NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/13/transgender.ap/index.html

Two men who had sex with a transgender teen and then discovered she was biologically male were convicted Monday of her murder but cleared of hate crimes.

"Yeah, they killed her because they found out she was biologically male, but they didn't kill her because she was a transgendered person."

Huh?

Seriously, this crime was obviously motivated by the fact that she was transgendered - thus it goes exactly by the definition of a hate crime.

Fuck hate crimes. Hate crime legislation pisses me off tremendously. The motivation for a crime should have no effect on it's sentencing: hate crime laws only reinforce the idea that we are all to be treated differently based on our skin color, sexuality, or any number of other factors.

If I murder someone, I should be punished equally whether I'm black or white, straight or gay, have two arms or nineteen. As far as justice is concerned, the act itself is the only thing that is important. It shouldn't make a god damn bit of difference why s/he/it did it, the simple fact remains that s/he/it did it.

What the Hell is a Hate-crime anyways...

Honestly, Hate crimes only apply to black people.

I'm reminded of a quote...

"If you're going to beat someone up, you better make damn sure you're the same color as him."

What the Hell is a Hate-crime anyways...

A crime whose primary motivator is hate based on race/gender/status/etc.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/13/transgender.ap/index.html



"Yeah, they killed her because they found out she was biologically male, but they didn't kill her because she was a transgendered person."

Huh?

Seriously, this crime was obviously motivated by the fact that she was transgendered - thus it goes exactly by the definition of a hate crime.

Simple. S(he) carried on for a number of months, according to the article, with a sexual relationship with these guys under the pretense that 'she' was a female.. the Second-degree conviction means the jury bought the testimony that 'she' was killed without premeditation.. in other words, the court decided that these guys were duped, freaked out, and beat the shemale to death, rather than targetting her simply for that reason. If they wanted to kill a transexual in particular, it may have then been a hate crime.

Hate crimes are a "savage hypocracy", but when they are defined inconsistently is even worse. You could say that the government is committing a hate crime in its handling of hate crime laws.

Hate crimes are crimes committed on virtue of character differences between the suspect and his victim. Hate crimes are classified as such pretty much whenever a straight man kills a gay man, a white man kills a black man, and so on and so forth.

Hate crime legislation centers around the idea that it is somehow worse to kill somebody because they're different than you than for any other reason I can think of. To me, it's something of an unneccesary redundancy; since if you're going to kill someone it's pretty obvious that you hate them. The reason why you hate them shouldn't make a goddamn bit of difference.

If I murder someone, I should be punished equally whether I'm black or white, straight or gay, have two arms or nineteen. As far as justice is concerned, the act itself is the only thing that is important. It shouldn't make a god damn bit of difference why s/he/it did it, the simple fact remains that s/he/it did it.
Um, would that mean that there is no difference between a woman killing an abusive husband to get the abuse to stop and an assisnation?

Hate crimes are a "savage hypocracy", but when they are defined inconsistently is even worse. You could say that the government is committing a hate crime in its handling of hate crime laws.
See the South Park episode from season 4 "Cartman's Silly Hate Crime"

I agree, and the shady definition of what exactly a "hate" crime is makes it all the more needless. It's kind of like a war on 'terror.' It's so vague as to be meaninglessly political. Anything I want to define as hate, is hate, and anything I want to define as terror, is terror. And notice the same fixation of declaring abstract nouns to be the objects of physical retribution. Fuck that!

Plus it makes it seem like "hate" is itself a crime. Paving the way for Orwellian thoughtcrime style legislation.

See the South Park episode from season 4 "Cartman's Silly Hate Crime"

That's where the quote is from. "Hate Crimes: A Savage Hypocracy"

It's a classic.

Um, would that mean that there is no difference between a woman killing an abusive husband to get the abuse to stop and an assisnation?
Are you kidding?

Please read my post again. In context with the first. I'm not making sweeping generalizations about all killing, the subject at hand here is 'hate crimes.'

Christ...

You could say that the government is committing a hate crime in its handling of hate crime laws.I could say that...But what I really mean to say is: "The Gov is full of morons..."

Um, would that mean that there is no difference between a woman killing an abusive husband to get the abuse to stop and an assisnation?

he said murder. it's not considered murder if it's self defense.

If the woman just decides to go off and kill her husband because he's abusive, that's vengeance: murder. if he's beating her and the only way she can get him to stop is by killing him, that's self defense: not murder. they're different scenarios.

What the Hell is a Hate-crime anyways...
crime++;

Um, would that mean that there is no difference between a woman killing an abusive husband to get the abuse to stop and an assisnation?

In the first case, the only relevant fact is that Entity A is defending itself from Entity B. They could both be men, they could both be women, or some combination thereof. Their gender is ultimately irrevelant as no matter what their genders are the act itself comes down to one of self-defense. (EDIT: I have assumed that Entity B was committing a violent act against Entity A at the time Entity A kills Entity B. Entity B initiated the use of violent force, thus Entity A is justified in defending itself in kind.)

Are you kidding?

Please read my post again. In context with the first. I'm not making sweeping generalizations about all killing, the subject at hand here is 'hate crimes.'

Christ...
Well, you DID say, "It shouldn't make a god damn bit of difference why s/he/it did it, the simple fact remains that s/he/it did it."

I am asking for clarification based upon that as it calls into question the whole idea of the various rankings of murder/killing.

Well, you DID say, "It shouldn't make a god damn bit of difference why s/he/it did it, the simple fact remains that s/he/it did it."

I am asking for clarification based upon that as it calls into question the whole idea of the various rankings of murder/killing.


its not a matter of ranking; murder and killing are not the same thing. murder is unlawful, killing has the potential to not be unlawful

crime++;So I guess they are going to make him sit on the electric chair twice...

Oh, and NEVRUN... I'm sorry, but even wife beaters don't deserve to be murdered. There is no justification [beyond that of the victim having murdered someone himself] for the killing of another human being. In this country, for example, one is entirely capable of filing for something called a "divorce," wherein the two people will no longer have any need to live in the same house. Perhaps an exemption could also be made for a man who holds slaves; as he is effectively putting an obscene lip-clamp on the lives of his servants in the first place.

EDIT: but yeah, I was a bit hasty with my first response, I thought I had clarified the issue a bit more than I did. DC makes some interesting observations about this as well, a bit higher up on the page.

Oh, and NEVRUN... I'm sorry, but even wife beaters don't deserve to be murdered. There is no justification [beyond that of the victim having murdered someone himself] for the killing of another human being. In this country, for example, one is entirely capable of filing for something called a "divorce," wherein the two people will no longer have any need to live in the same house. Perhaps an exemption could also be made for a man who holds slaves; as he is effectively putting an obscene lip-clamp on the lives of his servants in the first place.

EDIT: but yeah, I was a bit hasty with my first response, I thought I had clarified the issue a bit more than I did. DC makes some interesting observations about this as well, a bit higher up on the page.
Hmm, I must apologize as I am also being unclear with my line of inquery. While I agree that the current hate laws are hopless, it has been my understand that the motovation behind murder (1st degree, 2nd, and so on) carries weight in sentanceing as killing in the 'heat of the moment' while reprensible, is not as bad as cold blooded murder. Hate crime laws help establish motovation and allow sentencing to swing more towards the cold blooded killing types vs heat of the moment.

So to clarify my question to you, do you see no difference between such types? In other words, do those who kill, for whatever justification, deserve the same punishment, again, no matter their justification?

Hmm, I must apologize as I am also being unclear with my line of inquery. While I agree that the current hate laws are hopless, it has been my understand that the motovation behind murder (1st degree, 2nd, and so on) carries weight in sentanceing as killing in the 'heat of the moment' while reprensible, is not as bad as cold blooded murder. Hate crime laws help establish motovation and allow sentencing to swing more towards the cold blooded killing types vs heat of the moment.

So to clarify my question to you, do you see no difference between such types? In other words, do those who kill, for whatever justification, deserve the same punishment, again, no matter their justification?
I think it's OK to make distinctions, to a point; but I've always found the 1st, 2nd, and Manslaughter degrees of murder to be a bit tedious at best: I think they serve mainly to allow the jurors an easy out of they're not completely sure of themselves.

When dealing with people's lives in court, it might actually be a good idea to err on the side of caution; that is to say that despite their tedium I have a grudging respect for the differences.

Hate Crimes, however, strike me as a different beast. Like I said earlier, all they do is perpetuate the idea that we are all to be treated differently in a social context: hate crime laws reinforce the walls we've thrown up between people in society--they're not tearing them down like our Justice Department apparently thinks they are.

It's one thing to gauge a sentance based on the defendant's state of mind or the degree of premeditation, it's something else entirely to tell me that a cold-blooded murder is somehow worse if your victim's ancestors had different habits than yours. If I am murdered by another white man, I don't want him to get off easier because I'm not black or gay. It's sort of like affirmative action, only with gavels and electric chairs instead of job applications and stuffy offices.

Fuck hate crimes. Hate crime legislation pisses me off tremendously. The motivation for a crime should have no effect on it's sentencing: hate crime laws only reinforce the idea that we are all to be treated differently based on our skin color, sexuality, or any number of other factors.

If I murder someone, I should be punished equally whether I'm black or white, straight or gay, have two arms or nineteen. As far as justice is concerned, the act itself is the only thing that is important. It shouldn't make a god damn bit of difference why s/he/it did it, the simple fact remains that s/he/it did it.

Oh really. So a pre-meditated murder should receive the same sentence as manslaughter?

The question of wrongful intent matters in our justice system and always has. And I see no reason why acts of bigotry shouldn't be included in the definition.

Oh really. So a pre-meditated murder should receive the same sentence as manslaughter?

The question of wrongful intent matters in our justice system and always has. And I see no reason why acts of bigotry shouldn't be included in the definition.
See my previous post.

EDIT: oh, and by the way: Premeditation != motive.

Oh really. So a pre-meditated murder should receive the same sentence as manslaughter?

The question of wrongful intent matters in our justice system and always has. And I see no reason why acts of bigotry shouldn't be included in the definition.

Melkor is talking about motivation, you are talking about intent. They are not the same thing.

Motivation is why you do something, intent is what you plan to do.

*insert sounds of snipping here*
Ok, I understand where you are coming from then, thank you.

Ok, I understand where you are coming from then, thank you.
Heh... doesn't it kick ass when that happens? ;)

Fuck hate crimes. Hate crime legislation pisses me off tremendously. The motivation for a crime should have no effect on it's sentencing: hate crime laws only reinforce the idea that we are all to be treated differently based on our skin color, sexuality, or any number of other factors.

If I murder someone, I should be punished equally whether I'm black or white, straight or gay, have two arms or nineteen. As far as justice is concerned, the act itself is the only thing that is important. It shouldn't make a god damn bit of difference why s/he/it did it, the simple fact remains that s/he/it did it.
You don't believe society owes a greater duty of care to protect certain groups? You don't believe that social deterant is better served if the punishment for crimes which certain groups see as acceptable are greater?

Maybe they should give "love crimes" more lenient penalties. Surely, someone that overdoses their terminally ill loved one should not receive the full penalty of the law for murder, or even manslaughter. What about a noncustodial parent kidnapping their child to remove them from an abusive situation? Statutory rape between mutually consenting people?

If they're going to make emotions a deciding factor in crimes, why not consider positve ones too?

You don't believe society owes a greater duty of care to protect certain groups? You don't believe that social deterant is better served if the punishment for crimes which certain groups see as acceptable are greater?
Nope. I'd like to be protected too, thanks. I don't think we should be playing favorites.

You don't believe society owes a greater duty of care to protect certain groups? You don't believe that social deterant is better served if the punishment for crimes which certain groups see as acceptable are greater?

You don't believe that society has a duty to protect all citizens equally to its best ability? You don't believe that it is wrong to for society to show certain groups privelege over others?

While I agree that hate legislation is poorly implemented, I can see the motivation behind it. For example, if you kill a man because you catch him having sex with your wife, you are a threat only to that guy. If you kill a man because he is a Jew, you are not only a threat to him, but to an entire class of people. You will not run out of victims (unless you are extraordinarily efficient) and therefore more caution should be exercised with your release. At least, that's the theory.

You don't believe that society has a duty to protect all citizens equally to its best ability? You don't believe that it is wrong to for society to show certain groups privelege over others?
Precisely. Rotovia is highlighting another wonderful contradiction from the left.

"All people should be treated equally" versus "You should get harsher penalties for killing a black man"

Maybe they should give "love crimes" more lenient penalties. Surely, someone that overdoses their terminally ill loved one should not receive the full penalty of the law for murder, or even manslaughter. What about a noncustodial parent kidnapping their child to remove them from an abusive situation? Statutory rape between mutually consenting people?

If they're going to make emotions a deciding factor in crimes, why not consider positve ones too?

To teenage lovers kill their parents who forbid them from seeing one another. It was motivated by love, so obviously it is not as criminal.

I think a conviction on a murder charge should be an automatic life sentence without parole, or death sentence depending on the heinous nature of the crime. The fact that it could be 15 to life or what not is ridiculous and exposes holes in the system.

Fuck hate crimes. Hate crime legislation pisses me off tremendously. The motivation for a crime should have no effect on it's sentencing: hate crime laws only reinforce the idea that we are all to be treated differently based on our skin color, sexuality, or any number of other factors.

This doesn't make any logical sense. The purpose of hate crime legislation, whether you agree with it or not, is to accentuate the fact that dwelling on differences and treating people differently based on skin color, sexuality, etc. is wrong. It hardly reinforces the differences. If everyone treated others as people, instead of as black/white/gay/straight/male/female/etc., then there would be no one to prosecute under hate crime laws.

If I murder someone, I should be punished equally whether I'm black or white, straight or gay, have two arms or nineteen.

And you will. And hate crimes don't change that. However, hate crime also says that, if you murder someone because of their ethnicity/gender/sexuality/etc, you would be treated the same as anyone else who did so whether you happen to be black, white, straight, gay, or nineteen-armed.

As you pointed out before trying to dwell on some sort of idea that hate crime laws are themselves discriminatory, the question is the motive, not the traits of the murderer.

As far as justice is concerned, the act itself is the only thing that is important. It shouldn't make a god damn bit of difference why s/he/it did it, the simple fact remains that s/he/it did it.

Really? Is that why we have different sentences depending on the circumstances of the crime? Is that why someone who did not mean to kill another (talking motives here) may be convicted of a lesser crime and get a lesser sentence than someone who planned to do so? Is that why someone who is mentally ill may be sentenced to a mental institution instead of a jail? Is that why a woman who was physically abused for years and finally retaliated will often get a lesser sentence than a woman who simply decides to shoot her husband one day?

Everything in our justice system considers motives.

While I agree that hate legislation is poorly implemented, I can see the motivation behind it. For example, if you kill a man because you catch him having sex with your wife, you are a threat only to that guy. If you kill a man because he is a Jew, you are not only a threat to him, but to an entire class of people. You will not run out of victims (unless you are extraordinarily efficient) and therefore more caution should be exercised with your release. At least, that's the theory.

Well to shoot down the theory, in each situation the individuals have shown themselves to be a threat to everyone they hate. I would surmise that the first individual would kill anyone who slept with his wife, meaning he would be a threat to anyone who has the ability to sleep with his wife. Depending on his wife that could be a large group of people.

Simple. S(he) carried on for a number of months, according to the article, with a sexual relationship with these guys under the pretense that 'she' was a female.. the Second-degree conviction means the jury bought the testimony that 'she' was killed without premeditation.. in other words, the court decided that these guys were duped, freaked out, and beat the shemale to death, rather than targetting her simply for that reason. If they wanted to kill a transexual in particular, it may have then been a hate crime.

Premeditation has nothing to do with it. A hate crime does not have to be premeditated any more than any other crime.

If these guys were "freaked out", it was clearly because of her sexuality - because she was transgendered, and it was for this that they murdered her.

This doesn't make any logical sense. The purpose of hate crime legislation, whether you agree with it or not, is to accentuate the fact that dwelling on differences and treating people differently based on skin color, sexuality, etc. is wrong.
And then it turns around and treats people differently based on skin color, sexuality, etc. Now who's not making any logical sense?

It hardly reinforces the differences. If everyone treated others as people, instead of as black/white/gay/straight/male/female/etc., then there would be no one to prosecute under hate crime laws.
And if the Law treated people as people, this problem would also go away. You can't change the way people think, but you can change the way you deal with them.

And you will. And hate crimes don't change that.
Then whats the point of hate crime laws, hmm?

However, hate crime also says that, if you murder someone because of their ethnicity/gender/sexuality/etc, you would be treated the same as anyone else who did so whether you happen to be black, white, straight, gay, or nineteen-armed.
I understand that. This does nothing to validate the underlying concept of hate crime laws. You're basically saying that hate crime defendants are all treated in the same manner. Whoop de-fucking doo: it's still bullshit.

As you pointed out before trying to dwell on some sort of idea that hate crime laws are themselves discriminatory, the question is the motive, not the traits of the murderer.
You don't see how hate crime laws are discriminatory? Wow....

Really? Is that why we have different sentences depending on the circumstances of the crime? Is that why someone who did not mean to kill another (talking motives here) may be convicted of a lesser crime and get a lesser sentence than someone who planned to do so? Is that why someone who is mentally ill may be sentenced to a mental institution instead of a jail? Is that why a woman who was physically abused for years and finally retaliated will often get a lesser sentence than a woman who simply decides to shoot her husband one day?
Read my later posts: this has already been discussed, to a point. When you post a new thread, run from it, then come back later, you'd do well in the future to read the whole thing as opposed to flying off the handle and posting a knee-jerk response to the second post.

Oh, and NEVRUN... I'm sorry, but even wife beaters don't deserve to be murdered. There is no justification [beyond that of the victim having murdered someone himself] for the killing of another human being.

So if the option seems to be kill or be killed, you should be killed, since you can't kill someone until they have already killed you?

Doesn't seem like a good guideline to me.

In this country, for example, one is entirely capable of filing for something called a "divorce," wherein the two people will no longer have any need to live in the same house.

How very naive you are. You are aware, I assume, that battered women often can't get out because of fear for their lives or their children's lives? You are aware that there are entire organizations completely dedicated to hiding these women from their husbands while they file for divorce, get new identities (which they have to do for their own protection), and move as far away as possible? If it were as simple as, "get a divorce," then we wouldn't need shelters for battered women and children. We wouldn't have women who file for a divorce and end up in the morgue the day after the papers are served to the man.

