• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The First Amendment

Are there any examples of free speech that you believe fall under restrictions?


  • Total voters
    23
If you paid for the act I could see an argument being made for an accessory to murder case, but this just appears to be some kind of conspiracy to commit murder. Is that actually a harm though? I'm not saying that is how the courts will see it because I know they will not, but still, is it?

I am not sure how to reply, Henrin. If you reject conspiracy as a criminal act then of course the acts of conspirators are not criminal.
 
That is the law. Cornell's a pretty reliable site.

IIRC, it's a different section of 18USC. Not 245 but another. Ima get goin' cause I have friends waiting, but I'll try to find it later, since it appears not so easy to find. It's under 'requirements for prosecution' or something like that.
 
Nope, but I will get every last one of y'all.

Are helping to build that damned accelerator in France that's gonna blow us all to Kingdom Come?

If so, thanks a lot, buster.
 
IIRC, it's a different section of 18USC. Not 245 but another. Ima get goin' cause I have friends waiting, but I'll try to find it later, since it appears not so easy to find. It's under 'requirements for prosecution' or something like that.

I'll look too -- you've made me curious.
 
Tell it to Detroit. Hate Crime legislation does nothing to address the concerns you listed. If hate crime in and of itself is the source of these things, as your quote suggests, hate crime legislation cannot prevent it. Laws will not prevent crime, and with something on the level of hate crimes (which are typically emotional affairs), they will still happen and thus we should still realize the consequences listed in your quote. All you're doing is taking on additional punishment for a crime that was already a crime in the first place.

On many level people will react illogically, but that reaction should not pervert justice. Punishment must properly reflect crime. Premeditation is premeditation. You've taken the time to think about and plan taking the life or assaulting another.

The federal hate crime law gives the feds jurisdiction when they otherwise would not have it. If you lack confidence in the resources or will of the local cop shop or DA, this can be seen as adding value. The feds also track hate crimes and this has value in deciding where to allocate resources, etc.

If these laws did what they were intended to do, I'd have no heartburn about them. My complaint is every murder victim's family wants a hate crime enhancement (many states have such laws now as well) and that when a DA decides not to charge it, the family feels a measure of justice has been denied. The DA's choice -- whether or not he charges a hate crime enhancement -- can be every bit as divisive for the community as the murder itself was.

And worst of all, the burden of proof is higher, meaning the possibility of problems of proof or even a wrongful acquittal exist, just as it would if any other element of the crime were added.

I understand the criticism that hate crime laws criminalize thought and not acts, and thus should be unconstitutional, but I just don't find that argument persuasive.
 
I don't think the government needs more tools through which it can jail its populace. We already jail the highest percentage of our population than pretty much anyone else (even China, which I find disturbing). The fact is we already made these designations long ago and took care of "intent" issues. Since the law is already in place, there is no need for extra law to make it easier for government to prosecute its citizens.
 
I don't think the government needs more tools through which it can jail its populace. We already jail the highest percentage of our population than pretty much anyone else (even China, which I find disturbing). The fact is we already made these designations long ago and took care of "intent" issues. Since the law is already in place, there is no need for extra law to make it easier for government to prosecute its citizens.

It isn't easier to prosecute a hate crime (it's actually harder), and no new crimes are created. The only difference is, we punish some murders and assaults more severely because we feel they are more of a threat to our communities.

Well, that, and the feds got more jurisdiction.
 
I am not sure how to reply, Henrin. If you reject conspiracy as a criminal act then of course the acts of conspirators are not criminal.

Well of course I reject it and for good reason. There is no harm done by simply putting up a plan to kill someone. It is perhaps not pleasant to think people are doing it, but there is no reason to make it a crime.
 
Well of course I reject it and for good reason. There is no harm done by simply putting up a plan to kill someone. It is perhaps not pleasant to think people are doing it, but there is no reason to make it a crime.

And yet, this has been a crime since the Magna Carta. Go figure.
 
Well of course I reject it and for good reason. There is no harm done by simply putting up a plan to kill someone. It is perhaps not pleasant to think people are doing it, but there is no reason to make it a crime.

