Re: Sad Symptom
- From: "Harry Thompson" <me@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 15:30:39 -0500
"Fred Ghadry" <falko282@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:_J6dnZmtsYNk1UXZnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Alvin Toda wrote:
Fred Ghadry wrote:
His last sentence says it all. There is no such thing as a "hate" crime.
The police ask for that designation because it's often difficult to
convict without overwhelming evidence. Peers of the defendant are
skeptical of prosecution's case.
How does calling it a "hate crime" make it easier to convict a suspect?
Does calling it thus automatically make the evidence more believable? Is
there a different level of punishment meted out to haters? Does a hate
murderer go through some special death procedure not imposed on ordinary
murderers?
Having an extra strong deterrent makes a plea bargain much easier.
This theory is incomprehensible to me.
IMO, you are asking a very good question, and I don't think there is a
simply yes/no answer.
There is theft. But common law distinguishes kinds of theft. I once
traversed the Calif Penal Code on the issue of theft. Calif wrote a
statutory theft law in the 20s IIRC that replaced the common law crimes with
one comprehensive theft law, to some confusion ever since. I was researching
a paper.
Anyhow, theft by force is *robbery*.
Theft by guile is *fraud*.
Theft by abuse of trust is *theft by conversion* (misappropriation of money
in one's trust).
And there is just plain theft.
So there is a long tradition in Anglo-Saxon law of differentiating the same
crime by circumstances.
I think in all states the use of a gun to commit a crime is another
distinction. Consider rape, and rape at gunpoint.
There is also simple assault and battery, and more severely punished assault
and battery with a deadly weapon.
On the other hand, some attempts to distinguish crimes don't appeal to me,
for example, "computer crime." A theft by computer is theft, and the use of
a computer to commit it is at best incidental.
In this case under discussion -- hate crime -- I can see the effort to
stigmatize the offense, for example, assault and battery in a particular
state of mind. Is this fundamentally different from assault and battery with
a deadly weapon?
On the whole, I think criminal law should avoid the nebulous, that is, the
malefactor's state of mind, spiritual condition, etc. Criminal law should be
based on act, not on being. Nevertheless, state of mind figures in so many
crimes. There are grades of killing, depending on the offender's intent:
several types of manslaughter, several types of murder, and some killing
isn't an offense.
Hate crime isn't a clear cut yes or no to me.
Hap
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Sad Symptom
- From: Fred Ghadry
- Re: Sad Symptom
- References:
- Re: Sad Symptom
- From: Fred Ghadry
- Re: Sad Symptom
- Prev by Date: Re: Keep an eye on your phone bill!
- Next by Date: Re: Is Israel Invincible?
- Previous by thread: Re: Sad Symptom
- Next by thread: Re: Sad Symptom
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|