"Practically all crime is ‘thought crime’ in the good ol’ common law sense of the Latin phrase actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea – ‘the act does not make guilt unless the mind be guilty.’ If we were to take a strict liability approach to all violent crime we would be obliged to place wrongful death on a par with premeditated murder. (After all, it’s not as though the lives of those killed accidentally are worth less.)"
The occasion of these musings being the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act which recently passed the U.S. House of Representatives.
8 comments:
Treating hate crimes exceptionally has nothing to do with criminalising thought. It seems like a distraction for CT to engage in that argument to counter whatever the alcoholic Boehner is going on about.
Crimes motivated by hatred directed at definable groups of people victimise the entire group. Women, visible, minorities, gays and lesbians all know this viscerally. Only white men don't, because they're usually not the ones being targeted.
The guilty mind concept already applies to the intentional killing of any person, gay or straight.
How does this law improve on that?
And Ti conveniently ignores that the victimization of groups of people through violence occurs at much higher rates by other ethnic groups, and not "white men".
And Ti conveniently ignores that the victimization of groups of people through violence occurs at much higher rates by other ethnic groups, and not "white men".
That has nothing to do with the social costs of hate crimes. And it's not something I made up; it's the legal argument for treating crimes motivated by hate more severely.
Anyway, don't panic, Paul Sunstrum. These kinds of laws will protect you as well when the beige finally come after you and try to give you the payback you so richly deserve.
At least I hope they will. By that time, the rest of us might not even care anymore.
It's not something you made up Ti, it's something the left invented.
As for treating 'hate crimes' more severely, the murderers of Matthew Shepard both received no-parole life sentences; this without hate-crime legislation. Are you advocating the death penalty instead?
These kinds of laws will protect you as well when the beige finally come after you and try to give you the payback you so richly deserve.
LOL. More left wing nutter revenge fantasy. Sounds like a plotline for a really bad Steven Seagal movie.
It's not something you made up Ti, it's something the left invented.
On what evidence do you base that claim?
LOL. More left wing nutter revenge fantasy. Sounds like a plotline for a really bad Steven Seagal movie.
LOL!!!
I asked you a question, Paul Sunstrum.
Still waiting...
Just a tiny point, but Crooked Timber has got it all wrong.
In order to convict anyone of a crime, the prosecution must demonstrate the 'actus reus' (the act), and the 'mens rea' (the guilty mind).
Crooked Timber is attempting to make the concept of thought crimes more palatable by using a logical fallacy or a poor understanding of the law.
The label 'thought crime' is typically applied to crimes which only require a guilty mind, with no corresponding actus reus, or where the actus reus merely consists in expressing a thought.
I know the discussion is occurring in the context of hate crime legislation where the identity of the victim of an actual real crime leads to stricter sentences, but as Crooked Timber him(her)self recognizes: "It doesn’t follow that ‘hate crime’ legislation makes moral and practical sense"
Regardless, these types of hate crime laws are not directed at thought crimes either. So on one side there is a republican screaming 'thought crime' wrongly, and on the other we have CT saying 'all crimes are thought crimes', also wrongly.
Post a Comment