I know that this thread has now been derailed into a discussion about the laws relating to homicide (which is NOT, inherently illegal), but I’m really curious about the assertion earlier in this thread that the KKK has more right to congregate than rock concert fans. AFAI understand US law, this could not be covered by a Federal provision under the Constitution (unless you were talking the same kind of “gunpowder plot” type conspiracy laws which the odd fruit loop tries to invoke in Australia from time to time).
I’'m guessing that the assertion which has been made relates to State laws - just curious about the origin of the statement (oddly enough, this semester’s unit of my Criminology course went into a lot of depth about various modes of policing and the way the KKK is treated in the US was one of the focal points). I’m interested to hear how people within the US feel about the way the law treats the KKK and whether you think they should be handled differently.
[Major honkin’ highjack…] reprise, what I was talking about is a long story that the people responsible would say has nothing to do with freedom of assembly.
Back in the mid 90’s, in the city where I live, city hall shut down a Marilyn Manson concert. They were blatantly looking for an excuse to shut it down, and I don’t even remember why the permits were overturned, but they said it was some sort of “safety” issue.
Last year, there was a Klan rally here. I find it hard to believe that a KKK rally is less dangerous than some cheesy-ass rock concert.
Basically, someone made a decision to wrongly shut down a concert because it was “evil”. When actual, no quotation marks needed evil showed up the same people didn’t even try shut it down.
What I was really trying to get at is that it seems those with the least respect for others rights are the first ones to be protected from having their rights infringed. I can understand that the rights of those you find repellant still must be protected, but to protect them more fiercely than you protect the rights of John Q. Public seem ass-backward.
This is a way of letting people know that we aren’t going to turn our heads anymore or create a separate set of laws that enable bad guys to be bad to people who “aren’t like them.”
Huh? I agree that hate crimes are not really useful, but are just a poorly thought out way to make a political statement, but I am unaware of a “separate set of laws” protecting bad guys who are bad to people who “aren’t like them.” Again, I think you are giving way to much credit to people who commit crimes for other reasons than irrational hate. They have their own terrible motives, and in any case their actions are just as bad.
By “separate laws”, I’m referring to the Old South, the good ol’ boys network, and some law enforcement people “justifying” crimes against blacks or gays. It was never on the books…just widely practiced. You could justify killing a black man if he “looked funny” at your wife.
Actually, that question remains open in New York State. From the Practice Commentaries:
However, the Practice Commentaries make clear that motive is a required element of several categories of first degree murder.
But hey, you don’t like the murder in the first example? Let’s look at another, then - arson.
You commit arson in the second degree if:
(1) you start a fire;
(2) a person not involved in the crime is present in the building or motor vehicle burned; and
(3) you knew there was a reasonable possibility that there was such a person inside.
In contrast, you commit arson in the first degree if:
(1) you start a fire;
(2) a person not involved in the crime is present in the building or motor vehicle burned;
(3) you knew there was a reasonable possibility that there was such a person inside; and
(4) you started the fire with a profit motive.
I’m really getting sick of this, so I’m going to have to appeal to authority - are you a lawyer? Because I am, and I know the law. You may wish to live in your fantasy world where motive is not an element of many different crimes, but in the real world, motive is indeed an element that must be proved by the prosecutor before a conviction may be obtained.
Just a minor clarification, but your statement is only true when the motive is an element of the crime, such as hate crimes and the arson and murder examples you used. For a vast majority of crimes, however, the State does not have to prove motive. It doesn’t have to prove why you robbed that store, why you were carrying a loaded gun, or why you had sex with an 8 year old.
That being said, I just want to emphasize that Sua Sponte is absolutely correct that hate crime legislation is not even close to being the only crimes where the motive of the actor is considered. He’s provided examples where the motive of the criminal is an element of the crime, as well as where the motive can enhance sentencing.
There was also a fine discussion of hate crimes here
I thought I had limited the second clause to the “many different crimes” of the first clause, but it looks like I didn’t.
So gimme a grammar lesson - how’d I screw it up? Did I split the infinitive? And were those damn gerunds involved?
Can one state of mind be motive wrt one crime and intent wrt another?
Take that robbery for money to blow up a stadium example that Sua gave.
Would it be correct to say that the desire to blow up a stadium would be motive (and thus not required for conviction) wrt the charge of robbery (or larceny or burglary or whatever it’s called) but part of the intent (and thus required for conviction) wrt to the conspiricy charge?