It's one thing to gauge a sentance based on the defendant's state of mind or the degree of premeditation, it's something else entirely to tell me that a cold-blooded murder is somehow worse if your victim's ancestors had different habits than yours.

That would be something else, wouldn't it? Of course, that isn't at all what hate crime legislation says. Hate crime legislation does not automatically apply if there is something different about the person being murdered. The prosecution has to demonstrate that the motiivation behind the murder was based on the difference in race/sexuality/gender/etc.

If I am murdered by another white man, I don't want him to get off easier because I'm not black or gay.

And he wouldn't, unless, if you were black or gay, he would be murdering you specifically because you were black or gay, and would not murder you if you were white or straight.

Really? Is that why we have different sentences depending on the circumstances of the crime? Is that why someone who did not mean to kill another (talking motives here) may be convicted of a lesser crime and get a lesser sentence than someone who planned to do so? Is that why someone who is mentally ill may be sentenced to a mental institution instead of a jail? Is that why a woman who was physically abused for years and finally retaliated will often get a lesser sentence than a woman who simply decides to shoot her husband one day?

The first two situations have lessened penalties due to the intent, not the motive. If someone does not mean to kill a person, they did not have intent to kill them. If someone is deemed mentally ill, they are generally considered to not have a judgement of right or wrong, so in effect they are not intending harm.

The last situation is generally lessened by intent, although sometimes juries sympathize with the woman's motivation. If the jury lets the woman off because they sympathize with her motivation, they are failing justice. If the woman gets off because it is established that her intent was to protect herself, then it is fair.

And then it turns around and treats people differently based on skin color, sexuality, etc. Now who's not making any logical sense?

No, it doesn't. It treats them differently based upon their motivation - something you have admitted can be taken into account. If a man with black skin hated all blacks, and murdered a black man because of it, it would be every bit as much a hate crime as if a person with white skin did it. The definition of the crime is in the motivation and is neutral to skin color, sexuality, etc.

I understand that. This does nothing to validate the underlying concept of hate crime laws.

It wasn't meant to. It was simply debunking your claim that you would be treated any differently than anyone else under hate crime laws. Thus, the color of your skin, your sexuality, etc. do not matter in determining whether or not you have committed a sex crime.

You don't see how hate crime laws are discriminatory? Wow....

Well, they discriminate based on motive. Of course, so do the different laws for murder 1, 2, and manslaughter. They don't discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, sexuality, etc. because a member of any ethncity, sexuality, etc. who killed another person because of their ethnicity, sexuality, etc. would be treated exactly the same.

When you post a new thread, run from it, then come back later, you'd do well in the future to read the whole thing as opposed to flying off the handle and posting a knee-jerk response to the second post.

I hardly ran from it. I haven't been gone long at all. Sorry that I have a life outside of NS though.

Meanwhile, when I come back to any thread which has grown since I last posted in it, I reply to a page at a time. If you don't like it, don't read my posts.


The first two situations have lessened penalties due to the intent, not the motive.

There is very little difference, if any, between the use of those two words.

If someone does not mean to kill a person, they did not have intent to kill them.

If they did not intend to kill a person, then their motive was not to kill. It was to do something else, and resulted in death.

If someone is deemed mentally ill, they are generally considered to not have a judgement of right or wrong, so in effect they are not intending harm.

And thus their motive is not harm...

The last situation is generally lessened by intent, although sometimes juries sympathize with the woman's motivation. If the jury lets the woman off because they sympathize with her motivation, they are failing justice. If the woman gets off because it is established that her intent was to protect herself, then it is fair.

Again, the two words mean the exact same thing in this instance. If her intent was to protect herself, then her motive was to protect herself. There is no logical distinction between the two.

Meanwhile, if you really think that juries are not supposed to take all aspects of the case into account, then why exactly do we have juries in the first place? We should let computers decide guild and sentencing, since they wouldn't take things like humanity into account.

So if the option seems to be kill or be killed, you should be killed, since you can't kill someone until they have already killed you?

Doesn't seem like a good guideline to me.
I'm sorry, but this is a steaming, stinking crock of shit. If one can validate murder by reference to $NUMBER of domestic violence acts [even if it's just one] then it stands to reason that no woman should ever be convicted of murdering her husband because he just might kill her in the future. By this logic, I'd be allowed to kill someone for hitting me. After all, isn't striking someone a sign of hostility? If they're hostile towards me, they might be liable to kill me, right? If they're liable to kill me, then why shouldn't I just go ahead and do it first?

This is a slippery slope that nears Everest-like proportions. It's one of the weakest arguments I've ever read.

Oh, and by the way, I [and several others] answered to that already too. You'll notice this thread has some other posts in it that address my statements in much the same manner as yours. Please take the time to read your own threads in their entirety.

How very naive you are.
I don't ever want to hear you say that again. You don't see me going around making character assumptions about you, do you? This isn't a flame, but it's a statment I find unneccesarily abrasive.

You are aware, I assume, that battered women often can't get out because of fear for their lives or their children's lives?
Are you honestly trying to tell me that the only possible solution is to murder the spouse?!

You are aware that there are entire organizations completely dedicated to hiding these women from their husbands while they file for divorce, get new identities (which they have to do for their own protection), and move as far away as possible? If it were as simple as, "get a divorce," then we wouldn't need shelters for battered women and children. We wouldn't have women who file for a divorce and end up in the morgue the day after the papers are served to the man.
Good. I was wrong above. Thank Christ.

Allow me to retort: Those organizations exist, therefore they are perfectly capable of being used. I have seen domestic violence firsthand [which is why I resent your 'naive' remark], and I'm here to tell you it's not an impossible problem to solve. In fact, using one of these insitutions is likely to be far more expedient than murdering the son of a bitch. "Get a divorce" was an intentionally simplistic example; the implication of my statement was "whatever seperation is neccessary to ensure the safety of the spouse." I didn't feel like writing all of that out; I'm glad you took the time to do it for me.

That would be something else, wouldn't it? Of course, that isn't at all what hate crime legislation says. Hate crime legislation does not automatically apply if there is something different about the person being murdered. The prosecution has to demonstrate that the motiivation behind the murder was based on the difference in race/sexuality/gender/etc.
OK, that's fine: it's still bullshit. Since it's impossible to read the defendant's mind, motive is nearly impossible to prove in any court of law.

And he wouldn't, unless, if you were black or gay, he would be murdering you specifically because you were black or gay, and would not murder you if you were white or straight.
You know, I'm actually fairly intelligent. You rally don't need to repeat yourself like that.

The intent of a crime is the aim or purpose of the crime, the motivation for the crime is the reason the crime is committed.

Legal definitions

intent n. mental desire and will to act in a particular way, including wishing not to participate. Intent is a crucial element in determining if certain acts were criminal. Occasionally a judge or jury may find that "there was no criminal intent." Example: lack of intent may reduce a charge of manslaughter to a finding of reckless homicide or other lesser crime.

motive n. in criminal investigation the probable reason a person committed a crime such as jealousy, greed, revenge, or part of a theft. While evidence of a motive may be admissible at trial, proof of motive is not necessary to prove a crime.

No, it doesn't. It treats them differently based upon their motivation - something you have admitted can be taken into account.
Motivation? No. Premeditation? Perhaps. I have said many times that the motivation for an act does not enlarge or diminish the consequences of said act: the fact that someone killed someone else because they were black doesn't make the dead black guy any more dead than he would be if his skin were a bit lighter.

If a man with black skin hated all blacks, and murdered a black man because of it, it would be every bit as much a hate crime as if a person with white skin did it. The definition of the crime is in the motivation and is neutral to skin color, sexuality, etc.
Somehow, I highly doubt this would be the case. You're giving our justice system a bit too much credit here.

It wasn't meant to. It was simply debunking your claim that you would be treated any differently than anyone else under hate crime laws. Thus, the color of your skin, your sexuality, etc. do not matter in determining whether or not you have committed a sex crime.
Except that I wouldn't be charged for a hate crime if my skin were a different color. Christ, it's like I'm talking to a wall here. Bottom line: When it comes to hate crimes, the color of my skin and my sexuality are determining factors in my sentencing.

Well, they discriminate based on motive. Of course, so do the different laws for murder 1, 2, and manslaughter. They don't discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, sexuality, etc. because a member of any ethncity, sexuality, etc. who killed another person because of their ethnicity, sexuality, etc. would be treated exactly the same.
Ummmm.... the degree of a murder has nothing to do with its motive; it has to do with the extent to which the crime was planned. Again, this has already been pointed out at least twice.

Meanwhile, when I come back to any thread which has grown since I last posted in it, I reply to a page at a time. If you don't like it, don't read my posts.
I'm starting to think that might be a good idea.

I'm sorry, but this is a steaming, stinking crock of shit. If one can validate murder by reference to $NUMBER of domestic violence acts [even if it's just one] then it stands to reason that no woman should ever be convicted of murdering her husband because he just might kill her in the future. By this logic, I'd be allowed to kill someone for hitting me. After all, isn't striking someone a sign of hostility? If they're hostile towards me, they might be liable to kill me, right? If they're liable to kill me, then why shouldn't I just go ahead and do it first?

This is a slippery slope that nears Everest-like proportions. It's one of the weakest arguments I've ever read.

And you are the one using the slippery slope argument. No one has even come close to suggesting that a single hit, or even the threat of a single hit, or even the threat of being killed that has no action behind it, is going to lessen the sentence for murder. We aren't talking about women who got hit once and then got pissed off. We are talking about women who have been beaten so badly that they ended up in the hospital for months. We are talking about women who have suffered more broken bones than an entire hockey team put together at the hands of their husbands.

Oh, and by the way, I [and several others] answered to that already too. You'll notice this thread has some other posts in it that address my statements in much the same manner as yours. Please take the time to read your own threads in their entirety.

I have read the entire thread. You have given lip service to these ideas, but you haven't really addressed them.

I don't ever want to hear you say that again. You don't see me going around making character assumptions about you, do you? This isn't a flame, but it's a statment I find unneccesarily abrasive.

If you don't like the statement, then don't make comments that, to anyone who knew what they were talking about, would sound naive. You make a comment later that suggests you knew better, so why were you lazy enough (you admit this yourself) to make the naive-sounding comment?

Are you honestly trying to tell me that the only possible solution is to murder the spouse?!

Of course not. I am telling you that anyone with a drop of empathy can see how a person in that situation might come to such a conclusion. If a person feels cornered and doesn't see any other way out, they will do what they feel is necessary. From the outside looking in, we may be able to see another way out. It doesn't mean that they can.

Hell, it could happen as a spur of the moment thing. A woman has just come home from the hospital from her last beating, she drops something on the ground, he hits her, and she hits him back. At this point, she knows it is kill or be killed. If she doesn't kill him, he will kill her this time, especially since she has already hit him back.

Allow me to retort: Those organizations exist, therefore they are perfectly capable of being used.

If you can find them or know about them and if you can contact them without your spouse finding out and if you can make plans without your spouse finding out. There are an awful lot of ifs there. Yes, the organizations are there, just like the salvation army and the red cross are there. Does that mean that every person in need has the means to get to the salvation or red cross and get aid?

I have seen domestic violence firsthand [which is why I resent your 'naive' remark], and I'm here to tell you it's not an impossible problem to solve.

I have seen domestic violence as well, but I have hardly seen the types of situations described above first hand. Most people, thankfully, haven't. Have you seen a woman regularly beaten so badly that she has to go into the hospital? Have you talked to her after she is so emotionally unstable that she actually thinks she deserves such treatment, that he is "doing it because he loves her"?

OK, that's fine: it's still bullshit. Since it's impossible to read the defendant's mind, motive is nearly impossible to prove in any court of law.

Everything is near impossible to prove in any court of law. That is why it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt - not beyond *any* doubt. Motive is no different. From a person's actions and personality, we can determine something about their motive.

Meanwhile, actually getting a conviction on a hate crime is incredibly difficult for the very reason you brought up. It has to be pretty damn obvious that the person was killed because of their ethnicity/sexuality/etc., or the hate crime conviction won't be forthcoming.

You know, I'm actually fairly intelligent. You rally don't need to repeat yourself like that.

If you didn't keep replying with the same bull, I wouldn't repeat myself.

*reads above, nods sagely*

Gentlemen, my work here is done.

Dem, we should probably avoid each other in the future.

The intent of a crime is the aim or purpose of the crime, the motivation for the crime is the reason the crime is committed.

Legal definitions

intent n. mental desire and will to act in a particular way, including wishing not to participate. Intent is a crucial element in determining if certain acts were criminal. Occasionally a judge or jury may find that "there was no criminal intent." Example: lack of intent may reduce a charge of manslaughter to a finding of reckless homicide or other lesser crime.

motive n. in criminal investigation the probable reason a person committed a crime such as jealousy, greed, revenge, or part of a theft. While evidence of a motive may be admissible at trial, proof of motive is not necessary to prove a crime.

Ah, as per usual, the legal system defines things a bit differently than normal people.

Of course, by logic, one could easily say that the only motive for a crime was to kill the person. It would meet the actual definition of motive, if not the legal one.


I have said many times that the motivation for an act does not enlarge or diminish the consequences of said act: the fact that someone killed someone else because they were black doesn't make the dead black guy any more dead than he would be if his skin were a bit lighter.

No one has said it makes him any more dead. Of course, hate crimes aren't just about murder, but we'll ignore that. The point of hate crime laws is to make it absolutely clear, by law, that treating someone differently or seeing them as an "ok" target for violence because of their ethnicity, etc. is not acceptable and will not be tolerated.

You may or may not like it, but it certainly isn't the big discriminatory plot that you have suggested.


Somehow, I highly doubt this would be the case. You're giving our justice system a bit too much credit here.

If the justice system misuses a law and makes it discriminatory, that is a very different situation from the law itself being discriminatory.

Except that I wouldn't be charged for a hate crime if my skin were a different color. Christ, it's like I'm talking to a wall here. Bottom line: When it comes to hate crimes, the color of my skin and my sexuality are determining factors in my sentencing.

Incorrect. The law does not say a single thing about the ethnciity, etc. of the criminal. It only states that, if the criminal committed the crime specifically because of the victim's ethnicity, etc., sentencing will be different.

If you are suggesting that the criminal system would use it that way, then you are suggesting that the law is being blatantly misused. Again, this is a problem with the application of the law, not the law itself.

Ah, as per usual, the legal system defines things a bit differently than normal people.

Of course, by logic, one could easily say that the only motive for a crime was to kill the person. It would meet the actual definition of motive, if not the legal one.

Even in common use, motivation is something that inspires action, while intent is the desired results of the action.

Without using legal definitions:

A kid throws a rock at a window.

1. What is his intent?

2. What is his motivation?

You don't believe that society has a duty to protect all citizens equally to its best ability? You don't believe that it is wrong to for society to show certain groups privelege over others?
The problem is that we are not all born on an equal footing, some of us are born poor, others born handicapped and others born with a trait that cause them to be victemized. In order for us all to be equal before the law we have to protect these people to a greater degree.

Aren't ALL crimes hate crimes? I mean execpt for a Crime of Passion or a Vilignate Crime, aren't all murders caused by Hate?

Even in common use, motivation is something that inspires action, while intent is the desired results of the action.

Without using legal definitions:

A kid throws a rock at a window.

1. What is his intent?

2. What is his motivation?

Most likely, his intent and motivation are the same. His intent is to break a window. His motive is that he wants the window to break. One may be the desired end and the other the inspiration, as you say, but the desired ends and the inspiration are essentially the same. If I want to go to the store - that is my motivation. Thus, when I get in my car, my intent is to go to the store.

Premeditation has nothing to do with it. A hate crime does not have to be premeditated any more than any other crime.

If these guys were "freaked out", it was clearly because of her sexuality - because she was transgendered, and it was for this that they murdered her.

If you're a juror, you have to look at the entire situation. If you don't have premeditation - hate crimes usually require the targetting of a specific group beforehand - that will normally close the door on hate-crime prosecution. In this case, you have a shemale who purposefully hid their identity as a male, until it was discovered by the group, which killed her soon after, according to the article.. unless you've got some witness testimony that says she was killed simply because the group hated shemales (rather than for her continued deception), you might have a hard time, as a juror, defining motive. That's how the facts look to me, especialy since the jury came down on second-degree. Not much suggests a hate-crime.

If you're a juror, you have to look at the entire situation. If you don't have premeditation - hate crimes usually require the targetting of a specific group beforehand

No, they don't. The definition of hate crime simply requires that the crime was committed because of the victim's ethncity, sexuality, etc. Premeditation (or lack thereof) does not come into it. If a man is driving down the street, sees a hispanic woman, and beats her because he doesn't like hispanics, that wasn't premeditated - he couldn't have possibly known she would be there - but it does very clearly meet the definition of a hate crime.

In this case, you have a shemale who purposefully hid their identity as a male,

Must you insist on using such a blatantly insulting word? If you do, you are no different than a person who goes into a thread aout a black man and uses the n- word.

Meanwhile, she had no identity as a male. Her identity was female. She did hide the fact that she happened to have a penis. Of course, most people don't show their genitals until they are good and ready.

until it was discovered by the group, which killed her soon after, according to the article.. unless you've got some witness testimony that says she was killed simply because the group hated shemales (rather than for her continued deception), you might have a hard time, as a juror, defining motive. That's how the facts look to me, especialy since the jury came down on second-degree. Not much suggests a hate-crime.

Second-degree simply means that it wasn't premeditated. It hardly assumes a motivation for the crime.

Meanwhile, if they were not angry that she was transgendered, if they did not kill her because she was transgendered, then they would not have killed her at all. If they were perfectly alright with transgendered persons, then they might have been upset that she had hidden something from them, but would not have committed a violent action because of it.

Suppose a man is speaking to a person over the internet. She is female, and when he asks if she is hispanic, she says no. Perhaps she does this because she knows he has made some disparaging comments about latina women before, and she doesn't want to offend him - her motives are irrelevent here. One way or another, when they meet in person, he discovers that she is hispanic. He flies into a rage and beats her up. Are you honestly going to argue that he didn't beat her up because she was hispanic?

