should hating be a crime?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

american worries over state intrusion seem overblown when compared to the acts of the allegedly progressive govt in the uk noticed here.

should someone who posts racist literature be arrested? what is to stop them from arresting them for having racist thoughts(maybe they could employ a phrenologist)? and the fact that now anyone who dsiagrees with the left is a racist will they start rounding up the right en masse now? the idea of police eaching kids not to hate is pretty creepy too.

what of the idea of punishing someone twice, once for the crime and once for the motivation.

― keith (keithmcl), Saturday, 16 November 2002 18:52 (twenty-three years ago)

even though i agree with your basic points this is a massively stupid and loaded question in its phrasing.

― jess (dubplatestyle), Saturday, 16 November 2002 19:03 (twenty-three years ago)

We've done this before. I'm still disappointed that everyone was so damn literalist about it, and still firmly believe everything I said on the other thread: punishing hate crimes is not "punishing motivation" but acknowledging that some crimes are also meant to work as specific threats or harrassments toward groups of people well beyond the immediate victims of the crime.

I'd be curious as to whether those who claimed "a crime is a crime" on the previous thread would be happy to extend the same logic to terrorism.

― nabisco (nabisco), Saturday, 16 November 2002 19:11 (twenty-three years ago)

jess how do you manage to come across as such a tool even when yr right, it's sorta uncanny

― stupid & loaded, Saturday, 16 November 2002 19:15 (twenty-three years ago)

*reviews that other thread* Am I ever glad I didn't post on that one.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 16 November 2002 19:16 (twenty-three years ago)

Should hating jess be a crime?

― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Saturday, 16 November 2002 19:23 (twenty-three years ago)

I love jess.

(To answer a question - I don't understand the terrorism question. Terrorist goes and sets off car bomb = terrorist should be prosecuted for car bomb, no? The crimes they commit are bad enough to get them penalized, does it matter what the motivation was for the car bombing example any more than, say, Winona Ryder shoplifting motivation?)

― Ally (mlescaut), Saturday, 16 November 2002 19:27 (twenty-three years ago)

yeah & i luv you ally evn tho you luv jess, whatever. i gotta go do sick now. lataz!~

― pud rag, Saturday, 16 November 2002 19:32 (twenty-three years ago)

crime = mens rea (intent) + actus reus (conduct)

if you prosecute the mens rea alone, you will create an infinite regression of crimes to prosecute. That would solve some of the underemployment problems among cops and lawyers and people would go around saying "there aren't enough cops or lawyers." Sound good?

― felicity (felicity), Saturday, 16 November 2002 19:37 (twenty-three years ago)

serious answer: hate can be treated as an aggravating factor at sentencing.

― felicity (felicity), Saturday, 16 November 2002 19:38 (twenty-three years ago)

thinly disguising your "anonymous" posts (possibly by accident): classic or dud?

if you prosecute the mens rea alone, you will create an infinite regression of crimes to prosecute.

so wherein does the problem lie with prosecuting a combomeal of the two?

― jess (dubplatestyle), Saturday, 16 November 2002 19:40 (twenty-three years ago)

The problem comes in when people want to prosecute thought without behavior. Someone might be a dickhead for being racist or homophobic, but as long as they're not fucking up anyone else, it's not a crime. If it becomes a crime, then Tom Cruise has to get involved and who wants that?

BTW, to answer another question: dud.

― Ally (mlescaut), Saturday, 16 November 2002 19:43 (twenty-three years ago)

no i wasnt trying to post anonymously, i just couldny t be bothered logging in. eat logggggg

― doorat@////.vdferr, Saturday, 16 November 2002 19:56 (twenty-three years ago)

so wherein does the problem lie with prosecuting a combomeal of the two?

because then there's no logical reason not to prosecute:

a combomeal of the "three": (the conduct + (the hate = (the act of hating + the hate))):
nor a combomeal of the "four": (the conduct + (the hate = (the act of hating + the hate = (the act of hating + the hate)));
. . . [to infinity]

(I would like to express this as an equation with a sigma and an infinity symbol but I R iMacIdiot)

The problem comes in at sentencing. The net result would be an infinite number of sentences for each crime in which hate were both an element and an offense in itself. Our poor little empirical universe would collapse inwards upon itself as we attempted to construct prisons following M.C. Escher's architectural blueprints to enable all the hate convicts to serve their sentences properly and as we tried to keep their rap sheets updated. The forests would be denuded, wh3rd.net would go down a lot, we couldn't see Ma$e's smiling face inside our black hole . . . etc.

If you can articulate a way to keep the combomeal to two and only two, there should be no problem.

― felicity (felicity), Saturday, 16 November 2002 20:23 (twenty-three years ago)

unless I have completely misread jess' question, in which case my answer is: no problem; that's what we already do.

― felicity (felicity), Saturday, 16 November 2002 20:27 (twenty-three years ago)

hating fun shoudl be a crime

― ron (ron), Saturday, 16 November 2002 20:54 (twenty-three years ago)

hating fun is its own punishment

― felicity (felicity), Saturday, 16 November 2002 20:55 (twenty-three years ago)

felicity you did misread, but that's cool becuz you caught it then.

― jess (dubplatestyle), Saturday, 16 November 2002 20:59 (twenty-three years ago)

so we're cool? cool

― felicity (felicity), Saturday, 16 November 2002 21:01 (twenty-three years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.