Printable View
Again, the intent doesn't matter, it's the crime that matters. Whether I think "I don't like this guy" or I think "I hate black people" when I kill him, the only crime is killing him. The motive has nothing to do with guilt or innocence of the crime. A "hate crime" is no more heinous than any other crime, the only thing that's different is the motive.Quote:
Originally Posted by DocFrance
Any lawyer or judge will tell you that intent is a primary factor when deciding on a sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
If motive or intent did not matter, then manslaughter would also be considered murder. Intent does play a factor, and it should.
'Intent' is relevant to guilt.
'Motive' is relevant to sentence.
'Intent' = whether or not you intended to kill.
'Motive' = what compelled you to kill.
Motive is reduced to whether your killing could be partially-condoned or not, not a different sentence for every different reason.
After making this category of thought-crime a factor, what about the others? Surely it's more cold-blooded to kill someone for money than for hatred, right? So we should have a "greed-motivated crimes" law as well? A "CYA Crimes" law, a "wanted to know what it's like crimes" law, and a "he needed killin' crimes" law with extra-light sentences?
This is America. We punish people for committing crimes, not having the wrong thoughts.
Yes, but I'm talking about punishing people that let the wrong thoughts lead them to committing crimes. As D corrected me, intent is huge factor in any criminal case.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
Anyway, the primary purpose of criminal law is deterrence, not punishment. By making the punishment for hate crimes much more severe, hopefully the would-be murderers will be discouraged.
There's a big difference between 'different laws for different motives' and 'different sentences for different motives' .Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
Guilt (for murder)- or criminal liability - is determined by two things.
(1) Did the accused carry out the act of killing the victim?
(2) Did the accused intend to kill?
or alternatively
Did the accused know his/her action could be fatal, but was reckless to this risk?
If both of these are satisfied, then the accused is guilty of murder, in the absence of a defence.
A sentence is then imposed by the judge. Usually, there is a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. However, sometimes the death penalty is an option; there are also other variations, such as the length of the non-parole period. A person's motive for murder can significantly impact upon this.
For example, if a man murders is neighbour so he can steal his neighbour's beer, then he'll likely get the maximum possible sentence.
On the other hand, if a somoene murders the man who raped his wife, then the motive is entirely different. In those cases, the crime of murder is still to be condemned and punished, but the offender would very likely receive a lesser sentence than someone who murdered for personal gain, as in the 'beer' example.
So there can indeed be a different sentence for different motives.
Pesonally, I have no problem with specific legislation targetting 'hate crimes'. Persecution of minorities is depsicable and should be dealt to accordingly, especially when one person is harmed merely for belonging to the group. The offence is targetted at every person in that group, not just the one victim, in such cases.
If X kills Y because he wants Y's money, he's guilty of murdering Y. His motive was because he wanted money.
If X kills Y because Y was white and X hates all white people, he's guilty of murdering Y. His motive was because he has a murderous hatred of all white people.
No society needs that kind of extreme prejudice.
Damn, Big D just showed me up. Again.
And now I remember why I barely got a C in my Law 220 class.
I'm definitely not out to "show anyone up":p
Law is a complex and messy business. "Intent" and "motive" mean basically the same thing to most people; I was just clarifying the legal distinction between the two.
Well Big D, thank you for clarifying the difference between intent and motive.
However, the rest of your post, I disagree with. As with your example, if a man murders his neighbor so he can steal his neighbor's beer, he is guilty of murder, and his motive is stealing--which is a crime, and just another charge to add to the list. However, if a man murders the guy who raped his wife, he is guilty of murder, and his motive is revenge/justice. But, this man could plea-bargain his way down, especially if he did it within a short time of finding out what happened, finding out who it was, or seeing the guy again. There are time limits, within which can be plead temporary insanity. Not to mention, severe emotional distress would come into play in the courtroom, and the defense council would probably rely on trying to make the jury understand and/or feel sorry for the suspect. A jury member might say "well he did it, but I understand why, so he's got to be punished, but we might should go light on the poor guy."
