From Wash Post's PostPartisan :P
Quote'Hoax' Against Hate Crimes Bill
Earlier today, I called Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), hoping to get her statement of contrition for her stunningly ignorant comments about the murder of Matthew Shepard.
While arguing against passage of the hate crimes bill yesterday, Foxx said:
QuoteI also would like to point out that there was a bill -- the hate crimes bill that's called the Matthew Shepard bill is named after a very unfortunate incident that happened where a young man was killed, but we know that that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn't because he was gay. This -- the bill was named for him, hate crimes bill was named for him, but it's really a hoax that that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZmB4EiQtQI&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvoices%2Ewashingtonpost%2Ecom%2Fpostpartisan%2F2009%2F04%2Fhoax%5Fagainst%5Fhate%5Fcrimes%5Fbill%2Ehtml&feature=player_embedded
A hoax?
"This is the urban legend that wouldn't die," Matthew's mother, Judy Shepard, told me as she headed to the airport after spending a couple of days on Capitol Hill pushing for a federal hate crimes law. "If anyone read the court transcripts, they would know Matt was singled out because he was gay. That makes it a hate crime by any definition."
The hate crimes bill -- which would expand the definition of hate crimes punishable by federal law to include attacks based on a victim's sexual orientation, gender identity and mental or physical disability -- has had a hard time getting through Congress. President Bush was against it. Opponents, many of them Republican, believe that existing statutes are adequate. I disagree on the same grounds espoused by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who said that hate crimes "not only injure individual victims, but also terrorize entire segments of our population and tear at our nation's social fabric."
Well, despite Foxx's comments, the House yesterday passed the Federal Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 by a vote of 249 to 175.
Mrs. Shepard said she's "really confident" that it will become law this time "given the support we have from the president and Harry Reid," the senate majority leader. In a statement before the vote, President Obama said: "I urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance."
At Foxx's office this morning, no one answered the phone. I couldn't leave a message because the mailbox was full. But, thanks to Glenn Thrush, I was able to see the statement she released.
QuoteIt has come to my attention that some people have been led to believe that I think the terrible crimes that led to Matthew Shepard's death in 1998 were a hoax. The term "hoax" was a poor choice of words used in the discussion of the hate crimes bill. Mr. Shepard's death was nothing less than a tragedy, and those responsible for his death certainly deserved the punishment they received. I am especially sorry if his grieving family was offended by my statement.
The larger context of my remarks is important. I was referring to a 2004 ABCNews 20/20 report on Mr. Shepard's death. ABC's 20/20 report questioned the motivation of those responsible for Mr. Shepard's death. Referencing this media account may have been a mistake, but it was a mistake based on what I believed were reliable accounts.
Not that she asked, but my advice to her is stop digging.
:lol:
What an idiot.
Meanwhile, the Republican rebuttal.
QuoteHouse Minority Leader John Boehner, Ohio Republican, told an editorial board meeting at The Washington Times that the hate-crimes bill makes him "want to throw up," and noted that it doesn't make sense to prosecute "what we think [criminals] were thinking as opposed to what they did."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/30/thought-crimes/
Yes, asshat, because mens rea is never taken into account in criminal law.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 30, 2009, 06:34:37 PM
Meanwhile, the Republican rebuttal.
QuoteHouse Minority Leader John Boehner, Ohio Republican, told an editorial board meeting at The Washington Times that the hate-crimes bill makes him "want to throw up," and noted that it doesn't make sense to prosecute "what we think [criminals] were thinking as opposed to what they did."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/30/thought-crimes/
Yes, asshat, because mens rea is never taken into account in criminal law.
He brings up a good point though. The concept of 'hate crimes' laws are deeply offensive, especially at this late date. I mean, if peoples who were actually persecuted didn't need hate crime laws, maybe gays should just shut up and kill themselves.
Quote from: Neil on April 30, 2009, 06:37:57 PM
He brings up a good point though. The concept of 'hate crimes' laws are deeply offensive, especially at this late date. I mean, if peoples who were actually persecuted didn't need hate crime laws, maybe gays should just shut up and kill themselves.
What people? There's federal hate crime legislation in place already in the US for race, religion, and national origin.
I dislike hate crime legislation but I understand its purpose.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 30, 2009, 06:40:58 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 30, 2009, 06:37:57 PM
He brings up a good point though. The concept of 'hate crimes' laws are deeply offensive, especially at this late date. I mean, if peoples who were actually persecuted didn't need hate crime laws, maybe gays should just shut up and kill themselves.
What people? There's federal hate crime legislation in place already in the US for race, religion, and national origin.
The Irish.
