I’m not a Libertarian so I was wondering how these two situations would be handled in a Libertarian society.
DUI is a victimless crime, until such time that the drunk butt munch kills someone. We have DUI laws based on the notion that drunk people have a higher propensity for causing harm to someone, whether or not they actually do. Would that fly in a Libertarian world?
Also, we have attempted murder where the we are punishing on the intent, as opposed to actual harm. Sure, assault would definately be warranted, but would a Libertarian society take such things into consideration? I guess the same thing would apply to hate crimes and maybe even “white collar” crimes.
I guess a more general question is whether or not, in a Libertarian society, abstract notions like intent or motive, etc would play any role in the justice system?
I would look at it as a matter of rights. One does not have a right to murder another person. The fact that one fails to succeed does not change this. So attempted murder is illegal.
DUI is a bit more difficult. I would consider one’s rights to end at the point of unreasonably putting others at risk. In a libertarian context, it would most likely be dealt with by the owner of the road, who would have the right to prohibit drunk people from using it.
It flies with me. Most libertarians I know have no problem with preventative laws, i.e. pollution regulations. I do have a problem with check points though.
There are at least a couple of Libertarians who believe an attempted murder charge is actually a reward for failure. Well Mr. Perp, you tried to blow his head off with a shotgun but only disfigured your victims face and left him a vegetable…your only gonna get 10 years instead of 25 cuz your aim sucks
Hate crimes are a joke and a farce. Why any society that cherishes freedom would make individual thought punishable is beyond me. If a guys pops me for my cash or a guy pops me for my race, religion, etc. is no different to me, the sentence should be the same. If you consider greed hateful, then aren’t all crimes hate crimes? White collar crime is theft, and theft is a punishable offense everywhere I know of.
I’m not sure you’ve got the right handle on the concept of hate crimes (but then I’m not really sure I do either, but here goes). It’s not the thought that’s punishable, it’s the action.
Let me put it this way. Take homicide as an example. From the courtlaw website: www.courtlaw.com/accident/homicide.html "
Homicide
There are several degrees of homicide recognized by the State. First degree murder is the killing of a person which is willful, deliberate, and premeditated. Second degree murder is the killing of another person with either the intent to kill or the intent to inflict such bodily harm that death would be the likely result. There are a number of defenses to a murder charge, including, in some circumstances, self defense, voluntary intoxication, and/or temporary insanity. The penalty for first degree murder can be the death penalty if aggravating circumstances exist, or life imprisonment if the State chooses not to seek the death penalty. The State may seek for a life term without the possibility of parole. The penalty for second degree murder is imprisonment for not more than 30 years. "
From this it’s clear (more or less) that intent can be significant in determining the degree of homicide.
To my mind, hate crime laws are supposed to function in the same way. They help define intent, and therefore degree in a crime.
If a person randomly vandalises a wall, it’s a crime, obviously. But, if the person specifically targets a person belonging to a particular group and the vandalism demonstrates hatred of that group, there’s intent. It wasn’t a random crime, but was premeditated (admittedly, there may still be degrees involved such as whether or not the person was drunk) and so the crime is treated differently from a random “impersonal” crime.
I’m not saying hate crime laws can’t be abused. They certainly can be, which is why they have to be dealt with carefully. Just because a black is the victim of a crime by a white it isn’t automatically a hate crime, anymore than if a white is the victim of a crime by a black. But it could be.
Me too. I just cannot see how checkpoints do not violate the fourth amendment. No doubt someone will post a cite to the contorted logic applied by the Supreme Court or some other body that has ruled on this.
I think checkpoints are not allowed in the UK, for privacy reasons.
I don’t think that argument necessary follows. Is attempted speeding illegal? (Sir, we believe you were intending to speed but your Buick Behemoth was not capable, so here’s your ticket for the intent.)
Attempted murder should be illegal, of course, because it is reasonable to regulate behavior that endangers others, as a deterrent.
I’m a libertarian and I pretty much concur with much of what has been said already. to break it down: Attempted murder: still illegal, no question about it. Hate Crimes: ridiculous. same crime, same time. while photopat is correct that intent is routinely taken into account in homicide, the types of intent listed(self defense, temp. insanity, intoxication) are of a completely different type than the kinds legislated by hate crime laws. its more akin to punishing someone differently if they killed someone because they slept with your spouse vs. they ran over your dog. white collar crime: theft is theft, I don’t see the conflict. DUI: no problem with the idea of DUIs. In a purely libertarian society, this would be handled by the owner of the road(as has been pointed out). In the fair more likely hybrid libertarian-republic, the police would still be justified in punishing someone for driving while intoxicated. However, I also have severe reservations about the idea of checkpoints. Seems to cross a line to me.