No, they don't. The definition of hate crime simply requires that the crime was committed because of the victim's ethncity, sexuality, etc. Premeditation (or lack thereof) does not come into it. If a man is driving down the street, sees a hispanic woman, and beats her because he doesn't like hispanics, that wasn't premeditated - he couldn't have possibly known she would be there - but it does very clearly meet the definition of a hate crime.



Must you insist on using such a blatantly insulting word? If you do, you are no different than a person who goes into a thread aout a black man and uses the n- word.

Meanwhile, she had no identity as a male. Her identity was female. She did hide the fact that she happened to have a penis. Of course, most people don't show their genitals until they are good and ready.



Second-degree simply means that it wasn't premeditated. It hardly assumes a motivation for the crime.

Meanwhile, if they were not angry that she was transgendered, if they did not kill her because she was transgendered, then they would not have killed her at all. If they were perfectly alright with transgendered persons, then they might have been upset that she had hidden something from them, but would not have committed a violent action because of it.

Suppose a man is speaking to a person over the internet. She is female, and when he asks if she is hispanic, she says no. Perhaps she does this because she knows he has made some disparaging comments about latina women before, and she doesn't want to offend him - her motives are irrelevent here. One way or another, when they meet in person, he discovers that she is hispanic. He flies into a rage and beats her up. Are you honestly going to argue that he didn't beat her up because she was hispanic?

Jurors have to decide on a 'reasonable doubt' standard.. the possibility that these guys killed the shemale because she had been lying to them for months, rather than because her lie was (physically) offensive to them might be the less likely explaination, but if you're a juror, you can't discount it. They certainly weren't out looking to kill a shemale, nor were they aware she was a shemale until immediately before the fatal beating/strangulation.. I'm just thinking as a juror here..

No, they don't. The definition of hate crime simply requires that the crime was committed because of the victim's ethncity, sexuality, etc. Premeditation (or lack thereof) does not come into it. If a man is driving down the street, sees a hispanic woman, and beats her because he doesn't like hispanics, that wasn't premeditated - he couldn't have possibly known she would be there - but it does very clearly meet the definition of a hate crime.

That IS premeditation. Courts have ruled that killing your wife upon hearing that she's leaving you, by reaching for a knife three feet away, is premeditation, for example. Premeditation can take three seconds, depending on the circumstances.

Jurors have to decide on a 'reasonable doubt' standard.. the possibility that these guys killed the shemale

Ok, end of discussion. If you insist on painting yourself as a bigot by using obviously derogatory terms, then you are not worth talking to.

Ok, end of discussion. If you insist on painting yourself as a bigot by using obviously derogatory terms, then you are not worth talking to.

Actually, I skimmed over your bit about it being a derogatory term before I responded. I wouldn't have used it if I had paid better attention.. in any case, I never knew it to be an offensive term to transgendered people, if that's a better descriptor. I was never taught this stuff in school back in the dark ages of the mid 1990's sex-ed.. ;) It was a simpler time, I guess.

Dem, I'd be mighty, mighty impressed if you can find a case file of a black man charged with killing a white guy in a hate crime fashion. Now, I'm very possibly mistaken, but I have never heard of that happening.

That means one of two things: one, all racists are white (which any reasonable person can tell you is absolutely bunk),

or

two, lawyers have an easier time entering race into the equation when the defendent is white and the victim is black.

Now that's just talking race. I haven't even covered sexual orientation or religion. Now again I could be mistaken, but so far as I know, I've never heard of hate crime legislation invoked to charge a black man killing a white man, a Muslim murdering a Christian, etc. etc.

Now I have no doubt that hate crime legislation is a well meaning, well intentioned law. Racism and homophobia is in my view a form of slathering barbarism, and I have no patience with it. Having said that, I have no right to force a racist to be tolerant of black people, although I'd do my damndest to persuade. However, there's an attitude in this country that people, particularly white people, have to be made to behave. With affirmative action, white employers have to be made to hire minorities. What hate crime legislation essentiall says that it's bad for me to kill a guy over a wallet, but somehow its worse if i kill him because of the color of his skin. Ergo, this kind of law essentially is trying to legislate what people think , when it is not the governments job to legislate thought , it's meant to legislate action.

Let me make myself completely, unmistakeably clear. Racism is the most vile, barbaric and stupid ass ideas I've ever heard of, and I consider the racist a step below the cave man. However, no one, and absolutely no one, has a right to force another how to think, no matter how vile the thoughts. In other words, and I quote Voltaire (i think) "I despise what you say, I defend to the death your right to say it."

Fuck hate crimes. Hate crime legislation pisses me off tremendously. The motivation for a crime should have no effect on it's sentencing: hate crime laws only reinforce the idea that we are all to be treated differently based on our skin color, sexuality, or any number of other factors.

If I murder someone, I should be punished equally whether I'm black or white, straight or gay, have two arms or nineteen. As far as justice is concerned, the act itself is the only thing that is important. It shouldn't make a god damn bit of difference why s/he/it did it, the simple fact remains that s/he/it did it.

1. So intent and motivation are irrelevant to the degree or severity of crime?
There goes thousands of years of common law and statutes.

2. Hate crime legislation does apply equally whether you or your victim is black or white or straight or gay.

3. Crimes motivated by the fact that someone is disabled have been long punished more severely. Hate crime legislation didn't change that.

What appears to piss you off is your misunderstanding of hate crime laws.

it wasnt a hate crime because they hated the fact she was a transgendered person, they just hated the fact that they could not, in their lives, get a person that beautiful in body and spirit, to even look at them, never mind date them. they hated the fact that they couldnt grasp why the hell the fact that "she" was a "he", and they were still deeply attracted to the idea of relations with this person. classic homphobia.

*snip* Except that I wouldn't be charged for a hate crime if my skin were a different color. Christ, it's like I'm talking to a wall here. Bottom line: When it comes to hate crimes, the color of my skin and my sexuality are determining factors in my sentencing. *snip*

Flatly untrue. You simply are arguing from false premises.

I agree, and the shady definition of what exactly a "hate" crime is makes it all the more needless. It's kind of like a war on 'terror.' It's so vague as to be meaninglessly political. Anything I want to define as hate, is hate, and anything I want to define as terror, is terror. And notice the same fixation of declaring abstract nouns to be the objects of physical retribution. Fuck that!

Plus it makes it seem like "hate" is itself a crime. Paving the way for Orwellian thoughtcrime style legislation.


This is utter fantasy.

"Hate crime" is merely the shorthand label for a rather well-defined sentence enchancement.

Neither hate nor thought itself is a crime.

God, most of this thread appears to based entirely on misunderstanding of hate crime legislation.

This is utter fantasy.

"Hate crime" is merely the shorthand label for a rather well-defined sentence enchancement.

Neither hate nor thought itself is a crime.


Perhaps they shouldn't use such idiotic shorthand, then. Especially as it confuses people who will or potentially will be serving as jurors on such trials.

And I know thought isn't a crime... but there are those who would seem to wish to make it so. At least, certain thoughts.

OK, I think we have some misconceptions here. At least about hate crime laws in the United States. (I cannot speak with authority about the laws of other countries, although I know the law in Canada is different.)

1. There are no laws in the US against hate speech as such. You cannot be charged with a crime simply because of something you say is racist, sexist, etc.

2. Hate crime laws provide for a sentencing enhancement if your crime was committed with a specific intent. The federal government and every state already have tons of laws distinquishing between degrees of crime and/or providing for sentencing enhancements based on a wide variety of variables -- including a wide variety of intents. So, hate crime legislation is not particularly unique.

3. Reiterating #1 & #2, you have to commit a normal crime and then have additional specific intent to be convicted of a hate crime. You then get a longer sentence than if you had committed the original crime alone. You cannot be convicted for a hate crime based solely on discriminatory intent or words without an underlying crime.

4. Hate crime legislation applies equally to protect every race, gender, etc. White males are not the only ones convicted of hate crimes. And white Christian males are as equally protected against a hate crime on the basis of race, gender, or religion as a black Jewish lesbian.

This post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9075648&postcount=31) contains more specifics. Including a citation to, and quote from, the US Supreme Court case upholding the constitutionality of hate crime legislation.

I've recently been scolded on the basis that my posts contain too many facts, so I won't repeat that information here.

You don't believe society owes a greater duty of care to protect certain groups? You don't believe that social deterant is better served if the punishment for crimes which certain groups see as acceptable are greater?

We have no responsibility to protect anyone more than anyone else, because that is discrimination(OH MY GOD, you can discriminate aginst white people too!!! What a novel concept.). Hate crme legislation gives unequal protection under the laws to certain minority groups, I can honestly say I've never heard of anyone not white charged with a hate crime. Does that mean blacks don't hate?

Social deterent is a crock of bull, the only deterent that really WORKS is between .22 and .50 inches in caliber, they know they have a chance to get out if they're sent to prison, but dead is dead, and even OJ couldn't beat that rap.

I've recently been scolded on the basis that my posts contain too many facts, so I won't repeat that information here.

Say what? You were scolded because your posts were too factual?

:mad: :sniper:

We have no responsibility to protect anyone more than anyone else, because that is discrimination(OH MY GOD, you can discriminate aginst white people too!!! What a novel concept.). Hate crme legislation gives unequal protection under the laws to certain minority groups, I can honestly say I've never heard of anyone not white charged with a hate crime. Does that mean blacks don't hate?

Social deterent is a crock of bull, the only deterent that really WORKS is between .22 and .50 inches in caliber, they know they have a chance to get out if they're sent to prison, but dead is dead, and even OJ couldn't beat that rap.

Not true.

You are simply making crap up.

This is utter fantasy.

"Hate crime" is merely the shorthand label for a rather well-defined sentence enchancement.

Neither hate nor thought itself is a crime.

God, most of this thread appears to based entirely on misunderstanding of hate crime legislation.

So if the hate or thought is not a crime, why is the sentence inhanced? I thought we punished people for crimes, and a sentence inhancement would certainly be a punishment.

Also, is there a difference between motivation and intent, and if so, would you explain it better than I could?

cat-tribe, santa barbara, dem and melkor in the same thread? expect this to hit 1300 posts and change your life within hours.

Not true.

You are simply making crap up.

How many blacks do you know of that have been charged with hate crimes? Now, how many whites? Lo and behold, ther numbers are very disparate, because people are not willing(or don't have the balls) to charge a black man with a hate crime, because whoever does tat must be a horribly insensitive racist, and, by definition, not fit to hold whatever office he holds. Blacks are made safe becaus they are a "protected minority" who, while still being people, and free, and equal, etc, do not deserve protection greater than what I recieve.

How many blacks do you know of that have been charged with hate crimes? Now, how many whites? Lo and behold, ther numbers are very disparate, because people are not willing(or don't have the balls) to charge a black man with a hate crime, because whoever does tat must be a horribly insensitive racist, and, by definition, not fit to hold whatever office he holds. Blacks are made safe becaus they are a "protected minority" who, while still being people, and free, and equal, etc, do not deserve protection greater than what I recieve.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21943

You don't believe that society has a duty to protect all citizens equally to its best ability? You don't believe that it is wrong to for society to show certain groups privelege over others?


Who is really "protected" though? There is no one truly privileged. If I want you dead-wether for business or because I hate you, you're probably going to be dead. There is no shield around you to protect you.
It should be more "equal punishment under the law". If I hate someone and make an effort to kill them, they will likely be killed. There isnt any system that "protects" my intended victim. If I'm caught there will likely be punishemnt.

No groups are really being protected. Trying to determine a hate crime has been commited is a waste of time- just prosecute the crime effectively and make sure the prescribed punishment sticks.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21943

There's still a numerical disparity of rather impressive proportions, but I do stand corrected.

Oh really. So a pre-meditated murder should receive the same sentence as manslaughter?

The question of wrongful intent matters in our justice system and always has. And I see no reason why acts of bigotry shouldn't be included in the definition.
It was said that there shouldn't be a difference in punishment based on motivation. What it means is it shouldn't matter if i killed him because he is gay or if i killed him because i didn't like him. It does not mean that there shouldn't be a difference between accidental killings and premediated ones. It was just saying what the motivation was shouldn't affect sentencing, while still allowing the presence of pre-meditation to be a factor in the sentencing.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/13/transgender.ap/index.html



"Yeah, they killed her because they found out she was biologically male, but they didn't kill her because she was a transgendered person."



You mean, after having sex with this transgendered person over a period of time, they just happened to discover that she had originally been a he? I wonder if they committed murder because a) they were disappointed with the sex, b) they were disappointed that they enjoyed it so much, c) they didn't want their friends to find out that they had 'made it' with a former man. Whatever the 'reasoning' of these two cretins, they should be sentenced to life-time incarceration because they are obviously too stupid to be permitted in human society.

So if the hate or thought is not a crime, why is the sentence inhanced? I thought we punished people for crimes, and a sentence inhancement would certainly be a punishment.

Also, is there a difference between motivation and intent, and if so, would you explain it better than I could?

The Supreme Court addressed this issue in Wisconsin v. Mitchell (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/508/476.html ) (92-515), 508 US 47 (1993). I find the majority opinion persuasive. Obviously others are free to disagree.

Traditionally, sentencing judges have considered a wide variety of factors in addition to evidence bearing on guilt in determining what sentence to impose on a convicted defendant. See Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 820-821 (1991); United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 446 (1972); Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 246 (1949). The defendant's motive for committing the offense is one important factor. See 1 W. LeFave & A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law 3.6(b), p. 324 (1986) ("Motives are most relevant when the trial judge sets the defendant's sentence, and it is not uncommon for a defendant to receive a minimum sentence because he was acting with good motives, or a rather high sentence because of his bad motives"); cf. Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137, 156 (1987) ("Deeply ingrained in our legal tradition is the idea that the more purposeful is the criminal conduct, the more serious is the offense, and, therefore, the more severely it ought to be punished"). Thus, in many States, the commission of a murder or other capital offense for pecuniary gain is a separate aggravating circumstance under the capital sentencing statute. See, e.g., Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. 13-703(F)(5) (1989); Fla.Stat. 921.141(5)(f) (Supp. 1992); Miss.Code Ann. 99-19-101(5)(f) (Supp. 1992); N.C.Gen.Stat. 15A-2000(e)(6) (1992); Wyo.Stat. 6-2-102(h)(vi) (Supp. 1992).

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21943
Anyone know how many black people were arrested in the one year and how many white people were arrested in one year?
That article did surprise me, but it seemed to me that it took hate crimes out of total population instead of hate crimes out of total criminals. It would just be a different way of looking at the situation.
EDIT: Another point. Was that website looking at hate crime charges on white or black people, or was it looking at race-related hate crime charges on white or black people. It wasn't really clear to me when I read it. There is a chance that a portion of the hate crime charges given to each of the races could be due to religion or other factors.

Dem, I'd be mighty, mighty impressed if you can find a case file of a black man charged with killing a white guy in a hate crime fashion. Now, I'm very possibly mistaken, but I have never heard of that happening.

Irrelevant. As I pointed out to MU, if there is disparity in the application of the law, then the problem is in the application. The law itself is neutral. A white man could kill a white man because he is bigotted towards whites and be convincted of a hate crime.

Having said that, I have no right to force a racist to be tolerant of black people, although I'd do my damndest to persuade.

No one is forcing any view upon people. They are simply making it absolutely clear that violence on the basis of ethnicity, sexuality, etc. is not acceptable.

With affirmative action, white employers have to be made to hire minorities.

Incorrect. Any employer has to hire based on merit, not sexuailty, gender, or ethnicity. There is nothing in any law that states, "White people have to hire black people."

Let me make myself completely, unmistakeably clear. Racism is the most vile, barbaric and stupid ass ideas I've ever heard of, and I consider the racist a step below the cave man. However, no one, and absolutely no one, has a right to force another how to think, no matter how vile the thoughts. In other words, and I quote Voltaire (i think) "I despise what you say, I defend to the death your right to say it."

No one is trying to say that someone cannot say that they think all X-people should be killed. The law states that it is illegal to act upon that belief, not to hold it.

It was said that there shouldn't be a difference in punishment based on motivation. What it means is it shouldn't matter if i killed him because he is gay or if i killed him because i didn't like him. It does not mean that there shouldn't be a difference between accidental killings and premediated ones. It was just saying what the motivation was shouldn't affect sentencing, while still allowing the presence of pre-meditation to be a factor in the sentencing.

So no one should receive a stiffer sentence for a murder for hire than for a murder committed in the heat of passion?

As explained by SCOTUS in my earlier quote, your notion of our sentencing laws is fundamentally wrong. Motive has long been a factor in sentencing -- for thousands of years. :headbang:

How the hell is this not a hate crime?
were they black?
*rimshot*

Who is really "protected" though? There is no one truly privileged. If I want you dead-wether for business or because I hate you, you're probably going to be dead. There is no shield around you to protect you.
It should be more "equal punishment under the law". If I hate someone and make an effort to kill them, they will likely be killed. There isnt any system that "protects" my intended victim. If I'm caught there will likely be punishemnt.

No groups are really being protected. Trying to determine a hate crime has been commited is a waste of time- just prosecute the crime effectively and make sure the prescribed punishment sticks.

I was addressing Rotovia's post in particular, not hate crimes. I do admit that hate crimes apply to all.

I was addressing Rotovia's post in particular, not hate crimes. I do admit that hate crimes apply to all.


I wasnt criticizing what you said, more just the notion that these laws actually "protect" anyone. They dont really protect the victims as much as they punish the criminal.

So no one should receive a stiffer sentence for a murder for hire than for a murder committed in the heat of passion?

As explained by SCOTUS in my earlier quote, your notion of our sentencing laws is fundamentally wrong. Motive has long been a factor in sentencing -- for thousands of years. :headbang:
As I have been trying to point out, I see two different types of motivation/motive in here.
I see there as being a motive in a way like "I killed him because he was black" or "i killed him because he got on my nerves" Now either of these is obviously bad, but I don't think you can put a difference in sentencing between these two.
I also see there for being a motive in a way like "i killed him on accident while we were playing a reckless game" or "i killed him because john paid me $20 to" or "i killed him because i got sick of him and decided to kill him" or "i killed him because we were in a fight and it got out of hand" For each of those examples, it is again wrong, but I think you can change sentences based on these things.
I hope that helped in spelling out where I see a difference.

