Is flag burning a protected free speech right? Apparently not in Ames, Iowa

[Lisa]

The proud God rejecters show unbounded arrogance without shame.

You cannot reject what has no evidence of ever existing.

What does religious belief have to do with Schoolhouse Rock? Are facts also an atheist agenda?

 

[Manc Skipper]

Democrat elitists have shown a tendency toward stupidly thinking conservative Americans, especially Christians, are ignorant. College does not make proud sinners smarter, just more arrogant.

Off topic. It's not difficult. Why do you struggle with a simple question?

 

[maxparrish]

Please.

There is no question that the purpose of those enhanced punishments is based on mens rea, in addition to deterrence, and the importance, and the value we place on, and vulnerability, of the protected group. And all of those reasons apply to bias crimes.

A person who deliberately targets a police office unquestionably will face a harsher punishment (morally and legally) than one who, unplanned, kills a police officer in the commission of a crime. We see this all the time. How are you missing it?

...yes, and that "degree of intention" is exactly what we are talking about when choosing to enhance charges and/or sentences for various crimes, including bias crimes. That is what I'm talking about. In this hypothetical scenario, it is the motive, not the action(s) or consequence(s) that results in the stronger punishment. It's rather odd that you are simultaneously agreeing while trying to deny the point.

As previously stated in this thread, punishments for any crime are measured by the traditional elements of mens rea, meaning "...a person's intention to commit a crime; or knowledge that one's action or lack of action would cause a crime to be committed." That element has not been in dispute. What has been in dispute is the notion that the emotional state behind the intention or recklessness should warrant more punishment.

Note that establishing that a defendant's action was premeditated, that he/she fully intended to do wrong-doing, or that he/she at least fully knew of the recklessness of his/her act (aka the mens rea) IS NOT to punish for the MOTIVE, it's measuring the degree of intention and the degree of awareness of wrong doing. To underscore, measuring the degree of intention is NOT defining the motive - the motive is the REASON the action itself occurred, be it intentional or otherwise. If you don't know the difference between "intention" and "motive" and are unfamiliar with the traditional role of mens rea then you can't follow the argument being made.

Anyway, once the mens rea is established as a measure of the defendant's culpability for the crime, THEN an enhancement is applied for attacks on police officers, firefighters, children, etc. so as to provide greater and special protection for persons more vulnerable and/or deemed more critical to public safety. For punishment purposes it does not matter what the motives are to rape a child or kill a public safety officer, the special enhancement is applied PRECISELY to dissuade someone from intentionally or recklessly doing an act of harm to these victims, regardless of the reason (the motive) behind the wrong-doing.

Yet again! The scenario stipulates that the amount of harm is the same in all cases. I see no reason why people would have significantly more fear of a somewhat inept "lone wolf" terrorist than a somewhat inept would-be murderer. In all three scenarios, the actions taken are identical; the consequences are identical; the only difference is the motive and intention, and the community's interest in discouraging those motives.

However extra punishment for Hate/Bias feelings are NOT relevant to Scenario III. Scenario III is a "specific intent crime", crimes wherein defendants commit prohibited actions with further purposes that are also likely prohibited. In the scenario the defendant must kill in order to further another illegal purpose, to create terrorism. As an attempted crime (terrorism) is also a prohibited act, it is his attempt (successful or not) for such purposes that warrants a greater penalty.

In short, specific intention crimes constitute future goals. In contrast, hatred and prejudice, while being distinct from one another, are not goals … they are states of mind.

Hello? Have you never heard of lynchings or gay-bashings? Do you not realize that the US has a long history of ignoring and marginalizing attacks on minorities? Surely you're not the type of person who thinks that Racism is Over....

Yet almost all crimes, and the usual human vices behind them, are far more prevalent and responsible for most harm (murder, rape, robbery, embezzlement, etc.), far more than so-called hate/bias motivated crimes? Therefore your own criteria would suggest you've got it reversed, that we ought to have greater enhancements for those who act on their ordinary vices which is the most damaging - not those extremely rare forms of wrong-doing called "hate crimes".

