you defined terrorism. why do we need another definition?
Everything. I've quoted the DOJ in regards to hate crimes. Both hate crimes and terrorism have larger implications than the murder that took place.
I've never understood the legal distinction between murder and attempted murder. To me, this says you get a partial free-pass for being incompetent. To me, if you planned and meant and tried to kill them, success or failure should be irrelevant.
Tell Redress!
I gave you the US hate crime law. Learn it before the spewing continues.
Ok one more time.
1. a white guy murders a black guy to steal his wallet
2. a different white guy murders a black guy because he hates blacks
you want to give guy #2 a harsher punishment. Why? because you don't approve of what he was thinking. That is foolishness.
yes, but what does that have to do with hate crimes?
I've never understood the legal distinction between murder and attempted murder. To me, this says you get a partial free-pass for being incompetent. To me, if you planned and meant and tried to kill them, success or failure should be irrelevant.
Ok one more time.
1. a white guy murders a black guy to steal his wallet
2. a different white guy murders a black guy because he hates blacks
you want to give guy #2 a harsher punishment. Why? because you don't approve of what he was thinking. That is foolishness.
How can you determine if there is hate in someone's heart? Unless there is CLEAR evidence of hate (such as racial slurs, things like that), I don't see how anyone can assume to know how someone else feels.
That is just one reason why I don't feel comfortable with hate crime legislation.
I think the hate crime designation is pretty useless. "It was a hate crime." "No! It wasn't!" "Yes! It was!" Ad infinitum. The guy shot somebody; attempted murder. Let the judge decide if it was a hate crime after they convict him. Then he can use whatever sentence so applies.
Trying to also convince the jury it was a hate crime could very possibly confuse the jury. He should be tried for attempted murder. That's the crime that was committed.
As far as I am concerned, the very concept of “hate crime” is Orwellian, not very much unlike the concept of “thoughtcrime”.
A crime is what someone does, not what he thinks or feels.
It doesn't matter if Mr. Corkins hated the Family Research Council. It doesn't matter if he hated the guard. What matters is that he committed an assault, using a deadly weapon, with the apparent intent to commit murder. That is the crime, and nothing else.
Concrete evidence of sustained, focused animus against members of a protected class is an explicit requirement of obtaining an HCE.
Hate crime enhancements don't penalize feelings per se. You can have a heart filled with the most venomous bigotry you can think of...and so long as you never commit a crime which is demonstrated to have been motivated by that animus, you would never face even the attempt to have your sentence heightened through an HCE.
I ask again: do you approve of this case being tried as domestic terrorism, since using your argument domsetic terrorism laws are wrong, since they are based on motivation.
Ok one more time.
1. a white guy murders a black guy to steal his wallet
2. a different white guy murders a black guy because he hates blacks
you want to give guy #2 a harsher punishment. Why? because you don't approve of what he was thinking.
That is foolishness.
Concrete evidence of sustained, focused animus against members of a protected class is an explicit requirement of obtaining an HCE.
Hate crime enhancements don't penalize feelings per se. You can have a heart filled with the most venomous bigotry you can think of...and so long as you never commit a crime which is demonstrated to have been motivated by that animus, you would never face even the attempt to have your sentence heightened through an HCE.
In effect, whether it's intended or not, you reward failure.It's because of the fact there is a distinction between living and deceased victim. That is why murder and attempted murder are punished differently. Punishments are mostly about type and amount of harm that has happened to the victim.
No basis for an HCE.
POSSIBLE basis for an HCE, but only if a prosecutor can marshal strong evidence of BOTH:
1) the claim that the offender bore a specific animus against "black" people
AND
2) that he committed the murder with that animus as the motivation. For example, if he lost a cash game of pool in a bar and then murdered the man shortly afterwards, his defense counsel could (and likely would) defeat an attempt at obtaining an HCE by arguing that the murder was motivated by frustration at the loss. It would still be murder, but it would be very difficult to carry the HCE.
WRONG. The basis of HCE's is recognition of additional harm to larger communities beyond the direct victim. Every time you repeat this assertion about punishing thinking, you are participating in deliberate distortion. You have been exposed to the actual reasoning behind HCE's multiple times in this thread alone already.
It WOULD be foolishness...if that were actually the basis (in theory or in practice) of HCE's. It isn't.
Now...do you have any interest in addressing the ACTUAL basis of HCE's, or do you intend to go on pretending it to be something it's not?
That's not true. Hate crimes have broader potential societal consequences than regular crimes which is why they are distinguished.
Why is it WORSE to kill someone because you don't like their race/gender versus killing someone for the joy of killing because you're a psychopath or killing someone because you think they might have a lot of money or a guy raping and killing a woman just because he thinks he can? All have the same outcome, and THAT is what matters, IMO. One is no worse than the other. They are ALL bad.
I agree with Bobcat. A crime is a crime. I think it's a slippery slope when the law tries to get into someone's head and determine what they are thinking in the course of a crime.
People who kill children aren't charged with hate crimes against children.
People who rape and kill women aren't charged with hate crimes against women.
Regardless of what the person is thinking when they were committing the crime, it doesn't make the crime any worse or better IMO.
This.
Crimes are crimes against individuals.
Hate crimes are crimes against groups.
Terrorism is crimes against societies.
A hate crime, by definition, is intended to target far more than just the individual: It is intended to intimidate those belonging to his or her oppressed minorities.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?