Intent does matter. Murder and manslaughter and self defense are all homicide, but differ wildly because intent.
Hate crimes are not bullshit because of intent. We judge based on intent all of the time. They're bullshit because they are misused sometimes and selectively enforced. The Wakeusha massacre being a clear example of a hate crime.
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".
Playing devil's advocate here, intent matters because it helps to understand if a criminal is likely to reoffend or can be reformed. Hate suggests the crime came from a deeply rooted belief and was not merely one of passion.
You are right that it is a club used to criminalize speech. I want to clarify the justifications used so hate crime enhancements can be understood and properly dismantled.
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.
Intent does matter. Murder and manslaughter and self defense are all homicide, but differ wildly because intent.
Hate crimes are not bullshit because of intent. We judge based on intent all of the time. They're bullshit because they are misused sometimes and selectively enforced. The Wakeusha massacre being a clear example of a hate crime.
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".
Playing devil's advocate here, intent matters because it helps to understand if a criminal is likely to reoffend or can be reformed. Hate suggests the crime came from a deeply rooted belief and was not merely one of passion.
You are right that it is a club used to criminalize speech. I want to clarify the justifications used so hate crime enhancements can be understood and properly dismantled.
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.
If you're saying that reform rather than punishment is a leftist ideal, I'll disagree.
Simultaneously, we used to hang horse thieves and that was a good thing.
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
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?