You mean, after having sex with this transgendered person over a period of time, they just happened to discover that she had originally been a he? I wonder if they committed murder because a) they were disappointed with the sex, b) they were disappointed that they enjoyed it so much, c) they didn't want their friends to find out that they had 'made it' with a former man. Whatever the 'reasoning' of these two cretins, they should be sentenced to life-time incarceration because they are obviously too stupid to be permitted in human society.

Not exactly. They had sexual relations with her over a period of time - which does not mean that they actually had sexual intercourse. At the time of her murder, she was still pre-op (if she was intending to have an operation at al). It was when they discovered that she had a penis that they bound, beat, and killed her.

Maybe they should give "love crimes" more lenient penalties. Surely, someone that overdoses their terminally ill loved one should not receive the full penalty of the law for murder, or even manslaughter. What about a noncustodial parent kidnapping their child to remove them from an abusive situation? Statutory rape between mutually consenting people?

If they're going to make emotions a deciding factor in crimes, why not consider positve ones too?

Yeah, let's go further. "She left me and I couldn't live without her, so I had to kill her. I loved her sooooo much!" "Love crime. $1 fine and time served. Next case."

Of course, I think that murder(true murder, not manslaughter, and that includes murder 2 as well as 1) should get a .45 slug to the temple, as should child molesters, rapists, people who abuse their spouses(preferably those would be administered by said spouse...), and just about any other person who commits a crime on that level of depravity.

Most likely, his intent and motivation are the same. His intent is to break a window. His motive is that he wants the window to break. One may be the desired end and the other the inspiration, as you say, but the desired ends and the inspiration are essentially the same. If I want to go to the store - that is my motivation. Thus, when I get in my car, my intent is to go to the store.

Why does he want the window to break? He likes the sound of breaking glass. He likes to break stuff. He dislikes the owner. He's never broken a window before and wants to see what happens. He's just looking for something to throw rocks at test his aim. And so on. He wants the window to break does not answer the question of why. You're misusing motivation. Your intent is to go to the store. Why are you going to the store? To either look for something you may buy at some time or maybe learn more about some product or maybe to buy some specific product or type of product, but there is a reason and it's not 'I want to go to the store'. It's not an answer of why.

Why does he want the window to break?

Now you are asking for the motivation for the motivation.

If I get in the car to go to the store, my motive is that I want to get to the store.
My motive for wanting to go to the store is that I need milk.
My motive for needing milk is that I want to make pancakes.
My motice for making pancakes is that I am hungry.

You could take this back a long way. It doesn't change the fact that the motive for throwing the walk is wanting the window to break. The motive behind wanting the window to break is a separate question.

You're misusing motivation. Your intent is to go to the store. Why are you going to the store?

The proper question is not, "Why am I going to the store?" We are discussing me getting into my car. Thus, the proper question is, "Why am I getting into my car?"

Suppose a man is speaking to a person over the internet. She is female, and when he asks if she is hispanic, she says no. Perhaps she does this because she knows he has made some disparaging comments about latina women before, and she doesn't want to offend him - her motives are irrelevent here. One way or another, when they meet in person, he discovers that she is hispanic. He flies into a rage and beats her up. Are you honestly going to argue that he didn't beat her up because she was hispanic?

Similar scenario, I'm speaking to you over the internet. You're aware that I say I'm male. I'm aware that you say you're female. We talk about dating and then we decide to meet. We meet up and you're a guy and you laugh at the wonderful prank you played on me and I fly into a rage and kill you. I just killed you because you were a guy or because you decieved me and I was embarassed? Obviously, it's the second. Certainly, I don't go around killing every guy I see. Is it a hate crime? Certainly not. Now, the guy (you) instead says, "I'm sorry, but I'm gay and I really like you" and I still fly into rage and kill you because you deceived me and I was embarassed. Is it now a hate crime because you're gay? Or transgendered? Or have a tail?

Now you are asking for the motivation for the motivation.

If I get in the car to go to the store, my motive is that I want to get to the store.
My motive for wanting to go to the store is that I need milk.
My motive for needing milk is that I want to make pancakes.
My motice for making pancakes is that I am hungry.

You could take this back a long way. It doesn't change the fact that the motive for throwing the walk is wanting the window to break. The motive behind wanting the window to break is a separate question.



The proper question is not, "Why am I going to the store?" We are discussing me getting into my car. Thus, the proper question is, "Why am I getting into my car?"

Then the motive for all murder is I wanted them dead. It's simply not a motive it's the intent and they are different. You're saying I ask, "Why did you break the window?" and your non-answer is "because I wanted to". The answer is always going to be that unless it was an accident, which, of course, isn't a crime unless you were criminally negligent (a different crime that ignores motivation) or you were already committing a felony. The question isn't "did you do this on purpose", it's "why did you do this intentionally" the desire is already expressed in the question and thus you're giving a non-answer.

You threw the rock with the intent of breaking the window but motive refers to the intent particularly legally.

For example, regarding a murder:
Question about intent:Why did you fire the gun?
Answer: To kill him.
Answer: To scare him.
Question about motive: Why did you kill him?
Answer: He owed me money.
Answer: He slept with my wife.
Non-answer: Because I wanted to.

Then the motive for all murder is I wanted them dead. It's simply not a motive it's the intent and they are different. You're saying I ask, "Why did you break the window?" and your non-answer is "because I wanted to".

Incorrect. I didn't say any such thing.

The original question was, "What is the motive for throwing the rock."
The answer was, "He wanted the window to break."

You then took the question further and asked, "Why did he want the window to break?"
The answer could be any number of things, several of which you listed.

The answer is always going to be that unless it was an accident, which, of course, isn't a crime unless you were criminally negligent (a different crime that ignores motivation) or you were already committing a felony.

Criminal negligence hardly ignores motivation. In fact, the very term relies upon it. Someone who is negligent is not trying to cause harm. Thus, their motivation is not to cause harm.

Incorrect. I didn't say any such thing.

The original question was, "What is the motive for throwing the rock."
The answer was, "He wanted the window to break."

You then took the question further and asked, "Why did he want the window to break?"
The answer could be any number of things, several of which you listed.



Criminal negligence hardly ignores motivation. In fact, the very term relies upon it. Someone who is negligent is not trying to cause harm. Thus, their motivation is not to cause harm.
Motivation doesn't matter so long as it's an accident was my point. They don't figure out their motivation. They simply figure out that their motivation was not to cause harm. They are significantly different. They do not answer motivation.

On a test:
Who invented Gatorade?
Not Bill Gates.

Sorry, but no one counts that as answer except someone who is just trying to be difficult.

As far as the rest, I addressed it in a different post before reading this one.

Incorrect. I didn't say any such thing.

The original question was, "What is the motive for throwing the rock."
The answer was, "He wanted the window to break."

You then took the question further and asked, "Why did he want the window to break?"
The answer could be any number of things, several of which you listed.



Criminal negligence hardly ignores motivation. In fact, the very term relies upon it. Someone who is negligent is not trying to cause harm. Thus, their motivation is not to cause harm.

Read my edited post. I started editing prior to your reply so they kind of don't fit anymore and I don't want to repost it.

Well I might get loads of backlash for this, but as far as I'm concerned she raped them. OK so she believed she was female, and I'm happy enough to call transgendered people whatever gender they associate with, but the fact remains she is biologically male, and they never consented to having sex with a male. From their perspective, the men were tricked into having sex with a man, as they considered her to be a man once they found out her biological gender. If a woman was tricked into having sex with a person who she did not want to have sex with, I think there would be still be some shock at the murder, but there would be sympathy because she would have effectively have been raped - like these two men were.

What the Hell is a Hate-crime anyways...
A hate crime is when you beat someone up without having warm, fluffy feelings for them.

A hate crime is when you beat someone up without having warm, fluffy feelings for them.

Just wanted to say that I love you, man. :sniper:

There. No hate crime for me! :D

Honestly, Hate crimes only apply to black people.

I'm reminded of a quote...

"If you're going to beat someone up, you better make damn sure you're the same color as him."



i love south park!


anyway hate crimes are stupid...my dad is a cop here in canada....and it is an extra half to full hour to finish paper work when race is involved....because they are very complicated.


to explain why it is long for my dad....it is because in Laval the city he works for...there are greeks,blacks,middle easterns,french,english,italians...the list goes on...it is simply hard for him...every race has a different opinion on matters and that is a pain it the ass to get the facts strait sometimes...especially if race is involved.

For example, regarding a murder:
Question about intent:Why did you fire the gun?
Answer: To kill him.
Answer: To scare him.
Question about motive: Why did you kill him?
Answer: He owed me money.
Answer: He slept with my wife.
Non-answer: Because I wanted to.

You are comparning apples to oranges here. If you ask, "Why did you fire the gun?, you can get information (intent or motive) about firing the gun.

If you ask, "Why did you kill him?" you get information about why a murder was committed.

These are two separate issues.

It would be more correct to say:

INTENT:
What were you trying to acheive by firing the gun?
Possible answers: To kil him, to scare him, to see if the gun worked.

MOTIVE:
Why did you fire the gun?
Possible answers: I wanted him dead, I wanted him scared, I was wondering if the gun worked.

This is a comparison of apples to apples, as we are talking about the same action. The only practical difference between intent and motive is that intent describes what you are trying to acheive, and motive explains why you are carrying out a particular action. Of course, since your reason for carrying out a particular action is generally to acheive something, they end up being the same thing.

Well I might get loads of backlash for this, but as far as I'm concerned she raped them. OK so she believed she was female, and I'm happy enough to call transgendered people whatever gender they associate with, but the fact remains she is biologically male, and they never consented to having sex with a male. From their perspective, the men were tricked into having sex with a man, as they considered her to be a man once they found out her biological gender. If a woman was tricked into having sex with a person who she did not want to have sex with, I think there would be still be some shock at the murder, but there would be sympathy because she would have effectively have been raped - like these two men were.

Rational people don't determine who they want to have sex with based on what is or is not between a person's legs. They determine it based on how they feel about that person. Most people are more likely to be attracted to one gender or the other, but if they find themselves attracted to someone of the other gender, or of a different biological sex than they are used to, it doesn't change their attraction or emotions.

You don't have any more standing than to say, "If a man didn't tell me he only had one testicle, and I had sexual relations with him, I was raped, because I didn't consent to sleep with a man with one testicle."

Flatly untrue. You simply are arguing from false premises.
What the fuck are you talking about? Are you honestly trying to argue that a black man would be charged for a hate crime for killing another black man because he's black? If he's going to kill people because they're black, wouldn't he kill himself?

This, like pretty much everything else I've read in this thread in defense of hate crimes, is a steaming pile of horse dung. I cannot conceivably be charged for a hate crime for killing another straight white man because he's straight and white. Ergo, my ethnicity and sexuality are determining factors in deciding whether or not its actually a 'hate crime'.

No jury on the planet would ever consider my slaying of a straight white man a 'hate crime.' Get your head out of the clouds.

Irrelevant. As I pointed out to MU, if there is disparity in the application of the law, then the problem is in the application. The law itself is neutral. A white man could kill a white man because he is bigotted towards whites and be convincted of a hate crime.
I seriously hope this exchange can be kept rather brief, since I have very little desire to interact with you ever again. I'm kind of kicking myself here because I swore to myself last night I'd never write another word to you.

*ahem*

If there's something wrong with the way a law is applied, there's something wrong with the law to begin with. Theory dictates practice, hon. And no, a white man cannot be convicted of a hate crime for killing another white man because he's white because if one were interested in this course of action, he would be required to terminate his own life. He is, after all, white too.

If there's something wrong with the way a law is applied, there's something wrong with the law to begin with. Theory dictates practice, hon. And no, a white man cannot be convicted of a hate crime for killing another white man because he's white because if one were interested in this course of action, he would be required to terminate his own life. He is, after all, white too.
Not true. An anti-semitic anglo-saxon could kill another anglo-saxon who has converted to judaism for precisely that reason. That would not only be a hate crime, but it would be a white-on-white hate crime.

Here's the thing, Melkor. Hate crime legislation is meant to act as a way to allow prosecutors to argue for greater punishment based on mitigating circumstances. Much as you may like to argue otherwise, all murders are not created equally--some are more egregious than others, which is why we already have degrees of murder charge. This is just another level, another degree of murder charge.

Fuck hate crimes. Hate crime legislation pisses me off tremendously. The motivation for a crime should have no effect on it's sentencing: hate crime laws only reinforce the idea that we are all to be treated differently based on our skin color, sexuality, or any number of other factors.

If I murder someone, I should be punished equally whether I'm black or white, straight or gay, have two arms or nineteen. As far as justice is concerned, the act itself is the only thing that is important. It shouldn't make a god damn bit of difference why s/he/it did it, the simple fact remains that s/he/it did it.
Thank you!

Not true. An anti-semitic anglo-saxon could kill another anglo-saxon who has converted to judaism for precisely that reason. That would not only be a hate crime, but it would be a white-on-white hate crime.
Christ, it's like every time I use an example on these forums I have to write a fricking thesis paper describing the circumstances of my example. Please do try to understand what I meant by that statement; I'm trying to imply that it's impossible for me to be charged for a hate crime by killing someone of identical racial/religious/sexual/any other characteristics as me.

I know white people can be Jewish, and I know anti-semitism exists. Next time, it will save you time to a ssume that I already know these painfully obvious facts.

Here's the thing, Melkor. Hate crime legislation is meant to act as a way to allow prosecutors to argue for greater punishment based on mitigating circumstances. Much as you may like to argue otherwise, all murders are not created equally--some are more egregious than others, which is why we already have degrees of murder charge. This is just another level, another degree of murder charge.
Words cannot possibly describe the frustration I'm feeling at the moment. Comparisons between hate crime designations and murder degrees have probably been made about once per page on average, and they've been thrown out the window every time. I'm going to bold this and make it gigantic in the hopes that I won't have to repeat myself again:

THE DEGREE OF A MURDER HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MOTIVATION BEHIND THE ACT; THEREFORE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DRAW PARALLELS BETWEEN THE DEGREE OF THE CRIME AND THE REASON IT WAS COMMITTED.

Words cannot possibly describe the frustration I'm feeling at the moment. Comparisons between hate crime designations and murder degrees have probably been made about once per page on average, and they've been thrown out the window every time. I'm going to bold this and make it gigantic in the hopes that I won't have to repeat myself again:

THE DEGREE OF A MURDER HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MOTIVATION BEHIND THE ACT; THEREFORE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DRAW PARALLELS BETWEEN THE DEGREE OF THE CRIME AND THE REASON IT WAS COMMITTED.
All caps, bold and oversized doesn't make you right. The degree of a murder has everything to do with a motivation. Premeditation is a motivation, and is therefore considered a more egregious murder than a crime of passion. Why then, can't racism be considered as a motivation. Because you don't like it? Tough shit.

All caps, bold and oversized doesn't make you right.
Correct. but the statement itself does.

The degree of a murder has everything to do with a motivation. Premeditation is a motivation, and is therefore considered a more egregious murder than a crime of passion. Why then, can't racism be considered as a motivation. Because you don't like it? Tough shit.
I'm sorry you think this. I suspect any effort on my part to convince you otherwise would be ultimately fruitless. I happen to think that the life of a black man is of equal value [not greater] than that of a white man. Like my brother pointed out earlier, racism is barbarism and I won't stand for it, but this is just a crock of shit. I don't want my murderer to get a diminished punishment because I'm white.

Oh, and look up 'premeditation' and 'motivation' when you have the time. If I'm understanding you correctly, you may be rather surprised with your findings. Saying premeditation is a motivation is like saying a basketball is a fruit salad. It can be part of the motivation if the victim has to be killed at a certain time for the desired effect, but the generalization you specify above isn't fit to wipe my ass.

I'm sorry you think this. I suspect any effort on my part to convince you otherwise would be ultimately fruitless. I happen to think that the life of a black man is of equal value [not greater] than that of a white man. Like my brother pointed out earlier, racism is barbarism and I won't stand for it, but this is just a crock of shit. I don't want my murderer to get a diminished punishment because I'm white.

Oh, and look up 'premeditation' and 'motivation' when you have the time. If I'm understanding you correctly, you may be rather surprised with your findings. Saying premeditation is a motivation is like saying a basketball is a fruit salad. It can be part of the motivation if the victim has to be killed at a certain time for the desired effect, but the generalization you specify above isn't fit to wipe my ass.
I'm sorry you think that I'm trying to say that I'm arguing that people's lives are worth different amounts. I'm not, no matter how badly you want to believe that.

What I am saying is that we as a society have long realized that not all murders are created equal. We consider some to be more serious than others--we always have. Some murders are subject to the death penalty. Many are not. The worth of the murder victim never comes into play (except in the case of cops). The cold-bloodedness of the crime does, however, as does the viciousness. I'm sorry if you don't like to deal with that, but it is fact.

And since we as a society consider particularly vicious, sadistic, or cold-blooded murders to be more egregious than crimes of passion, we punish them to a greater extent. We reserve the death penalty for them.

Why then should hatred--regardless of the cause for that hatred or what form it takes, whether based on race or ethnicity or sexual preference or religion--not be considered as a factor in sentencing? We consider other factors--why not extreme hatred?

This has nothing to do with the worth of the victim's life---it has everything to do with the motivation of the criminal. We consider other factors. We should consider this one.

I'm sorry you think that I'm trying to say that I'm arguing that people's lives are worth different amounts. I'm not, no matter how badly you want to believe that.
Then why would I be given a harsher penalty for killing someone because they're different than I am? You might not be arguing it, but the law itself is. I happen to think that a cold blooded murder is equally reprehensible no matter who the victim happens to be.

What I am saying is that we as a society have long realized that not all murders are created equal. We consider some to be more serious than others--we always have. Some murders are subject to the death penalty. Many are not. The worth of the murder victim never comes into play (except in the case of cops). The cold-bloodedness of the crime does, however, as does the viciousness. I'm sorry if you don't like to deal with that, but it is fact.

