I'm no legal historian, but I wager that once we opened the precedent with "crimes of passion" as a legal defense that it was all downhill from there. Because its a real quick turnaround from "charges lowered because of intent" to increasing them too.
Which never made sense to me because someone who commits a crime of passion is just as likely, maybe more likely to reoffend because they lack self-control. If it's not the same crime it will be something else.
A common exception is the "guy catching his wife in bed with another man". In that case you can argue that any reasonable person would react the same way, but that's just a legal hack because we think it was justified then.
I mean, I've never heard it not used in the scenario you just described. Where a guy is in a situation where his emotions can overload so suddenly from such a level of disrespect that his actions are not indicative of his overall normal nature.
Which I don't disagree with either. There are some situations where reasonable men can be expected to act unreasonable and their actions therein shouldn't be held as heavy. Everybody's favorite dad Gary Plauche committed clear murder, but we can all see the "passion" that lead to it and don't want him to be truly punished for it. I'd even say the legal system was broken if it tried to be so rigid.
But the problem with laws is always that the moment you make them, they will be abused to the worst ways by the worst people. Suddenly "a man committing violence after being cheated on" is on equal legal footing as "he heard the word nigger, he couldn't stop himself."
Again if we're arguing that it's a situation where reasonable men can be expected to act unreasonable (why Gary why), then I agree it's justifiable but that's a legal hack because they don't want to simply argue it was justifiable. There may or may not be intent and I don't consider it a crime of passion. (he couldn't help himself in the moment)
"he heard the word nigger, he couldn't stop himself."
Exactly. I didn't want to bother searching for examples where the defense has been used, but yeah that's about what I was thinking. I would gladly put such an animal down before executing a man who methodically planned out a murder. The latter case may or may not have mitigating circumstances. The former is an animal that shouldn't live among humans.
The difference with Gary is that the state was abdicating its duty by not quickly executing a child molester. The crime was objectively egregious enough to justify vigilante justice. The state has no duty to execute your wife because she cheated on you or to execute a stranger because he cut you off on the road.
But they are. While you're not wrong that intent is considered in charging and sentencing all the time, we're not talking about the difference between manslaughter and murder, we're talking about the difference between murder and murder with a "hate crime" enhancement.
It's not illegal to hate a group of people. It's not illegal to say the most horrid things about that group of people. It's not illegal to preach that you want that group of people eradicated from existence.
In fact, not only is it not illegal it's protected under the law. If the government were to punish you for saying any of these things it would be illegal suppression of free speech and 1st Amendment violations by the government are considered one of the worst trespasses it can commit.
All "hate crimes" are is an attempt to effectively criminalize something that they can't under the Constitution, and their very existence has a chilling effect on free speech. The government may not be able to punish you for saying you hate blacks/Jews/etc. but if you ever commit a crime against one, even if it's unrelated to your feelings towards that group, they have an extra punishment waiting for you.
It's frankly surreal that the government can say: "because you harbor beliefs that I am absolutely prohibited from punishing you for having- you get a harsher sentence" you can't logically combine an illegal act with a (specially protected) legal one and make it "mOR iLLeGaLEr".
There's a difference between intent and motive. Intent can often be inferred from forensic evidence, like if you ran someone over with your car over and over again, rather than just hitting them by accident. Whereas motive is nearly impossible to prove, though unfortunately our courts don't really care.
Killing someone intentionally vs unintentionally is absolutely relevant. But why you killed someone should only matter insofar as having a motive makes you more likely to be guilty as a matter of fact, not insofar as whether a given motive is admirable or contemptible.
Murder and self defense aren't decided by intent. They're decided by ethical justification. If you are put in a situation where you are being attacked and are legally in the right to defend yourself, it doesn't actually matter if you were thinking "I'm going to die" or "fuck this goon", or if you shot multiple times to stop the threat vs doing a mozambique drill because you wanted to make sure the goon died. A self defense shooting is justified with the actual actions taken by the attacker and defender.
This - is it a crime? Yes? Then why does the parituclar motivation matter? No? Then fuck off, opinions can't be illegal.
Hate crime is nothing more than a vehicle for thought crime.
It's about enforcing the pecking order. Same with domestic violence.
