quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: markyugen

Sigh, once again a non-partisan issue gets turned into a pointless liberal-bashing mudfest, making any form of serious debate pretty much dead in the water from the word go. Nonetheless, let me try. . .

If you don’t believe in so-called “thought” crimes, what about the issue of remorse as a mitigating factor in determining the longevity and severity of punishment? Should any expression of remorse on the perpetrator’s part be considered irrelevant, since it too is a thought-based consideration?

Why bother presenting intelligent contributions to rebut looney right nonsense ?

The person who posted that BS you responded to was presenting that irrelevant guff as evidence of an actual legislated "thought crime". That he is unable to distinguish between what seems to be an internal policy paper and legislation that has been passed into law and has the current status of law of the land offers some pointers to this person's intermittent relationship (?) with reality, not to mention his (lack of) analytical prowess.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

Sociopathic behavior is not necessarily a "hate crime". A hate crime is a crime done because you are acting out against a group just because you lump them into that group. A true sociopath doesn't hate; they just don't give a crap about anything but themselves and interact socially only to get some use of other people. Whether the perpetrator gets a lethal injection or a lifetime doing the thorazine shuffle will be up to the courts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

The tired bullshit that this is all somehow just something the left have introduced, isnt borne out by the facts, not even in America.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

George Herbert Bush......... signed into law the Hate Crime Statistics Act.

So GWB and his Government must have thought hate crimes existed, whatever else he certainly isnt left wing.

A question for you, and not meant maliciously. If you havent spent a lot of time researching the issue, why do you argue on points brought up by those on the left, and in my case, on the right ?

Very few people in Europe, left or right (Obviously not the far right) have any issue with hate crime laws.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

George Herbert Bush......... signed into law the Hate Crime Statistics Act.

So GWB and his Government must have thought hate crimes existed, whatever else he certainly isnt left wing.

A question for you, and not meant maliciously. If you havent spent a lot of time researching the issue, why do you argue on points brought up by those on the left, and in my case, on the right ?

Very few people in Europe, left or right (Obviously not the far right) have any issue with hate crime laws.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

George Herbert Bush......... signed into law the Hate Crime Statistics Act.

So GWB and his Government must have thought hate crimes existed, whatever else he certainly isnt left wing.

A question for you, and not meant maliciously. If you havent spent a lot of time researching the issue, why do you argue on points brought up by those on the left, and in my case, on the right ?

Very few people in Europe, left or right (Obviously not the far right) have any issue with hate crime laws.

Apparently, combined with duplicitous implementation, few people in Europe, left or right, minded putting Jews in gas chambers either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

George Herbert Bush......... signed into law the Hate Crime Statistics Act.

So GWB and his Government must have thought hate crimes existed, whatever else he certainly isnt left wing.

A question for you, and not meant maliciously. If you havent spent a lot of time researching the issue, why do you argue on points brought up by those on the left, and in my case, on the right ?

Very few people in Europe, left or right (Obviously not the far right) have any issue with hate crime laws.

Apparently, combined with duplicitous implementation, few people in Europe, left or right, minded putting Jews in gas chambers either.

This is a great example of how language matters. If they (correctly) called them thought crimes nobody would support them. But call the same thing a hate crime and, well who wants to come out in favor of hate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

George Herbert Bush......... signed into law the Hate Crime Statistics Act.

So GWB and his Government must have thought hate crimes existed, whatever else he certainly isnt left wing.

A question for you, and not meant maliciously. If you havent spent a lot of time researching the issue, why do you argue on points brought up by those on the left, and in my case, on the right ?

Very few people in Europe, left or right (Obviously not the far right) have any issue with hate crime laws.

I'll look at it.

I've never considered GW conservative.

I have a visceral dislike for liberals wanting me to think their way and while I'm not up to the minute on this specific issue I've readvthe news while stuff was in acted so I'm not completely ignit. Also, I see how it follows a pattern that fascists took early on to completely control thought and public information. I believe in the responsibilty of individuals to just say no. But, as you can see, I'll admit where I do not have information and ask for it. Arguing a principal is reasonable. I haven't argued who what why or where of implementation of an evil principal. In that regard I admitted ignorance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

George Herbert Bush......... signed into law the Hate Crime Statistics Act.