And since we as a society consider particularly vicious, sadistic, or cold-blooded murders to be more egregious than crimes of passion, we punish them to a greater extent. We reserve the death penalty for them.
You're using "we, as a society" arguments against an Objectivist, and you're expecting them to actually carry any weight with me? "We as a society" might determine that the official language should be Swedish and underwear should be worn on the outside; it doesn't validate the worth of either concept in and of itself. I'll agree that premeditated crimes are, on average, worse than 'crimes of passion,' but the attempt to enforce hate crime designations isn't exactly in the same ballpark.

Why then should hatred--regardless of the cause for that hatred or what form it takes, whether based on race or ethnicity or sexual preference or religion--not be considered as a factor in sentencing? We consider other factors--why not extreme hatred?
Because hatred for the victim is already painfully obvious? If I kill someone, chances are pretty good I hate him no matter what color he happens to be or what he chooses to do with his penis on his own time. All murders are hate crimes. It's a completely uneccesary and utterly pointless distinction.

This has nothing to do with the worth of the victim's life---it has everything to do with the motivation of the criminal. We consider other factors. We should consider this one.
If we should consider this one, why not consider every other motivation under the sun too? Why shouldn't we have different punishments for people who kill for money and people who kill for fame or just for the hell of it? Our justice system will never get anything done if it wastes all of its time trying to figure out why people do stupid things.

The proper question is not, "Why am I going to the store?" We are discussing me getting into my car. Thus, the proper question is, "Why am I getting into my car?"

When you are prosecuted for murder, are you prosecuted for pulling the trigger of a gun, or are you prosecuted for killing someone.

You can say the motivation for shooting a gun and the intent of shooting a gun can be the same. But the simple act of shooting a gun isn't a crime, it is the murder that is. So when you look for the intent in a murder, you ask "Was murder the intended result of pulling the trigger," while for the motivation you ask "Why did the person want to murder?"

What the fuck are you talking about? Are you honestly trying to argue that a black man would be charged for a hate crime for killing another black man because he's black? If he's going to kill people because they're black, wouldn't he kill himself?

Not necessarily. You are asuming that all motives are rational - a very silly assumption.

Hitler was a brown haired, brown eyed, crippled part-Jew. Guess who he was trying to wipe out? Guess who he thought the master race was?

No jury on the planet would ever consider my slaying of a straight white man a 'hate crime.' Get your head out of the clouds.

Once again, you are bitching about what you perceive to be the application of the law, not the law itself.

If there's something wrong with the way a law is applied, there's something wrong with the law to begin with.

Bullshit. When the 14th Amendment was not being applied correctly and states were doing all sorts of things to deny black men the vote, it didn't mean that there was anything wrong with the 14th Amendment, it meant that human beings were not properly enforcing it.

If I improperly use my car, and get in a wreck, that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with my car - it means that there was something wrong with my use of the car.


Because hatred for the victim is already painfully obvious? If I kill someone, chances are pretty good I hate him no matter what color he happens to be or what he chooses to do with his penis on his own time. All murders are hate crimes. It's a completely uneccesary and utterly pointless distinction.

This is a rather silly statement. Many murders occur when the murderer doesn't hate the murdered. They might occur as part of another crime - armed robbery for example. The murderer does not necessarily hate the victim, they simply want the money. If a sniper randomly shoots a gun into a crowd, he doesn't hate the person he is killing. Hell, he doesn't even know who he is killing, but he is still committing murder.

Dem, what part of "I never want to interact with you again for the rest of my natural life" don't you understand? I wasn't even talking to you in that post, yet you felt obligated to respond anyway.

Please stop. I do not feel that I can debate with you in a civil manner any longer. You win, OK?

When you are prosecuted for murder, are you prosecuted for pulling the trigger of a gun, or are you prosecuted for killing someone.

You can say the motivation for shooting a gun and the intent of shooting a gun can be the same. But the simple act of shooting a gun isn't a crime, it is the murder that is. So when you look for the intent in a murder, you ask "Was murder the intended result of pulling the trigger," while for the motivation you ask "Why did the person want to murder?"

But you are still comparing apples and oranges. If you are talking about a murder already committed - one that you know was murder (ie. the intent of shooting the gun was to kill), then you can ask, "What was the purpose behind this murder?" If you ask this question in, "What did the murderer hope to acheive by killing this person?" then you are discussing the intent behind the murder itself. If you ask it as, "Why did the murderer kill this person?", then you are discussing motive.

The law may separate the two, but they are talking about two different aspects of the crime when doing so. The intent and motivation behind pulling the trigger are the same. If the murder was intentionaly, then the intent and motive behind the murder are the same. The fact that the legal community has decided to use intent to describe the situation in which they do not know whether or not it is murder and motive to describe something which they are saying is murder is an arbitrary choice of words made by the legal community.

Dem, what part of "I never want to interact with you again for the rest of my natural life" don't you understand?

If you don't want to interact with me ever again, then don't. The only part I don't understand is where there is anything at all rational in your statement. You are essentially whining that someone doesn't agree with you and therefore you don't want to talk to them.

I wasn't even talking to you in that post, yet you felt obligated to respond anyway.

I started the thread, and I am going to take part in discussion. If you don't like that, don't read the thread, or at least don't post in it.

Please stop. I do not feel that I can debate with you in a civil manner any longer. You win, OK?

If you are incapable of being civil, then you should probably leave the thread. It's better for all people involved.

All caps, bold and oversized doesn't make you right. The degree of a murder has everything to do with a motivation. Premeditation is a motivation, and is therefore considered a more egregious murder than a crime of passion. Why then, can't racism be considered as a motivation. Because you don't like it? Tough shit.

It is on those who agree with hate crime legislation to show that crimes committed because of hatred for another's superficial qualities is worse than killing someone because you simply hate them.

It is on those who agree with hate crime legislation to show that crimes committed because of hatred for another's superficial qualities is worse than killing someone because you simply hate them.

LOL. I love the way threads never stay on topic.

My question was simple: How can this possibly be considered to not meet the definition of hate crime?

The only person to provide an answer was someone obviously bigotted towards transgendered persons. Everyone else has done nothing but "debate" hate crime legislation itself. The turn in conversation is hardly unexpected, but I find it interesting that there was basically no discussion of the original question. Ah well, such is a forum...

The funny thing is, I'm not even completely supportive of hate crime legislation myself. I just felt the need to point out fallacies in the BS that others were spewing.

Wow... just....wow.

Have a nice life.

But you are still comparing apples and oranges. If you are talking about a murder already committed - one that you know was murder (ie. the intent of shooting the gun was to kill), then you can ask, "What was the purpose behind this murder?" If you ask this question in, "What did the murderer hope to acheive by killing this person?" then you are discussing the intent behind the murder itself. If you ask it as, "Why did the murderer kill this person?", then you are discussing motive.

The law may separate the two, but they are talking about two different aspects of the crime when doing so. The intent and motivation behind pulling the trigger are the same. If the murder was intentionaly, then the intent and motive behind the murder are the same. The fact that the legal community has decided to use intent to describe the situation in which they do not know whether or not it is murder and motive to describe something which they are saying is murder is an arbitrary choice of words made by the legal community.

We are talking about the law and how it treats a crime. When a crime is committed, intent is established by asking whether the actions were undertaken with the intent of committing a crime. Motivation is established by asking why they wanted to commit a crime. I think we both can agree on this, and are just spinning our wheels over confusing common usage. I agree with Jocabia that "I just wanted to" is not viable motivation, while you think it is.

Wow... just....wow.

Have a nice life.

Melkor, I think that might just qualify as flamebait. ;)

I doubt it, but I'm sure now that you said that, someone will rush off to Moderation with a link. I'm not worried.

LOL. I love the way threads never stay on topic.

My question was simple: How can this possibly be considered to not meet the definition of hate crime?

The only person to provide an answer was someone obviously bigotted towards transgendered persons. Everyone else has done nothing but "debate" hate crime legislation itself. The turn in conversation is hardly unexpected, but I find it interesting that there was basically no discussion of the original question. Ah well, such is a forum...

The funny thing is, I'm not even completely supportive of hate crime legislation myself. I just felt the need to point out fallacies in the BS that others were spewing.

The judicial system's handling of this case is hypocritical. If I supported hate crimes, I would be up in arms over this. However, I don't, so I think they are handling this case as it should be handled.

That was the point of my first post here.

My question was simple: How can this possibly be considered to not meet the definition of hate crime?


422.55. For purposes of this title, and for purposes of all other
state law unless an explicit provision of law or the context clearly
requires a different meaning, the following shall apply:
(a) "Hate crime" means a criminal act committed, in whole or in
part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived
characteristics of the victim:
(1) Disability.
(2) Gender.
(3) Nationality.
(4) Race or ethnicity.
(5) Religion.
(6) Sexual orientation.
(7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these
actual or perceived characteristics.

In order for it to be a hate crime it has to satisfy all the elements, including the one I helpfully bolded for you. So long as there is a legitimate contraversy in evidence with respect to these elements, then it becomes a question of fact, not law.

Clearly the jury - as the fact finder -, upon review of all the evidence, decided that the criminal act was not commited in whole or in part because of the victim's relevant characterisitcs, and therefore lacking this element, as a matter of law, it could not, in fact, be a hate crime. (As per the instructions the judge will have doubtless given them - probably from a pattern jury instruction).

And before you start shouting about how it has to be, and that this clearly meets that definition of I hate crime, I would remind you that neither you nor I have sat through all the evidence presented in this case, and our only actual knowledge of it is a sparse CNN article. Unless and until we have, we cannot possibly second guess the juries' decision.

But I suspect you never actually wanted to know that, and you did in fact want a debate about the validity of hate crime legislations.

Well to shoot down the theory, in each situation the individuals have shown themselves to be a threat to everyone they hate. I would surmise that the first individual would kill anyone who slept with his wife, meaning he would be a threat to anyone who has the ability to sleep with his wife. Depending on his wife that could be a large group of people.
That is a slippery slope argument. He is a threat to anyone who sleeps with his wife, a much smaller set of people than the set of anyone who could sleep with his wife. Your reasoning could produce a result like "if someone would shoot an intruder in his house at night, how do we know he wouldn't shoot all people who could choose to intrude into his house? He is a threat to all the people of all the nations of the earth OMG!"

Likewise I would try to kill anyone who I woke to find strangling me in my bed. It does not follow that I am a threat to anyone on earth with the capability to strangle me in my bed, that's just silly.

As long as you do not try to strangle me, or sleep with that guy's wife, you are safe from us. But the Jew cannot stop being a Jew, the lesbian cannot stop being a lesbian, etc. and so if the simple fact of belonging to a certain group is all that makes you a target of that person, they are a much wider threat than the single-act-motivated killer.

You are comparning apples to oranges here. If you ask, "Why did you fire the gun?, you can get information (intent or motive) about firing the gun.

If you ask, "Why did you kill him?" you get information about why a murder was committed.

These are two separate issues.

It would be more correct to say:

INTENT:
What were you trying to acheive by firing the gun?
Possible answers: To kil him, to scare him, to see if the gun worked.

MOTIVE:
Why did you fire the gun?
Possible answers: I wanted him dead, I wanted him scared, I was wondering if the gun worked.

You need to better understand motive in a legal context. Your definition of Motive is actually referencing Intent. Motive is why did you kill him. Why is this so difficult for you?

And, yes, they are two seperate issues. That's the point. If they were same thing you would NEVER have any need to establish both motive AND intent. I am comparing apples and oranges. You tried to say an apple was the same as an orange and I pointed out your error by comparing them.

This is a comparison of apples to apples, as we are talking about the same action. The only practical difference between intent and motive is that intent describes what you are trying to acheive, and motive explains why you are carrying out a particular action. Of course, since your reason for carrying out a particular action is generally to acheive something, they end up being the same thing.
It's not describing the same action in a legal context. The fact that you ignore this is amusing.


Motive - 1 : something (as a need or desire) that causes a person to act

Intent - 1 a : the act or fact of intending : PURPOSE; especially : the design or purpose to commit a wrongful or criminal act <admitted wounding him with intent> b : the state of mind with which an act is done : VOLITION

Intent is the difference between manslaughter and murder. Motive is why they committed the particular crime. They are not the same. It's amazing to me that someone as intelligent as you can't see the difference. I suspect this is just another case where you don't want to admit your error.

All caps, bold and oversized doesn't make you right. The degree of a murder has everything to do with a motivation. Premeditation is a motivation, and is therefore considered a more egregious murder than a crime of passion. Why then, can't racism be considered as a motivation. Because you don't like it? Tough shit.

Dude, seriously, look up motivation. Premeditation has to do with when you decided to kill the person not WHY/MOTIVATION. Motive is about WHY you committed the crime. Premeditation deals with WHEN you decided to commit the crime. Intent deals with IF you decided to commit the crime.
WHY != WHEN and, to other posters, WHY != IF

Why is this so complicated a concept to understand?

But you are still comparing apples and oranges. If you are talking about a murder already committed - one that you know was murder (ie. the intent of shooting the gun was to kill), then you can ask, "What was the purpose behind this murder?" If you ask this question in, "What did the murderer hope to acheive by killing this person?" then you are discussing the intent behind the murder itself. If you ask it as, "Why did the murderer kill this person?", then you are discussing motive.

The law may separate the two, but they are talking about two different aspects of the crime when doing so. The intent and motivation behind pulling the trigger are the same. If the murder was intentionaly, then the intent and motive behind the murder are the same. The fact that the legal community has decided to use intent to describe the situation in which they do not know whether or not it is murder and motive to describe something which they are saying is murder is an arbitrary choice of words made by the legal community.
And the dictionary. And good thing we're not talking about legal cases in this thread so that what you just said makes senses. Wait...what's that? This thread is ENTIRELY about the law and how it's applied? Really? Oh, so using INTENT and MOTIVE in a legal context is all that makes sense when referring to legal cases. So you can choose to use the words in the context of a thread you started about the application of the law or you can choose to continue arguing for meanings of the word not actually supported by the dictionary.

Intent refers to intent to commit the crime and motive refers to reason for committing the crime. They words are used properly and are placed around the concepts they are most useful to. You pointed out how your use of them is USELESS. Because when your 'motive' question is asked you get an answer that doesn't have any legal bearing. 'Becuase I wanted to' isn't of particular value to an attorney trying to establish why you committed the act.

We are talking about the law and how it treats a crime. When a crime is committed, intent is established by asking whether the actions were undertaken with the intent of committing a crime. Motivation is established by asking why they wanted to commit a crime. I think we both can agree on this, and are just spinning our wheels over confusing common usage. I agree with Jocabia that "I just wanted to" is not viable motivation, while you think it is.

You agree with me because you aren't intentionally being difficult. She knows the meanings of the words and she knows the reason why they're used that way. She also knows that the legal use falls within proper use of the words. She also knows that intent and motive are not equal even though people may feel it is acceptable to answer the wrong question.

When I ask, "why did you get on that flight to New York?" and someone answers, "Because I wanted to go to New York." they are either joking, quite dense or being intentionally obtuse. It's a particularly bad problem in the US where people are not educated enough in the proper use of language. So we get used to their is why people so often communicate badly. Dempublicents is well-versed in the use of language, but for some reason I see her fairly regularly defend the improper usage because it's common. I find it frustrating. Particularly when she does this knowing the INTENT of the person she is replying to.

LOL. I love the way threads never stay on topic.

My question was simple: How can this possibly be considered to not meet the definition of hate crime?

The only person to provide an answer was someone obviously bigotted towards transgendered persons. Everyone else has done nothing but "debate" hate crime legislation itself. The turn in conversation is hardly unexpected, but I find it interesting that there was basically no discussion of the original question. Ah well, such is a forum...

The funny thing is, I'm not even completely supportive of hate crime legislation myself. I just felt the need to point out fallacies in the BS that others were spewing.

Below is the answer I gave earlier. It is entirely possible, in this case, that they killed her due to their embarassment of being duped and not simply because of a hatred of transgendered individuals.

Similar scenario, I'm speaking to you over the internet. You're aware that I say I'm male. I'm aware that you say you're female. We talk about dating and then we decide to meet. We meet up and you're a guy and you laugh at the wonderful prank you played on me and I fly into a rage and kill you. I just killed you because you were a guy or because you decieved me and I was embarassed? Obviously, it's the second. Certainly, I don't go around killing every guy I see. Is it a hate crime? Certainly not. Now, the guy (you) instead says, "I'm sorry, but I'm gay and I really like you" and I still fly into rage and kill you because you deceived me and I was embarassed. Is it now a hate crime because you're gay? Or transgendered? Or have a tail?

We are talking about the law and how it treats a crime.

Actually, we weren't. I already conceded that the law may be different from common usage. Someone (it may have been you?) then said that the law usage and common usage were the same. That is what has been under discussion

I agree with Jocabia that "I just wanted to" is not viable motivation, while you think it is.

I never said or suggested any such thing. Jocabia has tried to interpret my words to mean that, but nothing I said actually says that.

As I said before,
The motivation for pulling the trigger is to kill someone, not "I wanted to pull the trigger."
The motivation for killing someone is that money is involved, not "I wanted to kill someone."

The first is the motivation for the action. The second is the motivation for the crime.

Clearly the jury - as the fact finder -, upon review of all the evidence, decided that the criminal act was not commited in whole or in part because of the victim's relevant characterisitcs, and therefore lacking this element, as a matter of law, it could not, in fact, be a hate crime. (As per the instructions the judge will have doubtless given them - probably from a pattern jury instruction).

And before you start shouting about how it has to be, and that this clearly meets that definition of I hate crime, I would remind you that neither you nor I have sat through all the evidence presented in this case, and our only actual knowledge of it is a sparse CNN article. Unless and until we have, we cannot possibly second guess the juries' decision.

I have actually read more about this case than a single CNN article, but that is irrelevant. I wanted discussion on how, given the available facts (or any facts anyone else knows and wants to present), the jury could have possibly decided that her transsexuality was not the reason behind her murder. Even those involved have flat-out said that it was because they discovered she had a penis that they bound and began beating her.

But I suspect you never actually wanted to know that, and you did in fact want a debate about the validity of hate crime legislations.

Yor suspicions are cute, but you really should be careful about assuming anything about other people. As I have already said, I myself have misgivings about hate crime legislation. I actually wanted discussion of this case.

Of course, I actually expected it to devolve into an argument between anti-transsexuals and non-bigots. A discussion on hate crime legislation, even with incredibly inflammatory people part of it, is a better result than what I thought might happen.

