Should assaulting police officers be considered a hate crime?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I generally don't believe in prosecuting thought or word crimes.

But we're talking about actual physical crimes, not thought crimes, and with motivation for a crime as a factor in deciding severity.

I don't see how identifying that a crime was hate-motivated is any different from identifying any other aspect of intent or motivation, which is a standard element of the law.

Do you also consider the difference between, say, aggravated assault and attempted murder to be a "thought crime"?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

But we're talking about actual physical crimes, not thought crimes, and with motivation for a crime as a factor in deciding severity.

And, as I said many times before, I think the actual crime committed should be what is actually punished.

If I rob a store, even if the people in the neighborhood are now frightened because of it, I didn't commit an actual crime against them I committed a crime against the store owner.

I'm sorry you can't accept that someone has an opposing opinion, but there isn't anything you can say which will change my fundamental view on the subject, regardless of how many different tactics you try to divert, change, or obscure the issue I'm discussing. You never seem to learn this.

 

[Grumpuss]

Do you have the same problems with the ideas of intent or forethought?

Of course! Philip K. Dick gave us the wonderful Minority Report to show us how wonderful life would be if psychic machines render free will obsolete.

But why wait for the Dickian machines to be created and violate our tender minds? Wouldn't it be easier just to imagine social groups based on the guess of skin color, religion or job type? Then, just surrender to passion and riot if the government doesn't respond to the inevitable tantrums. When there are confusing questions like, "But is George Zimmerman really a white guy?" or "Can police officers be a protected class?", just flip a coin for now until there is another special Dickian machine to tell us how to think.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course! Philip K. Dick gave us the wonderful Minority Report to show us how wonderful life would be if psychic machines render free will obsolete.

As I pointed out earlier, the difference between aggravated assault and attempted murder is often only intent.

Questions of intent and forethought often make the difference for the severity of a crime or its punishment... or whether a crime has even occurred at all. Even when intent isn't part of the definition of a crime, motive is often a factor in making the case that a particular accused person did the crime.

Do you have any problems with the idea of hate crimes that don't apply to the whole idea of criminal justice already?

 

[Grumpuss]

As I pointed out earlier, the difference between aggravated assault and attempted murder is often only intent.

Questions of intent and forethought often make the difference for the severity of a crime or its punishment... or whether a crime has even occurred at all. Even when intent isn't part of the definition of a crime, motive is often a factor in making the case that a particular accused person did the crime.

Do you have any problems with the idea of hate crimes that don't apply to the whole idea of criminal justice already?

Intent is not the only factor that provides prosecutors different options. Level of damage to the victim or presence of a weapon are also key. For example, punching someone with a fist to the teeth may only be simple assault, but doing the same with a baseball bat is assault with a deadly weapon. Likewise, paying a hitman who shoots your gay lover to death is first-degree murder, but taking a poorly aimed shot yourself is only attempted murder. The worst IMO is robbery: you pass a note to a teller at a bank saying you have a gun and to load his goods into your sack, is called robbery, but only if you actually have a loaded gun (visible or declared or not) is it "armed robbery".

It's not merely Thought Police, it's poorly-written laws that prosecutors can interpret to their heart's intent. Lawyers.

 

[columbus]

As already noted on this thread several times, including in a unanimous Court opinion, the reason for enhanced penalties for hate crimes is because such crimes are actually directed toward a group, not just an individual.

SCOTUS opinion doesn't impress me much.
From a woman's right to secretly kill her progeny to George Bush's brother deciding if he "won" the election to Citizens United, to ACA passing Constitutional muster, there have been a host of decisions I thought dreadfully bad.

This is just another one on the list.
Tom

 

[Nous]

SCOTUS opinion doesn't impress me much.
From a woman's right to secretly kill her progeny to George Bush's brother deciding if he "won" the election to Citizens United, to ACA passing Constitutional muster, there have been a host of decisions I thought dreadfully bad.

This is just another one on the list.

Other than Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, I do not recognize what you have described as any Court decisions. Cite them.

There are plenty decisions by the Court that intelligent people can formulate arguments to the contrary. If that is the case with any you have supposedly referred to here, go right ahead. Be sure to cite the case law.

The fact that some blowhard who has never read a court decision, and couldn't follow the reasoning if s/he had, doesn't like a court decision doesn't mean it is in error.

And it remains true, just as I said about Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the reason for enhanced penalties for hate crimes is because such crimes are actually directed toward a group, not just an individual.

