Huh? *Motive/intent/state of mind/whatever you want to call it * has always been a factor in determining the crime itself and any associated punishment. The perpretator of a hate crime has a very particular motive, and the Supreme Court (if I’m reading this properly) has ruled that it is constitutional to use this type of motive as a qualifier. Someone who kills someone else for money in a pre-meditated manner is probably in a different position than someone else who killed someone in a fit of passion. Both criminals intended their victims to be dead.
I can “intend” to kill the intruder in my house just as Matthew Shephard’s killers intended to kill him. Both people would be just as dead. Shephard’s killers had a slightly different motivation. “Intent” as it’s been used in this thread has a different meaning than you seem to think it does, I believe (IANAL).
Intent/state of mind is very different than motive. Intent is material to a crime, motive is not. You are correct that motives are a factor in determining the crime, but the difference is that the motive is not PART of the crime. We don’t have different crimes for “murder for money”, “murder for revenge”, etc.
As with Polycarp’s example, this is a difference in intent. It is not because “wanting money” is a worse motive than whatever caused the fit that the punishments will be different. And that is a good thing. We should not have different punishments for different motives. Hate crimes do exactly that, and that is why I do not agree with them.
Your use of “intend” here is not the legal meaning of the word. In a debate like this, it is necessary to use the legal meaning, or something approximating it, because “intent” has a very specific legal meaning.
On your examples, I must say again that the intent is very different in the two cases.
Now, I am not saying that motive is not important. Motive is in fact extremely important. But that is because motive can help to establish intent. For instance, if a person says that they killed someone in self defense, but later it is discovered they actually had a motive to want the other dead, then that will help establish that they in fact murdered the other person. But the motive itself is not part of the murder - it only helps to establish that a murder ocurred.
**But clearly there are already different sentences that can and do result from different motives, even ignoring hate crime statutes, correct?
**But we do punish differently for different motives already, even if we ignore hate crime statutes. If someone kills you for your money, he has a different motive than if he kills you when he finds you bed with his wife. You’re just as dead, but those motives will come into play for sentencing. There are already sentencing guidelines that take into account all sorts of qualifying circumstances–intent, is the crime during the commission of another crime, prior records, etc.–that do not in any way imply that the victim is any less or more dead. This is not unconstitutional, nor is it a particularly novel notion as it relates to hate crimes.
I don’t think that this contradicts my point. I wasn’t arguing that hate-crimes are the greatest crimes of all, and I wouldn’t argue that hate-crimes should receive greater sentences than serial crimes. Serial lawbreaking (murder, rape…) is a different kind of heinous, but it’s still about the most heinous out there. The purpose of hate-crime legislation is to put hate-crimes up there with those really nasty examples, rather than letting them float with the crimes of passion and poor impulse control. Remember, the guys who killed Matthew Shepherd tried the gay panic defense, which was akin to saying “yes, we killed him, but we were just kind of freaked out by his homosexuality.” If that defense was accepted, Shepherd’s murder would have been a couple of good 'ole boys from the wrong side of the tracks in Laramie who went a little too far.
Well… no. If someone kills you for your money, that can help establish that they killed you in cold blood. If someone kills you because you were in bed with his wife, that can help establish that he killed you in a rage.
HOWEVER the motive is not the determining factor. It is only used to help determine intent.
It is possible that someone could kill you for your money in a blind rage, and it is possible that someone could kill you in bed with his wife while completely calm and collected. So you see, the motive does not determine the punishment. It is just useful in determining the intent.
No. Motive does not determine sentencing, except in the case of hate crimes.
Nightime, I think this is more akin a matter of pre-meditation…these are very personal crimes and like any other pre-meditated crime, the relationship between victim and attacker is unique…even if several hundreds, if not thousands could have been potentially been a victim; ** anyone** couldn’t have been.
…and pre-meditation, is a reason to increase a sentence and allow murder to be more than just murder.
I don’t necessarily disagree with what you are saying, but what you are saying is not what hate crime laws actually are in reality. Premeditation is already taken into account without the need for hate crime laws.
Hate crime laws do not, in fact, have anything to do with premeditation, nor, as hansel suggested, do they have anything whatsoever to do with the possibility of someone getting away with a “gay panic” type defense. They do not move hate crimes up to where they belong. What they actually do is create a whole new crime with its own mandatory sentencing based on motive.
