Bernard Gui Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 (edited) 22 hours ago, provoman said: Data nor studies have been presented that such laws are necessary for eqaulity or peaceful coexistance. Is there any evidence that adding hate crime penalties has deterred haters from committing crimes? Edited February 24, 2019 by Bernard Gui 2 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Is there any evidence that adding hate crime penalties had deterred haters from committing crimes? There certainly has been a rash of hate-crime hoaxes lately. 2 Link to comment
Bernard Gui Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 (edited) 13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: There certainly has been a rash of hate-crime hoaxes lately. Maybe some stiff hate-crime-hoax laws would reduce those. Edited February 24, 2019 by Bernard Gui 2 Link to comment
USU78 Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 19 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Maybe some stiff hate-crime-hoax laws would reduce those. And around and around and around. There is a mens rea element of every crime. Proving the physical act constituting the crime, the actus reus, is never enough. The mens rea is the wicked mind accompanying the wicked act. Saying we have convicted someone of a crime means we have proven he has/had a wicked mind. Just what does the so-called hate crime element add to the underlying crime? Mens rea + actus reus + actual harm + causation of the harm by the actus reus = crime. Seems to me adding a phrase, "And in this instance we really, really mean it" does no more than cheapen the finding of guilt, unless the victim happens to be ennobled over his fellows. And thus assault on the aristocrat is felonious while assault on the mere peasant just a misdemeanor. People know this on some level. People remember. People are resentful. Resentment breeds acts of retaliation against the aristocrat. And all because somebody wants to be able to say, "And in this instance we really, really mean it." 3 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: Maybe some stiff hate-crime-hoax laws would reduce those. Perhaps conscientious enforcement and prosecution are what is needed. Link to comment
Bernard Gui Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Perhaps conscientious enforcement and prosecution are what is needed. Indeed. Link to comment
Bernard Gui Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, USU78 said: And around and around and around. There is a mens rea element of every crime. Proving the physical act constituting the crime, the actus reus, is never enough. The mens rea is the wicked mind accompanying the wicked act. Saying we have convicted someone of a crime means we have proven he has/had a wicked mind. Just what does the so-called hate crime element add to the underlying crime? Mens rea + actus reus + actual harm + causation of the harm by the actus reus = crime. Seems to me adding a phrase, "And in this instance we really, really mean it" does no more than cheapen the finding of guilt, unless the victim happens to be ennobled over his fellows. And thus assault on the aristocrat is felonious while assault on the mere peasant just a misdemeanor. People know this on some level. People remember. People are resentful. Resentment breeds acts of retaliation against the aristocrat. And all because somebody wants to be able to say, "And in this instance we really, really mean it." Thank you. This articulates very well what I have been trying to say. Edited February 24, 2019 by Bernard Gui 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts