which are individually different. Amazing.
Uncle.
Do you retract your silly little accusation that I was "bullying" you, or not?
I'm ever so dreadfully sorry you should dislike someone disagreeing with you. Too bad.
So that the judge can adjust the sentence based on whether the criminal was mean, nasty, or extra nasty?
*sigh*
Do you know absolutely NOTHING about discretionary sentencing powers for judges?
I've already given my opinion on this. Premeditation is a reasonably objective evaluation of the plan of action. It need not delve into the motivations, emotions, or personality of the criminal.
This is all totally arrant nonsense. Establishing premeditation means establishing means and motive. If you want to try disagreeing, tell us how premeditation is established in a court case, in general.
How does the law define malicious intent? Is that different from premeditation?
Again, it's your repsonsibility to educate yourself about an area before you post your prejudices about it. How about you look that up for yourself?
I guess I have a thing about this. I dislike the idea that a bunch of psychoanalytic crapola has to accompany criminal prosecution. I guess there's no choice.
I guess I personally dislike those who make Ann-Coulter-like diatribes about areas which they know nothing about. And then whine they are being "bullied" if someone dares disagree with them.

Tell us all, specify exactly what the "psychoanalytical crapola" is that you're disliking now. Or if you can't specify, was it all just more worthless emotive hyperbole of yours?
I hope that the courts like to make decisions with as little psychoanalysis as possible. I'm sure they do prefer it when the evidence is cut and dried. People are notoriously bad at psychobabbling other people's minds. Witness some of the ridiculous comments people on this forum make about other members' states of mind
What? Like accusations of someone "bullying" you? By daring to disagree?
Never mind, courts rely on more expert witness.
(although I realize we are not professional psychiatrists).
*shrug*
In my own professional area I had a bit to do with the outskirts of the medicolegal scene. It also came up a fair bit in actual straight diagnosis (establishing actual neuro problems or simply normality).
then hate crimes are some kind of exception, since proof of motive is necessary.
Again disingenuous.
Degrees of charges of murder -- and of a good many other crimes, such as "knowingly receiving stolen goods" -- have already been given as examples where motive must be reasonably established.
I understand I'm making a big deal out of this now, but hey, this is the Philosophy forum. I swear that if this was the Politics forum, I would not be bothering all y'all at all.
I don't mind the big deal at all, but I do object to uninformed prejudices,
Oh my, this does not make me feel better about hate crimes.
Fortunately, the justice systems commonly rely more on expert witness and procedure than on what makes you personally feel good. Which is just as well for us all.