Do you support the legality of "hate crimes"?
Forums:
Other than extenuating circumstances re: why any given crime might be "justified", why does it matter what a person may or may not have been thinking while perpetrating an actual crime?
- Log in to post comments
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: good at drinking water
https://www.fbi.gov
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/hate-crimes
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
^ quote from that website:
^ quote from that website:
"Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties"
Yet, once a defined criminal act has taken place, does one relinquish their 1st Amendment rights?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: good at drinking water
Related: http://www
Related: http://www.portlandmercury.com/blogtown/2017/05/27/19041594/suspect-in-p...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: I rang a silent bell
>>Yet, once a defined
>>Yet, once a defined criminal act has taken place, does one relinquish their 1st Amendment rights?
No. I think hate crime is just a circumstance of the committed crime, similar to malice aforethought.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: good at drinking water
Maybe this is hard, so I'll
Here's my [non-lawyer so please excuse limited precision] explanation, using the above newspaper story as an example:
1) Jeremy Christian starts screaming and threatening muslim women on a train platform;
2) He fatally stabs two people who tried to intervene.
3) Why is it a hate crime?
4) Absent intent, his altercation on the train platform sounds kind of like manslaughter.
5) His history of threatening violence towards minorities - using the hate crime laws - allows them to attempt to "prove" intent, and therefore charge with murder;
>>>"malice aforethought"
this
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
4) Absent intent, his
4) Absent intent, his altercation on the train platform sounds kind of like manslaughter
5) His history of threatening violence towards minorities - using the hate crime laws - allows them to attempt to "prove" intent, and therefore charge with murder<<<
I'm not a lawyer either, but I would seem to me that "intent" does not necessarily have to be fully explained (in terms of *content* of said intent) in order to differentiate from something such as manslaughter or some other classification more closely aligned with "circumstance". I suppose there might be varying degrees of intent in so far as deliberation & pre-meditation re: a specific plan vs. general plan, etc.
As extremely disturbing as I find this and other instances of deranged individuals acting out violently, I'm kind of blown away by how 1st Amendment rights are sometimes jettisoned in conjunction with existing crimes.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: good at drinking water
What first amendment right
What first amendment right was denied?
The arrest was for stabbing people to death, not exercising his right to free speech.
he was not arrested for free speech, but for murder:
http://www.opb.org/news/article/jeremy-joseph-christian-portland-stabbin...
Portland Police say Christian is charged with two counts of aggravated murder, attempted murder, two counts of intimidation in the second degree and felon in possession of a restricted weapon.
"...[he] also attended the April 29 “March for Free Speech,” event on 82nd Avenue, a response to the canceled Rose Parade after organizers received a threatening email directed at the local Republican party. He wore an American flag as a cape and a chain around his neck. He frequently used the n-word and extended his arm in a hail Hitler salute...."
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: skifurthur
No, I do not support the
No, I do not support the legality of "hate crime" statutes.
If you turn the coin over, you marginalize the life of those who were killed and/or assaulted for other reasons. The crime that was done upon them isn't as "serious" as those done to "hate crime" victims.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: good at drinking water
>>>> why does it matter
>>>> why does it matter what a person may or may not have been thinking while perpetrating an actual crime?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/mens-rea-a-defendant-s-m...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/mens-rea
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
two intimidation (hate crime)
two intimidation (hate crime) charges<<<
^ if he was arrested solely for murder, then why add this additional layer charges / abstraction to the picture?
It's not that he is being denied free speech, but is being penalized for its adjunction to an actual crime.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
I'm not disputing the notion
I'm not disputing the notion of Mens rea as a necessary "variable"; however, what I am disputing is the arbitrary and subjective utilization of any given *value* of said variable as a basis to formulate additional charges. It's a subtle, but real distinction that leads to a slippery slope IMO.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
skifurthur makes a great
skifurthur makes a great point. Why should a victim killed in a generic bank robbery by a cold hearted killer (who neither loves nor hates) be looked upon as having suffered "less of a crime"?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Briank
What's the slippery slope?
What's the slippery slope? Policing thought and/or infringing on free speech?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Ken D.
Its sickening what happened
Its sickening what happened yesterday and blessings on those who laid down their lives to stop this evil person's hate filled harassment of the ladies on the train. You see crazies all the time in Portland ranting and raving about something and usually you just ignore them, but its chilling to think how this guy snapped and cut two people's throats for trying to intervene when the crazy started to direct his outbursts onto those poor women.
As for "hate crimes," its an interesting question from a legal standpoint. The idea behind such laws is that crimes committed out of hatred for a particular class of people cause additional harm beyond th actual victims in the form of broader intimidation of the protected class. However, as a practical matter, its often easier for prosecutors to go with the just the underlying criminal charge because you then don't have to prove all the additional elements that are associated with the hate crime laws. And then there are all the Constitutional questions which the Supreme Court addressed when it struck down a Minnesota law providing enhanced penalties for hate based vandalism and graffiti:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
Another aspect of "hate crime
Another aspect of "hate crime" legislation that troubles me is how it's a throwback to the dark ages in a sense in so far as lacking any objective means of either quantifying or qualifying the *content* of intention as it relates to a criminal code ... kind of a kissing cousin to heresy laws of old.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: good at drinking water
>>> if he was arrested
>>> if he was arrested solely for murder, then why add this additional layer charges / abstraction to the picture
"Portland Police say Christian is charged with:
two counts of aggravated murder,
attempted murder,
two counts of intimidation in the second degree and
felon in possession of a restricted weapon."