Gays, blacks, the religious, immigrants, and a hundred other arbitrary classifications of the citizenry are not significantly vulnerable to "hate crimes"; the vulnerable needing especially protected as targets of crime are the same persons it has always been: seniors, children, law enforcement, and perhaps single women.

But then, that is not the "progressive" agenda, is it?

 

[maxparrish]

If the intent was … to intimidate black people in the neighborhood, or close down the local gay meeting place, then you need to see the impact of such crimes as broader and their affect as system wide.

... attacks on blacks because they are black serve to induce fear among blacks ,or subjugate them or fuel racial tensions, also undermine the social fabric of the community. If you really want to see your town torn apart and law enforcement compromised, just see the cumulative impact of several obviously race driven crimes that are not handled as race driven crimes...

You have two problems with hate crimes that you do not with greed crimes or jealousy crimes. They have a much larger impact on the unity and cohesion of the community ... They have corrosive impact on the trust and cooperation between minorities and law enforcement ... Recognizing that these kinds of crime are much more toxic to the cohesion of the community and the trust between law enforcement and minorities....

The intent of these crimes matters because the intent is particularly insidious and infectious in communities where there are preexisting tensions. The affect of these crimes matters because their impact is magnified beyond their original base.

Race riots do not happen out of nothing.

My intent was to explain why punishment enhancements for a defendant because he/she did so in a specific state of mind (of bias or hate) is unjust to the defendant. Whatever the truth of your fear of the social effects from not using such enhancements, it remains that it is still unjust to the defendant. No system of justice that pretends to be morality based sacrifices an individual right to justice so as to placate the mob or public opinion.

Moreover, the social characterizations and impacts you allude to are far too imprecise to evaluate. However, a few observations:

1. A crime with a purposeful goal to attain a future wrong is subject to additional punishment already. If one, for example, kills or destroys property so as to create terrorism that is also a crime. There is no need for "bias" or "hate" enhancement when their are concrete goals that are also outlawed.

2. Riots don't happen because somebody didn't get their 'hate' or 'bias' crime charged in addition to the actual crime. Riots have happened due to poverty, lack of opportunity, anger over juries findings of innocense, misplaced and inflamed rage at police doing their duty, unprosecuted police abuse, etc.

3. There has been no material change in public or minority faith in the system because hate/bias crime enhancements were the fad in the early 1990s. Of course, were they to be removed from the books no doubt it would be another excuse for the demagogues of rage to create more division.

 

[marke]

You cannot reject what has no evidence of ever existing.

What does religious belief have to do with Schoolhouse Rock? Are facts also an atheist agenda?

History has proven that huge numbers of people can be wrong about the facts and not know it.

 

[Lisa]

History has proven that huge numbers of people can be wrong about the facts and not know it.

Schoolhouse Rock was teaching very basic concepts of US history and civics.

Your ignorance and the demnials are not becoming for someone who claims to be an adult.

 

[btthegreat]

My intent was to explain why punishment enhancements for a defendant because he/she did so in a specific state of mind (of bias or hate) is unjust to the defendant. Whatever the truth of your fear of the social effects from not using such enhancements, it remains that it is still unjust to the defendant. No system of justice that pretends to be morality based sacrifices an individual right to justice so as to placate the mob or public opinion.

Moreover, the social characterizations and impacts you allude to are far too imprecise to evaluate. However, a few observations:

1. A crime with a purposeful goal to attain a future wrong is subject to additional punishment already. If one, for example, kills or destroys property so as to create terrorism that is also a crime. There is no need for "bias" or "hate" enhancement when their are concrete goals that are also outlawed.

2. Riots don't happen because somebody didn't get their 'hate' or 'bias' crime charged in addition to the actual crime. Riots have happened due to poverty, lack of opportunity, anger over juries findings of innocense, misplaced and inflamed rage at police doing their duty, unprosecuted police abuse, etc.

3. There has been no material change in public or minority faith in the system because hate/bias crime enhancements were the fad in the early 1990s. Of course, were they to be removed from the books no doubt it would be another excuse for the demagogues of rage to create more division.

