"Hate Crime", and it's terrible implications

Bingo!

Not to mention that's just the precedent. Once enshrined, such laws can be quickly and easily turned to fascism or totalitarianism. Any Govt can simply declare your thoughts/actions 'hate', and charge you. It just starts with the violent crimes .. but now that the precedent is set it will be applied across the spectrum of laws.

 

Phones are always best left to telephony, that's for sure.

If there is no conspiracy inherent in your expressed concerns about hate crime laws and convictions, then what are you concerned about, exactly? Are you worried that you will commit one?

 

Says you, CKW. It's not normal behavior to chase a man down and kill him because you think he's acting suspicious.

 

At law the motivations directly influence how the courts regard the severity of the crime and sentencing. They always have. Why do you think those convicted of 'murder for hire' offenses get a longer terms than someone who for instance kills another person in bar fight? In neither example is the conduct excusable but the former case the criminal is far more of a potential threat to the community than in the letter.

 

That seems to be the message along with "racism" ... only whites can be racists.

 

Completely wrong. Its punishing actions, not thoughts. Anyone, (you included) is entitled to be as racist/bigoted/prejudiced inside their own heads as they choose to be. Its overt actions derived from those beliefs that end up getting people in trouble.

 

It's not normal behaviour to kill anyone, for any reason.

 

So the law deems that the random opportunistic crime (the bar room fight, the homesteader shooting a supposed threat, etc) is a smaller offense than one predicated upon a larger motive like money, or turf? There's unlikely to be 'hate' in the latter, so you're saying the assumption of that fleeting and unknowable emotion increases the sentence for the former to greater than the latter?

 

False. Hate is a thought crime is crime regardless of what the perpitrator was thinking.

If you murder somebody you should be charged with murder. Whether you did it because you hated the person or you wanted to watch them die makes no difference.

But you get extra penalty for crimes because of this thought. So yeah it's a thought crime. Hate is a thought but an action.

Right, so charge them with assault, harassment, aggravated assault, murder so forth. What they thought while they were doing it doesn't matter.

Hate is a thought not an action.

 

Conspiracy suggests planning and cunning, and as far as I can tell that's exactly what's LACKING from this precedent.

 

Granted. But it's really something how some people are bending over backwards to try and defend what these guys did, as though it was not as heinous a crime as what they were charged with and ultimately convicted of. The point of my statement was that it is not expected behavior for guys to chase any man down and kill him simply because they thought he might be up to no good in their neighborhood. It indicates a darker motive. It need not have been racism, of course. It could have been other things, such as a personal grievance, except that they did not know the guy.

Anyway, we don't need to speculate because there is evidence of their motive, and it was presented at trial.

Racist, violent evidence presented in federal trial against Ahmaud Arbery's killers
February 16, 20226:30 PM ET

--> https://www.npr.org/2022/02/16/1081...n-federal-trial-against-ahmaud-arberys-killer

Read and enjoy.

 

I've already pointed out that inquiries will usually reveal the substantive motive for a crime be it racism or greed etc. In the case of a paid assassinations and hate crimes the motives involved mean the person concerned is generally far more likely to commit further crimes than other motivations. The degree of premeditation involved is also a major factor in sentencing. Hate crimes and murder for hire generally involve far more premeditation than other crimes. That is the reality of the situation and the courts respond to that reality.

 

Yes, and that darker 'motive' is plain old psycho bastardry. Evil, if you will. And as you correctly point out, it can't be anything more specific since they didn't know the guy.

The poetic license of presumed emotional states might make good tabloid fodder when it ends there, but it should never have been taken up this absurd notch, and written into legal precedent. Such things will always be exploited by those with ill intent ... assuming they weren't that to start with.

 

What is a 'hate crime'? How would Donald Trump, or Putin .. define it? Because that's what you're opening the gate to, in running with this.

 

You cut off my post and ignored the part where I posted relevant information for you to examine. It seems you would rather ignore facts you find inconvenient and make assertions that you feel support your bias instead.

Don't respond to me until you're prepared to respond in an informed, objective manner, or I might start to get cranky since I will have to assume you're trolling.

 

Donald Trump was a hate crime perpetrated against America by Putin, since Putin helped him win in 2016. Does that clear it up for you?

 

Firstly hate is not a thought its an emotion. They are not the same thing (well at least in human beings anyway). Secondly hate, if in play provides the motivation for a crime. And at law motive is important.

Read my previews responses to this thread re; crimes like murder for hire etc. Persons convicted of such crimes generally receive far more serious sentences than other types of killer. Case in point? Someone who kills their spouse in the middle of an argument will generally (all other factors being equal) receive a lessor sentence than someone who hires a third party to kill their spouse. Motivation.

 

I don't do links, sorry. Excerpt your point, Love

 

How a hate crime is defined is set out in the legislation of the jurisdiction concerned. There will be proofs that have to be met.

 

And emotions are both fleeting, and unknowable. You can assume all you want, but you can never actually know unless the perp volunteers the specifics. Even then, what if they're lying? What if they're telling you that out of malice for you, or to misdirect you in some way? What if their real motive is envy, but it's expressed as hate? Or protectiveness, rather than hate? Are you reckless enough to call the difference?

More importantly, would you want your thoughts and emotions presumed via law, if this kind of power was in the hands of an evil overlord?

 

And when the psychopath is ruling over that legislation, and free to declare what 'hate' is?

 

Why would you "not do links"?

 

I'm working. Carry on .. show me your goods!

 

I don't buy it. You can waste all day chatting on this forum but can't open a simple news article? What the hell kind of work environment is that?

 

So if a black man kills another black man but calls him a n*igger is that a hate crime?