So, an attempted assassination attempt that is unsuccessful should carry not penalty? Alright....
 
It isn't easier to prosecute a hate crime (it's actually harder), and no new crimes are created.


Of course a new crime was created, it's called Hate Crime.
 
It isn't easier to prosecute a hate crime (it's actually harder), and no new crimes are created. The only difference is, we punish some murders and assaults more severely because we feel they are more of a threat to our communities.

So the idea is that a racist will assault/kill more regularly than someone that is not? What is the basis for this, if so?


Well, that, and the feds got more jurisdiction.

I find it bizarre how a word can increase your sentence for murder as if the crime itself changes at all because of it.
 
And yet, this has been a crime since the Magna Carta. Go figure.

Many things in the past that we have decided to no long follow went on for a very long time before we decided to stop them. Some of them centuries in fact. Doesn't mean anything at all really.
 
So, an attempted assassination attempt that is unsuccessful should carry not penalty? Alright....

Planning an act on someones life and failing at it when you actually try to pull it off are different things.
 
Planning an act on someones life and failing at it when you actually try to pull it off are different things.

And 99.9% of us think attempted murder should be a crime.

I know you are enjoying your POV as the extremist, advocating for total freedom of speech, but it does fly in the face of 2,000 years of jurisprudence, Henrin.
 
Planning an act on someones life and failing at it when you actually try to pull it off are different things.

But, you're entire notion of what should be criminal rests on the question of whether or not it causes harm to someone. The scenario that I just presented could be a scenario which does not harm anyone.
 
Okay, in the absence of a murder or assault, how would a person be charged with a hate crime IYO?

Give it a bit, every time government grabs power it will expand it. Currently it's a crime that is associated first with the commission of another crime (secondary offense, much like seat belts used to be); but it's not unthinkable for it to turn stand alone.
 
So the idea is that a racist will assault/kill more regularly than someone that is not? What is the basis for this, if so?

Various justifications have been advanced. Deterrence for the violent haters among us. Avoiding the agony of a subgroup when one of their members has been brutally and randomly murdered or assaulted. Reducing the incidence of civil unrest over racial or other divisions. Punishing more drastically those crimes we find most morally repugnant.

I find it bizarre how a word can increase your sentence for murder as if the crime itself changes at all because of it.

You think motive is irrelevant? Tell that to anyone who's been acquitted on self-defense grounds.
 
And 99.9% of us think attempted murder should be a crime.

I know you are enjoying your POV as the extremist, advocating for total freedom of speech, but it does fly in the face of 2,000 years of jurisprudence, Henrin.

ahem..I said attempted murder should be a crime, but simply said there is a difference between planning and carrying out. The is also a difference between attempting and failing and attempting and succeeding. I only ask the differences here be taken into account as for what they are and not how our emotions leads us to think of them.
 
Give it a bit, every time government grabs power it will expand it. Currently it's a crime that is associated first with the commission of another crime (secondary offense, much like seat belts used to be); but it's not unthinkable for it to turn stand alone.

Do you not think there is any societal interest in prosecuting those who commit hate crimes?
 
Give it a bit, every time government grabs power it will expand it. Currently it's a crime that is associated first with the commission of another crime (secondary offense, much like seat belts used to be); but it's not unthinkable for it to turn stand alone.

Of course it's unthinkable, Ikari. It'd be patently unconstitutional for our government to criminalize every bit of "hate speech", whatever that may be.
 
Do you not think there is any societal interest in prosecuting those who commit hate crimes?

I guess I would need data on that to say for sure. I do not think there is any just or rightful interest in prosecuting hate crimes as we already had the laws and government force in place to handle it.
 
Of course it's unthinkable, Ikari. It'd be patently unconstitutional for our government to criminalize every bit of "hate speech", whatever that may be.

Yeah, well warrantless searches are patently unconstitutional, and we see where those stand.
 
ahem..I said attempted murder should be a crime, but simply said there is a difference between planning and carrying out. The is also a difference between attempting and failing and attempting and succeeding. I only ask the differences here be taken into account as for what they are and not how our emotions leads us to think of them.

They are taken into account -- I don't know whaca mean here, dear.

 
Back
Top Bottom