What defines a terrorist?
- Thread starter Natoma
- Start date
Sabastian said:
I would have to say that a "hate crime" is a crime in which the primary motivation (but not necessarily the only motivation) is the hatred of the person(s)/group(s) whom the crime is being perpetrated against. As for the definition of crime, i think we can stick with the Webster's version for that one.
-stvn
Stvn said:
So it isn't a "hate crime" to speak your thoughts no matter how hateful? The term "hate crime" should not be used as a label for a particular crime. One is an emotion the other is based on the rule of law. I certainly hope the the term "hate crime" is not a forshadowing of the possibility of hating being criminal... But I want to press your logic a little harder here. Someone whom insights hate with their thoughts. Are they guilty of "hate crimes"? I am of the mind that the term "hate crime" is a much more far reaching term then some would like to admit. Turning hate into criminal behavior. "Hate crime" is a rather new term and the way you have broken it down suggest that indeed it is a crime to hate.
Its clearly a misnomer. How can you brutally kill some one in a loving manner? Obviously something they did (or didn't do) pissed you the hell off. All crimes can be viewed as hate crimes.
Hate crime legislation is just another way to facilitate reverse racism and antimajoritivism.
Hate crime legislation is just another way to facilitate reverse racism and antimajoritivism.
BenSkywalker
Regular
Back to the main topic, at least my take on it.
You have two different people suspected of conspiring to commit mass car thefts. One of them is a member of an organized crime family and the other is a loner with no record. We already have provisions to make things considerably more difficult for those we know are members of organized crime, I think the same situation should apply, only more pronounced, with terrorist plots.
You could have an individual that 'vents' by creating plots they never intend to actually carry out(although that does not seem to be the case here). If someone enlists in a terrorist organization, goes through the training and then starts working out plans to commit an act of terrorism hit threats should undoubtedly carry more weight, although that does not indicate the others should be discounted(additional weight should be applied to the member of the terror organization as removing a lone individual would in no way assure you of the plot falling apart).
I think that all cases of reported plotting of terrorism should be dealt with very seriously, for those that have no ties to a terrorist organization nor have they comitted any such acts yet, they should be treated differently then those who do have ties.
In some ways, I see it as similar to a POW when we capture an 'enlisted' terrorist. They are an active combatant by their own chosing. A person making plans with no other ties has yet to commit themselves.
You have two different people suspected of conspiring to commit mass car thefts. One of them is a member of an organized crime family and the other is a loner with no record. We already have provisions to make things considerably more difficult for those we know are members of organized crime, I think the same situation should apply, only more pronounced, with terrorist plots.
You could have an individual that 'vents' by creating plots they never intend to actually carry out(although that does not seem to be the case here). If someone enlists in a terrorist organization, goes through the training and then starts working out plans to commit an act of terrorism hit threats should undoubtedly carry more weight, although that does not indicate the others should be discounted(additional weight should be applied to the member of the terror organization as removing a lone individual would in no way assure you of the plot falling apart).
I think that all cases of reported plotting of terrorism should be dealt with very seriously, for those that have no ties to a terrorist organization nor have they comitted any such acts yet, they should be treated differently then those who do have ties.
In some ways, I see it as similar to a POW when we capture an 'enlisted' terrorist. They are an active combatant by their own chosing. A person making plans with no other ties has yet to commit themselves.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
BenSkywalker...
Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I stated on the matter. (And specifically,that's what I pointed out as the "difference" between the case cited by Natoma, and other cases dealing with "terrorists" that are treated differently.)
Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I stated on the matter. (And specifically,that's what I pointed out as the "difference" between the case cited by Natoma, and other cases dealing with "terrorists" that are treated differently.)
BenSkywalker
Regular
I agree with your sentiment on the matter Joe, I wanted to bring up(though I did it poorly) the comparison with the RICO(sic?) act which has existed for decades and seems to be accepted by everyone including the left.
Legion said:
What about "crimes of passion"?
