That’s completely untrue. Do some research on “mitigating factors” and “aggravating factors”. You’ll learn why you’re wrong.
Wash, rinse, repeat. Bullsh!t. Do that same research. You’ll find that those factors support finding of fault and causation, and support a finding of guilt. But are not, and never have been punishable in and of themselves.
WRONG. Aggravating and mitigating factors influence SENTENCING, not guilt or innocence.
Once again you display a strong ignorance of the law.
So, what the person says is now a crime? That is all that’s needed to add 10 years on to someone’s sentence?
Also, you just confirmed that the speech is the crime. Sorry to tell you that.... but thanks for proving my point.
Speech reveals intent in the commission of a crime, which influences the sentencing.
Here’s the thing: If he said that, and didn’t couple that with a violent act, he would not be punished. However, if he didn’t say that but committed the same act, he would be punished. So which action is the illegal one?
HINT: It’s the one that gets punished in both cases.
No, they are NOT elements of crime. They are nothing more than links to causation, and support a finding of guilt.
Once again, you display profound ignorance of the law.
Let’s take Michigan law’s legally defined elements of felony murder:
The elements of felony murder are: (1) the killing of a human being, (2) with the intent to kill, to do great bodily harm, or to create a very high risk of death or great bodily harm with the knowledge that death or great bodily harm was a probable result, (3) while committing, attempting to commit, or assisting in the commission of any of the felonies listed in MCL 750.316; MSA 28.548.
See that? Intent, knowledge - they are ELEMENTS of a crime. Those elements MUST be proven to support the conviction.
Gosh, willfullness, intent, premeditation, deliberation… wow, sure looks like you don’t know what you’re talking about, KDawg.
Likewise, hate crimes contain intent and motive as a necessary ELEMENT in a larger crime.
If one premeditates a murder but never attempts it, he is guilty of no crime. Does the fact that premeditation is an element in first degree murder mean that the premeditation is the crime? If so, isn’t that thought crime? And why not make the simple premeditation “thought crime” illegal, since you claim there’s no difference between thinking about something and acting on those thoughts?
No, it’s not hyperbolic crap. You’ve outlined a f@cking police state, where one’s motives and thoughts become elements of a crime. In fact, those motives and thoughts become the crime.
Guess we’ve lived in a police state since 1789, by your hyperbolic arguments.
You’ve outlines a police state where the government determines which thoughts are o.k., and which ones are not. Which people are worth protecting, and which ones aren’t.... etc.
Federal death penalty law brings into consideration the victim - if the victim is very young or is infirm, or is a high officeholder, the death penalty is more applicable than if the victim is not. So.... do you oppose that too?
You’re apparently too think headed and dumb to get it though… typical liberal.. you can always tell one, just can’t tell it much.
You can always tell a wingnut because they cannot keep an argument going without flinging insults and making hyperbolic claims, and they repeat the same argument over and over and over ad nauseam.
BTW - so far, you have provided one link to a source to support any claim you’ve made - the rarity of convictions for hate crimes (Not surprising, given the difficulty in establishing the elements of such a crime). I’ve provided a lot of links that directly refute your ignorant claims. Funny, isn’t it, how you have nothing to support your bluster except more bluster, whereas I have the law on my side?
WRONG. Aggravating and mitigating factors influence SENTENCING, not guilt or innocence.
Once again you display a strong ignorance of the law.
No, you’re wrong. Oh, sorry… WRONG… was that more convincing?
Raptavio - 30 October 2007 04:38 PM
No, they are NOT elements of crime. They are nothing more than links to causation, and support a finding of guilt.
Once again, you display profound ignorance of the law.
Wow, another convincing argument. Are you always this retarded?
Raptavio - 30 October 2007 04:38 PM
Let’s take Michigan law’s legally defined elements of felony murder:
Yes. Let’s.
Raptavio - 30 October 2007 04:38 PM
The elements of felony murder are: (1) the killing of a human being, (2) with the intent to kill, to do great bodily harm, or to create a very high risk of death or great bodily harm with the knowledge that death or great bodily harm was a probable result, (3) while committing, attempting to commit, or assisting in the commission of any of the felonies listed in MCL 750.316; MSA 28.548.
See that? Intent, knowledge - they are ELEMENTS of a crime. Those elements MUST be proven to support the conviction.
And this proves your point, how exactly.
Do you know what the meaning of the word “intent” is? It means your determination to do something… No where in any of that does it say “intent” in and of its self is the crime.
No where in there does it define “hate” as intent. In that context, hate cannot be the content. The intent is a description of HOW the criminal set out to commit the ACT… not his thought process.
Again, elements of determining MOTIVE, not the crime its self.
Seriously, are you really this dumb? I’m beginning to think so.
Gosh, willfullness, intent, premeditation, deliberation… wow, sure looks like you don’t know what you’re talking about, KDawg.
Yes, and which of those are the crimes themselves? None.
Raptavio - 30 October 2007 04:38 PM
Likewise, hate crimes contain intent and motive as a necessary ELEMENT in a larger crime.