Yor suspicions are cute, but you really should be careful about assuming anything about other people.
Like assuming how naive I am?

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

You need to better understand motive in a legal context.

If you had actually read the entire thread before responding, you would know that the legal use had already been established, and we were discussing how the legal use is different from the rote definitions of the words.

And, yes, they are two seperate issues. That's the point. If they were same thing you would NEVER have any need to establish both motive AND intent.

I didn't say they were two separate issues. I said that you were addressing two different actions. There is the action of pulling the trigger, and why you did that. Then, there is the action of trying to kill someone, and why you did that. That is how you are comparing apples to oranges. You are saying that you can establish intent and motive for a single action by defining each by two different actions.

It's not describing the same action in a legal context. The fact that you ignore this is amusing.

I hardly ignore it. It is my entire point.

Motive - 1 : something (as a need or desire) that causes a person to act

Intent - 1 a : the act or fact of intending : PURPOSE; especially : the design or purpose to commit a wrongful or criminal act <admitted wounding him with intent> b : the state of mind with which an act is done : VOLITION

These are the actual definitions - the ones I have been using. The legal definition limits intent to describing whether or not the accused was trying to commit a crime and motivation to describe something completely different - the reason for committing the crime (assuming, of course, that the accused was truly trying to commit a crime).

Like I already said: Intent is clearly describing what you hope to accomplilsh by doing something. Motivation is the desire that causes you to do it. Generally, these two are the same, as you desire what you are hoping to accomplish (unless you are some sort of masochist or something).

When I ask, "why did you get on that flight to New York?" and someone answers, "Because I wanted to go to New York." they are either joking, quite dense or being intentionally obtuse.

Again with the strawmen. Seriously, Jocabia, you are better than that.

I didn't say that the answer to, "Why did you get on that flight to New York?" would be, "I wanted to go to New York."

I said that the answer to, "Why are you going to the airport?" would be, "I'm getting on a flight to New York."

The answer to, "Why are you getting on a flight to New York?" would be, "I am going on vacation."


Like assuming how naive I am?

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

I didn't assume you were naive. You said something naive (which you later admitted was far from describing the actual situation) and I deduced from that evidence that you were naive.

Actually, we weren't. I already conceded that the law may be different from common usage. Someone (it may have been you?) then said that the law usage and common usage were the same. That is what has been under discussion



I never said or suggested any such thing. Jocabia has tried to interpret my words to mean that, but nothing I said actually says that.

As I said before,
The motivation for pulling the trigger is to kill someone, not "I wanted to pull the trigger."
The motivation for killing someone is that money is involved, not "I wanted to kill someone."

The first is the motivation for the action. The second is the motivation for the crime.

My grandfather used to say, "Since I'll assume you weren't under mind control and weren't forced, please don't tell me that you wanted to do what you intended to do as it has no use to anyone. People who speak proper English ask the question as understood and don't avoid answering it by trying to maneuver the language in unintended ways." I'm paraphrasing, but it was very similar to this. He was a history professor and an expert at law. He also believe that it was the legal profession that had caused the majority of this problem. He was a lover of Clinton but said the 'what your definition of is, is" argument was a perfect example of how people are destroying the English language because not admitting error has become more important than being clear and answering appropriately. You are another perfect example. You know the difference between motive and intent in an English sense but you are bastardizing it because you do not wish to admit error. Motive in every context has to do with why you committed the action (that you desired to do so is understood). Intent answers the question of whether the outcome was the desired outcome. Intent is already accepted when questioning motive in every context not just a legal context. No one who understands the proper use of English suggests that intent answers the question of motive both inside and outside a courtroom.

Actually, we weren't. I already conceded that the law may be different from common usage. Someone (it may have been you?) then said that the law usage and common usage were the same. That is what has been under discussion

This is what I meant by spinning our wheels over common usage. The original discussion was limited to a legal aspect, while I got us off on a tangent about the common usage. I took a step back and realized, while we may disagree on the correct common usage, that argument is completely unrelated to the topic.

The first is the motivation for the action. The second is the motivation for the crime.

And we procecute for the crime not the action. So when determining the intent of the crime, we determine the intended result of the crime. Now that we have gotten this far, I can't even remember why that matters.

That is a slippery slope argument. He is a threat to anyone who sleeps with his wife, a much smaller set of people than the set of anyone who could sleep with his wife. Your reasoning could produce a result like "if someone would shoot an intruder in his house at night, how do we know he wouldn't shoot all people who could choose to intrude into his house? He is a threat to all the people of all the nations of the earth OMG!"

Likewise I would try to kill anyone who I woke to find strangling me in my bed. It does not follow that I am a threat to anyone on earth with the capability to strangle me in my bed, that's just silly.

As long as you do not try to strangle me, or sleep with that guy's wife, you are safe from us. But the Jew cannot stop being a Jew, the lesbian cannot stop being a lesbian, etc. and so if the simple fact of belonging to a certain group is all that makes you a target of that person, they are a much wider threat than the single-act-motivated killer.

My main point is that no one is more wrong for killing someone because of your hate for their race than for killing someone you hate for stealing your girlfriend.

If you had actually read the entire thread before responding, you would know that the legal use had already been established, and we were discussing how the legal use is different from the rote definitions of the words.



I didn't say they were two separate issues. I said that you were addressing two different actions. There is the action of pulling the trigger, and why you did that. Then, there is the action of trying to kill someone, and why you did that. That is how you are comparing apples to oranges. You are saying that you can establish intent and motive for a single action by defining each by two different actions.



I hardly ignore it. It is my entire point.



These are the actual definitions - the ones I have been using. The legal definition limits intent to describing whether or not the accused was trying to commit a crime and motivation to describe something completely different - the reason for committing the crime (assuming, of course, that the accused was truly trying to commit a crime).

No, you haven't been using which is why you have several people in this thread pointing that out. The legal definition uses intent to describe whether a person intended to commit an act (because the act they are focused on is a crime, the act is always a crime). The legal definition of motive to describe the reason for committing the act (again the act is a crime). The legal definitions are the actual definitions only that


Like I already said: Intent is clearly describing what you hope to accomplilsh by doing something. Motivation is the desire that causes you to do it. Generally, these two are the same, as you desire what you are hoping to accomplish (unless you are some sort of masochist or something).

You are missing the point and since the argument started about someone else's proper usage of the phrase, there is a point different than yours. Intent is regarding whether you intended to commit an act. Motive is why you committed the act.

I get in the car. I know you went to the store and that is the reason for the question (which brings us back to the ENGLISH usage as we were originally discussing). The action I am establish your intent and your motive regarding is going to the store.

Intent question: "What did you intend to do when you got in the car?" "Go to the store" Intent: to go to the store.
Alternate question of intent for the same act. "Did you intend to go to the store?" "Yes." Intent: to go to the store.
Motive question: "Why did you go to the store?" "To buy some eggs." Motive for the same act: To buy eggs.

It's really quite simple. You try to rearrange the questions so it sounds like you're talking about two different things, but the usage of intent and motive in the context we are talking about and have always been talking about since about six pages ago is clear and clearly fits within proper English usage.

And we procecute for the crime not the action. So when determining the intent of the crime, we determine the intended result of the crime. Now that we have gotten this far, I can't even remember why that matters.

That's okay. I remember.

The last situation is generally lessened by intent, although sometimes juries sympathize with the woman's motivation. If the jury lets the woman off because they sympathize with her motivation, they are failing justice. If the woman gets off because it is established that her intent was to protect herself, then it is fair.

Again, the two words mean the exact same thing in this instance. If her intent was to protect herself, then her motive was to protect herself. There is no logical distinction between the two.

Meanwhile, if you really think that juries are not supposed to take all aspects of the case into account, then why exactly do we have juries in the first place? We should let computers decide guild and sentencing, since they wouldn't take things like humanity into account.

Dem incorrectly stated of intent and motive that in this instance they are the same thing. Melkor correctly pointed out that they can let her off because her motivations (he is beating me) even when her intent is to kill him, which he objects to. He also pointed out, correctly, it is also possible that she did not intend to kill him, but instead was only intending to do what was necessary to prevent harm to herself and death resulted, a situation where he does not object to her being found innocent.

That was the origin of the argument and why you posted the definitions and said that even in a normal English context intent and motive surround the same act, the act in this case being the crime.

Again with the strawmen. Seriously, Jocabia, you are better than that.

I didn't say that the answer to, "Why did you get on that flight to New York?" would be, "I wanted to go to New York."

I said that the answer to, "Why are you going to the airport?" would be, "I'm getting on a flight to New York."

The answer to, "Why are you getting on a flight to New York?" would be, "I am going on vacation."


No, you actually said the answer to "why are you getting on a flight" would be "to go to New York". I was just pointing out that going to New York is understood.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/13/transgender.ap/index.html



"Yeah, they killed her because they found out she was biologically male, but they didn't kill her because she was a transgendered person."

Huh?

Seriously, this crime was obviously motivated by the fact that she was transgendered - thus it goes exactly by the definition of a hate crime.

"hate crime" is such a B.S. term

crime is crime... they're convicted of murder... not hate murder.

Question:

If a black person were to kill a white person, and I came in here whining about how it was a "hate" crime... what would you say?

If you're going to allow for the term, it needs to be applied to every possible situation.

As it is, i'd rather we just refer to crime as crime... leave it at that.

So if the hate or thought is not a crime, why is the sentence inhanced? I thought we punished people for crimes, and a sentence inhancement would certainly be a punishment.

Also, is there a difference between motivation and intent, and if so, would you explain it better than I could?

Carrying a gun is not illegal. And if I commit a robbery and I am legally carrying a gun my sentence is enhanced because of that weapon, even if the weapon wasn't actually used in the crime. Hate speech is similar. It's a protected right until you commit a crime that is affected by your excercising of that right.

"hate crime" is such a B.S. term

crime is crime... they're convicted of murder... not hate murder.

Question:

If a black person were to kill a white person, and I came in here whining about how it was a "hate" crime... what would you say?

If you're going to allow for the term, it needs to be applied to every possible situation.

As it is, i'd rather we just refer to crime as crime... leave it at that.

The reason for the legislation is that if I kill someone because they cheated on me, I am a threat and deserve to be addressed but I am only a threat to those who cheat on me. If I commit a hate crime, I am a threat to everyone who fits within that group. This makes me more dangerous to the community as a whole and thus my penalty is stiffer.

Motive in every context has to do with why you committed the action (that you desired to do so is understood). Intent answers the question of whether the outcome was the desired outcome.

Oh, look, this is exactly what I have been saying. Thank you for agreeing with me.

And we procecute for the crime not the action. So when determining the intent of the crime, we determine the intended result of the crime. Now that we have gotten this far, I can't even remember why that matters.

Actually, as you have been describing it and as it was listed in both legal definitions posted, intent is concerned with the action. It is used to determine if a crime was actually committed, and, if so, what crime. If a person intended to shoot a deer and ended up hitting a human, it isn't 1st degree murder, that is for sure. However, if he intended to hit the person, it could be.


Intent question: "What did you intend to do when you got in the car?" "Go to the store" Intent: to go to the store.
Alternate question of intent for the same act. "Did you intend to go to the store?" "Yes." Intent: to go to the store.
Motive question: "Why did you go to the store?" "To buy some eggs." Motive for the same act: To buy eggs.

It's really quite simple. You try to rearrange the questions so it sounds like you're talking about two different things,

Actually, you are the one rearranging questions. Any idiot can see that your first two questions are talking about getting in the car (one action) and the third is talking about going to the store (another action). Thus, your first questions do give the intent of getting in the car. Your third question, however, does not give the motive behind getting into the car, it gives the motive behind going to the store - the second action.

but the usage of intent and motive in the context we are talking about and have always been talking about since about six pages ago is clear and clearly fits within proper English usage.

It fits within proper English usage because you have delineated intent as only talking about the action which led to a victim being harmed (which may or not have been intended to cause said harm) and motive as only talking about the crime being committed (in which case you assume that the person was motivated to commit the crime in the first place).

If a black person were to kill a white person, and I came in here whining about how it was a "hate" crime... what would you say?

I would ask what evidence you had that he killed the person because of your race. If you had such evidence, then I would agree with you.

If you're going to allow for the term, it needs to be applied to every possible situation.

Not every possible situation. Every possible situation in which the reason for the crime was the ethnicity/sexuality/etc. of the victim.

Oh, look, this is exactly what I have been saying. Thank you for agreeing with me.

Huh? And here I thought we were arguing about you're original point that they can be the same answer in the context they were being used. Oh, wait, you were, as I pointed out by reposting your post that originated the argument. Since you never actually admit your error, I will just take that you've slowly evolved your argument to be the same as ours as an admission that your original argument was ridiculous. I've seen you use this tactic before and I simply settle myself with the fact that admission of error is beyond you.

Actually, as you have been describing it and as it was listed in both legal definitions posted, intent is concerned with the action. It is used to determine if a crime was actually committed, and, if so, what crime. If a person intended to shoot a deer and ended up hitting a human, it isn't 1st degree murder, that is for sure. However, if he intended to hit the person, it could be.

Actually, in that case, intent is usually to determine if the act was intentional. It may be a crime in both the case where it was intentional and unintentional. Intent only refers to if the act was the intended outcome. It is not an attempt to determine if a crime was committed (it may be the difference on whether a crime was committed but it is not its purpose). For example, intent is the difference between manslaughter and murder. Both are quite obviously crimes.

Actually, you are the one rearranging questions. Any idiot can see that your first two questions are talking about getting in the car (one action) and the third is talking about going to the store (another action). Thus, your first questions do give the intent of getting in the car. Your third question, however, does not give the motive behind getting into the car, it gives the motive behind going to the store - the second action.

The first two questions refer to if the act was the intended outcome of getting in the car, intent. That is what intent in this context refers to and in the context of the original poster, Melkor Unchained. Motive refers to the motivation for the same act referred to above. They both are centered around the same thing. You are using intent in a different way than the original poster and then claiming that makes him, VO and I wrong. The original poster used in the context of "Did he have the intent of going to the store?" How he went to the store is immaterial. The original poster used motive in the context of "What was your motive for going to the store?" Your claim was that when he said it they would have the same answer. I've shown this to be false in every way. Later you admitted in a legal context (which is the context Melkor was using) that they have specific meanings but then tried to argue that they do fit within common usage which of course is false. They are the common usage they are simply centered around a specific act.

It fits within proper English usage because you have delineated intent as only talking about the action which led to a victim being harmed (which may or not have been intended to cause said harm) and motive as only talking about the crime being committed (in which case you assume that the person was motivated to commit the crime in the first place).

How the victim was harmed is immaterial to the case? If I intended to kill the victim it would matter if I caused it through dropping a safe or rat poison. Intent is seperate from means. Motive is generally looked at after intent is established.

Huh? And here I thought we were arguing about you're original point that they can be the same answer in the context they were being used.

Darling, I admitted very early on that the legal definitions are different. I specifically said something along the lines of, "Ah, so the legal system uses it a bit differently."

I know you think you know a lot about me, but as a general rule, you don't know anything at all about me. You love to try to attribute motive and actions that you cannot possibly know. Why? Because it makes you feel better? I don't know.

Oh, wait, you were, as I pointed out by reposting your post that originated the argument.

Actually, that was not the post that originated the argument at all. The post that originated the discussion we are currently having was the one in which I said, "Oh, so the legal system defines it a bit differently" and someone else replied, "No, they are exactly the same."

I have already demonstrated how the legal system places additional restrictions on the words, by making intent useful in the context of an action that results in a possible crime, while making motive only useful if you assume intent.

Since you never actually admit your error,

This is the silliest thing I have ever heard. I admit error all the time - on this forum even. I simply don't admit error when I am not in error.



In this case, I haven't evolved my argument at all. The argument began with the statement, by someone else, that the legal usage and common usage were exactly the same and the question, "If a boy throws a rock at a window, what is his intent and what is his motive?"

[quote]Actually, in that case, intent is usually to determine if the act was intentional. It may be a crime in both the case where it was intentional and unintentional.

....which was incorporated into, "if a crime was committed at all, and if so, what crime." If the intent was not to kill, but was to do something negligent, then manslaughter would be the crime. If the intent was neither, and it was pure accident, no crime has been committed. If the intent was to kill, it is murder. See how that works?

The first two questions refer to if the act was the intended outcome of getting in the car, intent. That is what intent in this context refers to and in the context of the original poster, Melkor Unchained.

Melkor Unchained was not the original poster in this discussion. As I already pointed out, this discussion was about common usage, not legal usage. I admitted after the very first reply to the post you quoted that legal usage placed unnecessary restrictions upon the words.

You are using intent in a different way than the original poster and then claiming that makes him, VO and I wrong.

Projecting a bit there, aren't you? You are using intent and motive in a different way than I am, which is strictly literal - using the dictionary definition rather than the legal one - and then trying to claim that I am wrong.

With the exception of the post you quoted, I have not once claimed that your use of the legal definitions are incorrect. I have simply pointed out that you are trying to change the context, and then call me wrong under a different context than that I am using.

Later you admitted in a legal context (which is the context Melkor was using) that they have specific meanings but then tried to argue that they do fit within common usage which of course is false. They are the common usage they are simply centered around a specific act.

Actually, I pointed out that they don't fit into common usage. Common usage does not set aside certain actions and say, "These actions have intent and these actions have motive." In common usage, and by a strict definition of each word, any action can have both intent and motive.

How the victim was harmed is immaterial to the case?

Nothing at all in what you quoted even comes close to suggesting this. Now you really are just making things up.

Intent is seperate from means.

Now you are changing your position around. Earlier, you said that, by legal definition, intent was attached to the means. It is things like, "What did you intend when you pulled the trigger?" You might have intended to scare the person, you might have intended to kill them, you might have intended to shoot the rat behind their head. Intent, by the legal definition, is completely dependent upon the means - because the means have to be there to even discuss intent. If you want to kill someone, but have no means to do so, then there is no action to determine intent about.

Motive is generally looked at after intent is established.

In the legal sense, this is true, and is exactly what I have been saying since the original post of the legal definitions. However, by the strict definitions of the words, all actions can have motive, even that which has to be used to determine intent.