I'm no legal historian, but I wager that once we opened the precedent with "crimes of passion" as a legal defense that it was all downhill from there. Because its a real quick turnaround from "charges lowered because of intent" to increasing them too.
Which never made sense to me because someone who commits a crime of passion is just as likely, maybe more likely to reoffend because they lack self-control. If it's not the same crime it will be something else.
A common exception is the "guy catching his wife in bed with another man". In that case you can argue that any reasonable person would react the same way, but that's just a legal hack because we think it was justified then.
I mean, I've never heard it not used in the scenario you just described. Where a guy is in a situation where his emotions can overload so suddenly from such a level of disrespect that his actions are not indicative of his overall normal nature.
Which I don't disagree with either. There are some situations where reasonable men can be expected to act unreasonable and their actions therein shouldn't be held as heavy. Everybody's favorite dad Gary Plauche committed clear murder, but we can all see the "passion" that lead to it and don't want him to be truly punished for it. I'd even say the legal system was broken if it tried to be so rigid.
But the problem with laws is always that the moment you make them, they will be abused to the worst ways by the worst people. Suddenly "a man committing violence after being cheated on" is on equal legal footing as "he heard the word nigger, he couldn't stop himself."
Again if we're arguing that it's a situation where reasonable men can be expected to act unreasonable (why Gary why), then I agree it's justifiable but that's a legal hack because they don't want to simply argue it was justifiable. There may or may not be intent and I don't consider it a crime of passion. (he couldn't help himself in the moment)
Exactly. I didn't want to bother searching for examples where the defense has been used, but yeah that's about what I was thinking. I would gladly put such an animal down before executing a man who methodically planned out a murder. The latter case may or may not have mitigating circumstances. The former is an animal that shouldn't live among humans.
The difference with Gary is that the state was abdicating its duty by not quickly executing a child molester. The crime was objectively egregious enough to justify vigilante justice. The state has no duty to execute your wife because she cheated on you or to execute a stranger because he cut you off on the road.
Kill dozer enters the chat
But they are. While you're not wrong that intent is considered in charging and sentencing all the time, we're not talking about the difference between manslaughter and murder, we're talking about the difference between murder and murder with a "hate crime" enhancement.
It's not illegal to hate a group of people. It's not illegal to say the most horrid things about that group of people. It's not illegal to preach that you want that group of people eradicated from existence.
In fact, not only is it not illegal it's protected under the law. If the government were to punish you for saying any of these things it would be illegal suppression of free speech and 1st Amendment violations by the government are considered one of the worst trespasses it can commit.
All "hate crimes" are is an attempt to effectively criminalize something that they can't under the Constitution, and their very existence has a chilling effect on free speech. The government may not be able to punish you for saying you hate blacks/Jews/etc. but if you ever commit a crime against one, even if it's unrelated to your feelings towards that group, they have an extra punishment waiting for you.
It's frankly surreal that the government can say: "because you harbor beliefs that I am absolutely prohibited from punishing you for having- you get a harsher sentence" you can't logically combine an illegal act with a (specially protected) legal one and make it "mOR iLLeGaLEr".
There's a difference between intent and motive. Intent can often be inferred from forensic evidence, like if you ran someone over with your car over and over again, rather than just hitting them by accident. Whereas motive is nearly impossible to prove, though unfortunately our courts don't really care.
Killing someone intentionally vs unintentionally is absolutely relevant. But why you killed someone should only matter insofar as having a motive makes you more likely to be guilty as a matter of fact, not insofar as whether a given motive is admirable or contemptible.
Hey wait, I object! You killed 247 commies? That's admirable ;)
Excellent point
The legal system isn’t meant to reform. It’s meant to punish. The only reason people consider reform is because leftism has taken over the culture.
Murder and self defense aren't decided by intent. They're decided by ethical justification. If you are put in a situation where you are being attacked and are legally in the right to defend yourself, it doesn't actually matter if you were thinking "I'm going to die" or "fuck this goon", or if you shot multiple times to stop the threat vs doing a mozambique drill because you wanted to make sure the goon died. A self defense shooting is justified with the actual actions taken by the attacker and defender.
Correct. Intent is either self-reported data or assumption, neither of which belong in a legal proceeding.
Waukesha
I can give you details about that ...
yes our government is corrupt. Preventing racial cleansing might not always be a bad thing?