Likewise, nothing. “Hate crimes” laws are unique in their determination that motive its self is the crime.
Raptavio - 30 October 2007 04:38 PM
If one premeditates a murder but never attempts it, he is guilty of no crime.
Correct.
Raptavio - 30 October 2007 04:38 PM
Does the fact that premeditation is an element in first degree murder mean that the premeditation is the crime?
No. But it help determine what crime is charged… First, second or third degree. All different crimes. Pre-medication is not a crime. And nobody is saying that it was.
Raptavio - 30 October 2007 04:38 PM
Federal death penalty law brings into consideration the victim - if the victim is very young or is infirm, or is a high officeholder, the death penalty is more applicable than if the victim is not. So.... do you oppose that too?
Because I oppose the death penalty, yes. Even so, this is still not an example where thought is criminalized.
Can you even provide one coherent, relevant example to support your case?
The law is far from on your side. Even if you understood it.
Since each feared for their lives and were convicted anyway. Oops. Damn, there I go, citing actual facts to refute your factless bluster.
Wow, yet another example that doesn’t support your b.s. argument. So the jury didn’t buy it...so what? Even so, which one had additional time tacked on for thinking the wrong thing?
Raptavio - 30 October 2007 04:43 PM
In my world—reality—criminals are charged for the crime they commit. Not for their victim’s skin color, etc. And not for what they were thinking.
Sh!t. All crime is a f#cking hate crime you idiot.
All crime is a hate crime? Interesting. So someone who steals an apple because he’s hungry and has no money to buy food is committing a hate crime.
Cute… allow me to rephrase… all VIOLENT crime is a hate crime.
So, several pages in, Raptavio has provided numerous examples that underscore my side of the argument; misapplied the law; demonstrated a complete mis-understanding of the law, as well as ignorance of the constitution; tried to change subjects; and started name calling (after admonishing me.).
Funny.
And at the end of the day, “hate crimes” still represent just .07 of one percent of all crimes in the U.S., while “hate crimes” laws do nothing more than create a second class of victims that are worth less than others; criminalize thoughts; open the door to widespread censorship of speech; and eliminate the Constitutional concept of “equal protection"…
Since each feared for their lives and were convicted anyway. Oops. Damn, there I go, citing actual facts to refute your factless bluster.
Wow, yet another example that doesn’t support your b.s. argument. So the jury didn’t buy it...so what? Even so, which one had additional time tacked on for thinking the wrong thing?
Raptavio - 30 October 2007 04:43 PM
In my world—reality—criminals are charged for the crime they commit. Not for their victim’s skin color, etc. And not for what they were thinking.
Sh!t. All crime is a f#cking hate crime you idiot.
All crime is a hate crime? Interesting. So someone who steals an apple because he’s hungry and has no money to buy food is committing a hate crime.
Cute… allow me to rephrase… all VIOLENT crime is a hate crime.
rap the “intellectual” forget his “Les Miserables” metaphor?
It’s ONLY a “hate crime” if the democrats can use it to further marginalize and segregate ANOTHER segment of the population in their continuing efforts to make “We the People” dependent on their flavor of socialism.
OK so… when we left off. KDawg, being entirely cornered, begins shifting the arguments in a desperate attempt to throw everyone off the scent.
Kdawg - 30 October 2007 05:13 PM
Raptavio - 30 October 2007 04:38 PM
WRONG. Aggravating and mitigating factors influence SENTENCING, not guilt or innocence.
Once again you display a strong ignorance of the law.
No, you’re wrong. Oh, sorry… WRONG… was that more convincing?
I cited the law that proves it. You distract by whining about me calling you wrong, and ignore the law.
Raptavio - 30 October 2007 04:38 PM
No, they are NOT elements of crime. They are nothing more than links to causation, and support a finding of guilt.
Once again, you display profound ignorance of the law.
Wow, another convincing argument. Are you always this retarded?
And again, you distract by ignoring the law I cited and simply insulting.
Raptavio - 30 October 2007 04:38 PM
The elements of felony murder are: (1) the killing of a human being, (2) with the intent to kill, to do great bodily harm, or to create a very high risk of death or great bodily harm with the knowledge that death or great bodily harm was a probable result, (3) while committing, attempting to commit, or assisting in the commission of any of the felonies listed in MCL 750.316; MSA 28.548.
See that? Intent, knowledge - they are ELEMENTS of a crime. Those elements MUST be proven to support the conviction.
And this proves your point, how exactly.
Do you know what the meaning of the word “intent” is? It means your determination to do something… No where in any of that does it say “intent” in and of its self is the crime.
No where in there does it define “hate” as intent. In that context, hate cannot be the content. The intent is a description of HOW the criminal set out to commit the ACT… not his thought process.
My point of course was that intent and motive - knowledge - which are all kinds of THOUGHT - are in fact elements of crime, when you claimed they were not. Your only response is to try to pretend that wasn’t your argument. More chaff from Kdawg.
Again, elements of determining MOTIVE, not the crime its self.
