Debate:Hate crime laws are stupid

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Moar discussion: new section)
Line 49: Line 49:
 
::::Such as? [[User:Amin7b5|Amin7b5]] 22:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 
::::Such as? [[User:Amin7b5|Amin7b5]] 22:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 
:::::Muslim pressure-groups using the laws as a vehicle to levy blasphemy charges, mostly; see [[wp:Human rights complaints against Maclean's magazine|here]] for one example. {{User:ListenerX/sig0}} 03:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 
:::::Muslim pressure-groups using the laws as a vehicle to levy blasphemy charges, mostly; see [[wp:Human rights complaints against Maclean's magazine|here]] for one example. {{User:ListenerX/sig0}} 03:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 +
 +
== Moar discussion ==
 +
 +
''If you start to tell me "I'm going to kill Z3ro because..." I don't think it matters how you finish that sentence.'' -Neveruse513;  To continue this discussion, this is an extreme example meant to distract from less extreme examples.  Try for example "I'm going to speed because..." or "I'm going to break into this house because..."  in each of those examples, there are reasons that can go into them that make there punishments less severe. 
 +
 +
Also consider that the current justice system does take into account more that just the act commited.  First time offenders get shorter sentences than repeat offenders, and younger kids get longer sentences than older kids.  To say that nothing but the crime itself should be considered would require a complete reworking of the justice system.  {{User:Z3ro/sig}} 15:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:40, 16 May 2009

Debate.JPG This is a Debate page.
Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil!
Information icon.svg This debate was created by signed users.


The reason(s) for targeting a victim should be irrelevant to the punishment of the crime because I do not believe any additional pain or suffering is truly bestowed upon the victim.

Targets of bias-motivated crime may by distressed by the motive, but I believe targets of random acts would feel similarly distressed by the lack thereof. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 19:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about U.S. hate crime laws or other ones? Because I understand that the U.S. ones were mainly set up as a procedural thing, to bypass corrupt local courts. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 19:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't really aware of that, so I suppose I am attacking hate crime laws in general. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 20:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Myself, I am quite skeptical of laws that attempt to push a political agenda by punishing some motives more than others. Thomas Jefferson said in the same letter where he coined "separation of church and state": "The legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions." Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 20:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the quote. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 20:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
As has been pointed out to me before, we do punish people differently based on their intentions. Manslaughter (unintentional murder) is punished differently from intentional murder. Using this basis, hate crime laws at least have some precedent. Z3rotalk 20:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
That is not really a parallel, since manslaughter vs. murder is "no motive" vs. "any motive," whereas hate crime laws consider one particular motive vs. another. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 20:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd argue that the distinction is between "motive" and "intent". — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 20:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
(EC)That depends on how you look at it. No motive is different from accidental death. A crazy person may kill someone for no reason. It wasn't accidental, but they had no motive. Thus, we do punish based on motives, at least somewhat. Z3rotalk 20:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the "intent" vs. "motive" distinction is what I was trying to get across. Z3ro, modifications to what you said? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 20:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a real difference between motive and intent with regards to criminal procedings. Motive is what matters, while intent is only considered tangentally. You may intend to develop a cure for cancer, but if your drug ends up killing millions, you will be tried accordingly. Z3rotalk 20:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a horrible analogy, but if I really love to speed (or really hate speed limits) should I be punished more than you (who let's say doesn't hate speed limits or love speeding) for the exact same crime? — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 20:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, if you believe in rehabilitation, the person who loves to speed should be punished more than the person who does not. Z3rotalk 20:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Would that presume that the person who loves to speed commits more violations? — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 21:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Of course not, but the person who loves to speed would require a more severe consequence (on average) to discourage them from speeding than the person who does not like to speed. Z3rotalk 21:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I just don't think a legal system can afford to be that presumptuous. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 21:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Yet it happens that way all the time. Z3rotalk 21:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
(EC) Or to rephrase, whether your motive in making a deadly drug was to cure cancer or to kill millions, you would be tried in the same manner, so motive does not matter...? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 20:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The two terms are very similar, and I'm not a lawyer, so forgive my lay-person understanding, but motive is why you caused the crime, intent is what you meant to happen. I could be motivated to rob someones house because I'm poor, and not intend to kill the owner; motive would be no money, intent no murder. I'm rambling now, but I stand by my statement that motive can and is punished differently. Z3rotalk 20:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