But seriously, keep in mind that many crimes (robbery, car theft, identity theft, etc.) are usually done with a certain amount of disregard for who the victim might be. And then there is white collar crime, of which there is alot more of that people realise (and gets covered by the media), which can usually be said to be a crime motivated largely by greed (for money or power). Coporate/white-collar crime (which my father investigated for the U.S. DoD and never lacked of "things to do" for over 20 years) can be just as deadly or detrimental to people and society (and in some cases maybe more so) as your average crack-dealing-rapist-robber-holligan that the media and government like to post up to strike fear in the hearts of good, god-fearing, tax-paying Americans (if need be, substitute whatever nationality you choose).
The "criminal" might have hate in his/her heart, but not always is that hate directed at the victim of their crime.
-stvn
Stvn said:
There is no such thing is being charged with a charge called "white collar crime" nor is there a charge called "crime of passion". These are rather blanket terms used to describe a variety of criminal activities. While you could make the argument that indeed "hate crime" can be used in the same manner the simple fact of the matter is that "hate crime" is quickly becoming a legal charge that determines how one will be charged setting yet another degree of legalities. Never mind how in many cases they will actually be able or not to determine if the perpetrator of the crime was actually hatefull in the act.
Think about it...Rather then simply charging one with murder an already serious crime now we have charges based on what the perpetrator of the crime was actually thinking. Thought police .... anyone? Certainly the term "hate crime" is Orwellian in its scope. Now a perpetrator of murder will not only be guilty of committing a despicable act of murder but also guilty of thinking hate on top of it. This is definitely worth while picking at and in my opinion the term "hate crime" ought not to be taking lightly.
Just for the record, I am not in anyway trying to define "hate crime" in the legal sense of the word. I am a computer programmer, and about as far away from a lawyer as one can get.
I think that motivation plays a large role in how a crime should be punished, as do most judicial systems since motive is many times used as a means of "proving" a case.
I will agree with you that the "legal" definition currently "on the books" in the US for "hate crimes" definitely has an Orwellian twist to it. (Although my guess is that this would fall under the juristiction of the Ministry of Love ).
My definition is definetely simplistic. But i meant is as such. By trying to define in detail something that in my mind is undefinable in an objective sense, is a futile pursuit. So a more simplistic and generalize approach is a best as i could do. Your current social/economic/religious point of view will always color how you see the definition of something like a "hate crime".
-stvn
I think that motivation plays a large role in how a crime should be punished, as do most judicial systems since motive is many times used as a means of "proving" a case.
I will agree with you that the "legal" definition currently "on the books" in the US for "hate crimes" definitely has an Orwellian twist to it. (Although my guess is that this would fall under the juristiction of the Ministry of Love
). My definition is definetely simplistic. But i meant is as such. By trying to define in detail something that in my mind is undefinable in an objective sense, is a futile pursuit. So a more simplistic and generalize approach is a best as i could do. Your current social/economic/religious point of view will always color how you see the definition of something like a "hate crime".
-stvn
Stvn said:
Well, your definition sure did seem an attempt of sorts of a legal type defining. Thanks for trying but I would like someone whom knows exactly what the charge of "hate crime" really intails. People ought not to use the term if isn't clear just what the implication means.
My point is that while a person is convicted of murder it is of no consequence to indite them with a "hate crime" charge as murder is bad enough. What if the charge is murder and the motive concerns jealousy or a crime of passion should the defence have a lesser sentence because the murder was not based on hate?
I will agree with you that the "legal" definition currently "on the books" in the US for "hate crimes" definitely has an Orwellian twist to it. (Although my guess is that this would fall under the juristiction of the Ministry of Love
Unfortunately I think it would fall under the ministry of Justice.
Well I did note that it is possible to use the term in a wider sense much the way "white collar crime" is but the reality is that it is becoming an offence that people may actually be charged with. I am not sure if I agree with the statement "Your current social/economic/religious point of view will always color how you see the definition of something like a "hate crime"." it seems by that assumption you imply that one cannot determine the objective truth. This actually makes prostrate all real science to individual perspective which is not what we observe given our success with science.
Murder as a crime of passion is a lesser offense in Texas (and I believe, generally the US).
