Quote :

" why is constructing an argument a bad thing?"

Because it feels like you've consulted the internet and are doing a terrible job of it. For someone that has written a paper I'd expect a better case. So far all you've done is stated what the status quo is and made some vague references to an argument, but not a real argument.

You've basically said "motive should be a consideration for punishment because it is" and ugh "statistics show mandatory sentences aren't a good thing" and ugh, that relates to hate crime.

8/1/2010 12:29:01 PM

my argument is that we already make distinctions based on motives and already have a judicial and penal system based on different classes for the same crime. then, the question i posed was why is this different.

your argument, as best i can tell, is that hate crime is not a crime because it is not a crime. and yet you are criticizing my logic. can you see why i'm not taking too much effort to respond to you? can you explain why this is different?

[Edited on August 1, 2010 at 1:00 PM. Reason : ?]

8/1/2010 12:59:43 PM

When you damage someones property you have harmed them.

When you assault them you have harmed them.

When you steal from them you have harmed them.

When you hate them you have...harmed them?

8/1/2010 1:12:11 PM

when you hate them, and then assault them, you have harmed them. is that not what the issue is? when hate is a motive for a crime?

8/1/2010 1:21:45 PM

When you drive under the influence, who is harmed?

8/1/2010 1:24:05 PM

Can we stop having hate crime threads? It's very simple.

If you kill (or harm) someone for no reason, that's the worst possible reason to do something, and it should be afforded the maximum punishment as determined by the law. Harming someone because of their skin color is not a valid reason, so it's the same as any other senseless crime. It's no better or worse than harming someone because of their hair color, or the kind of shoes they're wearing, or any number of considerations.

Hate crime legislation is stupid. Please look at the dozens of threads we've already had on this, and you'll see the same arguments rehashed time and time again.

8/1/2010 4:37:13 PM

Quote :

"Please look at the dozens of threads we've already had on this, and you'll see the same arguments rehashed time and time again."

You can say that about 95% of soap box threads.

8/1/2010 4:43:13 PM

Quote :

"It's very simple."

it's clearly not, but good job dismissing the arguments against your position. i have established that motive is used to determine crimes, what about this is any different?

8/1/2010 4:54:39 PM

Motive shouldn't be used to determine crimes. There's a difference between intent and motive, but you refuse to acknowledge that.

Who should get the greater punishment: someone that kills someone for no reason at all, purely out of malice, or someone that kills someone because their skin is a certain color?

8/1/2010 6:51:11 PM

i pretty clearly do understand the difference between motive and intent. did you just not read my post or are you being purposefully obtuse?

let me post them again for you:

Quote :

"i meant to type intent, but i should have discussed motive. motive too is used to determine charges for some other crimes as well. for example obstruction charges require a corrupt motive. "

Quote :

"to charge someone with obstruction the court must show they had a malicious motive to obstruct, this is why fear of reprisal is a defense for obstruction because it changes the motive (a motive still exists, but it is not malicious, see how that works?). ( see US v Reeves and decisions in the first, third and eleventh circuit courts establishing this precedent ) motive is used to determine other crimes and sentencing so how is this different?"

Quote :

"meant to add: ^^so in the case of obstruction you would not agree that a person who has a malicious motive should be punished more harshly than someone who is doing it because they feel unsafe or have been threatened? motive is a reasonable thing to consider, in both cases the intent is clear and you are saying that should be sufficient for the court, but i think the person with the malicious motive should have a different punishment than the person who has been threatened and that is a distinction our court system already makes."

so i shall spell this out again:
first lets look at obstruction to establish that motive is reasonable to use in determining a crime. obstruction requires malicious motive. lets consider two cases, the first case the person wants to mess up the prosecution because of anger (their motive) and has the intent and actions to do so. the next person has been threatened and wants to mess up the prosecution out of fear of reprisal (their motive) and has intent and actions to do so. you seem to be claiming that since they both have the intent and actions they have committed the same crime and i suppose require the same circumstance. i disagree, i think the person who is maliciously obstructing justice is committing a worse crime and currently our legal and penal system reflect the same.

so now that its been established that motive is already a basis for determining crimes and sentancing, what makes it so different to apply a test of motive for hate crimes? or do you not agree that the two crimes above are different? if not, why?

