Reply #30: oh, lord [View All]

[iverglas]

All crimes are defined by motivation

NO CRIME is defined by motivation.

Crimes are defined by the act (actus reus) and the intent (mens rea).

"Intent" is NOT "motivation".

If I shoot you in the heart and you die, I have committed homicide. Homicide consists of an act that is intended (or will reasonably foreseeably cause) to kill someone, and did kill someone.

If my motive was to stop you from plunging the knife you are holding over me into my heart, I may be excused for committing the offence, but the offence was still committed.

It is only motivation which makes it a crime.

NO!! If I steal your money with the motive of giving it to the homeless and plan to keep none of it for myself, I have still committed a crime.

My INTENT was to steal money, and that is a crime, regardless of WHAT my motive was.

Motive can obviate criminal responsibility (guilt), and it can also be an aggravating or mitigating factor for the purpose of sentencing.

I'm also of the view that not simply the motive, but the act and intent themselves, can be regarded as different in the case of "hate crimes", and that's where I find the rest of what you say quite right on, and think it bears repeating:

The reason hate crimes should be punished more harshly than other crimes is because the attack is not just on the individual being beaten, raped, tortured or murdered, but it is directed at a larger group of people. To protect that larger group, the crime is punished more harshly, under the (in my opinion naive) assumption that punishment somehow acts as a deterent to violent crimes.

It is the same reason that if you kill a police officer, you are sentenced more harshly than if you kill a civilian. The police officer is just a person, but also represent something larger--law, justice, all that stuff. In addition, the police officer is part of a group that--if not protected--becomes a popular target.

Hate crimes carry an implied threat, a terroristic threat, to anyone of the same grouping as the victim. The crime is not a simple crime, it affects and endangers more people than a simple crime.

We are absolutely ad idem on that -- except perhaps for that "naive" opinion. I do agree with that in a general way: "general deterrence" is largely a fairy tale. But it may work in some cases. There may be some types of offenders who are amenable to the deterrent effects of sentences imposed on other people. The more rational, non-impulsive the offender's behaviour, and perhaps the more the offender has to lose and a few other factors, the more amenable s/he may be.

I tend to think that the hate crimes and their perpetrators may be one instance where the effect could be anticipated.