Thought crimes?

P

Parker

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
oh I'm sorry racerboy, i understand what a hate crime is, I didn't mean to give that impression. I just don't think they are necessary to be labelled as such. An asswhipping is usually bad no matter the reason, making it about race/religion/sex seems nonsensical. At least we can still beat up fat people or short people without it having extra baggage attached to it.

Political correctness is doing the same damage to society as the moral majority movement that came before it. It's all based on feelings with no regard to logic. Sorry I can't sell you my beer, it's Sunday, here take it for free and drink up, that's legal.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The rub is you are giving one group preferential treatment. When someone abuses your property why does the verbiage used, matter?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
Should the government, state or federal, outlaw objectionable thoughts?
Click to expand...

It really comes down to how "crime" is defined. In my opinion a crime involves a victim that was demonstrably harmed, not the act of violating some arbitrary whim of law makers. Many laws criminalize things when there is no actual victim.

The act of legislatively making something prohibited that doesn't involve a real victim, is in the real crime. 'The government" IS an objectionable thought to anybody that embraces the ideas of freedom and non initiation of aggression.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
racerboy71 said:
it depends if you're beating up a gay person simply because they're gay or beating a black man simply for the color of his skin..
Click to expand...
Special rights should not exist due to color of skin or sexual preference.

If you beat up a gay person, it's the beating that was the action of aggression that created harm and where the victim has a legitimate claim for restitution. Not liking them or liking them for their sexual preference seems secondary and not really relevant to the harm caused. How does a person acquire restitution from somebody for the simple act of them not liking you?

I'll point out that not liking a peron for their sexual preference or skin color is pretty dumb, but it isn't cause for them to seek damages or claim an actual harm against the hater.
 
deprave

deprave

New Member
It is funny how Orwell's 1984 was actually against capitalism, oh how the tables have turned, I think this is something that can bring us together when we look at both Orwell's original intentions and how 1984 applies to the world today.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Special rights should not exist due to color of skin or sexual preference.

If you beat up a gay person, it's the beating that was the action of aggression that created harm and where the victim has a legitimate claim for restitution. Not liking them or liking them for their sexual preference seems secondary and not really relevant to the harm caused. How does a person acquire restitution from somebody for the simple act of them not liking you?

I'll point out that not liking a peron for their sexual preference or skin color is pretty dumb, but it isn't cause for them to seek damages or claim an actual harm against the hater.
Click to expand...
Hey no crime in a bunch of white hooded people burning a cross in front of your home if your a black person and yelling "hey nigger time to move" right?
That isnt a hate crime,,,right?
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
What I don't understand is why you answered Rob Roy's post with such a provocation built around a strawman argument. cn
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Different degrees of murder are determined by intent - intent is thought. If I didn't mean to kill someone and the state cannot prove otherwise then I cannot be convicted of first degree murder.

Curiously, knowlege - which is thought as well, can be illegal, in certain states, if I have magic mushrooms in my foraging basket and I don't know what they are, then I cannot be put in jail, if I do know what they are, I can.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
What I don't understand is why you answered Rob Roy's post with such a provocation built around a strawman argument. cn
Click to expand...
I think canndo explained it well
canndo said:
Different degrees of murder are determined by intent - intent is thought. If I didn't mean to kill someone and the state cannot prove otherwise then I cannot be convicted of first degree murder.

Curiously, knowlege - which is thought as well, can be illegal, in certain states, if I have magic mushrooms in my foraging basket and I don't know what they are, then I cannot be put in jail, if I do know what they are, I can.
Click to expand...
Rob Roy is trying to say
hate crimes have unnessary punishments
I disagree
If you want to put it in context
Why is it assault on a police officer has more punishment than simple assault?
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
canndo said:
Different degrees of murder are determined by intent - intent is thought. If I didn't mean to kill someone and the state cannot prove otherwise then I cannot be convicted of first degree murder.
Click to expand...
But the intent isn't the crime. The murder is. If I premeditate a murder but don't ,cough!> execute, the intent per se is no crime.
Curiously, knowledge - which is thought as well, can be illegal, in certain states, if I have magic mushrooms in my foraging basket and I don't know what they are, then I cannot be put in jail, if I do know what they are, I can.
Click to expand...
Again, it's not the knowing that was criminal, but the deed of picking. Thought cannot be a crime, only action. Jmo. cn
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
ChesusRice said:
I think canndo explained it well