Soo is all evidence of state of mind or intent 'unjust to the defendant, or just the stuff involved in establishing a hate crime for enhanced sentencing. I have a laundry list of examples where the law tries to get into the heads of defendants in court proceedings to establish or refute motive, to understand mental capacity, or mental defect/ illness with a conclusion that impacts in a disparate way. Ad we haven't even begun with sentencing hearings that reach conclusions about enhanced or mitigating circumstances. I'd like to know right now if courtrooms should remain mental state and 'motive free zones or do you just get antsy with hate crime legislation. We try get inside their heads from the moment the charge foments in the minds of a cop, to to creating two opposing narratives the jury can understand, to the last moment right before the sentence is announced and the gavel comes down. It would be a very big change in jurisprudence to decide that defense counsel could explore the mental state, capacity and motive to promote the welfare of his client or' justice', while prosecution should refrain from any such 'intrusive' exploration to promote the welfare of the community or 'justice'.

I don't see any difference between asserting and proving a motive or intent based on greed, or passion, or self defense, or terror, or hate, or jealousy, or just plain old spite, or because the defendant thinks he was killing the evil Space Ghost pretending to be his girlfriend. We either get into their heads or we stay out of their heads.

 

[maxparrish]

Soo is all evidence of state of mind or intent 'unjust to the defendant, or just the stuff involved in establishing a hate crime for enhanced sentencing. I have a laundry list of examples where the law tries to get into the heads of defendants in court proceedings to establish or refute motive, to understand mental capacity, or mental defect/ illness with a conclusion that impacts in a disparate way. Ad we haven't even begun with sentencing hearings that reach conclusions about enhanced or mitigating circumstances. I'd like to know right now if courtrooms should remain mental state and 'motive free zones or do you just get antsy with hate crime legislation. We try get inside their heads from the moment the charge foments in the minds of a cop, to to creating two opposing narratives the jury can understand, to the last moment right before the sentence is announced and the gavel comes down. It would be a very big change in jurisprudence to decide that defense counsel could explore the mental state, capacity and motive to promote the welfare of his client or' justice', while prosecution should refrain from any such 'intrusive' exploration to promote the welfare of the community or 'justice'.

I don't see any difference between asserting and proving a motive or intent based on greed, or passion, or self defense, or terror, or hate, or jealousy, or just plain old spite, or because the defendant thinks he was killing the evil Space Ghost pretending to be his girlfriend. We either get into their heads or we stay out of their heads.

I am not inclined to repeat the totality of what I have already written on the subject, so you might read my prior posts which should answer most or all your questions. Till then I will risk misunderstanding by trying to sum what I have written.

a) In general there are two major principals that frame western conceptions behind a just process to resolve a criminal punishment (if any) a) the actual act and consequence and b) the degree to which the act and result was intended, and his/her awareness of the risks and consequences of his/her conduct (Mens rea).

b) Hate/bias crimes are punishment enhancements for a defendant who not only intended wrongdoing, but whose motivations were from either hate (state of mind) and/or through bias (a prejudice) against those holding a protected/privileged status. In this respect it is novel in law, and unjust.

c) Intentionality and goals are usually relevant, motive is generally useful only for evidentiary purposes - in fact, there is no requirement that the motive for a crime being known.

d) Intentions and Motives are different concepts. "The reasons" for a crime conflate several different meanings: beliefs, emotional states, goals. A discussion on this subject requires precision.

 

[btthegreat]

I am not inclined to repeat the totality of what I have already written on the subject, so you might read my prior posts which should answer most or all your questions. Till then I will risk misunderstanding by trying to sum what I have written.

a) In general there are two major principals that frame western conceptions behind a just process to resolve a criminal punishment (if any) a) the actual act and consequence and b) the degree to which the act and result was intended, and his/her awareness of the risks and consequences of his/her conduct (Mens rea).

b) Hate/bias crimes are punishment enhancements for a defendant who not only intended wrongdoing, but whose motivations were from either hate (state of mind) and/or through bias (a prejudice) against those holding a protected/privileged status. In this respect it is novel in law, and unjust.

c) Intentionality and goals are usually relevant, motive is generally useful only for evidentiary purposes - in fact, there is no requirement that the motive for a crime being known.

d) Intentions and Motives are different concepts. "The reasons" for a crime conflate several different meanings: beliefs, emotional states, goals. A discussion on this subject requires precision.

