So, wait....Hate crime laws don't work?

If punishing intent is merely punishing thought, should we do away with premeditated murder as a charge, and have all murders be prosecuted as manslaughter? Because, if you need intent/pre-thought to commit murder, then its punishing thought, right?

 

IIUC, manslaughter is a homicide that just happens without any intent, but murder is a homicide that includes intent to do harm.

Am I wrong lawyers?

And if intent is a critical piece of a murder charge, and that has been upheld, then it follows that intent can be used as part of other criminal charges. Such as "possession with intent to distribute". Our law is filled with enhanced crimes based on intent. Why you hatn' on hate crime laws?

 

thats what happens when "Attorneys" codify laws.

 

Not sure I see much difference in a legal fashion. If the harm was brought on (triggered) by the intent, what's the difference what the source of the intent is?

 

"It Depends" (<-- correct answer to every legal question)

on many things, words being most important (John 1:1)

is it "wrong" to be incorrect?

is a Lawyer an attorney?

is being "in law" the same as practicing "at law"?

this is a good read on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill

 

Doesn't that statement pretty much kill your hate crime argument?

 

Ouch.

 

James Harris Jackson.

 

Any movie featuring Nicolas Cage....

 

A capital offense if ever there was one

 

Hey you! Quit that!

This is twice now.

You're freaking me out....

 

No love for Lord of War?

 

I ain't even gonna look.

 

I'm wondering what argument you think I'm making?

My statement was that hate crime charges are difficult to bring, and even more difficult to prove. I said this in response to the OP which posted a link to a page that showed how rare hate crime convictions are.

That then devolved into a discussion of whether or not thought was being criminalized with these laws. I pointed out that what was being criminalized was intent. The response to that was intent was the same as thought and shouldn't be criminalized.

I replied with a number of examples in laws where intent is indeed criminalized, and further pointed out that there was no difference between the intent part of murder and the intent part of a hate crime.

Note that nowhere have I said what I personally believe about these laws that "enhance" crimes based on who the victim is.

So what is my argument as you see it?

 

Going back and re-reading your post, I see that we were in agreement. I was POTJ, between meetings.
I wasn't trying to be obtuse, just misread your post.