Criminalization Of Thought Advances
To borrow a theme from Insta…”They said if Bush were re-elected the Government would seek to criminalize and control thought, and they were right”
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Democratic-led Senate on Thursday voted to let federal law enforcement help states prosecute attacks on gays, attaching the provision to a massive spending bill for the Iraq war and daring President Bush to veto the whole package.
I hatehatehatehatehate “Hate Crime” laws. They are a vile and horrid attack on the First Amendment, end of story. Punish people for their actions, not their thoughts. What you were thinking while you hit me with the baseball bat is irrelevant; the hitting is the crime.
Politics | Mr. Bingley | 
September 28, 2007 8:02 am
Subscribe
Lordy, what I wouldn’t do to see a line-item veto; or else a one-thing-at-a-time law, where these pork-addicted, grandstanding, fucktards can’t attach riders like this on other business.
“and daring President Bush to veto the whole package.”
Just as nightfly said, line-item veto. Damn but they’re dumb!
“What you were thinking while you hit me with the baseball bat is irrelevant; the hitting is the crime.”
Yes and no. All crimes involve both an act and a state of mind (mens rea). If I hit you with the baseball bat because I swung at the ball and missed, and hit your head instead, I think you can see that’s not a crime. Conversely, if I swung at your head and missed and hit the ball instead, even though I didn’t manage to hit you, it’s still a crime.
But what we’re distinguishing here, and I apologize because this is a distinction even many lawyers (especially those who don’t practice criminal law) don’t understand or at least couldn’t explain, is the difference between intent and motive. Intent is what I want to do: it is ALWAYS relevant. Motive is WHY I want to do it, and it is, or was, or at least should be, legally irrelevant.
Okay, what Dave said mostly. I agree that with the violent crimes, having a “hate” element is irrelevant; it’s the act that is wrong provided there was intent to commit the act.
Sometimes, though, the “hate” motive proves the intent, and with some lesser crimes it can make a difference. There should be no difference, legally, between murdering someone because he’s the wrong ethnic group and murdering him because he didn’t give up his wallet quick enough.
But I see a huge difference between burning a cross on a white guy’s lawn and burning one on a black guy’s lawn. I don’t know how to distinguish them legally (I’ll leave that to Dave) but I know that difference when I see it.
We SO need a line-item veto in this country.
I don’t know – I understand Ken’s point but I also think that any kind of crime (TRUE crimes, as opposed to states that try to prosecute people for defending themselves) is a type of hate…you can’t have love in your heart for someone as you’re holding them up at gunpoint, I think. Or for the woman you’re raping. Or as you’re beating someone’s head to a bloody pulp, regardless of whether they’re black/gay/female/disabled or just some run of the mill gob cut from the same cloth as you.
(Well, okay…maybe Soccer Hooligans are an exception; they seem to see beating each other to a bloody pulp as a hobby. So maybe that’s not a hate crime. But then again, maybe there’s an element of consent involved in it.)
The thing with “hate crimes” is that it too easily becomes an opportunity to start doing Zero Tolerance things like they do in the schools, where kids get sent to counseling and detention for drawing a picture of a gun. (Regardless of whether they’re doing a report on World War II or they’re threatening the life of the kid in the seat next to them.)
“…I also think that any kind of crime…is a type of hate.”
I think that’s overbroad. A lot of things that are classified as misdemeanors are properly crimes, but are basically variations on criminal stupidity rather than any kind of hate or maliciousness.
“maybe Soccer Hooligans are an exception; they seem to see beating each other to a bloody pulp as a hobby.”
That’s why I’d say it’s not battery. But it’s still disorderly conduct, so it’s still a crime, or at least it would be here.