Meanwhile, also in a legal sense, intent being "established" is probably a bit too far to go. Unless you have an admission from the accused that they intended harm (which, even then, should be somewhat suspect, as people do lie), you cannot establish intent. You establish probable intent, just as you establish probable motive. Of course, that is a different discussion altogether.

Once again, this whole intent/motive argument is a red herring.

Motive is relevant to sentencing in hundreds of circumstances and has been for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines (http://www.ussc.gov/2004guid/gl2004.pdf) are some 636 pages detailing various factors that increase or decrease a convicted defendant's sentence. Whether or not the crime was a hate crime is just one factor.

Moreoever, those arguing against Dem1 have conveniently argued my citation and quote from the Supreme Court explaining the propriety of hate crime legislation:

Traditionally, sentencing judges have considered a wide variety of factors in addition to evidence bearing on guilt in determining what sentence to impose on a convicted defendant. See Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 820-821 (1991); United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 446 (1972); Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 246 (1949). The defendant's motive for committing the offense is one important factor. See 1 W. LeFave & A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law 3.6(b), p. 324 (1986) ("Motives are most relevant when the trial judge sets the defendant's sentence, and it is not uncommon for a defendant to receive a minimum sentence because he was acting with good motives, or a rather high sentence because of his bad motives"); cf. Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137, 156 (1987) ("Deeply ingrained in our legal tradition is the idea that the more purposeful is the criminal conduct, the more serious is the offense, and, therefore, the more severely it ought to be punished"). Thus, in many States, the commission of a murder or other capital offense for pecuniary gain is a separate aggravating circumstance under the capital sentencing statute. See, e.g., Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. 13-703(F)(5) (1989); Fla.Stat. 921.141(5)(f) (Supp. 1992); Miss.Code Ann. 99-19-101(5)(f) (Supp. 1992); N.C.Gen.Stat. 15A-2000(e)(6) (1992); Wyo.Stat. 6-2-102(h)(vi) (Supp. 1992).

Wisconsin v. Mitchell (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/508/476.html ) (92-515), 508 US 47 (1993).

BTW, the decision was unanimous. 9-0.

I see Jocabia and Dempublicents are still carrying out their protracted courting ritual via NS debates :D

I see Jocabia and Dempublicents are still carrying out their protracted courting ritual via NS debates :D

Yep.

It kinda gets me all teary at the romance.

HI, SIN!!!!!!!! **smooches**

Actually, that was not the post that originated the argument at all. The post that originated the discussion we are currently having was the one in which I said, "Oh, so the legal system defines it a bit differently" and someone else replied, "No, they are exactly the same."

Actually, your suggestion was that the redefined the term and that in common usage their usage doesn't make sense. VO and then I pointed out that their usage is also proper in common usage. They limited usage so they don't have to spend their time trying to make people answer the question they are actually supposed to be answering. Limiting usage is not the same as 'defining it differently'. Here is your original post.

Ah, as per usual, the legal system defines things a bit differently than normal people.

Of course, by logic, one could easily say that the only motive for a crime was to kill the person. It would meet the actual definition of motive, if not the legal one.

You're in error here both in suggesting that legal definition isn't a specific common usage and is rather a redefinition of the term and in suggesting that the motive for the crime was the crime. The crime was to kill the person. The motive for the crime is the motive/reason for the crime/killing the person. You suggested that desired ends and inspiration are the same thing("One may be the desired end and the other the inspiration, as you say, but the desired ends and the inspiration are essentially the same."), which referring to the way we are using them(rather than the several other definitions). You referred back to your original post. I and VO pointed out that even in common usage one can use the terms (and in case you're unaware the speak sets usage of the term) in the same way as in legal usage and showed you how.

You're argument was kind of like this.

MU:The motive for the crime was to collect the insurance. The intent was to kill the person.
Dem:Nuh-uh, the motive for the crime was to kill the person. The intent was to kill the person.
VO: (lists the legal definition of the words since you seem to be unaware of them)
Dem:Well, them lawyers redefine words all the time. Logic says that they can be the same.
VO:But even in common usage, motive and intent don't mean the same thing.
Dem:One may be the desired end and the other the inspiration, as you say, but the desired ends and the inspiration are essentially the same.
Me:Wrong. In the usage that is both legal and common, they cannot be the same because you are examining whether there was the intent of the act and the motive for the act. The man intended to break the window shows intent, why the man wanted to break the window shows motive. Your intent is to go to the store. Why are you going to the store?
Dem:The proper question is not, "Why am I going to the store?" We are discussing me getting into my car. Thus, the proper question is, "Why am I getting into my car?"
Me: (I point out the diffence again and that intent is just deciding if the crime was intentional. And motive doesn't really matter if it wasn't.)
Dem: Criminal negligence hardly ignores motivation. In fact, the very term relies upon it. Someone who is negligent is not trying to cause harm. Thus, their motivation is not to cause harm.(another attempt to confuse intent and motivation).
And so on...

The point is that you are the one trying to limit the definition of motive and intent to something other than the legal usage (which is not a redefinition of common usage only a requirement to focus their use and the crime) and then claim that common usage and legal usage are different. What's next? Are you going to prove that taxis are not automobiles so long as you limit automobiles to vans?

And by the way, your motivation is not a negative or I could make everything my motivation. My motivation was to not blow up the world. My motivation was to not allow Dem to change the use of words just to make someone else look like they were wrong. My motivation was to not do cartwheels. Unless they specifically considered harm their motivation had nothing to do with harm. Thus in the case of criminal negligence, generally harm wasn't considered when it should have been. If I drill a hole into a board and it goes into the head of someone on the other side, it is most likely criminal negligence. It would have been reasonable for me to think of the fact that drilling that hole could harm someone on the other side, but I didn't, so I was negligent. My motivation for the killing the person is not considered, because I didn't have the intent of killing the person (thus no motive for killing the person which is the crime).

I have already demonstrated how the legal system places additional restrictions on the words, by making intent useful in the context of an action that results in a possible crime, while making motive only useful if you assume intent.

No, actually, you said otherwise. As I quoted above "Of course, by logic, one could easily say that the only motive for a crime was to kill the person. It would meet the actual definition of motive, if not the legal one."

And again, intent is about the results not the action that produced the results(quote - "by making intent useful in the context of an action that results in a possible crime"). It is possible to establish that someone intended to kill someone without actually knowing how they killed them. Means and intent are seperate.

"I don't know what happened exactly. I know that he pissed me off and I went after him to kill him. I don't remember anything between then and standing over his bloody corpse." Intent to kill without even knowing the means (the action that produced the result).

Another example would be if an attorney presented a phone conversation of a the defendent saying that he is planning the murder of his wife, but the means with which he murdered could not be established. Again, intent to kill without knowing the means (the action that produced the result).

In this case, I haven't evolved my argument at all. The argument began with the statement, by someone else, that the legal usage and common usage were exactly the same and the question, "If a boy throws a rock at a window, what is his intent and what is his motive?"

No, this argument started when VO said that legal usage falls within common usage. He said, "Even in common use, motivation is something that inspires action, while intent is the desired results of the action."

....which was incorporated into, "if a crime was committed at all, and if so, what crime." If the intent was not to kill, but was to do something negligent, then manslaughter would be the crime. If the intent was neither, and it was pure accident, no crime has been committed. If the intent was to kill, it is murder. See how that works?

I love when you leave out a part of my statement and then act like you're correcting me. It makes you look so silly. I like silly.

I pointed out that intent is not about determining if a crime was committed. Intent is about determining if the outcome was the desired outcome. I pointed out that once intent or lack of it is established it may be used to determine which crime was committed, if any. Let's quote me in full so everyone can see how you tried to leave out what I said.

Actually, in that case, intent is usually to determine if the act was intentional. It may be a crime in both the case where it was intentional and unintentional. Intent only refers to if the act was the intended outcome. It is not an attempt to determine if a crime was committed (it may be the difference on whether a crime was committed but it is not its purpose). For example, intent is the difference between manslaughter and murder. Both are quite obviously crimes.

You also used intent wrong again. The intent cannot be the act in a legal context. In the drilling scenario, the using a drill when someone's head may be on the other side of the board is the negligent act but the question is whether the intent when drilling was to kill (murder) or to drill a hole in the board (negligence). The intent was not to use a drill when someone's head may be on the other side of the board (to do something negligent).

Melkor Unchained was not the original poster in this discussion. As I already pointed out, this discussion was about common usage, not legal usage. I admitted after the very first reply to the post you quoted that legal usage placed unnecessary restrictions upon the words.

Melkor unchained was who VO and I were defending. You're trying to pretend that this was never about how common usage and legal usage relate becuase then you have to admit that your entire argument is ridiculous.

Projecting a bit there, aren't you? You are using intent and motive in a different way than I am, which is strictly literal - using the dictionary definition rather than the legal one - and then trying to claim that I am wrong.

You can use intent and motive however you like... when you set the context for their use. However, you didn't. Someone else started a discussion and you pointed out how that use is not the same as the available common usage. VO pointed out how legal usage is a type of common usage. You tried to prove it's not by limiting the usage to something other than the matching common usage. If you were trying to point out that the words have more than one definition, duh? Unfortunately for you, that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

With the exception of the post you quoted, I have not once claimed that your use of the legal definitions are incorrect. I have simply pointed out that you are trying to change the context, and then call me wrong under a different context than that I am using.

You didn't set the context. Melkor Unchained did, and VO gave a non-criminal scenario of the same usage, with similar context. That's exactly the point. MU, VO and I are using one context and you are using another and then claiming that legal usage is not within the bounds of the words' common usage. You admit below that you are trying to prove that legal usage does not fit within common usage. That means that in a common scenario the context has to be similar to a legal scenario or it doesn't make sense. It's like trying to prove I used driver wrong in this sentence, "I used my driver to hit the ball 300 yards," by putting up the sentence, "My driver took me to the airport."

Actually, I pointed out that they don't fit into common usage. Common usage does not set aside certain actions and say, "These actions have intent and these actions have motive." In common usage, and by a strict definition of each word, any action can have both intent and motive.

No, context does that. The speaker does that. In this case, the original speaker was MU who VO then emulated with a similar 'common' scenario with the same context. You don't get to set their context to prove their usage of the word wrong. (and in the part you're replying to I missed the word not. It was supposed to say, "then tried to argue that they do [not] fit within common usage which of course is false." I and VO were arguing that they do fit within common usage.)

Person1:"The car was red."
Person2:"Wrong. The apple was red."
Person3:"Pardon. Here look at these definitions."
Person2:"Well, person1 redfines terms. That's person1's usage. That is not common usage."
Person3:"What are you talking about? Person1's usage is common usage."
Person2:"Calling a car red is not common usage Apples can be red. Shoes can be red. Common usage does not limit the use of red to cars."

Context regularly limits the usage of a term. Legal context is just another case of context limiting usage. VO and I have been pointing that out for six pages.

Nothing at all in what you quoted even comes close to suggesting this. Now you really are just making things up.

I have to stop posting when I'm in a rush. That was supposed to be a period, not a question mark.

Now you are changing your position around. Earlier, you said that, by legal definition, intent was attached to the means. It is things like, "What did you intend when you pulled the trigger?" You might have intended to scare the person, you might have intended to kill them, you might have intended to shoot the rat behind their head. Intent, by the legal definition, is completely dependent upon the means - because the means have to be there to even discuss intent. If you want to kill someone, but have no means to do so, then there is no action to determine intent about.

I'm not changing things around. See below.

Intent refers to intent to commit the crime and motive refers to reason for committing the crime.

I wrote the above more than fourteen hours before the post you quoted. Sounds like I'm not changing things around 'now'. The questions may say what did the person intend when they performed the means, but intent refers to the crime. The means does not matter if intent is established. (At least in the context we're referring to.)

In the legal sense, this is true, and is exactly what I have been saying since the original post of the legal definitions. However, by the strict definitions of the words, all actions can have motive, even that which has to be used to determine intent.

Yes, but we were using it in a certain way that you claimed and still claim does not fit within common usage.

Meanwhile, also in a legal sense, intent being "established" is probably a bit too far to go. Unless you have an admission from the accused that they intended harm (which, even then, should be somewhat suspect, as people do lie), you cannot establish intent. You establish probable intent, just as you establish probable motive. Of course, that is a different discussion altogether.

See, again you're making a silly argument suggesting I used a term improperly when in fact I used it properly. This is EXACTLY how you started the argument about intent and motive. You were wrong then. You're wrong now. A jury specifically decides if I established intent when deciding to find a person guilty of murder or manslaughter, in a legal sense.

*snip big long repeat of things you have already said that finally demonstrates the problem here*

I see the problem. When I said common usage, I was referring to strictly the dictionary definintion (as dictionary definitions are generally based upon common usage). Going strictly by the dictionary definition, each individual action can have both intent and motive. In each individual action, as I have demonstrated, the two are generally the same, with the intent being the desired outcome, and the motive being the desire that drives the action.

Meanwhile, you are utterly convinced that I am trying to prove that the legal use is wrong, when I am in fact simply demonstrating that my usage is not wrong. The fact that the legal community places further restriction upon the use of the words doesn't make their usage wrong - it makes it restricted further than the dictionary definition. Most professions do this, as it makes sense to be sure that everyone is coming from the same viewpoint when using a word. You are correct that I was not really aware of the actual legal definitions used before this conversation, which is why I made the statement I did when it was first posted.

And before you start screaming, "OMG! You changed from the word changed to the word restricted!" restriction is a form of change. The legal definition is changed from the dictionary definition by adding restrictions upon which actions are described by each word.

Logically, either intent or motive could be used to describe the action that resulted in death, or the murder (if murder occurred). I can ask if you intended to kill someone by pulling a trigger, or if your motive behind pulling a trigger was that you desired someone's death. This is something I have demonstrated more than once. However, that could muck things up a bit in a court of law, if the judge/jury/other lawyer/etc. wasn't sure if you were talking about the action that resulted in death (pulling the trigger), or the actual crime you were accused of (committing murder). Thus, the legal community has evidently decided to use "intent" only when talking about the action that caused death and "motive" only when talking about the crime (assuming intent to commit the crime is present).

Like I said, my intent (hehe) has never been to demonstrate that the legal usage was somehow wrong, but instead to demonstrate that my usage was not wrong. We have been arguing at cross-purposes here because, even though I stated numerous times that I was not using the legal definitions, but instead strictly using the dictionary definitions, you have continued to use the legal definitions. Obviously, if our beginning axioms are not the same, we aren't going to come to the same conclusion.

Big long post that still doesn't get it

When I was referring to the common usage I was going also by the strict dictionary definition. Only I recognize that when a word is used there is also context around the word. Given the strict dictionary definition of the words and context in which they were used they cannot and will not ever be the same thing. Because intent refers to whether or not there it was the intent of the person for the act (in a legal context a [potential] crime) to occur and motive reveals why you wanted that act (in a legal context a [potential] crime) to occur if it was intentional. Again, they are surrounding the same act.

You said clearly that you thought the motive for the crime could be to kill someone ("by logic, one could easily say that the only motive for a crime was to kill the person"). Given the crime was that you killed someone, you made the ridiculous suggestion that your motive for killing someone could be to kill someone, not your motive for the act that caused them to die. You used the word motive incorrectly under any context.

You've also claimed that in that usage the motive and intent can be the same thing, but you've failed to show how that can be done without changing the context. Therefore, your point was wrong from the start. VO quite eloquently explained why they are different in context than how you used them and so did I.

And before you start screaming, "OMG! You changed from the word changed to the word restricted!" restriction is a form of change. The legal definition is changed from the dictionary definition by adding restrictions upon which actions are described by each word.

You just changed the meaning of the word 'definition'! Because when you put it in a sentence you restrict the word to only being the meaning that makes sense in the sentence. Your definition is changed from the dictionary definition by adding restrictions upon which type of definition can be described by the word. "Those mathematicians are going around changing the meanings of words. Because in math, when you say, 'When adding two and two, you get four.' Adding can only refer to one type of action. It is totally different than the restriction put on using context, like 'By adding to my retirement fund, I make sure I'll be more comfortable in my old age'. Oh, crap, those two words are both restricted by context to mean the same thing!" The argument is laughable. I will state it again, context restricts the meaning of words always, not only in a court of law.

And I haven't been using the legal usages, I have been using the common usages in the same way they use them in the legal profession, all the while matching the strict dictionary definition (which you said couldn't be done).

Why must Hate crimes get bigger sentances?
Surely any crime where you kill should be just as horrid?
Watch Southpark.

Why must Hate crimes get bigger sentances?
Surely any crime where you kill should be just as horrid?
Watch Southpark.

Not all murders are equal.

Nor are all crimes.

Many factors go into sentencing. Motive is one such factor.

Southpark is most amusing, but it is just a cartoon. Not a documentary.

:D Too true.

Not even close to true. As proven multiple times already in this thread.

Honestly, Hate crimes only apply to black people.

I'm reminded of a quote...

"If you're going to beat someone up, you better make damn sure you're the same color as him."
:D Too true.

This message is hidden because It is illogical.
Thank you, technology.

Thank you, technology.

:confused:

WTF is illogical?

Your "truth" simply is not true.

A white male can commit a hate crime against a white male. A black Jewish lesbian can commit a hate crime against a black Jewish lesbian.

That is simply a fact, whether you find it logical or not.

I'm with you on that. Murder 1 and murder 2 should warrant life without possibility of parole, no matter why the perp "hated" the victim. I don't give a flying you-know-what if they hated her for being transgendered...there shouldn't be stiffer punishments for "hate crimes" like this one because murder should automatically exact the highest punishment possible.

Murder is a little too easy because you can make that "ultimate punishment" argument.

What about aggravated assault?

What about arson?

Fuck hate crimes. Hate crime legislation pisses me off tremendously. The motivation for a crime should have no effect on it's sentencing: hate crime laws only reinforce the idea that we are all to be treated differently based on our skin color, sexuality, or any number of other factors.

If I murder someone, I should be punished equally whether I'm black or white, straight or gay, have two arms or nineteen. As far as justice is concerned, the act itself is the only thing that is important. It shouldn't make a god damn bit of difference why s/he/it did it, the simple fact remains that s/he/it did it.
I'm with you on that. Murder 1 and murder 2 should warrant life without possibility of parole, no matter why the perp "hated" the victim. I don't give a flying you-know-what if they hated her for being transgendered...there shouldn't be stiffer punishments for "hate crimes" like this one because murder should automatically exact the highest punishment possible.

