I'm all for gay rights, equal rights for women and minorities, I'm for animal rights, a people's sovereign rights, religious rights, reproductive rights and anything else that guarantees a basic level of stasis for humanity. One thing I'm against is hate crime legislation. To me, it's a form of prosecution that George Orwell called "WrongThinking". In his novel, 1984, people are punished simply for thinking certain things. This is obviously bad. However, are laws that punish you more for a hate crime any different? It's not like you killed a person more than you would have if you didn't hate them for being gay or black or whatever. I mean, dead is dead. What difference does it make why I did it? All that matters is that I did it.
Of course, the defense is that these laws are trying to discourage these kinds of crimes from happening. It's less bad to kill for greed or jealousy's sake, but kill a man because he likes other men and that's worse? Basically, the people behind these laws are trying to legislate thought. Essentially outlawing these kinds of thoughts. I think it's a slippery slope to arresting people for what they think. Now, DemocracyNow.Org reports in [http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/16/140212|today's headlines] that we're inching a bit further down that slippery slope in naming environmentalists who commit crimes terrorists. Here's how DN reported it today:
Prosecutors Environmental Activists to Be Sentenced as Terrorists
Federal prosecutors in Oregon said yesterday that a group of 10 environmental and animal rights activists should be considered terrorists for their involvement in a series of politically-motivated arsons. One attorney for the Bush administration likened the activists to the Ku Klux Klan. Attorneys for the activists condemned the government's move.
Lauren Regan of the Civil Liberties Defense Center: "The government in this case is seeking to apply the terrorist enhancement to individuals who are accused of environmentally motivated property crimes alone. This is the first time in the history of our country that the government is seeking this enhancement for crimes did not involve the murder or the attempted murder of humans. The reason is obviously political."
Sentencing for the activists is scheduled to begin next week. If the judge determines the activists to be terrorists it could add 20 years to their prison sentences.
So, now setting an empty SUV on fire is equivalent to suicide bombing and crashing planes into buildings.
See what happens when you let the motivation for a crime determine how serious it is?
How serious a crime is should be based on the act, itself.
If a guy cuts off a man's head with a hatchet, that's much more barbaric than simply shooting a man in the chest.
Do this any other way and we get into determining what should and should not legally go on in someone's head. Hence, the coming of wrongthinking as a crime.
1984 may be still yet to come, folks. However, we can stop it if we just pay attention and keep questioning.
The term 'terrorist' is being wielded like a cudgel against any kind of criminal, whether they're an old-school terrorist or just your average asshole environmentalist. What we need is a less judgmental term, perhaps we should call them "extralegal lobbyists"?
ReplyDeleteOld way: That café was destroyed by a homicide bomber, killing several people.
New way: That café was destroyed by an extralegal lobbyist, killing several people.
lol well said--though the old old way was to call them suicide bombers ;)
ReplyDeleteBut I think "extralegal lobbyist" is a great idea for the environmentalists. Though, to be perfectly honest, I think they are terrorists, I just feel that all terrorists should be treated as just criminals. All criminals are created equal, just like all men. But I don't want to get redundant and repeat what was in my post ^_^
the motivation for a crime is already the basis for determining its severity. that's why people guilty of accidental vehicular homicide are punished differently than people guilty of premeditated murder.
ReplyDeletethe whole reason we have 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, negligent homicide, and the dozen other gradations is that the criminal's intent is important. punishing hate crimes more severely, based on the criminal's intent, is completely logically consistent with the way our justice system works.
if you want 1984, take a look at the unconstitutional spying on american citizens that bush authorized.
Nope said: the motivation for a crime is already the basis for determining its severity. that’s why people guilty of accidental vehicular homicide are punished differently than people guilty of premeditated murder.
ReplyDeleteActually, no--that's not about WHY you are motivated to kill someone, it's about IF. Accidental manslaughter is just that--I didn't mean to kill someone but through negligence on my part, I caused someone's death. Clearly, that's not about why the killer killed, but whether it was on purpose or not.
Nope said: the whole reason we have 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, negligent homicide, and the dozen other gradations is that the criminal’s intent is important. punishing hate crimes more severely, based on the criminal’s intent, is completely logically consistent with the way our justice system works.
I don't see how you make the point in your second sentence with your first. Honestly, I thought 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree murder charges were about how involved you were in the killing. So, if you just hire a person to kill someone it's 3rd degree, if you help directly, but don't pull the trigger it's 2nd and if it's you who ended a life, it's 1st. Now, I could be VERY wrong here. I'd love to get the specifics as to what all this means according to the law itself and not just my TV/movie-based legal education.