Well then maybe we should redefine the law. … but I didn’t mean that hate crime was the same as pre-meditation, but used in a similar vein. i.e intent and planning, combined with motive. Isn’t that what pre-meditation ultimately comes down to?
I disagree. Some hate crimes may be perpetrated with the intent to intimidate an entire community, i.e. “This’ll keep them uppity blacks in their place.” In other words, hate crimes can be intended to have an effect on people other than the actual victim.
No, I don’t think it is, becasue the second message affects people other than those in the house, and may very likely have been intended to do so.
Perhaps we should be asking whether hate crime laws materially decrease hate crimes. If the men who dragged James Byrd, Jr. to death in Jasper, TX had been thoroughly steeped in the knowledge that hate crime is somehow more heinous than any other kind of murder, would they have thought twice about killing that poor man? Did the death penalties that resulted from this crime only happen because it was a hate crime? Or would the killers have received the same penalty anyway?
We have been talking about hate crime as if it were something separate from other acts. It isn’t. The community of fear mentioned in earlier posts exists just the same in areas where, say, the KKK still operates, even though it’s clear that individual members of the Klan can’t just be rounded up because they are full of hate. The potential for haters to injure the innocent always exists. But so does the potential for random violence.
We shouldn’t punish the thought, even if we’d like to. We’ve always punished the deed. What hate crimes laws do is add punishment to a deed already punishable because we don’t like the thought that precipitated it. It’s the same act, but hate crime laws allow extra punishment for the thought. I just think that’s wrong.
It sure ain’t Nightime. Motive is routinely used as a factor in sentencing, by both juries and judges. If you are convicted of a crime that is punishable by 2-6 years in prison, and the judge hates your motive, you can guess how that judge is going to exercise her discretion in assessing the sentence.
It’s also worth noting that Nightime is entirely incorrrect that “motive” is not an element of a crime. While it’s true that mens rea does not usually consider the actor’s motive, there are any number of crimes where motive is a required element of the crime. For instance, Texas Penal Code § 16.02 makes it a crime to “knowingly or intentionally effects a covert entry for the purpose of intercepting wire, oral, or electronic communications without court order or authorization.” I’d look up some more examples, but I’m feeling lazy tonight.
If you’re still on hand, minty, would you attempt to make clear the distinction between motive and intent as legal “terms of art” – and how you’d see the controverted question about hate crimes being discussed here in that regard? (I’m less asking for your opinion on the value of hate crime laws than your expert opinion on whether they stand on all fours with other crimes where motive or intent is taken into account.) Thanks.
Yes, it is true that judges and juries may give you a higher sentence if they hate your motive. Heck, it is even possible that they might find you guilty because they hate the motive, even though there is some doubt. They are human too.
But they are not legally REQUIRED to give you a mandatory higher sentence.
In fact, you are speaking of a judge “exercising her discretion” when that is exactly what hate crime laws are NOT about. Hate crime laws require a mandatory sentence based on motive. They don’t allow a judge to exercise her discretion - as you have said, that is already possible.
Motive is not an element of the crime. You know perfectly well that motive in many cases does not even have to be proved at all. And you know that there is a huge difference between judges exercising their discretion, and a mandatory sentence based on motive.
Cite?
Here, I’ll give you a cite first:
“[C]onviction of crime never requires proof of motive, and the absence of motive, by itself, does not raise a reasonable doubt of guilt.” State v. Houde, 596 A.2d 330, 334 (R.I. 1991)
Once again, I already know that motives are important. I already know that they help to prove the case, and I already know that they are often looked at in determining sentencing.
But motive is NOT an element of the crime. Motive does NOT have to be proved. Motive does NOT carry its own mandatory sentencing.
Except in the case of hate crime laws.
Here I’ll throw in another cite
“Motive, or that which leads or tempts the mind to indulge in a criminal act, as distinguished from intent, is neither a crime nor an essential element of a crime. The motive with which an offense was committed is immaterial. Proof of motive may be material in proving that the defendant committed a particular crime, but it is not essential to a conviction.”
