Is a 'hate crime' the same as a 'thought crime?'

S

scy7he

Veteran X
So on campus this week I was approached by a canvasser from some GLBT organization whose name I forget. Anyway, in her memorized spiel she recited while I looked over the literature she handed to me, she mentioned how it's been over 10 years since Matthew Sheppard was killed for being gay and that we need to rally behind hate crime legislation. I told her I had no interest in supporting an organization that backed passage of hate crime laws.

She didn't ask what my problem was with it, but I don't believe the government should be able to punish people for what they're thinking. Imprisoning people for their beliefs is 'thought crime' after all, isn't it? A government that presumes to know what you should be thinking is far more threatening than a bunch of ignorant racists.
 
There is no such thing as a hate crime, it is a fucking ridiculous concept. Who cares why someone committed the crime (for the most part) especially if it involves the color of your skin?
 
hate crimes aren't punishing thoughts. it's not about you not being allowed to think certain things, it's about you not being allowed to aid in the projection of fear against a population/ethinic group.

basically, you can still hate fags, you just can't try to intimidate the gay population.
 
cogzinofa said:
hate crimes aren't punishing thoughts. it's not about you not being allowed to think certain things, it's about you not being allowed to aid in the projection of fear against a population/ethinic group.

basically, you can still hate fags, you just can't try to intimidate the gay population.
Click to expand...

^

People can think what they want. We may disagree with it, but they have the right to think it. But if they beat someone up because of it, or encourage others to do so. That is where they cross the line.
 
Beren said:
^

People can think what they want. We may disagree with it, but they have the right to think it. But if they beat someone up because of it, or encourage others to do so. That is where they cross the line.
Click to expand...

All you said here is how any crime is committed.
 
cogzinofa said:
hate crimes aren't punishing thoughts. it's not about you not being allowed to think certain things, it's about you not being allowed to aid in the projection of fear against a population/ethinic group.

basically, you can still hate fags, you just can't try to intimidate the gay population.
Click to expand...

You must have forgot to add "through violence." Because biggoted Americans attempt to intimidate all kinds of minorities through the media and never get arrested for it.

Regardless, I think you bring up a fair point, but I'd encourage you to give it more backing by demonstrating that hate crime laws are [edit] written so that they can be used only when [/edit] it's clear the attack was to send a 'message' to other members of the minority and not that the criminals just really hated fags. Murder shouldn't become murder+ because the government decides you were thinking the wrong things while snuffing out the life of another human.
 
no a hate crime is when you commit a regular crime, but its against a protected minority, so it then becomes a hate crime.

a thought crime is when you don't do anything wrong, but it goes against politically correct values so people crucify you over it.
 
Premeditated murder carries a heavier sentence than murder when momentarily enraged. According to you all that should matter is the act itself and taking someone's thought's or lack thereof into account is thought control.

But who gives a shit if it's "thought control"? Why don't you want to minimize hate of any kind? Don't say slippery slope.
 
Ordos said:
All you said here is how any crime is committed.
Click to expand...

Pretty much yes. People acting on what they think is how they do pretty much all crime. Whether its "i want to rob a bank for money" or "i want to bash this guy cos he is a fag" i really don't see much difference except that one is more personal than the other. Thinking that a person is a fag or whatever isn't a crime, an niether should be "i would like to rob a bank". But the moment you plan or encourage others to do that, then you cross the line.
 
this question is stupid. In what bizarro world is thinking something bad the same as carrying out a bad action?
 
Hate crimes: Someone gets more time because he harassed someone from a (generally minority) group he doesn't like (vs. someone else harassing someone from a group they have no strong feelings about)
 
If I were to punch you in the mouth and steal your jacket, would that be a hate crime? Because I'm pretty sure I hate you, but hatred and desire to punch you and steal your jacket are completely separate emotions.
 
I think we are definitely headed down the thought crime road. But how do they know what you're thinking? If you commit something questionable to paper, that's legal, or if you say something questionable, you can be held responsible.

This hate crime business is the beginning of something bigger I think and we ought be fighting it because liberty is at stake. But nobody is fighting it.
 
I agree... im my mind a crime is a crime no matter what the reason. The reason should never make the crime 'worse', only mitigate it imo... and then in only extreme circumstances.
But the second you interject any sort of logic into the equation, you will be labeled a racist and shunned. The media and the minority groups would call for your head saying that you hate them. Politicians wont touch that with a 10' pole. With politics these days, if you arent for it, you are against it in the minds of the masses.
 
Unless someone is willing to testify against themself, you can't prove 'hate crime.'

Labeling something a hate crime is almost always done by the media or special interest group, not a judge.

If you want to punish someone for assualt, or murder, fine... but saying it's worse to beat the shit out of a nigger than it is the beat the shit out of a white boy is racist. :shrug:
 
Phantred said:
Unless someone is willing to testify against themself, you can't prove 'hate crime.'
Click to expand...

We ask juries to make judgments as to what defendants charged with crimes were subjectively thinking everyday (e.g. "Did the defendant intend to kill the victim?"). If there is a principled reason that determining the subjective intent of a defendant is more difficult in the hate crime context, you could argue that. That probably would not be reason enough to completely rule out having special hate crime statutes, however, since the inability to prove hate crimes in the majority of cases would not necessarily be a bad thing (perhaps the jury could only find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the intent to commit a hate crime only in those cases where the evidence of animus was the strongest).
 
I hate to take a page out of absent's book but hate crime laws are Jew laws.

They're a waste of time. A crime is a crime. We can examine the reasons people are committing crimes to help us take measures to prevent and change attitudes but extra punishment is stupid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top