Nope said: if you want 1984, take a look at the unconstitutional spying on american citizens that bush authorized.
Oh, I have taken a look! Believe me! ^_^
I don't think it's the intent so much as the actions leading up to the committing of a crime that merit a manslaughter/1st degree murder/etc charge. Beyond that, it's up to the judge to tack on extra time or even the death penalty if, after the conviction, they decided you deserved the extra punishment. Damn you, activist judges!
ReplyDelete"I don’t see how you make the point in your second sentence with your first. Honestly, I thought 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree murder charges were about how involved you were in the killing."
ReplyDeleteyou're wrong. seriously, not to be a dick, but maybe you should do a little research before you spout off on things like this.
here's a primer. notice how words like "intent" and "state of mind" keep popping up.
The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the mens rea, or state of mind. This is particularly true within the law of homicide, where murder requires either the intent to kill, or a state of mind called malice, or malice aforethought, which may involve an unintentional killing but with a willful disregard for life. The less serious offense of manslaughter, on the other hand, is the taking of human life but in a manner considered by law as less culpable than murder. Manslaughter is usually broken down into two distinct categories: voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter.
Voluntary manslaughter cases where the defendant may have an intent to cause death or serious injury, but the potential liability for murder is mitigated by the circumstances and state of mind. The most common example is the so-called heat of passion killing, such as where the defendant is provoked into a loss of control by unexpectedly finding a spouse in the arms of a lover or witnessing an attack against his or her child.
Involuntary manslaughter, sometimes called criminally negligent homicide in the United States or culpable homicide in Scotland, occurs where there is no intention to kill or cause serious injury but death is due to recklessness or criminal negligence.
"I don’t think it’s the intent so much as the actions leading up to the committing of a crime that merit a manslaughter/1st degree murder/etc charge. Beyond that, it’s up to the judge to tack on extra time or even the death penalty if, after the conviction, they decided you deserved the extra punishment. Damn you, activist judges!"
ReplyDeletethis could not be more wrong. you think judges are allowed to "tack on" the death penalty after a conviction? jesus, both of you need to go back to 6th grade social studies class. damn you, ignorant americans.
Wow, you don't mean to be a dick? Why don't you go back to manners school--sheesh--and people say Americans are rude.
ReplyDeleteI can spout off about whatever I want, dude--this is my site, after all. On top of that, I do admit to having a strictly TV/movie-based legal education, so maybe you should try a bit harder to avoid being a dick. I don't claim brilliance. In fact, I claim the opposite in this case. You seem to be a bit on the dim side since you failed to notice my admission of relative ignorance.
Also, you seem to take the justness of the American (and Scottish/UK?) system as a given, where I do not. That, in fact, is my point, when you judge motivation (anything beyond if there is or is not motivation) that seems like punishing for wrongthinking. On top of that, you still fail to make your point.
You said:The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the mens rea, or state of mind. This is particularly true within the law of homicide, where murder requires either the intent to kill, or a state of mind called malice, or malice aforethought, which may involve an unintentional killing but with a willful disregard for life.
This reinforces my point that it's not "why" you feel a certain way, it's simply an issue of "if". Malice is malice. If you want to kill, that's all it takes. WHY you want to kill is a different issue. Punishing environmentalists, or terrorists, because of WHY they do something is unfair. If you can prove that a treehugger had malice aforethought toward setting an empty SUV on fire, that's all it takes to convict him of a crime. He wanted to do it. But measuring in his politics is just being a dick.
So, if you have more agreeable politics, you don't go away to jail for as long.
I hope that makes my point a bit more clear.
And sorry, nope--I've heard of cases where the judge determines the sentence based on his own, well, judgment. At least, that's here in America. I don't think it's quite as easy as Tim seemed to suggest, where a judge can just decide to tack on the death penalty if he feels like it. However, I served on a jury where the sentence wasn't up to us to consider because the judge would decide after we delivered the verdict. My understanding (limited as it is) is that in certain cases a judge can consider the death penalty and in others he has no choice because it's written into the law. Also, I think the prosecution can ask for it, and that's a perfect example of a judge deciding whether or not to execute the person.
Terrorism is not the same as hate crime (or any other "bias crime"). For a criminal act to be considered domestic terrorism, the act must be intended to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping." The Ku Klux Klan is the most obvious example of a large domestic terror organization. In fact, the first piece of "anti-terror" legislation in the U.S. (that I can find) was the Ku Klux Klan act of 1871.