I think that’s what we’re all saying. The crime is murder, but the motive is what makes it worst than just banging some guy over the head. This is based not only human decency, but on history. The states has centuries of allowing these types of crimes go unpunished, solely because the victim was ‘other’, than a straight white man. I think the only to make people understand, that the types of killing that their grandfather could do…remember this guy was *43 years old, she was 12! *;without fear of reprisal, is to punish them for their motivation…the same way that every other crime is. He had to believe that he would be ‘okay’ if he just told a jury of his ‘peers’, why he did it.
He’s not being convicted being a racist. The racism is an additional charge. I don’t see how this is any different than a mother killing her kids, claiming depression and therefor no motive, then it turns out during the trial, that she wanted a new lover and the kids were in the way; so she killed them. The kids are just as dead, but the motivation is what makes her inhuman and deserving of an additional sentence.
So what? The point remains: Motive is routinely considered when assessing the sentence of a defendant convicted in a criminal case. What’s the big whoop about making that assessment mandatory as opposed to discretionary? Would your sensibilities be less offended if the judge exercised her discretion to triple the sentence, rather than the legislature doing so?
So you keep saying. But I’ve already proven you wrong: Tex. Pen. Code § 16.02.
Then are you conceding that in some cases, it must indeed be proved? That’s all I’m claiming.
Nonsense. A 6-year sentence is a 6-year sentence, regardless of whether it is imposed as an exercise of judicial disceretion or an act of the legislature.
Since when are we arguing about Rhode Island law? You’re aware that there
So you keep saying. Again, I refer you to the Texas Penal Code as indisputable proof that you are wrong.
Even assuming you’re correct: So what? Surely, your argument is not that this is wrong because it is unique?
Unfinished sentence should read “You’re aware that each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government each have their own separate criminal laws, right?”
Hate crime laws sometimes often add to the maximum penalty. In such cases your question does not apply, because the judge could not go over the maximum penalty.
However, in general, YES, I would much rather have the judge tripled the sentence rather than the legislature. Hate crime law is political posturing working its way into the legal system where it doesn’t belong. Do I trust a judge who is highly learned in law to use her discretion in a case she is well informed on, more than I trust a politician to bow to political pressure and create mandatory sentences based on thoughts without knowing anything about a particular case? Of course.
Mens rea – (Guilty mind) A crime always has certain mental aspects, such as intent and purpose, but also recklessness and negligence. These are all mental states, short of motive, that the law recognizes as worthy of blame.
Tex. Pen. Code § 16.02. says:
“knowingly or intentionally effects a covert entry for the purpose of intercepting wire, oral, or electronic communications without court order or authorization.”
As you see, motive is not an element of the crime. Purpose is, and purpose, unlike motive, is part of mens rea. In order to prove this crime, you do not have to prove WHY someone wanted to intercept communications.
I already agree that it must be proved in some cases, but that is because it is used to determine the crime. It is not because it is part of the crime. A subtle difference, I realize, but an important one.
For instance, holmes brought up a case in which proving the motive of the woman helps establish her mental state, and thus the crime commited. But the motive itself is not part of the crime. There is no crime called “killing your kids to get them out of the way so you can get a new lover.” And we don’t need a crime called that. We already have a name for the crime commited: murder.
I disagree for the reasons above.
In Rhode Island at least, motive is not an element of the crime. However, that was just one of many cites I found saying basically the same thing.
I have disputed that above.
It is wrong for many reasons.
The first is purely logical. Hate crime laws only make sense if the normal punishments are too lenient. But then, surely the answer is to fix the normal punishment rather than create a whole new class of crime in order to fix the justice system for only a small fraction of crimes! If murderers are getting off too easy, then raise the punishment for ALL murders, not just a few! It’s really ridiculous if you think about it. We already have plenty of crimes. There is already a crime to cover every hate crime. If the problem is that the punishments are too lenient, then lets fix it for all those type of crimes which carry too lenient punishments.
Second, hate crime laws punish thought. Yes, thought, not even speech. Speech is evidence, but the punishment is for the thought. I don’t think we should have laws against certain thoughts.
Third, hate crime laws are often defended on the basis that hate crimes intimidate more people. But this is not true. All violent crimes intimidate. Take the sniper attacks for example. They intimidated a huge number of people. In fact, if the only people who had been targetted were tall blondes, less people would have been intimidated.