No, those elements are necessary to establish the crime was committed. As the law shows.
Seriously, are you really this dumb? I’m beginning to think so.
Gosh, willfullness, intent, premeditation, deliberation… wow, sure looks like you don’t know what you’re talking about, KDawg.
Yes, and which of those are the crimes themselves? None.
That’s right. And neither is the “hate” part of a hate crime itself criminal. It is an element of a crime, but is not a crime itself. You’re almost there, dude. You’ve almost reached cognition.
Likewise, nothing. “Hate crimes” laws are unique in their determination that motive its self is the crime.
Aaaaand he loses it.
If the motive itself was the crime, then the motive itself could be punished irrespective of whether it was coupled with other elements of a crime. It cannot be. Therefore, you are wrong.
Raptavio - 30 October 2007 04:38 PM
Does the fact that premeditation is an element in first degree murder mean that the premeditation is the crime?
No. But it help determine what crime is charged… First, second or third degree. All different crimes. Pre-medication is not a crime. And nobody is saying that it was.
Ah, so if “murder” and “murder as a bias crime” were different crimes rather than the same crime, one with a sentence enhancer, you’d be fine with that?
Raptavio - 30 October 2007 04:38 PM
Federal death penalty law brings into consideration the victim - if the victim is very young or is infirm, or is a high officeholder, the death penalty is more applicable than if the victim is not. So.... do you oppose that too?
Because I oppose the death penalty, yes. Even so, this is still not an example where thought is criminalized.
Well you and I agree about the death penalty, at least. But you have once again thrown up chaff. You insisted that the victim is never a consideration in sentencing for a crime, but for bias crimes. Your paean to “equal protection under the law.” This was a rebuttal to that claim as well. And you have, of course, tried to mislead the reader into thinking it was supposed to be part of the argument about bias crime. Slippery little eel you are, but it shows me you know you’re on the ropes, even if you won’t admit it.
Search the last five pages for ‘http’ using the control-F function on your browser.
You know, like the one that proves you were full of it when you claimed the appeals court called anything “hate speech”, or the three that cite federal law about aggravating and mitigating factors, and state law defining elements of a crime, etc. etc. etc.
OK, you know what? I’m done. Anyone who matters knows you got pwned and don’t know what you’re talking about. Anyone who doesn’t never will.
I cited the law that proves it. You distract by whining about me calling you wrong, and ignore the law.
No you didn’t. There was no citation. No link. No text.
Raptavio - 30 October 2007 04:38 PM
No, they are NOT elements of crime. They are nothing more than links to causation, and support a finding of guilt.
Once again, you display profound ignorance of the law.
Wow, another convincing argument. Are you always this retarded?
And again, you distract by ignoring the law I cited and simply insulting.
Again, you cited nothing. You just said stuff… wrong stuff, I might add. Moreover, whatever you you were referring to, you mis-applied.
Raptavio - 30 October 2007 05:29 PM
Raptavio - 30 October 2007 04:38 PM
The elements of felony murder are: (1) the killing of a human being, (2) with the intent to kill, to do great bodily harm, or to create a very high risk of death or great bodily harm with the knowledge that death or great bodily harm was a probable result, (3) while committing, attempting to commit, or assisting in the commission of any of the felonies listed in MCL 750.316; MSA 28.548.
See that? Intent, knowledge - they are ELEMENTS of a crime. Those elements MUST be proven to support the conviction.
And this proves your point, how exactly.
Do you know what the meaning of the word “intent” is? It means your determination to do something… No where in any of that does it say “intent” in and of its self is the crime.
No where in there does it define “hate” as intent. In that context, hate cannot be the content. The intent is a description of HOW the criminal set out to commit the ACT… not his thought process.
My point of course was that intent and motive - knowledge - which are all kinds of THOUGHT - are in fact elements of crime, when you claimed they were not. Your only response is to try to pretend that wasn’t your argument. More chaff from Kdawg.
And again, in the example you cite, intent and motive are determining factors in deciding what crime was committed. They ARE NOT crimes in and of themselves.
Gosh, willfullness, intent, premeditation, deliberation… wow, sure looks like you don’t know what you’re talking about, KDawg.
Yes, and which of those are the crimes themselves? None.
That’s right. And neither is the “hate” part of a hate crime itself criminal. It is an element of a crime, but is not a crime itself. You’re almost there, dude. You’ve almost reached cognition.
Of course, you miss the most obvious point… where as with a hate crime, an additional sentence is stacked on (THERE FOR MAKING MOTIVE A CRIME), in your example, those are simple determinative elements…
Raptavio - 30 October 2007 05:29 PM
Likewise, nothing. “Hate crimes” laws are unique in their determination that motive its self is the crime.
Aaaaand he loses it.
If the motive itself was the crime, then the motive itself could be punished irrespective of whether it was coupled with other elements of a crime. It cannot be. Therefore, you are wrong.
No, I win. If the motive WAS NOT THE CRIME, we wouldn’t be having this conversation, because the additional sentence wouldn’t be tacked for it.