As for "hate crimes", either somebody murders somebody because they're a certain color, or somebody murders somebody because they want money, they're mad at 'em, etc. As The Redneck said, when will the "he needed killin'" motive get a different sentence than the "he was black" motive, or the "I wanted his wallet" motive? Why don't we toss in the "he looked at me wrong" and "I'd never done it before and figured now was as good a time as any" motives?
That's a good point, and one that can only be debated in terms of "personal opinion", I guess. Some people see "hate crimes" as a widespread social evil, something that occurs frequently and isn't just another sad display of typical human greed or callousness. "He needed killin" usually shows a fairly utter disregard for human life and the law, but that excuse can come from a lot of reasons. It's not a specific motivation, unlike racial hatred which can be defined and quantified.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
Racism has strong links to many of history's greatest horrors: slavery, genocide, the Holocaust. That could well be the reason many people want violent racial hatred to be placed in a class of its own - so it can be cracked down upon as a uniquely abhorrent offence.
I fully understand why people would want all murder to be treated the same; after all, the results for the victim - i.e. unjust death - are the same no matter the killer's motivation.
People are killed every day because someone else wants their wallet or their car. Well, not in my country, but in more populous nations. When that happens, though, I don't feel like, "Oh no! I've got a wallet/car! They want me dead too! I'm threatened by this wanton hatred!".
However, when someone is killed because of prejudice against their race/sexuality/some other aspect of their identity, it's a different matter. If I was in a particular minority group and I'd learned that a group of thugs beat someone to death for being black/gay/whatever, I'd feel personally vulnerable and threatened by what had happened.
All violent crime is terrible and has effects that extend far beyond the victim. However, hate crimes are such that a whole section of the community is potentially made to feel like targets.
That's how I see it, anyway. I don't have a problem with there being hate crime laws. I'd not have a problem if there weren't hate crime laws, either.
If everybody involved was brought to justice, why would it matter? Something bad happened, those responsible have been put away, and it probably won't happen again at least until those guys get out. Like the three guys in Texas that dragged the black guy to his death--they were prosecuted and punished, which removed that particular threat. Now black people don't have to worry about "hate crimes" in that area any more than they did before this happened. If a serial killer is going around my town, and he's captured and put in jail, now I don't have to worry about a serial killer coming after me, right? I can understand if the Klan started acting back up and lynching people, but it's usually just isolated incidents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big D
(By the way, racism may have a link to slavery, but remember, most of those slaves were bought from black slave traders in Africa.)
Because we're trying to deter people and prevent these crimes from happening in the first place rather than just punishing those who commit them after the crime has already taken place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
Punishment isn't a deterrant for crime? Or are normal crimes alright just to punish the guilty, but we've got to do more to "discourage" hate crimes? Why is it that we need to find a way to deter "hate crimes" more than any other crime?
ah gonna have to disagree with sasquatch again (sorry about this) freedom of speech is a tricky one. yes saying "i hate blacks" maybe just okay. but saying "all blacks should die" "kill all the blacks" "£2000 for the next guy to give me a black guys head" is that legal? your not taking part but inciting racist violence. are giving orders legal or illegal? if they're not arent they just the same as speech? at what point does preaching become an order? are muslim clerics who say all jews need to be killed criminals or exercising their freedom of speech? at what point does the "i hate blacks" logo" become the "you should hate blacks" logo? is there really any difference?
is preaching hate in anyway a good thing? sasquatch in a previous topic you were saying that muslim clerics were saying nasty things about america and should have their mosques bulldozed. now you defend them?
is freedom of speech only considered right when it doesn't affect the people who defend it?
would anyone be happy here if people started walking around town with a sign saying "(insert your name here) must be killed at all costs"?
how many people who have posted here defending people's rights to say similar things are actually black?