Could (Have) hate crimes laws be(en) written to require as an element of the crime an intention to target a particular group?
Would that satisfy everyone? anyone?
Can one state of mind be motive wrt one crime and intent wrt another?
Take that robbery for money to blow up a stadium example that Sua gave.
Would it be correct to say that the desire to blow up a stadium would be motive (and thus not required for conviction) wrt the charge of robbery (or larceny or burglary or whatever it’s called) but part of the intent (and thus required for conviction) wrt to the conspiricy charge?
Could (Have) hate crimes laws be(en) written to require as an element of the crime an intention to target a particular group?
Would that satisfy everyone? anyone?
Important question: Are sentences put in place to punish the individual or protect society? If the former, then hate crime legislation has no place in our society. If the later, then it makes perfect sense. I am under the impression that criminal sentencing is punishment, not protection. You can’t be imprisoned for something you haven’t done, and I don’t think you should have to face steaper punishment just because of your motivation.
The quick and easy answer is that sentencing (and the criminal justice system in general) should both punish the individual and protect society. It isn’t really an either/or proposition.
Well, in a way, it could indeed be argued that the KKK has more right congregate than rock concert fans. The US Supreme Court has consistently (and for a very long time) held that political expression is afforded greater protection under the First Amendment than commercial expression.
Quite obviously, it would be very hard to distinguish between the two at a rock concert - are people coming to see Rage Against the Machine because of the political message of its lyrics, or to paaaaaartay? And does the fact that Rage Against the Machine charges people to hear its political message take it out of political expression and put it into commercial expression? If Pepsi is sponsoring Britney Spears, is then purely commercial expression? Etc.
Since Sua is sad that I did not come back to admit I was wrong, here I am. The reason I didn’t come back is because of this:
You are correct, I am not a lawyer, and after reading this it seemed futile to continue the argument. I have been told by many other people, and have read, that motive is rarely or never an element of a crime, and your examples are not very convincing. The only one that could conceivably have a resemblance to hate crime laws is the law that a motive of wanting to silence a witness is grounds to be charged with a different crime. You note, however, that this question has not been decided yet, and even if it was it would not be widespread.
The bigger difference is that punishing the motive is still not the concern of the law, nor is it the concern of any of the laws you used as examples. The concern of the witness laws is simply to protect witnesses. The concern of hate crime laws is to punish thoughts. Otherwise any crime against a member of any group would automatically be a hate crime.
But wait, wasn’t I going to concede? Well, if you argue that members of certain groups are in such desperate need of protection that it is worth punishing thoughts in order to protect them, then I respect that view. I do not think we are at that point yet, but it is a matter of opinion.
Of course, in your concession, you mischaracterize the debate we had.
At issue in our debate was whether motive was ever an element of a crime. You said “no,” I said “yes.” We never got to the issue of hate crimes because of your intransigence on this issue.
I see. And the concern of the arson for profit law is simply to protect profits?
Actually I said that motive was immaterial. Your own definition of intent states that if there is intent, then motive is immaterial. Perhaps you can forgive me for being confused when your definitions go against your argument. I was under the impression that intent is the difference between crimes, and arson or murder for hire is different simply because of the intent. For example arson for hire is obviously cold blooded and premeditated, while arson on a whim is not. In fact in all your examples it still seems to me that intent is material, while motive is not, even though motive will obviously be part of the case, if only to help establish intent. Perhaps we are simply disagreeing on the definition of “material.” I am arguing that, even if motive must be proved in a certain case to establish intent, it is still not material, because IF it had been possible to prove intent without motive, then motive would not have had to be proved.
The other point I am making is that thoughts are not being punished in any of the crimes you mentioned. Doing something for money implies cold blood and premeditation. It is not the thoughts of buying a mansion that change the crime. In the case of witness killing, the protection of witnesses is paramount. It is still not the thoughts that are punished.
I believed that hate crimes were a terrible idea because they punish legal thoughts. My “concession” is that I now realize that hate crime laws could also be seen as protecting people of certain groups in the same way that witnesses are protected. In other words, it is not hate being punished, but people being protected. If you see hate crimes in this way, then I am inclined to agree with you that they are a reasonable idea. I am not yet convinced that certain groups are in need of extra protection in the same way that witnesses are, but I can see that they might be.
