- Joined
- Dec 16, 2010
- Messages
- 12,316
- Reaction score
- 3,220
- Location
- Cleveland, Ohio, USA
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
If you paid for the act I could see an argument being made for an accessory to murder case, but this just appears to be some kind of conspiracy to commit murder. Is that actually a harm though? I'm not saying that is how the courts will see it because I know they will not, but still, is it?
That is the law. Cornell's a pretty reliable site.
Nope, but I will get every last one of y'all.
IIRC, it's a different section of 18USC. Not 245 but another. Ima get goin' cause I have friends waiting, but I'll try to find it later, since it appears not so easy to find. It's under 'requirements for prosecution' or something like that.
Tell it to Detroit. Hate Crime legislation does nothing to address the concerns you listed. If hate crime in and of itself is the source of these things, as your quote suggests, hate crime legislation cannot prevent it. Laws will not prevent crime, and with something on the level of hate crimes (which are typically emotional affairs), they will still happen and thus we should still realize the consequences listed in your quote. All you're doing is taking on additional punishment for a crime that was already a crime in the first place.
On many level people will react illogically, but that reaction should not pervert justice. Punishment must properly reflect crime. Premeditation is premeditation. You've taken the time to think about and plan taking the life or assaulting another.
I don't think the government needs more tools through which it can jail its populace. We already jail the highest percentage of our population than pretty much anyone else (even China, which I find disturbing). The fact is we already made these designations long ago and took care of "intent" issues. Since the law is already in place, there is no need for extra law to make it easier for government to prosecute its citizens.
I am not sure how to reply, Henrin. If you reject conspiracy as a criminal act then of course the acts of conspirators are not criminal.
Well of course I reject it and for good reason. There is no harm done by simply putting up a plan to kill someone. It is perhaps not pleasant to think people are doing it, but there is no reason to make it a crime.
Well of course I reject it and for good reason. There is no harm done by simply putting up a plan to kill someone. It is perhaps not pleasant to think people are doing it, but there is no reason to make it a crime.
It isn't easier to prosecute a hate crime (it's actually harder), and no new crimes are created.
It isn't easier to prosecute a hate crime (it's actually harder), and no new crimes are created. The only difference is, we punish some murders and assaults more severely because we feel they are more of a threat to our communities.
Well, that, and the feds got more jurisdiction.
And yet, this has been a crime since the Magna Carta. Go figure.
So, an attempted assassination attempt that is unsuccessful should carry not penalty? Alright....
Of course a new crime was created, it's called Hate Crime.
Planning an act on someones life and failing at it when you actually try to pull it off are different things.
Planning an act on someones life and failing at it when you actually try to pull it off are different things.
Okay, in the absence of a murder or assault, how would a person be charged with a hate crime IYO?
So the idea is that a racist will assault/kill more regularly than someone that is not? What is the basis for this, if so?
I find it bizarre how a word can increase your sentence for murder as if the crime itself changes at all because of it.
And 99.9% of us think attempted murder should be a crime.
I know you are enjoying your POV as the extremist, advocating for total freedom of speech, but it does fly in the face of 2,000 years of jurisprudence, Henrin.
Give it a bit, every time government grabs power it will expand it. Currently it's a crime that is associated first with the commission of another crime (secondary offense, much like seat belts used to be); but it's not unthinkable for it to turn stand alone.
Give it a bit, every time government grabs power it will expand it. Currently it's a crime that is associated first with the commission of another crime (secondary offense, much like seat belts used to be); but it's not unthinkable for it to turn stand alone.
Do you not think there is any societal interest in prosecuting those who commit hate crimes?
Of course it's unthinkable, Ikari. It'd be patently unconstitutional for our government to criminalize every bit of "hate speech", whatever that may be.
ahem..I said attempted murder should be a crime, but simply said there is a difference between planning and carrying out. The is also a difference between attempting and failing and attempting and succeeding. I only ask the differences here be taken into account as for what they are and not how our emotions leads us to think of them.
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?