Quote from: The Code of Hammurabi
283 If a free man strikes a slave, he shall pay ten shekels
284 If a free man strikes another free man, he shall pay one gold mina
285 If a free man strikes a gay or a minority, he shall pay six gold mina and have his ear cut off
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 30, 2009, 06:57:53 PM
Quote from: The Code of Hammurabi
283 If a free man strikes a slave, he shall pay ten shekels
284 If a free man strikes another free man, he shall pay one gold mina
285 If a free man strikes a gay or a minority, he shall pay six gold mina and have his ear cut off
:mad: I should be free to thrash martinus on the street. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F7%2F75%2FVirginia_Foxx.jpg%2F398px-Virginia_Foxx.jpg&hash=129eaffa5c4be59f155fa814575377fd87214a1f)
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 30, 2009, 06:58:47 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 30, 2009, 06:57:53 PM
Quote from: The Code of Hammurabi
283 If a free man strikes a slave, he shall pay ten shekels
284 If a free man strikes another free man, he shall pay one gold mina
285 If a free man strikes a gay or a minority, he shall pay six gold mina and have his ear cut off
:mad: I should be free to thrash martinus on the street. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
You're an American. You can go to Poland and flout their laws, thanks to the extraterritoriality agreement you guys inserted into the missile defence agreement.
I suggest you fly in and savage him.
Plus, Polish cops wouldn't be able to figure out my "zig-zag" style of evasion.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 30, 2009, 07:19:14 PM
Plus, Polish cops wouldn't be able to figure out my "zig-zag" style of evasion.
Make sure you do it on a rainy day and stay above them. ^_^
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 30, 2009, 07:19:14 PM
Plus, Polish cops wouldn't be able to figure out my "zig-zag" style of evasion.
:lol: :lol:
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 30, 2009, 06:58:47 PM
:mad: It should be free to thrash martinus on the street. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
There, fixed it for you...
Hate crime laws are ridiculous. They have no place in civilized societies.
Sorry Seedee, you are not up-to-date. I already read about it yesterday on Queerty. :P
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.
Quote from: The Brain on May 01, 2009, 01:00:52 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on May 01, 2009, 01:53:15 AM
Quote from: The Brain on May 01, 2009, 01:00:52 AM
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.
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.
That's better.
Quote from: Martinus on May 01, 2009, 01:46:18 AMI already read about it yesterday on Queerty. :P
I don't even want to know what that is, but I'm sure it smells like ass and CK1.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 30, 2009, 06:34:37 PM
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.
Quote from: Stonewall on May 01, 2009, 12:53:25 PM
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 01, 2009, 04:53:26 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 01, 2009, 01:46:18 AMI already read about it yesterday on Queerty. :P
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
Quote from: Stonewall on May 01, 2009, 12:53:25 PM
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.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 01, 2009, 01:26:52 PM
Quote from: Stonewall on May 01, 2009, 12:53:25 PM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 01, 2009, 01:15:25 PM
Quote from: Stonewall on May 01, 2009, 12:53:25 PM
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. ;)
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?
Quote from: Berkut on May 01, 2009, 02:32:18 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on May 01, 2009, 02:32:18 PM
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?
I thought it was to make sure that people got punished severely...as historically, people got lighter sentences when attacking now protected groups.
Quote from: Stonewall on May 01, 2009, 02:26:26 PM
There are specific crimes that one is charged with when committing an act in furtherance of terrorism.
Yes but there is no difference technically from defining a set of "hate crimes" and creating parallel statutory punishments.
I am also not commenting on the public policy rationale here - just addressing the notion that the concept is unheard of as a legal principle.
Quote from: garbon on May 01, 2009, 02:53:32 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 01, 2009, 02:32:18 PM
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?
I thought it was to make sure that people got punished severely...as historically, people got lighter sentences when attacking now protected groups.
They did?
I would contend that if the "history" has adjusted enough that we are passing legislation to make hate crimes more severely punished, then we are probably beyond the point at which judges are giving lynchers a slap on the wrist as well.
The argument that we need to legislate that judges give stiffer penalties, so that they will stop giving less than normal penalties strikes me as rather bizarre. If a judge is going to give someone a lighter penalty than average, why not pass a law saying he cannot, rather than pass a law saying he has to give a stronger penalty than average?
Quote from: Berkut on May 01, 2009, 02:58:49 PM
They did?
I would contend that if the "history" has adjusted enough that we are passing legislation to make hate crimes more severely punished, then we are probably beyond the point at which judges are giving lynchers a slap on the wrist as well.
The argument that we need to legislate that judges give stiffer penalties, so that they will stop giving less than normal penalties strikes me as rather bizarre. If a judge is going to give someone a lighter penalty than average, why not pass a law saying he cannot, rather than pass a law saying he has to give a stronger penalty than average?
:shrugs:
Quote from: Berkut on May 01, 2009, 02:32:18 PM
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?
I don't think this is entirely right. I think tihs is partly an issue of deterrence, and partly an issue of punishment.
People aren't beating up gay people just for the sake of beating gay people; it's often part of an intent to errorize a community. In a certain sense, beating up a person for being black, Jewish, etc. isn't just harming him, but an entire minority group.
Do we as society view that as a worse crime than beating up a random person on the street?
Quote from: Faeelin on May 01, 2009, 04:15:41 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 01, 2009, 02:32:18 PM
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?
I don't think this is entirely right. I think tihs is partly an issue of deterrence, and partly an issue of punishment.