8/1/2010 7:48:17 PM

Even if it were established that we already use motive for sentencing a crime more harshly, we should not do so.

In your example, you're suggesting that someone acting in fear of reprisal rather than anger is somehow less obstructive to the system and should be punished less harshly. Either that, or you willingly admit that we should use punishment as a way to deter anger, which is exactly what we should not be doing.

All that should matter is the results and the extent to which you purposefully disregarded the judicial system. Your emotional state that gave you motivation to commit said crime should not be a factor because then we're discouraging particular emotional states.

8/2/2010 9:24:28 AM

so then you are opposed to mitigating circumstances used in sentencing i suppose? if someone with an IQ of 20 steals a bicycle from outside of the store he should receive the same punishment as someone of average intelligence and a clear mind? this is really what you are saying if it is only about intent and results, you seem to be wanting a pretty drastic overhaul of the system.

8/2/2010 11:25:53 AM

Intent, intent, intent, intent.

Does the IQ20 know he's going something wrong, know the punishment, know he's ignoring the judicial system? That's why we punish retardedmentally handicapped people less harshly, not because they're retardedmentally handicapped and being a mean retardmentally handicapped person is forgivable.

Someone of average intelligence and clear mind knows what he's doing is wrong, knows he will get in trouble if he gets caught. This is worse. It's someone who needs to be punished more harshly so that 1)they will learn to respect the system 2)others will see we don't appreciate people ignoring the laws intentionally.

If you could somehow prove that the IQ20 person knew what he was doing, knew he would be punished if he was caught and did it anyway then yes, he should get the same punishment as the average person. They don't get a pass because they're mentally challenged, but their actual condition can have easily have an affect on their culpability if they're not actually aware of their actions and consequences.

Note: I'm not saying that ignorance of the law is a reasonable excuse. It can be argued that certain mentally handicapped people lack even the capability of understanding lawful and unlawful actions and other ethical and moral choices. In those cases, certainly they should be punished differently. The law reflects this (and is abused a lot in the cases of "insanity"). It's still not about motive, it's about intent.

8/2/2010 1:00:29 PM

Quote :

"If you could somehow prove that the IQ20 person knew what he was doing, knew he would be punished if he was caught and did it anyway then yes, he should get the same punishment as the average person."

i think the standard now is understanding the crime when charged, i could be wrong but i don't think knowledge at the time of the crime is required. i'm not sure though. (so intent to break the law is not needed)

[Edited on August 2, 2010 at 1:31 PM. Reason : .]

8/2/2010 1:31:16 PM

It's not needed, but it is a mitigating factor.

See involuntary manslaughter. Still a crime. You killed someone on accident. You still get punished. But you don't get convicted of murder. No intent, certainly no motive.

Now, I'm going to concede a situation where I think it's justified (in some cases) to punish less harshly based on motive. Self-defense. I think murdering someone who is imminently going to cause harm on you or your loved ones is justified. But that's only if there is very little intent involved (spur of the moment, no planning involved). If there is any premeditation, then motive is pointless.

8/2/2010 1:57:25 PM

Quote :

"But that's only if there is very little intent involved (spur of the moment, no planning involved)."

i'm not sure i understand this, if someone comes into my house and threatens me or a roommate i fully intend to shoot them in the chest as many times as it takes until they are on the ground not moving. but i get what you are saying.

8/2/2010 2:03:05 PM

Maybe "shorter duration of intent" would have been better wording. Going into a mob boss' house and murdering him in his sleep, while potentially an act of self defense, should not be punished the same as defending yourself against one of his hitmen in your home that surprised you in your sleep.

8/2/2010 2:05:33 PM