Fourth, hate crime laws suggest that many rapes, murders, beatings, etc, are not hateful. This is ridiculous. They are all hate crimes. Taking some of them and saying they are more hateful and deserve more punishment is wrong. They are all hateful and they all should get the rightful punishment, rather than only giving the correct punishment to a select few.
Fifth, there is no research to prove that hate crime laws decrease crime in the first place. It is similar to the death penalty, which I am also against, in this aspect. Criminals tend not to think about their punishment, be it hate crime laws or death penalty, when commiting their crime. They already know what they are doing is illegal, and they generally don’t intend to get caught. But unlike the death penalty, people who are tried under hate crime laws will get a chance to be repeat offenders. If hate crime laws send people to jail longer for lesser crimes, their time in an overburdened, racist-filled jail will likely make them more likely to commit a worse crime when they get out, increasing overall hate crimes.
Right, but without the ** motive** it’s impossible to correctly punish her for the crime. You **need ** the motive to understand, why it’s not murder 2 or any other lesser degrees of murder.
I agree, but we ( in the states) have a history of not punishing certain types of crimes based on the motives of the criminals even now try to convict a white person of murdering anything other than a straight white male and see what happens: Lesser charges. Perhaps a mandatory “hate” charge would at least offer the family/victim some feeling of justice, when the jury can’t or won’t.
Sorry, but thoughts and actions aren’t interchangable. You can think about building all the bombs you want to, but once you build it, your thoughts are no longer your own. It’s a solid ticking thing, that is a danger to society.
Example: Suppose I’ve had too much to drink and decided to drive home. Once in the car, i feel I’m too drunk and decide not to. Let’s say it’s cold and I turn the engine on, for the heater and fall asleep. If a cop sees the key in the ignition, I can be arrested for DWI. It doesn’t matter, that i had no intention of driving the car, it **doesn’t matter **what my thoughts were. All that matters, is the key in the ignition and my level of intoxication.
The point that you’re missing is that ‘hate’ crimes, specifically target a particular group…that’s the whole point. They don’t want everyone intimidated. You don’t think that a lynching intimidated most black folks in the South more than a beating of a white person who was robbed would?
You logic is flawed here. You have no idea, how many other crimes are moviated solely out of hate. In a hate crime you do know. Some guy got mugged because he was flashing some ATM cash. That it your mind is the same type of “hate” as the one that moviated those guys to drag to death another human being, whose only crime was the color of his skin?
I agree, that’s why you make sure they either die in prison of old age or in the chair. Problem solved.
So you’d rather have judges engaging in “political posturing” on a completely ad hoc basis than have the legislature settle the matter definitively? Okay, matter of preference, whatever. Not worth delving into further, IMO.
That is simply not so. The crime is not “intercepting communications”; the crime is to effect a covert entry. However, it does not become a crime under section 16.02 until the person effects the covert entry for the purpose of intercepting communications. That’s a motive, though you strive mightily to deny it.
It’s hardly unique, either. As Sua Sponte pointed out in one former hate crimes thread, an ordinary murder in New York is classified as second degree murder, but a murder committed for the purpose of preventing a witness from testifying is first degree murder. Bingo, motive rears its head again. Arson is similar–ordinary arson is second degree, arson motivated by pecuniary gain is first degree.
While you are attempting to draw a distinction between “motive” and “purpose,” I assure you that distinction exists solely in your head and is not recognized at law. As far as mens rea is concerned, teh only thing the law cares about is whether the defendant acted intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negilgently.
A distinction without any difference, I am afraid. Eitehr way, what you’re talking about is the elements of the crime, and those elements sometimes include the motive of the actor.
True. So the legislature has detemined that the normal punishments are too lenient when the crime is motivated by racial/religious/etc. hatred. Now let’s see what else you’ve got . . .
This is ridiculous. The most you can say is that hate crimes laws enhance punishments based on the defendants’ motives. Nobody gets punished for thoughts without actions, and people get punished for thoughts with actions all the time.
But tall blonde people would have been terrorized, and on the basis solely of their height and hair color. It is that disproportionate threat to discrete groups that is used to justify hate crimes laws, not the general threat of crime that everyone experiences.
Not all hate is alike. Some hate is worse than hate. Hence, hate crimes laws, which target the kinds of hate that we hate the most.
So what? Punishment is a perfectly legitimate goal of the criminal justice system, and hate crimes laws serve that goal quite well.