How would the motive of not having money be punished? — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 20:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
With less of a sentence or more social programs than for someone like Bernie Madoff who was rich and still stole because he was greedy. Z3rotalk 20:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
So if I steel from you because I'm poor I get a lesser sentence. If I steel from you because I'm greedy I get a harsher sentence. What if I'm poor and greedy? — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 20:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps not a lesser sentence, but maybe enrolled in a program to give you job skills so you don't have to steal again. And if you're poor and greedy you get the greedy sentence ;) Z3rotalk 21:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
This is why I dislike these sort of laws; the lighter treatment of the poor thief is pushing an agenda that demonizes rich people and greed, and however much one agrees with that agenda, putting it in law is an entirely separate question. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 21:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

As it is, we punish crimes differently depending on the motivations of the criminal--thus premeditated murder and manslaughter are different crimes even though the victim is just as dead in either case. Given that that notion is founational to criminal law in the first place, I see no problem with expanding it to deal with the fact that some victims of crime are targetted as victims because of a particular set of motivations on the part of the perpetrator. Amin7b5 21:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Murder and manslaughter are determined by intent, which is a separate concept from motive. You can't have motive without intent, but you can have intent without motive. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 21:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Motive and intent are close enough that they are interchangable for the purposes of this discussion, thus rendering that argument useless. Z3rotalk 21:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe motive and intent are wholly different legal concepts. I don't know what kind of authority we can appeal to here for an answer.... — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 21:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure they are, but without getting too technical, they make little difference here. We are discussing why a person committed a particular act, and if that should be punished/not, right? Z3rotalk 21:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Shifting a little here, does the potential for punishing why lead to more possibility of a false positive? If I'm a Nazi and I coincidentally mug a Jew without the motive of antisemitism, how would I be protected from undue prosecution? — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 21:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
That is another problem with hate crime laws; unlike concrete actions, what was in the person's head at the time of the act is almost impossible to prove. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 21:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Usually we don't have to get into their heads to prove what they were thinking; shouting racial slurs is enough. Protecting against false positives would be part of the justice process, just like proving guilt. Z3rotalk 21:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I thin "intent" might better describe what i was getting at...Amin7b5 21:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Intent is not "why," but "what" — what the perpetrator intended to do rather than why s/he intended to do it. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 21:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Think of Hate Crime laws as what they really are, laws against Domestic Terrorism. Laws in our country often deal with intent. "murder" vs. "manslaughter" vs. "murder in the first, second or third". misdemeanor domestic violence vs., felony domestic violence. First degree Child abuse v. 3 degree (or incidental, ignorant abuse - in that you didn't really realize it was wrong to leave your child in the car). The reasons for what you do are virtually *always* considered, when asking a jury to consider appropriate charges and penalties of the charges. I've never understood why people get so up in arms about hate crimes, as if they were the only crime where intent mattered.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"To-morrow, when I wake, or think I do, what shall I say of to-day?" 21:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC) (Edit conflict)
The distinctions you are talking about deal with intent, while hate crimes deal with motive. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 21:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Based on your own description, intent is what while motive is why. The intent of a parent leaving their kid in the car is what, and is the same in each type of legislation. The why (to punish, on accident, etc) is what changes the sentence. Z3rotalk 21:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
How does the motive change anything? Either you intended harm or you didn't. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 22:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
As simple as I can think of it: If you start to tell me "I'm going to kill Z3ro because..." I don't think it matters how you finish that sentence. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 22:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Wait. It was my understanding that hate crimes had the effect to intimidate members of the targeted group and wasn't merely a matter of intent/motive/whatever. Put that way it seems like the above discussion is a bit irrelevant. FlareTalk 21:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

In my area the Hate crime is meant to be an extra charge where the crime is specifically motivated by the race/religion/sexual orientation of the victim. In practice though its applied for any crime against one of the listed groups, like mug a gay guy its a hate crime when in reality the mugger didnt know or care. That breaks the concept of equality before the law which 9is not a good outcome. Hamster 21:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
This is one consequence of the problem with proof I mentioned above; if the laws do not require very stringent proof such as "yelling racial slurs," etc., the system is wide open to abuse. There have been some recent cases of abuse in Canada. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 21:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Such as? Amin7b5 22:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Muslim pressure-groups using the laws as a vehicle to levy blasphemy charges, mostly; see here for one example. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 03:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Moar discussion

If you start to tell me "I'm going to kill Z3ro because..." I don't think it matters how you finish that sentence. -Neveruse513; To continue this discussion, this is an extreme example meant to distract from less extreme examples. Try for example "I'm going to speed because..." or "I'm going to break into this house because..." in each of those examples, there are reasons that can go into them that make there punishments less severe.

Also consider that the current justice system does take into account more that just the act commited. First time offenders get shorter sentences than repeat offenders, and younger kids get longer sentences than older kids. To say that nothing but the crime itself should be considered would require a complete reworking of the justice system. Z3rotalk 15:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support