Time to give Martinus an aneurysm

[The Brain]

Hate crime laws are ridiculous. They have no place in civilized societies.

[Martinus]

Sorry Seedee, you are not up-to-date. I already read about it yesterday on Queerty. 

I have also learned that Carrie "Opposite Marriage" Prejean has fake boobs and that Kelly McGillis who played Tom Cruise's beard "love interest" in Top Gun has aptly come out as a dyke.

[Martinus]

Hate crime laws are ridiculous. They have no place in civilized societies.

I disagree. We take motives into account all the time when sentencing people for crimes.

[The Brain]

Hate crime laws are ridiculous. They have no place in civilized societies.

I disagree. We take motives into account all the time when sentencing people for crimes.

Your second sentence doesn't seem to offer relevant information regarding your first sentence.

[Martinus]

Well, I think crimes motivated simply by hate of what the victim represents due to the victim belonging to some wider group identified by race, nationality, religion or sexual orientation, are very damaging to the social fabric. They create an environment in which members of a minority live in fear of becoming victims of such attacks, and since the perpetrators are usually members of the majority, it also leads to hostility and mistrust between the said minority and the majority (based on either real or perceived prejudice), which threatens what Brits describe as "tranquility of the realm" and leads to ghettoization, social conflicts, etc. (This is different from "normal" crimes, which usually meet with condemnation of the majority of the populace and there is no question about it).

Hence, the need for the majority to show its particular condemnation of such crimes by passing hate crime legislation, in order to show the minorities that they are not being victimized. In a way, it is also a method for the society at large to expiate itself from its past prejudices and persecutions - it's the majority telling the minority "We welcome you among us and we are committed to protect you, even beyond the kind of protection we give to our own."

There is an argument, of course, that when hate crime legislation gets passed, it's a proof it is no longer needed - and I would be inclined to agree, however it is useful for the first 5-10 years because at that time social opinions hang in a precarious balance, and it is good to give them a gentle shove towards tolerance and against hate. After a while, once an overwhelming majority supports such legislation, I'd say it will have served its purpose and will no longer be needed.

[The Brain]

That's better.

[CountDeMoney]

I already read about it yesterday on Queerty. 

I don't even want to know what that is, but I'm sure it smells like ass and CK1.

[Stonewall]

Yes, asshat, because mens rea is never taken into account in criminal law.

Mens rea and motive are not the same thing.  Mens rea is the intent to commit the act, not the reasoning behind why the act was committed.  That reasoning is correctly termed as motive.  Motive or lack thereof is used as way to establish or disprove the existence of mens rea, not to take its place.  The terms are not interchangeable. 

[The Minsky Moment]

Mens rea and motive are not the same thing.  Mens rea is the intent to commit the act, not the reasoning behind why the act was committed.  That reasoning is correctly termed as motive.  Motive or lack thereof is used as way to establish or disprove the existence of mens rea, not to take its place.  The terms are not interchangeable.

All true but Martinus is also correct that aspects of the convict's mental state may be considered in sentencing.

Thus US (and other countries) also treats crimes committed in connection with terrorism more seriously than "ordinary" versions of the same act - and this also involves differential punishment based on intent and mental state of the perpetrator.

[Martinus]

I already read about it yesterday on Queerty. 

I don't even want to know what that is, but I'm sure it smells like ass and CK1.

It's a gay-themed blog by a gay guy from Utah, of Polish origins. :p

[Faeelin]

Mens rea and motive are not the same thing.  Mens rea is the intent to commit the act, not the reasoning behind why the act was committed.  That reasoning is correctly termed as motive.  Motive or lack thereof is used as way to establish or disprove the existence of mens rea, not to take its place.  The terms are not interchangeable.

When did I ever say that they were the same thing? Mens rea certainly encompasses a defendant's thoughts at the time, such as whether he was acting purposely or recklessly.

And we certainly take motive, which is just another aspect of thought, into account in sentencing.

I can hardly help it if the representative from Ohio isn't aware of what he's talking about.

[Stonewall]

Mens rea and motive are not the same thing.  Mens rea is the intent to commit the act, not the reasoning behind why the act was committed.  That reasoning is correctly termed as motive.  Motive or lack thereof is used as way to establish or disprove the existence of mens rea, not to take its place.  The terms are not interchangeable.

When did I ever say that they were the same thing? Mens rea certainly encompasses a defendant's thoughts at the time, such as whether he was acting purposely or recklessly.

And we certainly take motive, which is just another aspect of thought, into account in sentencing.

I can hardly help it if the representative from Ohio isn't aware of what he's talking about.

You specifically equated them when you said "Yeah asshat, we never take mens rea into account in criminal law" when replying to someone posting about thought based crime.  Maybe I misread you.  Or maybe you were imprecise in your communication.   Meh.

[Stonewall]

Mens rea and motive are not the same thing.  Mens rea is the intent to commit the act, not the reasoning behind why the act was committed.  That reasoning is correctly termed as motive.  Motive or lack thereof is used as way to establish or disprove the existence of mens rea, not to take its place.  The terms are not interchangeable.

All true but Martinus is also correct that aspects of the convict's mental state may be considered in sentencing.

Thus US (and other countries) also treats crimes committed in connection with terrorism more seriously than "ordinary" versions of the same act - and this also involves differential punishment based on intent and mental state of the perpetrator.

I agree with the first part.  Just pointing out that the "we already have mens rea in criminal law so we already accept the premise of hate crime bases law" is not as cut and dry as it would initially appear to those unfamiliar with the system.

As for the second, I'm not so sure its that simple.  There are specific crimes that one is charged with when committing an act in furtherance of terrorism.  Its not just an enhanced penalty for a run of the mill crime.  Same with taking motive into account during regular criminal sentencing.  Regardless of motive, there is an explicit sentencing scheme that proscribes minimum and maximum penalties.  We factor in things like prior convictions, the nature of the injury to the victim, the presence of aggravators and mitigators, etc to more narrowly focus an appropriate sentence within the specific punishment scheme.  What seems to be going on is that when race, religion, sex, etc is an aggravator, not only does it raise the potential penalty within the punishment scheme, it actually raises the maximum allowable sentence.  I have a problem with that.

Further, it is inherently difficult to determine what kind of motive someone had when they perpetrated a particular act.  Its one thing to prove to a jury that person A shot person B.  Its much more difficult to prove why he did it.  Proving that someone did something is much more of an objective endeavor than proving why they did it.  I find that when discussing issues of people's freedoms, we should limit the subjective considerations as much as possible due to the increased likelihood of making mistakes based on subjective interpretation rather than more objective considerations.  It just sits wrong with me.

I'm not even going to get into the public policy discussion. 

[Berkut]

My objection ot ahte crimes is much more mundane.

What's the point?

Why do we need to punish the people who killed some agy guy any differently than simply charging them with murder? Is killing someone for a reason as stupid as "I hate gay people fudamentally different from the stupidest reasons someone might kill someone that isn't covered by some "special" rule?

Are there people out there who would beat up gay people, except that the existence of hate crime laws are deterring them when regular laws dealing with assault do not?

[Stonewall]

Are there people out there who would beat up gay people, except that the existence of hate crime laws are deterring them when regular laws dealing with assault do not?

From their perspective, the person who deliberately targets someone of a specific group is more deserving of greater punishment than a random bully.  I don't think its a deterrence issue.  It's a punishment/revenge issue.  Its similar to the death penalty.  The death penalty is an act of vengeance by society on someone who most aggrieves it.  Same with hate crime laws.  Deterrence isn't an issue.