Rob Roy is trying to say
hate crimes have [unnecessary] punishments
I disagree
If you want to put it in context
Why is it assault on a police officer has more punishment than simple assault?
Click to expand...
I don't see that in Rob Roy's posts at all. I see him saying "special rights should not exist due to skin color or sexual [orientation]". As far as I can see, this is a good, true, egalitarian sentiment. So i am lastingly surprised that you treat it as hate speech, which you did with your borderline-offensive burning cross riposte. My opinion. cn
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
But the intent isn't the crime. The murder is. If I premeditate a murder but don't ,cough!> execute, the intent per se is no crime.


Again, it's not the knowing that was criminal, but the deed of picking. Thought cannot be a crime, only action. Jmo. cn
Click to expand...

This is why I used those two examples - the murder did act, but if he acted with a certain "idea" in his head he is guilty of one crime, if he acted without that idea it is a different one. If the mushroom guy picked those mushrooms in ignorance, he is not guilty, if he picked it with a particular knowlege he is not - both involve action but the crime depends upon his mentality.

Don't get me wrong, I am uncomfortable with the notion of thought crimes and of course the concept is overly broad, as you say, thought alone is not yet a crime, I am not sure if intent alone is a crime but suppose I have a couple of chemicals that can be gotten anywhere and I have a file on my computer on how to make meth, I could be convicted for intent to manufacture - there is no way for them to determine intent except for that file, and so that is the only proof they have that I may have had such intent, the chemicals could be for a variety of uses.
 
deprave

deprave

New Member
ChesusRice said:
Hey no crime in a bunch of white hooded people burning a cross in front of your home if your a black person and yelling "hey nigger time to move" right?
That isnt a hate crime,,,right?
Click to expand...
does it matter if the hooded men are white or black? What if clayton bigsby did it?

[video=youtube;2i9iTYe6tEk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2i9iTYe6tEk[/video]
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
canndo said:
This is why I used those two examples - the murder did act, but if he acted with a certain "idea" in his head he is guilty of one crime, if he acted without that idea it is a different one. If the mushroom guy picked those mushrooms in ignorance, he is not guilty, if he picked it with a particular knowlege he is not - both involve action but the crime depends upon his mentality.

Don't get me wrong, I am uncomfortable with the notion of thought crimes and of course the concept is overly broad, as you say, thought alone is not yet a crime, I am not sure if intent alone is a crime but suppose I have a couple of chemicals that can be gotten anywhere and I have a file on my computer on how to make meth, I could be convicted for intent to manufacture - there is no way for them to determine intent except for that file, and so that is the only proof they have that I may have had such intent, the chemicals could be for a variety of uses.
Click to expand...
I am also very uneasy with "intent" crimes, since that contains an element of presumption. It seems axiomatic to me that presumption guarantees reasonable doubt unless execution has been demonstrated. The chemicals example is an excellent one imo, and conceals behind specialist knowledge the fallacy inherent in saying (in a much more simple, universal example) that to possess an axe constitutes intent of dismemberment. cn
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
I am also of the opinion that laws create criminals. I also think that laws deter the law abiding but the law abiding usually adhere to their own superior moral senses. Laws are for the small percentage of people who act in ways the majority already don't condone. I recall stories of English law, where there were public mutilations of pick pockets, the cutting off of fingers and hands, all the while pick pockets roamed the crowds. . picking pockets - I figure if instant demonstrations of the results of crimes such as these don't deter criminals then most laws don't. So, I am a racist, am I really going to refrain from dragging some black guy behind my pickup because my sentence could be increased because I am a racist?
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
I am also very uneasy with "intent" crimes, since that contains an element of presumption. It seems axiomatic to me that presumption guarantees reasonable doubt unless execution has been demonstrated. The chemicals example is an excellent one imo, and conceals behind specialist knowledge the fallacy inherent in saying (in a much more simple, universal example) that to possess an axe constitutes intent of dismemberment. cn
Click to expand...

Well put . . can't we ever have a decent argument?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top