So GWB and his Government must have thought hate crimes existed, whatever else he certainly isnt left wing.

A question for you, and not meant maliciously. If you havent spent a lot of time researching the issue, why do you argue on points brought up by those on the left, and in my case, on the right ?

Very few people in Europe, left or right (Obviously not the far right) have any issue with hate crime laws.

I'll look at it.

I've never considered GW conservative.

I have a visceral dislike for liberals wanting me to think their way and while I'm not up to the minute on this specific issue I've readvthe news while stuff was in acted so I'm not completely ignit. Also, I see how it follows a pattern that fascists took early on to completely control thought and public information. I believe in the responsibilty of individuals to just say no. But, as you can see, I'll admit where I do not have information and ask for it. Arguing a principal is reasonable. I haven't argued who what why or where of implementation of an evil principal. In that regard I admitted ignorance.

Just looked it up and according to wikepidia all the HCSA does is track crimes against specific groups. It does not create hate crimes per se.
Looks like it is an attempt to investigate the possibility of hate crimes as opposed to supporting the concept of them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

'Thought Crimes', the subject of novels, movies/TV , and video game backdrops; usually as a way of talking about tough subjects indirectly. The idea that a person could be guilty of something before they have even done it physical was the concept of the movie 'The Minority Report' with Tom Cruise. Or that something like '1984' could take place (as seen also with 'V for Vendetta'). I could go on and on to the number of instances in which thoughts were used in some basis for a crime, and to pursue the law breakers (rogue TPs and Psi Corp from the TV show 'Babylon 5').

Yet things are pulled from real life. By changing the 'who' and 'where', it often hides the nature the narrative is taken from in real life. Why is 'Game of Thrones' so popular? Several people got their heads removed from their body in session 1; yet ISIS does so and people are bull-shit-angry. 'Z for Zombies' and 'State of Decay' are of narratives of some really bad viral agent hitting the population and bad things happening as a result of it (i.e. the Zombie Apocalypse). However, its a notion that something terrible could happen that wipes 95% of the population's 6.4 billion in days if not weeks. The novel 'Rainbow Six' even talks about things from the villian's perspective, that what they were doing was for humanity's interest.

May Sci-Fi shows and movies give an idea of discrimination and hate using alien on alien in a 'civilized' area. The heroes of the moment could be the ones facing such attacks, or are on-lookers to the injustice. An all this happens right here in America. Some even go so far as to create a culture or even religious viewpoint that is the obstacle for the heroes to navigate against/around. By the end of the show/movie, the heroes are successful. Sometimes with loses. In real life, its sometimes difficult to know if a success really took place or not; give that unlike a tv show, life must continue onward.

At current there is no 'thought crime' in USA law, or to laws in most major nations. I do know there is several different conspiracies the right wing maintains as 'true'; the evidence often suspicious or flat out wrong. I can understand that this fuels their distrust for others. When logic, thinking, education, and even wisdom are suppressed by the fear of the conspiracy, that indeed, 'they are out to get you', it does become easier to rationalize actions more and more bizarre, crazy, and yes, dangerous. Were as the individual suffering must either 'take a leap of faith' and trust others that what they know and see is untrue, to live normal and well in everyday life.

If one states there are thought crimes, dependent upon 'whom is in the oval office', then it is up to them to present the evidence for study. Dodging, evading, making excuses, and even ignoring while attacking people and 'that which is causing their grief' only seeks to undermine credibility.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
The basis of hate crime in motive, motive is what the criminal was thinking thus hate crime is thought crime. Of course there is nothing labeled as thought crime, nobody would support it. Instead we have crimes based on what a person was thinking that led to the crime.

Can anyone seriously say that something being a hate crime isn't based on what the criminal is thinking?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
The basis of hate crime in motive, motive is what the criminal was thinking thus hate crime is thought crime. Of course there is nothing labeled as thought crime, nobody would support it. Instead we have crimes based on what a person was thinking that led to the crime.