RussSchultz said:
Sad, and now we have murder as a "hate crime" being a greater offence. Murder is murder in the end someone is dead and it should not matter to the defence or the prosectution the motive of the individual whom commited it. The victims and their families don't give a damn I am sure.
Sabastian said:
I was simply attempting to define it for use in the conversation (What defines a terrorist) and, my definiton was intentionally simplistic. If did not introduce the term into the discussion either, and I would not have chosen to as i think the term is ambigious and cannot really be defined easily (as evidenced by your issue with my simplistic version).
I think that in certain matters (such as this one) objective truth is really hard to come by if not impossible.
While i definetely believe that perception is deeply subjective, I do think that this is no way negates our abilities to empathize and corroborate with one another.
If what I call "red", you see as the color I call "green", what does it matter as long as we can agree to call it "red" (or "green"). Perception is subjective, but reality is not.
-stvn
Sabastian said:
Now this is a very touchy area. The US Justice system defines several "degrees" of murder and each carries a different sentence. If murder was murder, then how do you classify manslaughter? What about murder in self-defense? Are these all the same crime, punishable in the same way?
And if you are proposing that we do away with the idea of motive in the defense and/or prosecution of a person, then how might that person be proven either guilty or innocent if not enough hard evidence exists? Motive is used regularly as a means of establishing doubt or certainty in the minds of jurors. This almost seems that you are dismissing the idea of a fair trial (which i know you do not intend, that would be ridiculous).
And i beg to differ that the families of the victim dont care one way or the other. I expect that in the interest of justice and vindication, the families of the victim would want to see a fair and just trial.
-stvn
Sabastian said:
So, if, for example, somebody kills your daughter. You walk in on the murder and in the heat of passion, you exact vengeance by killing the perpetrator.
In this case, are you as deserving of punishment as they are?
What if you wait until trial to kill the perpetrator? Or after trial, where the perpetrator gets off on a technicality?
If you get in a car, drive drunk, and kill somebody, is that murder?
If you get in a car, sober, and recklessly kill somebody, is that the same?
If you get in a car and accidentally kill somebody, is that the same?
If you take poor care of your car, and sell the car to somebody who dies because the brakes go out, is that the same?
Mens rea (the intent) is an intricate part of guilt. US criminal law takes that into account before administering justice.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
True, however, intent is entirely different than motive.
The definition of a "hate crime" deals with motive, not intent. A crime of "passion" is technically a form of temporary insanity plea: you didn't really "know or intend" what you were doing....the "shock" of some other circumstance put you out of a normal frame of mind.
I may "intentionally and knowingly" kill a man, because I didn't like the tie he was wearing.
I may "intentionally and knowingly" kill a man, because he's gay.
Should they be judged / sentenced differently?
Me personally? I don't think so. Intentionally killing somebody because of their tie color is just as irrational as killing them because they're gay.
Of course, if you intentionally kill your daughters murderer well after the cooling down period, some would argue it has mitigating circumstances.
I don't, however. The law should apply to everybody, equally. Simply because you don't like the outcome of the justice system and take "justice in your own hands" shouldn't give you a break. That undermines the justice system at a fundamental level.
p.s. motive is not historically a legal element of a crime. Though, I guess with "hate crimes" its being slowly introduced as an element it is sort of becoming one.
Of course, if you intentionally kill your daughters murderer well after the cooling down period, some would argue it has mitigating circumstances.
I don't, however. The law should apply to everybody, equally. Simply because you don't like the outcome of the justice system and take "justice in your own hands" shouldn't give you a break. That undermines the justice system at a fundamental level.
p.s. motive is not historically a legal element of a crime. Though, I guess with "hate crimes" its being slowly introduced as an element it is sort of becoming one.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
RussSchultz said:
I agree.
But that's the premise behind characterizing a crime as a "hate crime." You are trying to bring "motive" in as some legal differentiator in terms of the severity or punishment for the crime.
I agree there too.
Yup.
Right...and that's a problem in my eyes. I have to admit...I can't really tell if you see it as a problem or not.