People aren't beating up gay people just for the sake of beating gay people; it's often part of an intent to errorize a community. In a certain sense, beating up a person for being black, Jewish, etc. isn't just harming him, but an entire minority group.
Do we as society view that as a worse crime than beating up a random person on the street?
We shouldn't, if we support the notion of a color-blind (etc.) society. What if I really hate the individual, and that's why I kill him? Shouldn't there be an enhancement for that? What if I really hate the guys family, and I killed him specifically because his father broke my leg with a baseball bat? Isn't that worth an enhancement?
Quote from: Scipio on May 01, 2009, 05:32:04 PM
We shouldn't, if we support the notion of a color-blind (etc.) society.
Isn't that idea dead? We aren't post-racial (etc.) no matter how much we'd like to be.
The killings that always upset me most are the ones that don't really involve hate. Someone is murdered so that the killer can have their £130, mobile phone or whatever. It seems remarkably odd to say something like, "not only is he a murderer but he also...........*gasp*.............really hates women/black people/homosexuals/rich people" :huh:
Why is hating blacks or Jews or gays worse than, say, wanting to make helmet out of somebody's skull? As a motive for murder, I mean.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 01, 2009, 05:48:08 PM
Why is hating blacks or Jews or gays worse than, say, wanting to make helmet out of somebody's skull? As a motive for murder, I mean.
L2R
This thread depresses me.
I thought this was all understood as a standard "it is even more evil to oppress minorities than to prey on majorities, because of the psychological damage of being targeted as a minority" issue, and then find that it is not. :(
Well, my students will not find this a mystery, though apparently many students do.
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2009, 06:06:40 PM
This thread depresses me.
I thought this was all understood as a standard "it is even more evil to oppress minorities than to prey on majorities, because of the psychological damage of being targeted as a minority" issue, and then find that it is not. :(
Well, my students will not find this a mystery, though apparently many students do.
Your students are ill-served by your Manichean worldview. I pity your students, especially if they are Hortlund's kids.
Quote from: Berkut on May 01, 2009, 02:32:18 PM
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?
Well I posted what I think the point is. Feel free to address that rather than asking rhetorical questions.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 01, 2009, 04:15:41 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 01, 2009, 02:32:18 PM
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?
I don't think this is entirely right. I think tihs is partly an issue of deterrence, and partly an issue of punishment.
People aren't beating up gay people just for the sake of beating gay people; it's often part of an intent to errorize a community. In a certain sense, beating up a person for being black, Jewish, etc. isn't just harming him, but an entire minority group.
Do we as society view that as a worse crime than beating up a random person on the street?
Indeed. This is the same reason why we have harsher penalties for terrorist attacks and do not view them as simple cases of murder, assault or vandalism. The difference is that, obviously, in a terrorist attack the social harm of a crime is much broader than the life and limb of the victims and/or the destroyed property.
Now, one could retort that this does not make a difference, because if someone commits murder, this terrorizes the society even if the cause for the murder was more "mundane". This may be true, but again the difference is that the terrorist not only envisages this kind of social harm, but actually seeks it, which makes him different from an ordinary perp.
The same kind of reasoning applies to hate crimes - the goal of a perpetrator is not just to assault or murder that particular victim - it is to send the message that those of his or her kind are not welcome and will eventually meet with the same fate. The social harm of such action thus goes far beyond that of a "simple" assault or murder - and since that social harm is sought by the perpetrator, it is only fair that he or she is punished for that as well.
With random crime a lot more people are terrorized.
Quote from: The Brain on May 02, 2009, 04:01:21 AM
With random crime a lot more people are terrorized.
I thought about it after I made my post and edited my post to address this. :)
Essentially, while we also penalize people for unintended harm caused by their actions, we do penalize them harsher if they seek to cause that harm intentionally.
If there is an element of terrorism then just use terrorist laws on them then.
Incidentally, different penalization of murder, depending on motives, is nothing new.
Many legal systems have a concept of a "crime of passion", which is not the same as "temporary insanity" (the latter getting your off the hook), but involving a smaller penalty if the crime is inspired by a passionate feeling of vengeance for something the victim did.
In the Polish criminal code, for example, we have the so-called "euthanatic murder", which is essentially an illegal euthanasia - this is for all purposes murder (you are intentionally killing the victim) but the penalty is lower, because the motive is "profound sympathy for the victim's suffering or the victim's request".
Quote from: Martinus on May 02, 2009, 04:22:14 AM
Incidentally, different penalization of murder, depending on motives, is nothing new.
Many legal systems have a concept of a "crime of passion", which is not the same as "temporary insanity" (the latter getting your off the hook), but involving a smaller penalty if the crime is inspired by a passionate feeling of vengeance for something the victim did.
In the Polish criminal code, for example, we have the so-called "euthanatic murder", which is essentially an illegal euthanasia - this is for all purposes murder (you are intentionally killing the victim) but the penalty is lower, because the motive is "profound sympathy for the victim's suffering or the victim's request".
Interesting; in the US, we have first, second, and third-degree murder. Crimes of passion typically fall under murder in the second degree, while the first degree is reserved for cases involving premeditation, where mens rea can be established.