The GLBT and GSA Thread

[mad_gater]

No, not because they were/are XYZ, but because you CHOSE them because of XYZ.
Again bro, it's MOTIVE, not the crime itself. It can also come down to the particular facts of a crime as well.


Thats not what is coming across dude, even in that paragraph it is somewhat mixed.
lets break it down and make it simple for both of us.

Do you think that whatever motivates a crime should have bearing on the punishment delivered if you are found guilty, yes or no?. We can elaborate later.


No, it's what they have been misused for. "He wouldn't have done it if X was not X", it's why as Fuzz noted, proving the component of a hate crime can be so hard.
Harsher penalties exist based on motivation and/or elements of the crime in question. Hate crime goes to the perpetrators motivation, Elements such "depraved indifference" speak to elements of the crime itself.

say the law says that stealing gets you 10 years in prison......If I was the judge in a court of law I wouldn't care WHY the crime was committed only that it was committed and should receive whatever punishment the saw says he should receive

finding out why a particular crime was committed though can be a helpful tool for law enforcement to help narrow down the list of suspects

in summary.....motive is a good tool for law enforcement to help narrow down the list of suspects, but once they have the suspect and bring him to justice in the coourt of law.....the motive (i.e., the WHY) is irrelevant

[Gatefan1976]

Oh dear gods.
I am speechless, absolutely speachless.

[Cold Fuzz]

Oh dear gods.
I am speechless, absolutely speachless.

No need to be speechless. Motive does have weight in sentencing, at least in my state and in many others. It's going to stay that way, no matter what others may try to do. Part of the reason hate crime laws exist in the first place is to crack down on the insidiousness of violence and hatred masquerading itself as political activism.

[lordofseas]

say the law says that stealing gets you 10 years in prison......If I was the judge in a court of law I wouldn't care WHY the crime was committed only that it was committed and should receive whatever punishment the saw says he should receive

finding out why a particular crime was committed though can be a helpful tool for law enforcement to help narrow down the list of suspects

in summary.....motive is a good tool for law enforcement to help narrow down the list of suspects, but once they have the suspect and bring him to justice in the coourt of law.....the motive (i.e., the WHY) is irrelevant

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

And you expect to be taken with supposed gravitas.

Motive is "irrelevant".

I cannot stop laughing. Please, more, more.

[Gatefan1976]

No need to be speechless. Motive does have weight in sentencing, at least in my state and in many others. It's going to stay that way, no matter what others may try to do. Part of the reason hate crime laws exist in the first place is to crack down on the insidiousness of violence and hatred masquerading itself as political activism.

I know that Fuzz old son, but that, that response , that, just does my head in.

[Cold Fuzz]

I know that Fuzz old son, but that, that response , that, just does my head in.

I know it does and I do agree, but we shouldn't expect a cloud to give us ginger ale when it rains. Establishing motive and intent is the legal basis for differentiating between manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, and murder. That's why each crime has a different level of severity in terms of sentencing. Intent to kill, malice, premeditation--all of which fall under the legal rubric of motive--are an indissoluble part of determining the severity of the crime in question and thus the resulting sentence. It's hardwired into the legal system so this notion of removing motive from the picture just ain't going to happen, no matter what certain parties here may think.

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

say the law says that stealing gets you 10 years in prison......If I was the judge in a court of law I wouldn't care WHY the crime was committed only that it was committed and should receive whatever punishment the saw says he should receive

So a toddler putting things in their pockets while in the supermarket simply because they're too young to know any better and an armed gang stealing $100 million from a bank...

[Goose]

So a toddler putting things in their pockets while in the supermarket simply because they're too young to know any better and an armed gang stealing $100 million from a bank...

I'm pretty sure armed robbery and shoplifting are two separate offences...

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

I'm pretty sure armed robbery and shoplifting are two separate offences...

Not in Mad Gater's world Stealing is stealing..

[mad_gater]

Not in Mad Gater's world Stealing is stealing..

I was speaking in general terms for the sake of brevity.....if I listed all the different forms of stealing in my posts I'd be here all day....

[mad_gater]

of course I wouldn't prosecute someone who didn't know any better....like I said I was speaking in general terms

my main point was that law enforcement can find out possible motives for why a crime was committed in order to narrow down the list of suspects....but once the suspect is brought into a court of law the why becomes irrelevant

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

of course I wouldn't prosecute someone who didn't know any better....like I said I was speaking in general terms

my main point was that law enforcement can find out possible motives for why a crime was committed in order to narrow down the list of suspects....but once the suspect is brought into a court of law the why becomes irrelevant

Which is it? You can't have it both ways...

[mad_gater]

give me one irrefutable purely logical reason why a judge/jury should care about the reason someone had for committing a crime (i.e. the motive we've been talking about) when determining guilt/innocence and passing sentence if guilty? it seems to me that the judge/jury doing so would then be making such determinations based on transient feelings rather than the facts of the case

[mad_gater]

Which is it? You can't have it both ways...

I say motive becomes irrelevant because the function of a court of law is different from the function of law enforcement (the police)....the function of law enforcement is to find the suspect, and they can use possible reasons why a crime was committed in order to better help them in that task....however the function of a court of law is to determine the defendant's guilt/innocence and pass sentence if the defendant is indeed guilty of the crime in question.....the reason a guilty defendant commmited the crime in question at that point becomes irrelevant...say a person committed a cold blooded murder which under some justice system garners a 20-year sentence in maximum security prison......should the sentence become 30 just because the guilty defendant hated the person he murdered? this is what I'm getting at......having a different sentence for the exact same crime based solely on the criminal's thoughts, whereas an inherently fair and impartial justice system convicts a person based on actions, not thoughts

[Cold Fuzz]

I say motive becomes irrelevant because the function of a court of law is different from the function of law enforcement (the police)....the function of law enforcement is to find the suspect, and they can use possible reasons why a crime was committed in order to better help them in that task....however the function of a court of law is to determine the defendant's guilt/innocence and pass sentence if the defendant is indeed guilty of the crime in question.....the reason a guilty defendant commmited the crime in question at that point becomes irrelevant...say a person committed a cold blooded murder which under some justice system garners a 20-year sentence in maximum security prison......should the sentence become 30 just because the guilty defendant hated the person he murdered? this is what I'm getting at......having a different sentence for the exact same crime based solely on the criminal's thoughts, whereas an inherently fair and impartial justice system convicts a person based on actions, not thoughts

And you can't differentiate between "cold-blooded murder" and manslaughter without motive. If prosecution can't prove intent to kill and malice they'll at least get manslaughter. That's why motive is important . It's always part of the process.

Edit: A manslaughter sentence will get you 15-25 while murder could get you life or the death penalty.