Can anyone seriously say that something being a hate crime isn't based on what the criminal is thinking?

This may come as a surprise to you but all premeditated crime is generated by the criminal thinking about what they are going to do. For example, armed robberies do not occur by random chance - they are planned and therefore preceded by the armed robber thinking about them. Using your definition the only crimes that aren't hate crimes are the truly spontaneous ones eg the crimes committed by drunks and druggies 'under the influence',

Your definition is useless and merely emphasises the shallowness and stupidity of your position on this issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
The basis of hate crime in motive, motive is what the criminal was thinking thus hate crime is thought crime. Of course there is nothing labeled as thought crime, nobody would support it. Instead we have crimes based on what a person was thinking that led to the crime.

Can anyone seriously say that something being a hate crime isn't based on what the criminal is thinking?

This may come as a surprise to you but all premeditated crime is generated by the criminal thinking about what they are going to do. For example, armed robberies do not occur by random chance - they are planned and therefore preceded by the armed robber thinking about them. Using your definition the only crimes that aren't hate crimes are the truly spontaneous ones eg the crimes committed by drunks and druggies 'under the influence',

Your definition is useless and merely emphasises the shallowness and stupidity of your position on this issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
The basis of hate crime in motive, motive is what the criminal was thinking thus hate crime is thought crime. Of course there is nothing labeled as thought crime, nobody would support it. Instead we have crimes based on what a person was thinking that led to the crime.

Can anyone seriously say that something being a hate crime isn't based on what the criminal is thinking?

This may come as a surprise to you but all premeditated crime is generated by the criminal thinking about what they are going to do. For example, armed robberies do not occur by random chance - they are planned and therefore preceded by the armed robber thinking about them. Using your definition the only crimes that aren't hate crimes are the truly spontaneous ones eg the crimes committed by drunks and druggies 'under the influence',

Your definition is useless and merely emphasises the shallowness and stupidity of your position on this issue.

This may come as a surprise to you but you don't get what I am saying at all.
The crime isn't wanting someone else's stuff, it is taking it. The penalty should have nothing to do with why they selected a victim but that they selected a victim. The penalty should be solely about what they did, not what they thought when they did it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
The basis of hate crime in motive, motive is what the criminal was thinking thus hate crime is thought crime. Of course there is nothing labeled as thought crime, nobody would support it. Instead we have crimes based on what a person was thinking that led to the crime.

Can anyone seriously say that something being a hate crime isn't based on what the criminal is thinking?

This may come as a surprise to you but all premeditated crime is generated by the criminal thinking about what they are going to do. For example, armed robberies do not occur by random chance - they are planned and therefore preceded by the armed robber thinking about them. Using your definition the only crimes that aren't hate crimes are the truly spontaneous ones eg the crimes committed by drunks and druggies 'under the influence',

Your definition is useless and merely emphasises the shallowness and stupidity of your position on this issue.

This may come as a surprise to you but you don't get what I am saying at all.
The crime isn't wanting someone else's stuff, it is taking it. The penalty should have nothing to do with why they selected a victim but that they selected a victim. The penalty should be solely about what they did, not what they thought when they did it.

What a stupid claim to advance! If crime is to be punished solely on the basis of the act, and other circumstances ignored as you argue then:
* A gangbanger's murder of an old age pensioner attracts the same punishment as that of a battered wife who kills her assailant spouse;
* A starving person who steals a sandwich attracts the same punishment as a professional shoplifter;
* A drunk driver who causes a fatal accident attracts the same punishment as any other driver whose negligence causes a fatal accident;
and so on

I could go on forever but I am sure you get the picture. Best you stay away from jurisprudence - you clearly haven't thought about it in any depth at all. Your ideas are crass and shallow and each of your posts is stupider than the preceding one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

All that has happened is this:
You have nominated the principle to be applied, and I have applied precisely along the lines you have nominated. Of course the end result makes you sound stupid but that is because the principle you nominated is stupid.