Thus he was not arrested "soley for murder", as the quoted newspaper account made quite clear (I thought).
_____a) He murdered two people - not the muslim women;
_____b) He stabbed another person who survived - not one of the muslim women;
_____c) he was charged with intimidation in regard to the two muslim women;
_____d) he was charged with a weapons violation.
Do you find any of those charges inappropriate?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
and blessings on those who
and blessings on those who laid down their lives to stop this evil person's hate filled harassment of the ladies on the train<<<
Yes, not seeking to overshadow the reality of the tragedy that went down and the terrible loss that I'm sure will be felt by many.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
I was mostly responding to
I was mostly responding to your prior post (and not the newspaper account):
he was not arrested for free speech, but for murder:<<<
However, the newspaper does not seem to explicitly link the "intimidation" charge to any specific event ... so I couldn't really say one way or the other whether its inappropriate. Otherwise, other charges do seem to be.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: charmskooldropout
Murder ain't a love crime
Murder ain't a love crime
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: good at drinking water
https://www.oregonlaws.org
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/166.155
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: An organ grinder’s tune
i stood up once on a bus to
i stood up once on a bus to intervene when a young black girl was getting harassed. it was sexual, not racial. i was threatened w/ being stabbed. nobody else did shit.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
On a related note: "The
On a related note: "The mayor of Portland, Ore., is calling on federal authorities to cancel a pair of upcoming rallies organized by conservative groups, saying the city was still “in shock” after two men were fatally stabbed on a commuter train Friday while fending off a man shouting anti-Muslim slurs."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/05/30/portland-m...
So, if this were "just" a bank robbery went wrong and two people died, would the mayor have "grounds" to make such a request?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: uncmozo
With privilege comes
With privilege comes responsibility, if you have the privilege (right) of free speech, you have the responsibility not to abuse it. The old 'can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater' still holds. I can't seriously threaten to kill your family and claim free speech. If you honestly believe anyone has the right to say anything at anytime to anybody with no consequences, you've got it wrong.
There are the people who love to test limits, and usually mess it up for everyone else. And they are usually the loudest people of all.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Ken D.
>>>>The mayor of Portland,
>>>>The mayor of Portland, Ore., is calling on federal authorities to cancel a pair of upcoming rallies organized by conservative groups,
As the ACLU is saying, that is the wrong approach. Let them have their little rally and let the counter-protesters (who will greatly outnumber the right wing folks) come and shout them down. The anarchists are already planning to disrupt the right wing rally. Its on Sunday and am considering going down to see the action and yell nasty things at the extreme right wingers.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
The old 'can't yell "FIRE" in
The old 'can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater' still holds.<<<
Are you suggesting this rally would be the equivalent of yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: GravyTrain
>>i was threatened w/ being
>>i was threatened w/ being stabbed. nobody else did shit.
But rest assured, if you were stabbed to death, there would've been a moving tribute on Facebook, maybe even the Nightly News.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
Not only do I agree with the
Not only do I agree with the ACLU on this, but also feel many notions espoused by John Stuart Mill to be applicable (imagine if the tables were turned), including:
"First: the opinion which it is attempted to suppress by authority may possibly be true. Those who desire to suppress it, of course deny its truth; but they are not infallible. They have no authority to decide the question for all mankind, and exclude every other person from the means of judging. To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility. Its condemnation may be allowed to rest on this common argument, not the worse for being common."
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Lucky Day
>>>>>But rest assured, if you
>>>>>But rest assured, if you were stabbed to death, there would've been a moving tribute on Facebook, maybe even the Nightly News.
And I'd host a memorial paddle out.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: GravyTrain
>>I'd host a memorial paddle
>>I'd host a memorial paddle out.
Lake Isabella?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Lucky Day
Fletcher's Cove
Fletcher's Cove
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: GravyTrain
Just kidding around, Tiny
Just kidding around, Tiny Hooves.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Lucky Day
I'm aware, Skipper.
I'm aware, Skipper.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: An organ grinder’s tune
>And I'd host a memorial
>And I'd host a memorial paddle out.<
it will take place off of san mateo pt. 500 yards out.
there are currently only 27 sharks in the vacinity...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Lucky Day
I'll host from the beach with
I'll host from the beach with a megaphone.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Ausonius
"why does it matter what a
"why does it matter what a person may or may not have been thinking while perpetrating an actual crime?"
Because the left is totalitarian and totalitarian regimes always need to control their subjects thoughts. If you won't come around to their way of thinking on your own they'll be more than happy to use the force of "law" and the government to help you get your mind right.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: ________
Private force is good
Private force is good, government force is bad.
FACT
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smiley
I used to catch some huge
I used to catch some huge fish in Lake Isabella growing up.
Had to avoid the navy seals training and all, but it was a pretty good spot when i was young camping with dad.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
Because the left is
Because the left is totalitarian and totalitarian regimes always need to control their subjects thoughts<<<
I don't buy into this as a basis. There are all sorts of flavors of tyranny to manifest; protection against all without any bias ought to be the end goal. The tables can always be turned.
What kinda blows me away is how one person can spoil it for everyone. Do we really want to empower any given individual with such power?
Maybe such an approach might work well for the grade-school lunch room monitor, but that's not the way 1st Amendment principles are practiced in the United States.
Imagine how easy it'd be for government to shut down opposition if all it took were one bad apple to impose laws prohibiting public assembly?