A man may murder his wife because he has come to hate her over the years, yet we don't label that a "hate crime." Why does the motive of "hate" translate to stiffer punishments for a fellow who hates black people, or a fellow who hates gays, but not to an individual who hates another individual?

"hate crime" is merely a layman's shorthand for a more specific statute that merely adds 1 more possible sentence enhancement to hundreds that already exist -- including scores based on motive.

Not all murders are equal.

Nor are all crimes.

Many factors go into sentencing. Motive is one such factor.

A man may murder his wife because he has come to hate her over the years, yet we don't label that a "hate crime." A woman may feel passionate hatred toward the secretary her boyfriend cheats with, yet this "hate" is not recognized as a "special" crime if she murders the secretary (or her boyfriend). Passionate love or friendship may become equally passionate hatred under the right (wrong?) circumstances, and if I've learned anything from Greek tragedies these passions will often lead to murder most foul. Why does the motive of "hate" translate to stiffer punishments for a fellow who hates black people, or a fellow who hates gays, but not to an individual who hates another individual?

Southpark is most amusing, but it is just a cartoon. Not a documentary.
Wait, so you are saying that quaint, mountainous regions of the US aren't populated by two-dimensional foul mouthed children?

"hate crime" is merely a layman's shorthand for a more specific statute that merely adds 1 more possible sentence enhancement to hundreds that already exist -- including scores based on motive.
And what I am saying is there should be no such enhancements. Taking the life of another human being with malace aforethought should receive life without parole. So-called "crimes of passion" should warrant life without parole. If we are having to find ways to attach additional years to these sentences, it's because our system is failing to enforce the minimum acceptable sentence in the first place.

Hate is not a crime, and should NEVER be a crime. Murder is, and should be.

And what I am saying is there should be no such enhancements. Taking the life of another human being with malace aforethought should receive life without parole. So-called "crimes of passion" should warrant life without parole. If we are having to find ways to attach additional years to these sentences, it's because our system is failing to enforce the minimum acceptable sentence in the first place.

Hate is not a crime, and should NEVER be a crime. Murder is, and should be.
:) Thank you for pointing out the obvious.

And what I am saying is there should be no such enhancements. Taking the life of another human being with malace aforethought should receive life without parole. So-called "crimes of passion" should warrant life without parole. If we are having to find ways to attach additional years to these sentences, it's because our system is failing to enforce the minimum acceptable sentence in the first place.

Hate is not a crime, and should NEVER be a crime. Murder is, and should be.

*sigh*

1. Again, you take the "easy" case by talking about a crime with a minimum that can't be enhanced. What about arson? Aggravated battery? Robbery? Presumably you don't think all crime should be punished the same.

2. You are still using the lay definition because you haven't looked at the thread. Mere hate is not and should not be a crime. Battery is. How and why you commit battery are factors in how severe your sentence is.

3. Motive and intent has always been relevant to crimes and sentencing. You just used it to distinguish between "crimes of passion" and murder with malice aforethought. So you don't actually treat all murder the same --- there went your premise.

4. Crimes motivated by racial, gender, religious, etc. animus are rightly held to be undesirable by society. Just as you can get a stiffer sentence for a crime committed for hire or with a gun, you can get a stiffer sentence if you were motivated by racism, etc. Or you can get a stiffer sentence for defacing a synagoge with Nazi symbols than you can for painting grafitti on a 7-11.

When I was referring to the common usage I was going also by the strict dictionary definition. Only I recognize that when a word is used there is also context around the word. Given the strict dictionary definition of the words and context in which they were used they cannot and will not ever be the same thing. Because intent refers to whether or not there it was the intent of the person for the act (in a legal context a [potential] crime) to occur and motive reveals why you wanted that act (in a legal context a [potential] crime) to occur if it was intentional. Again, they are surrounding the same act.

And, as I have shown, the only differenec is exactly what you said - Intent is what you wanted to occur and motive is the desire that made you perform the action. Generally, what you desire is what you intend to occur. If I desire my boyfriend to fall out of his chair, and I act on it, I will push him, intending for him to fall out of his chair. If I need to go to the store, and I act on it, I will get in my car intending to go to the store.

You aren't saying that. You are saying, If I desire my boyfriend to have a broken arm, I will push him out of his chair, intending him to fall. Or, If I need milk, I will get in my car, intending to go to the store. You are making unnecessary and possible logical leaps here.

You did it earlier with your plane example, by trying to say that, "Why are you getting on a plane to NY?" and "Why are you getting on a plane?" were the same question, with the same answer. However, these are logically not the same - they may be, but may not be. In the first question, you have already assumed that the person is, in fact, going to NY. Thus, it is clear that you are actually asking why they are going to NY. In the second question, you have made no such assumption. They might be getting on a plane to go to NY, or to Chicago. They might be getting on a plane to fix the call button at seat 36E. They might be getting on a plane to clean it, or to find something that they have dropped there.

The legal use of the two words makes a logical leap. When they discuss motive, they only do it in the context of having determined intent (and, by default, motive) for the action that caused harm. Motive, to them, describes only the crime itself, and not the action that caused the crime. However, both motive and intent can logically be applied to each action separately. The legal community has simply made the decision not to use them in that way.

You said clearly that you thought the motive for the crime could be to kill someone ("by logic, one could easily say that the only motive for a crime was to kill the person").

It can be. There are people out there who kill strictly out of a desire to kill. These people scare the hell out of us specifically because thier only motive is to kill. Their entire motive behind committing the crime of murder is that they want to kill someone. The only thing they intend by doing so is that someone will die. They don't want money, they aren't jealous, often they don't know anything about the person they kill. They simply want to kill.

You've also claimed that in that usage the motive and intent can be the same thing, but you've failed to show how that can be done without changing the context.

You have things backwards. It is you who change the context. When I say that my motive and intent behind getting in the car, I am using the same action - thus the same context - to describe them. The questions are as follows:

Intent: What do you hope to acheive by getting in the car?
Answer: I intend to go to the store.

Motive: Why do you need/desire to get in the car?
Answer: I need to go to the store.

You, on the other hand, separate the actions of getting in the car and going to the store and say that intent only applies to one of them, and motive only applies to one of them. The questions you use are:

Intent: What do you hope to acheive by getting in the car?
Answer: I intend to go to the store.

Motive: Why are you going to the store?
Answer: I need milk.


The difference between our usages is that I am talking about the same action, never assuming motive or intent for an action, but asking for both. You, on the other hand, only ask about motive after assuming intent for the first action. You never ask about motive and intent for the same action, and instead change the context, already making assumptions, in the motive case.


I will state it again, context restricts the meaning of words always, not only in a court of law.

The court of law is not restricting the words by context in the same way you have described. The court of law says, "We will use intent to determine whether or not the person meant to commit a crime. We will only use the word motive after making an assumption about the intent question." This is not a simple context issue - but is a specific delineation of when the two words will be used, even though both words could be used before determining whether or not a crime was meant, and both words could be used after making that determination.

And I haven't been using the legal usages, I have been using the common usages in the same way they use them in the legal profession,

There is no logical difference between these two. If you have been using the definition in the way that they are used in the legal profession, then you have been using the legal usages.

all the while matching the strict dictionary definition (which you said couldn't be done).

Again, I didn't say that the legal definitions do not meet the strict dictionary definition. I said that they add to it, by only using the word motive after they have already assumed intent for another action. If you take a single action, outside the context of all others, you can determine both motive and intent for that action. The legal usage does not do so. They delineate intent as being about the action that resulted in the crime, and motive as being about the crime itself.

Hate crime laws are all unconstitutional.

Hawkintom']Hate crime laws are all unconstitutional.

1. Why?

2. I've already posted SCOTUS unanimously saying otherwise. See Wisconsin v. Mitchell (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/508/476.html) 508 US 47 (1993). Feel free to explain why they are wrong.

1. Why?

2. I've already posted SCOTUS unanimously saying otherwise. See Wisconsin v. Mitchell (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/508/476.html) 508 US 47 (1993). Feel free to explain why they are wrong.

I should have been more specific. FEDERAL Hate Crime Laws are unConstitutional. State Hate Crime Laws are just stupid.

Amendment X (the Tenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

------------

Congress has very strict limitations on what it may, and may not, create laws to govern. There is no possible way to ascribe hate crime to any of Congress' permitted areas of purview:

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; Nope

To borrow money on the credit of the United States; Nope

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; Nope

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; Nope

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; Nope

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; Nope

To establish post offices and post roads; Nope

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; Nope

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; Nope

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; Nope

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; Nope

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; Nope

To provide and maintain a navy; Nope

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; Nope

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; Nope

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; Nope

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And Nope - except perhaps in Washington D.C.?

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. Nope

Hawkintom']I should have been more specific. FEDERAL Hate Crime Laws are unConstitutional. State Hate Crime Laws are just stupid.

Amendment X (the Tenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

------------

Congress has very strict limitations on what it may, and may not, create laws to govern. There is no possible way to ascribe hate crime to any of Congress' permitted areas of purview:

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; Nope

To borrow money on the credit of the United States; Nope

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; Nope

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; Nope

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; Nope

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; Nope

To establish post offices and post roads; Nope

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; Nope

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; Nope

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; Nope

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; Nope

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; Nope

To provide and maintain a navy; Nope

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; Nope

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; Nope

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; Nope

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And Nope - except perhaps in Washington D.C.?

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. Nope

I don't have time to explain how your entire view of Article I and Amendment X is nonsense. Luckily there is an easy way to explain why you are wrong in this specific.

The premise of your argument appears to be that Congress can't make anything a crime.

Federal hate crime legislation merely provides for a sentencing enhancement for those convicted of a separate federal crime. If Congress can make something a crime, Congress can surely say what the sentence would be for committing that crime under different circumstances.

According to you, all federal crime statutes are unconstitutional. That is purely silly.

Regardless of the statues...

The question is: "was the crime committed solely because the victim was a transgender, or was the crime committed because the victim neglected to inform the guilty party of his/her true gender (lied)?"

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/13/transgender.ap/index.html



"Yeah, they killed her because they found out she was biologically male, but they didn't kill her because she was a transgendered person."

Huh?

Seriously, this crime was obviously motivated by the fact that she was transgendered - thus it goes exactly by the definition of a hate crime.
You are proof on why hate crimes shouldn't exist. There are many, many reasons why a man is motivated to kill another man, but as far as I'm concerned, any motive other than self defense is simply murder. What elevates hate above all other motives that it needs special punishments?

You are proof on why hate crimes shouldn't exist. There are many, many reasons why a man is motivated to kill another man, but as far as I'm concerned, any motive other than self defense is simply murder. What elevates hate above all other motives that it needs special punishments?

You know, you really ought to, you know, READ A THREAD before posting in it. Nowhere in that post did I say I agree with hate crime legislation. I simply asked how, by the definition of hate crime, a logical person could come to the conclusion that this was not one.

If you had bothered to read the thread before choosing not to contribute anything useful, you would know that I have expressed doubts about the validity of hate crime legislation more than once.

Argument about whether or not there should be such things as "hate crimes" aside, under the current legal definition of "hate crime," this would be one, wouldn't it?

Argument about whether or not there should be such things as "hate crimes" aside, under the current legal definition of "hate crime," this would be one, wouldn't it?

I think Lacadaemon answered this best.

The surface answer appears to be yes, but, by definition, something isn't a hate crime unless a jury finds you committed all the elements of an underlying crime (here they did find murder) and all the additional elements of a hate crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

That didn't happen. So, it isn't a hate crime.

It could be the jury was wrong, but we aren't really in a place to judge.

We don't know all the facts. We didn't sit through the trial.

We leave these matters to trials and juries for a reason. I'm not saying we should never question them, but -- particularly with not guilty verdicts - we should not seek trial by the media or public opinion instead.

AndYou did it earlier with your plane example, by trying to say that, "Why are you getting on a plane to NY?" and "Why are you getting on a plane?" were the same question, with the same answer. However, these are logically not the same - they may be, but may not be. In the first question, you have already assumed that the person is, in fact, going to NY. Thus, it is clear that you are actually asking why they are going to NY. In the second question, you have made no such assumption. They might be getting on a plane to go to NY, or to Chicago. They might be getting on a plane to fix the call button at seat 36E. They might be getting on a plane to clean it, or to find something that they have dropped there.

There finally, you have outlined the logic. The reason why we assume the 'to NY' part of the question is because we already know what happened, that they went to New York. That is specifically the part of the argument that you are ignoring. Thank you for proving your own point wrong. Basically, in the context we are talking about there is information that is understood. We already know that they got on a plane and the plane went to NY. So when we ask, "why did you get on the plane," or, "why did you get on the plane to NY," they are logically the same question, because not only do the person asking the question and the person answering the question understand the plane is going to NY but so does everyone listening. They only way you can change that is if you change the context of the question and make certain informatin unknown. Unfortunately for you, you can't because then the conversation doesn't make sense. You could just as easily argue and just as erroneously argue that I just effectively said to you, "Unfortunately for you, you can't [use vowels] because then the conversation doesn't make any sense" by changing the context of the sentence. However, doing this just proves one thing, that you are ignoring context and, thus, making erroneous distinctions.

Context is important in the use of words. Law just further points this out by explaining what use of a word you may take in what context. Legal usage with this word falls well within the standards of common usage which is the point both VO and myself made and you suggested was illogical. You then changed the context to attempt to prove my point. Which of us is being illogical? I promise everyone reading these posts knows with the possible exception of the one to whom they are addressed.

You are proof on why hate crimes shouldn't exist. There are many, many reasons why a man is motivated to kill another man, but as far as I'm concerned, any motive other than self defense is simply murder. What elevates hate above all other motives that it needs special punishments?

Nothing. Other motives do get special punishments as TCT pointed out. This is simply another case. The point of hate crime legislation and the reason hate crimes are particularly heinous is becuase in the case of a hate crime it makes the perpetrator dangerous or additionally dangerous to everyone of a particular class simply for being of that class of people. If I beat up my wife for cheating on me I am only dangerous to a spouse who cheats on me. If I beat up a man for kissing another man, I am dangerous to every man that kisses another man. The distinction between these two acts is obvious and necessary.

I think Lacadaemon answered this best.

The surface answer appears to be yes, but, by definition, something isn't a hate crime unless a jury finds you committed all the elements of an underlying crime (here they did find murder) and all the additional elements of a hate crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

That didn't happen. So, it isn't a hate crime.

It could be the jury was wrong, but we aren't really in a place to judge.

We don't know all the facts. We didn't sit through the trial.

We leave these matters to trials and juries for a reason. I'm not saying we should never question them, but -- particularly with not guilty verdicts - we should not seek trial by the media or public opinion instead.

I think the problem is that some people don't see what facts could exist that would make this not a hate crime. Personally, I think the possibility for this to not be a hate crime is obvious. It is certainly possible that they killed a transexual for 'tricking' them rather than simply because she was a transexual who had not yet had surgery.

The example I gave is if a man was met what he thought was a woman on the internet and fell in love with 'her' and then after a period of time they meet at which point the 'woman' reveals the he is a man and was just playing a joke. The butt of the joke kills the man in anger over being tricked. Not a hate crime. But if the 'woman' on the internet is, in fact, a gay man and reveals that he was actually in love with the heterosexual man and then is murdered by the heterosexual man for tricking him, would it be a hate crime them? Many people would argue yes, but it's really no different than first scenario, save the difference in the motivation of the victim. The motivation for the murder is still the same. This case may have been similar.

Nothing. Other motives do get special punishments as TCT pointed out. This is simply another case. The point of hate crime legislation and the reason hate crimes are particularly heinous is becuase in the case of a hate crime it makes the perpetrator dangerous or additionally dangerous to everyone of a particular class simply for being of that class of people. If I beat up my wife for cheating on me I am only dangerous to a spouse who cheats on me. If I beat up a man for kissing another man, I am dangerous to every man that kisses another man. The distinction between these two acts is obvious and necessary.

Well explained. :)

I don't have time to explain how your entire view of Article I and Amendment X is nonsense.

That's ok, I'm used to people who can't defend their argument telling me that "they don't have time" or "your argument is too dumb for me to bother with." It seems to be a strategy here on the message boards.


The premise of your argument appears to be that Congress can't make anything a crime.


You didn't read my argument even casually then. I laid out the entire list of things Congress can make laws about as they are clearly stated in the Constitution.

Hate crime isn't on that list. Congress often tries to get around the fact that the Constitution only grants them very limited scope in which they can enact laws by applying things to "interstate commerce," which they are allowed to regulate.

Read the Federalist papers and learn the history of the Constitution. The writers were VERY WARY of a Federal government. They'd just gotten through liberating themselves from a bad one and they wanted to make sure States held most of the power and the Federal government was there just to ride herd on things. The history is clear and evident. Congress wasn't allowed to go around making laws about whatever it wanted.


Federal hate crime legislation merely provides for a sentencing enhancement for those convicted of a separate federal crime. If Congress can make something a crime, Congress can surely say what the sentence would be for committing that crime under different circumstances.


What crime? Murder is not a Federal crime. (You see, I do have time to discuss this with you.) Murder is a State crime.


According to you, all federal crime statutes are unconstitutional. That is purely silly.

Show me where Congress has the power to create a criminal statute that doesn't deal strictly with the things I listed earlier...

Well explained. :)

Given your the level of post you generally expect I will take that as a great compliment. I enjoyed reading your recent posts on the matter as well.

Fuck hate crimes. Hate crime legislation pisses me off tremendously. The motivation for a crime should have no effect on it's sentencing: hate crime laws only reinforce the idea that we are all to be treated differently based on our skin color, sexuality, or any number of other factors.

If I murder someone, I should be punished equally whether I'm black or white, straight or gay, have two arms or nineteen. As far as justice is concerned, the act itself is the only thing that is important. It shouldn't make a god damn bit of difference why s/he/it did it, the simple fact remains that s/he/it did it.

i completely agree

if i kill someone on purpose i hate them

its not like you murder someone and u like them

if i kill you its cuz i hate you

so if ur gay or not or another religion or not i killed you cuz i hate you and if i kill u cuz u pissed me off i still hate you

so either way no matter who you kill if you do it on prpose u hate them i guess lol