But if your attempt is to intimidate others (KKK and blacks, gay bashers and gays) then are you committing a different crime? The intent of the crime is not only to inflict harm on the individual but to intimidate others into changing behavior, leaving, giving up their rights, etc.
I don’t follow the crime here. Intimidation in and of itself is not a crime, is it? I mean, the KKK is able to obtain permits to hold their public events because it’s protected under free speech - their goal is not to actively infringe upon the rights of others; rather to publicly proclaim their position. It’s not until their goal becomes actively infringing upon the rights of others (ie, assault) that it’s a crime.
But what is the purpose of burning a cross on someone’s lawn? Is it arson? Vandalism? Tresspassing? Or a direct threat the person living there and all other blacks, jews, etc in the area that they are not welcome?
Threatening someone, either directly or indirectly, is a crime. We’re just discussion what constitutes a threat. Or are you saying that it’s OK to threaten someone as long as no physical assault is involved?
Assault is a crime. An online legal dictionary defines assault as: “the crime or tort of threatening or attempting to inflict immediate offensive physical contact or bodily harm that one has the present ability to inflict and that puts the victim in fear of such harm or contact”
I’m not really familiar with hate crime laws, but I sort of disagree with this. (How’s that for a weasely sentence?)
Killing someone for sleeping with your wife or killing your dog IS different than killing someone simply because they’re black or gay or whatever.
In the former case, the murderer killed a specific person for a specific reason. He may otherwise be a law-abiding person who was simply pushed over the edge by a specific, probably not-to-be-repeated incident. (Not saying he shouldn’t be punished, of course.)
In the latter, he killed a random person just because that person had the attributes he hates. (Generally speaking, anyway.) The “hate killer” may therefore be presumed to be more of a danger to society than the other, because he’s pretty certain to run across others who meet his criteria, if let loose.
Again, just speaking very generally. But I can see a justification for the distinction.
Ferrous,
you misunderstand my arguement, I meant that
hate crime:regular crime
murder for adultry:murder for caninocide.
While you have a point about the future threat to society, it requires the court to be able to see the future to work. One could also argue that someone who would kill for revenge(as in my examples) is also more likely to react violently to some unforeseen future transgression. Is someone MORE likely to repeat their crime(after an equal period of incarceration) if they are a bigot or if they have a violent temper? tough to say. I personally don’t feel confident that the bigot will repeat the crime in a high enough percentage of the cases that he/she should automatically be given more time.
Isn’t it more accurate to consider hate crime as terrorism anyway? You’re not interested in killing a particular black person (or homosexual, or Jew, or Hittite, or whatever), you’re killing one as a representative of his/her group in order to pass hate/fear onto the rest of the group. Ergo, terrorism.
Or is terrorism not a valid Libertarian offense? Would the leader(s) of al-Qaida be charged with 2800 individual counts of murder, plus a few thousand additional counts of attempted murder?
No, I think I understood your argument. I just disagreed with it. Sort of.
This part I agree with. I didn’t say that the justification for hate crime laws is necessarily a compelling one, just that it isn’t completely invalid either.
I still don’t see how a Libertarian would consider DUI a punishable crime. Where’s the force? Where’s the fraud? Where is the actual (not potential or abstract) victim?
Now, mind you, I am not saying that driving drunk and crashing into people and/or things would be allowed. But in those cases there is a clear loss of property and/or damage to particular citizens.
As for the person owning a road saying that DUI is not allowed on his road, what other rules could he make? Could he make a rule that all drivers must drive with their feet? The owner can’t have absolute rule can he?
Most of the Libertarians I know don’t believe in the fairy-tale world of Pure Libertariana. Most of us grudgingly realize that some form of governmental entity will always be necessary to deal with things, in a very limited fashion, like defense and infrstruture, which includes roads.
So DUI would still be illegal for the same reason it is now: When you get a driver’s liscense, you sign a contract with the state in which you agree to abide by the rules. There would likely be rules against excessively drunken or reckless behavior, but the days of throwing someone in jail for driving after drinking three or four beers would be over.
I would consider there to be limits as to how far the owner of the road is allowed to intrude into the affairs of the users of the road. Where exactly to draw these limits will be decided after the revolution comes. Since the owner of the road certainly has a vested interest in keeping his road safe for his customers, and since DUI is a major cause of accidents, I would consider him to unquestionably be able to prohibit DUI.
The difference is that attempted murder can be proven, while it is really impossible to prove intent to speed beyond a reasonable doubt. Basically, as one does not have the right to harm others, one does not have the right to take actions that could reasonably be forseen to cause harm to others. If your gun’s sight is a little bit off, and you don’t know about it, it doesn’t give you the right to aim and pull the trigger.
