Is the Penalty for Killing any Person, Thought Crime Legislation Too?

[fascisthunter]

After all, it polices the thought of killing right? It punishes to deter other killings, right?

If you need to use "thought crime" as a talking point to dismiss or mis characterize "hate Crimes" legislation, you already lost that debate. Every punishment out there for every crime could be labeled as a "thought crime" legislation. Thought precedes every crime. So if we punish people for committing crimes in general, is that THOUGHT POLICING too? Or is it just "those" crimes that penalize bigots and hate groups....? After all, we punish to dissuade others from doing the same thing.

Hate crimes target groups of people to terrorize groups of people for who they are. We are talking about physical abuse and killing people for who they are. Treating these crimes as all others diminishes the intent of those crimes. And all laws curb intent, or dissuade people from taking that extreme action in the first place. Calling Hate Crimes legislation a "Thought Crimes" bill is deliberately watering down it's meaning. It's as bad as calling estate tax a death tax. It's pure propaganda.

[provis99]

1. all I know is

If I get murdered, I want the maximum punishment for the offender. Whether he killed me for my money or some "hate crime" reason is irrelevant.

[fascisthunter]

2. Way to Dismiss Everything Said

But that was the intent, wasn't it?

Why would you care if you are already dead? You won't be around, so why?

[SharkSquid]

3. A VERY flawed argument

"If you need to use "thought crime" as a talking point to dismiss or mis characterize "hate Crimes" legislation, you already lost that debate. Every punishment out there for every crime could be labeled as a "thought crime" legislation.

Murder or assault area crime of action, Hate Crime laws punish persons further for what they were THINKING at the time of the crime. The only other parallel is the matter of premeditation v. crimes of passion.

[fascisthunter]

4. Hate Crimes Punishes Those for Terrorizing Groups of People

You are wrong.

By your line of thinking, all punishment is to deter thoughts of doing any crime.

[SharkSquid]

5. Hate crimes legistation

Punished the intent of committing a crime. If I loose my shit and let the inherent racism all we white folk supposedly have lead me to beat up a hispanic guy, and then use a racial slur afterword or during I can and will be charged for a hate crime. If he bumps me and I beat the shit out of him, I will be charged with a battery.

The amplification of assault, battery, and murder sentences based on what I was thinking (intent) at the time of the act is by its very definition a thought crime because it amplifies the punishment of an existing action crime that I would be charged with regardless of my thoughts.

[superduperfarleft]

6. It's also deliberately misrepresenting what hate crime laws hope to accomplish.

by coming up with absurd hypothetical after absurd hypothetical. Hate crime laws are not "thought crimes" any more than the distinctions between first- and second-degree murder are "thought crimes."

The act of a white guy beating up a black guy is not anything more than assault. If someone blows up an abortion clinic because he or she is playing with fireworks and it gets out of hand, it's nothing more than property destruction.

If said white guy randomly attacks his black neighbor with the intent of sending "a message" to the other black people in the neighborhood, that's assault with the intent to terrorize a group of people. If said firebug bombs and abortion clinic in order to intimidate medical staff and women who use the clinic, that's property destruction with the intent to terrorize a group of people.

It's so easy to understand, which is why I've started to think that many of the anti-hate crime law people are doing this on purpose.