No this really does not require 'precision'. Either we delve into the mind of the defendant to figure out what is going on in there about the crime and the victim or we decide not to risk it lest we do an injustice.

 

[Visbek]

As previously stated in this thread, punishments for any crime are measured... etc

Let me be a bit clearer, as I was admittedly sloppy in my language (as we were discussing both law and ethics). Both criminal intent and motive involve guessing the state of mind of the defendant. Intent is surmising the defendant's purpose or preferred outcome(s); motive is the "why."

Let's agree that bias crime laws are an exception to the normal rule that motive doesn't matter in charges. So what? "Is" does not determine "ought," and there is certainly nothing unconstitutional or illegal or unethical about using motive to escalate the charges, and thus the punishments. (Nor is it the only exception, e.g. obstruction of justice tries to guess the motive of the defendant.) "It's not typical" does not prove that it is an illegal or unjust approach.

Meanwhile, motive is routinely used during investigations, trials and as a factor in sentencing. As such, upping the charges for a bias crime is merely a way of altering the possible punishment(s), albeit while putting an additional burden on the prosecution. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that if instead of escalating charges, legislators wrote the law to increase the sentences based on evidence of bias, you'd still bitch and moan about it.

For punishment purposes it does not matter what the motives are to rape a child or kill a public safety officer, the special enhancement is applied PRECISELY to dissuade someone from intentionally or recklessly doing an act of harm to these victims, regardless of the reason (the motive) behind the wrong-doing.

Again... Motive is frequently used as a component in sentencing.

And as I pointed out: Both bias crime laws, and laws protecting specific occupations, include a similar legislative purpose -- to deter those kinds of acts. (I'm also highly confident that legislators, prosecutors, judges, juries etc do care about the motives of cop-killers.)

Scenario III is a "specific intent crime", crimes wherein defendants commit prohibited actions with further purposes that are also likely prohibited. In the scenario the defendant must kill in order to further another illegal purpose, to create terrorism.

Both crimes are examples of specific intent. In scenario 2, the outcome is to kill the ex-wife. In scenario 3, the outcome is to "cause terror," not because of some "further purpose that might be illegal."

Anyway. The charges may ignore motive, but the prosecutor certainly won't. For example, in the closing argument for the case against Timothy McVeigh, Mackey stated that their first goal was proving that "Timothy McVeigh, motivated by hatred of the Government, in a rage over the events at Waco, deliberately and with premeditation planned the bombing of the Murrah Building." He described McVeigh as "bent on violence," as influenced by reading the Turner Diaries, as "fighting for liberty." He pointed out that McVeigh wore a T-Shirt that read "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" on the front and "Sic semper tyrannous" on the back. He told the jury:

This is not a prosecution of Tim McVeigh for his political beliefs. This is a prosecution of Tim McVeigh because of what he did: He committed murder. This is a murder case. His Honor will tell you, I expect, that evidence about someone's state of mind, their political beliefs, those statements about political tendencies, while they are protected under the First Amendment, nonetheless in criminal court can be relevant evidence for you to consider. They can help you decide the question: What would motivate someone to do a crime of this dimension? You can consider and you should consider what Tim McVeigh was saying to himself and to others in writings and conversations about his hatred for the federal government and how he would give voice to that hatred in his actions.

Mackey wasn't saying this only to prove they had the right guy (he discussed that separately). He wasn't talking here about intent (he discussed that separately, too). Seems pretty clear to me that he was pushing the jury's buttons and saying "Ignore the defense's argument, this guy is not mainstream, he's super evil."

During the penalty phase, McVeigh's attorneys brought up McVeigh's beliefs about the FBI raid on Waco in an attempt to establish an exculpatory motivation for the Oklahoma City bombing. Part of McVeigh's strategy was to depict the federal government as unjust and deserving of a violent overthrow. The district court allowed it, as long as it stuck to describing McVeigh's subjective mental state, and didn't turn into a circus (i.e. McVeigh using the court to try and prosecute the federal government for Waco).

So yeah... motive matters. Including in punishment.