 

[Nous]

Intent is not the only factor that provides prosecutors different options. Level of damage to the victim or presence of a weapon are also key. For example, punching someone with a fist to the teeth may only be simple assault, but doing the same with a baseball bat is assault with a deadly weapon. Likewise, paying a hitman who shoots your gay lover to death is first-degree murder, but taking a poorly aimed shot yourself is only attempted murder. The worst IMO is robbery: you pass a note to a teller at a bank saying you have a gun and to load his goods into your sack, is called robbery, but only if you actually have a loaded gun (visible or declared or not) is it "armed robbery".

It's not merely Thought Police, it's poorly-written laws that prosecutors can interpret to their heart's intent. Lawyers.

Cite the "poorly written laws" that you are referring to here. I think you have mischaracterized a couple of them.

In any case, there is no argument that various factors in a crime change the seriousness of and sentencing for a crime.

 

[columbus]

Other than Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, I do not recognize what you have described as any Court decisions. Cite them.

If you think I care enough about your opinion to look up Roe v Wade for you, you're mistaken.
Tom

 

[Nous]

If you think I care enough about your opinion to look up Roe v Wade for you, you're mistaken.

No, you did not describe the holding in Roe v. Wade. And as I said, if you have an rational arguments contrary to any Court decision, be sure to cite the case law by which to deduce that your opinion is better.

 

[columbus]

No, you did not describe the holding in Roe v. Wade. And as I said, if you have an rational arguments contrary to any Court decision, be sure to cite the case law by which to deduce that your opinion is better.

Thanks for sharing.
Tok

 

[Nous]

Thanks for sharing.

You're welcome. One of my goals is to encourage people to read the Court's decisions, in order to increase their knowledge on the controversy. People often find that it is difficult to argue to the contrary on the basis of the case law.

 

[Falvlun]

Correct. I don't see why the victim of the first crime should get any less justice, as he suffered the same violence and injury.

Victims get different justice based on motive all the time though, like the degrees of murder. The person is no less murdered whether the act was planned or on-the-fly but the law treats em differently.

 

[Grumpuss]

Cite the "poorly written laws" that you are referring to here. I think you have mischaracterized a couple of them.

Indeed I haven't. Do you have lawyer friends or something? I will pray for their souls tonight.

In any case, there is no argument that various factors in a crime change the seriousness of and sentencing for a crime.

If you think Code of Law should be something nebulous that requires layers and teams of lawyers to regularly interpret, than maybe, just maybe there is something wrong with the way they are written?

 

[Nous]

Indeed I haven't.

Then cite the statutes you have referred to.

Do you have lawyer friends or something?

Yes, I do.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Victims get different justice based on motive all the time though, like the degrees of murder. The person is no less murdered whether the act was planned or on-the-fly but the law treats em differently.

Indeed, and this aspect (degree) is already covered for assault, as well. "Hate," is a separate category. One, I feel is specious and arbitrary.

 

[Nous]

Indeed, and this aspect (degree) is already covered for assault, as well. "Hate," is a separate category.

How is hatred of a group a "separate category" from the perpetrator's intent?

You seem to be implying that "hate" cannot be part of a person's intent for an assault or murder. Hate is part of the intent motivating the majority of assaults and murders.

 

[Grumpuss]

Then cite the statutes you have referred to.

Sorry, I won't. But nevertheless, they exist. Your demand for me to cite 50 different set of prosecution laws that distinguish between hundreds of different crimes doesn't negate the nebulous nature of prosecution.

Yes, I do.

My condolences.

 

[Nous]

Sorry, I won't. But nevertheless, they exist. Your demand for me to cite 50 different set of prosecution laws that distinguish between hundreds of different crimes doesn't negate the nebulous nature of prosecution.

I challenge to cite even one "poorly written" law that somehow confounds armed robbery.

My condolences.

Your irrational animus toward lawyers is so informative.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How is hatred of a group a "separate category" from the perpetrator's intent?

In a narrow sense, I agree.
"Hate" - in terms of hate crime laws and the context we're talking about in this thread - creates additional victims beyond the immediate victim of the crime.

For instance, if a black person gets beaten up for taking a job in the "white" part of town, the victim isn't only the person who was assaulted; everyone who was intimidated by that act into not trying to get a job in the white part of town themselves is also a victim of the crime.

In that regard, a hate crime is in a different category from other types of crime.