ReplyDeleteA hate crime or "bias crime" is indeed a crime of motivation.
What makes the arsons in Oregon serious enough to be considered terrorism is the fact that the ten arsonists (who plead "guilty" by the way) worked in concert to set 20 fires over five years resulting in $40 million in damage. The ELF's aim is to inflict as much economic damage as possible in order to prevent what they consider the exploitation of the environment. This clearly fits the legal definition of terrorism.
By the way ... if the 10 arsonists had been members of "Army of God" who had firebombed empty abortion clinics and the private property of doctors who perform abortions, do you suppose Democracy Now would give two shits about the whole "terrorist" label thing?
I stand corrected. You did not equate hate crime with terrorism. You made two entirely separate points that had nothing to do with each other. ;-)
ReplyDeleteIt's not my definition of terrorism, it's the current legal definition.
You know what? Forget I commented.
Alright nope, with your 6th grade social studies degree, tell me how without a jury punishments are decided in a trial.
ReplyDeleteWhat, no answer? Yeah, I kinda thought so.
Andrew, don't give up, buddy!
ReplyDeleteActually, I've tried to find an actual, officially sanctioned definition of terrorism and could never find one. The USG's is actually different from Webster's and then, I've heard other's used. I didn't mean to suggest that the definition was created by you, I just meant it was the definition you were going with. I assumed you were coming from the same place I was--that there are several definitions of terrorism.
And I WON'T forget you commented because I liked your comments. :P
Tim, I think Nope would suggest that the sentence for all crimes are determined within the law, itself. I think this is the case (though I could be mistaken) because I've heard criminal cases reported in the news referring to "XYZ crime carries a mandatory prison term of 30 years." Or something along those lines. Again, that's my understanding--as always, I could be wrong and if I am, someone correct me so I can be right. ^_^
Yeah, but it's still up to the judge to decide what kind of punishment is metered out -- Leopold and Loeb were up for the death sentence, but the judge opted to commute their 1st degree murder conviction to life in prison, which one of them parolled. And let's not forget Paris Hilton's sentence of 23 days in jail (reduced from 45 for good-ish behavior) for driving without a license -- do you think this is the same treatment most people get? No, which is why it's clear the actual sentencing, while given guidelines by the law, is still up to the judge. I didn't think an offhand comment would generate this much contention, but I also didn't expect Nope to give it such a simplistic, literal interpretation. But whatever, I still blame those activist judges! :P
ReplyDeleteI was surprised by the reaction to this post, too. But hey, we're all entitled to our own opinions. This site is generally about me and mine. My thought, just to (hopefully) put a cap in this thing, is this:
ReplyDelete1) Treating crimes differently based on the specifics of their motivation is dangerous because it legislates what is OK to think and what isn't.
2) With the addition of laws treating terrorists/enemy combatants, we began to judge a person for what he thinks and not for what he does.
3) Then comes the story about the ELF being treated like terrorists and along with that comes a step down that slippery slope of judging people for what they think and not just what they do.
Where exactly does this stop? I can't predict what's next, but I'd never have thought of environmental criminals as terrorists on par with Al Qaeda. Perhaps bootleggers being tried as terrorists? There was that story of the toy store owner who was paid a visit by the USG for selling bootleg Rubik's Cubes. Turns out intellectual property is a matter of national security. Seriously, that's what they told the toy store owner. Of course, the real irony comes when you learn that the trademark on Rubik's Cubes expired.
One other note to Tim, you probably have noticed that Nope stopped posting. So, it looks like you scared him away.
The legal definition of "terrorism" deals with intention, rather than motivation. A terrorist is not tried for "what they think." They are tried for what they do, and when what they do has as its aim intimidation or coercion on a grand scale, that's terrorism. "Do what we say or you'll get more of the same!" It's large-scale extortion, if you wish to look at it that way.
ReplyDeleteIn the 1930s, we went through the public enemy era. (Organized crime - Capone, Luciano, etc.; lone guns - Bonnie and Clyde, Dillinger, etc.) Things were pretty shaky, but eventually we corrected as a country. We repealed (the incredibly stupid) prohibition amendment and the FBI (for better or worse) was beefed up to handle the likes of Pretty Boy Floyd and Babyface Nelson.
Maybe now we're going through a terrorist era. We're just learning the ropes on how to deal with the problem.
I doubt the ELFers will have "terrorist" tacked on. But if the label were to be applied, I doubt the severity of the sentence would come anywhere near the sentence for executing an Al Qaeda style attack. I believe the punishment would fit the crime.
Call me an optimist.