[cont]

 

[Visbek]

Yet almost all crimes, and the usual human vices behind them, are far more prevalent and responsible for most harm (murder, rape, robbery, embezzlement, etc.), far more than so-called hate/bias motivated crimes? Therefore your own criteria would suggest you've got it reversed, that we ought to have greater enhancements for those who act on their ordinary vices which is the most damaging - not those extremely rare forms of wrong-doing called "hate crimes".

sigh

Why do I need to restate the obvious? There is no question that part of the legislative purpose of enacting harsher punishments is to more strongly deter the crime. Deterrence is a common justification for larger fines, longer sentences, especially the death penalty. Not incapacitation, but deterrence.

Even if legislators, prosecutors, judges and citizens are completely wrong, their beliefs are clear: "Harsher punishments deter crimes." Despite bipartisan support and tons of evidence, it is extremely difficult to shorten sentences in the US.

Have you really not noticed this?

Gays, blacks, the religious, immigrants, and a hundred other arbitrary classifications of the citizenry are not significantly vulnerable to "hate crimes"; the vulnerable needing especially protected as targets of crime are the same persons it has always been: seniors, children, law enforcement, and perhaps single women.

But then, that is not the "progressive" agenda, is it?

Dude, seriously, just... stop.

Legislatures across the country, including in conservative areas, have passed hate crime laws. Prosecutors, including in conservative areas and federal districts run by conservative appointees, pursue hate crime charges when it’s warranted.

Even Trump (!!!) signed a law expanding hate crime protections to religious institutions last year.

This is no more a “progressive agenda" than civil rights laws, which are all but universally accepted today, and only groused about by a tiny handful of people, whom I will currently refrain from characterizing. Maybe you can deduce why.

 

[Visbek]

a) In general there are two major principals that frame western conceptions behind a just process to resolve a criminal punishment (if any) a) the actual act and consequence and b) the degree to which the act and result was intended, and his/her awareness of the risks and consequences of his/her conduct (Mens rea).

Procedures ≠ Principles.

Intent (a state of mind, the purpose of the act) usually determines the charges; motive (another state of mind, "why?") leads the investigations, persuades the jury and plays a role in sentencing.

Hate crime laws are not new. They are not the only example of using motive to determine charges, either. The entire edifice of American jurisprudence has not come crashing down because we explicitly use motive to help decide the charges, primarily as a way of levying harsher punishments, in a specific category of crimes.

b) Hate/bias crimes are punishment enhancements for a defendant who not only intended wrongdoing, but whose motivations were from either hate (state of mind) and/or through bias (a prejudice) against those holding a protected/privileged status. In this respect it is novel in law, and unjust.

"Novel" ≠ "Unjust."

You have never made an argument that this is unjust. All you've said is that "it's different."

You obviously misunderstand (or don't care about) the actual structure of the laws in question. They do not protect specific privileged groups (e.g. African-Americans or gays). The laws clearly say that if you target someone on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation and so on, that you can be charged with a hate crime.

Just this week, a black man was charged with federal hate crimes for attacking a group of white Jewish people. There is no "privileged group." It is the motive (attacking people because of their religion) that matters. The identity of the defendant and victims does not matter. The legislative intent and social message of bias crime laws may be to protect minorities, but the actual construction of the law extends to anyone who is attacked because of bias. Since the overwhelming majority of "hate crimes" are perpetrated against minorities, it works out. What a concept.

Anyway. Both intent and motive involve determining the states of mind of the defendant(s). Both need to be proven in court by the prosecution in a bias crime case. The defense has the same opportunities to dispute or disprove or cast doubt on the prosecution's claims about motive as intent. Prosecutors and defendants both discuss motive anyway during cases. The Constitution does not stipulate that "motive can never be considered as part of the charges."

So no, there is nothing unconstitutional, or illegal, or unjust, about hate crime laws.

c) Intentionality and goals are usually relevant, motive is generally useful only for evidentiary purposes - in fact, there is no requirement that the motive for a crime being known.

And again, motive is frequently examined and discussed during investigations, court proceedings and sentencing. It may not be required, but it would be slightly ridiculous to suggest it has no role whatsoever in criminal proceedings -- or that it should never have any such role.

 

[3leftsdoo]

Has this judge been removed from the bench yet?