American man gets fifteen years for flag-burning.

[Synobun]

You would know all it, given you were one of the instigators.

I'm pretty sure I've made less than a dozen posts in response to you in 2019.

But since you've proven NOTHING you say can be trusted or given any credence, I don't see why I should carry on with you. And I'd advise anyone of any integrity or honest or good intent not to deal with you either.

Do you promise?

 

[xwyhzol]

I'm sort of with Patine.

In regards to some of your attitudes, towards the criminal...

You're emotionally out of control, and more. Being touched isn't really enough pain to warrant that sort of reaction.

It, however, 'is up to you' - I can't 'tell you how to act.'

 

[Synobun]

I'm sort of with Patine.

In regards to some of your attitudes, towards the criminal...

You're emotionally out of control, and more. Being touched isn't really enough pain to warrant that sort of reaction.

It, however, 'is up to you' - I can't 'tell you how to act.'

Sure you can. You just did.

However, nobody else except Mr. Poutine Putin Patine is comparing the punishment of a hate crime to The Minority Report and a slew of other dystopian settings.

He's also quick to decry the system without offering an alternative. My first post in this thread touched on this very point. What option is there besides the one that was selected? Forced psychiatric institutionalization in the US is effectively a different brand of incarceration. That leaves doing nothing, which is clearly unacceptable. What option is there that is more humane and holistic? That is currently accessible? That will prevent the immediate danger posed by someone who's committed a hate crime and has publicly stated intent to escalate?

It's already been established that the 15-year sentence won't be 15 years unless he's naughty on the inside. So it comes down to a question of how bad you think the crime and intent is. To Mouthwash, Patine, Farm Boy, seemingly the intent is innocuous. Others disagree.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Well of course not. Eating a sandwich doesn't mean the eater might not commit physical violence.

Are you missing the point accidentally or on purpose?

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about gay people who, purely of their volition, try to live entirely celibate lives? I'm not just asking about their right to exist; would you shake hands with one if you met them on the street? Or are their beliefs 'self-hating' and offensive?

Why would I care if they're celibate or not? It's none of my business what they do or don't do, as well as the reverse.

I don't ask the sexual preferences of people I meet on the street. Again, it's none of my business. As for hand-shaking, I prefer not to do that with anyone. I'm a dedicated hand-washer, but others might not be. It's the best way to spread cold germs, next to public door handles, elevator buttons, debit machines, and pay phones.

I'll tell you exactly what arson is. Burning a permanent structure or edifice, usually one that would be legally and economically described as real estate, though outbuildings, storage buildings, utility buildings, etc. on a property, but that are not real estate in their own right, can also count. Burning a flag is NOT legally arson. It's vandalism, destruction of property under $1000, violation of civic fire ordinance, and, in this case, was used as a vehicle for a threat - but it, itself, wasn't arson.

Oh. So the people charged and convicted for starting forest fires didn't commit arson?

 

[El_Machinae]

Hijacking thread-jacking

One thing that seems to come up is people's concern with the existence of 'hate crime' legislation. Okay, first caveat, it's obvious that any specific jurisdiction can screw up the first principles.

People should notice that both myself and Arwon immediately jumped on the concept of mens rea. Now, you shouldn't fully trust me (IANAL), but you can bet that I'm Cleo!, Jolly Roger, Fred LC, and [insert CFC lawyer] would all have jumped on it as well. It's a pretty basic concept.

I'm not going to defend it or explain it. It's really hard to explain in a couple of paragraphs over a forum.

First, some math. Just to get it out of the way. Everyone knows that a subtraction is just a negative addition, right? Or an addition is a negative subtraction? So, if you have something that can add, you also have something that can subtract.

"Hate crime" is merely an offense where there is an implicit attempt to intimidate a cohort or are assumed to not have a good reason. Again, see my first caveat.

We already have crimes where intent can result in an addition (or a negative subtraction, or however you want to look at it)
Consider the difference between 2nd degree murder, 1st degree murder, and manslaughter. Each underlying event is the same: an illegal homocide.

But the difference is nearly 100% intent. We've decided that "planning for weeks to murder someone" is worse (criminally) than "decided in the heat of the moment to kill someone" from "didn't really intend for the activity to result in death". [hand-waves away finer distinctions].

It doesn't matter if you think of "didn't plan ahead of time" as subtracting from First Degree or "planning ahead" adds to 2nd Degree. Mathematically, they're the same. And Manslaughter can be pursued with "they egged me into becoming violent". Intent distinguishes them. It's merely subjective to say that lack of intent rewards one accused or intent punishes a different accused.

Consider hate crimes being in the same vein, but just a broader category. Whether it is "we believe that you intended to intimidate a group rather than an individual" resulting a simple addition OR "not only did you not have a good reason, but you invented a bad reason" as being the negative equivalent of "they gave me a reason to".

If you can be egged into a crime, and get a reduced sentence, then you can also have a very bad reason for a crime and get a higher sentence.

 

[xwyhzol]

Sure you can. You just did.

However, nobody else except Mr. Poutine Putin Patine is comparing the punishment of a hate crime to The Minority Report and a slew of other dystopian settings.

He's also quick to decry the system without offering an alternative. My first post in this thread touched on this very point. What option is there besides the one that was selected? Forced psychiatric institutionalization in the US is effectively a different brand of incarceration. That leaves doing nothing, which is clearly unacceptable. What option is there that is more humane and holistic? That is currently accessible? That will prevent the immediate danger posed by someone who's committed a hate crime and has publicly stated intent to escalate?

It's already been established that the 15-year sentence won't be 15 years unless he's naughty on the inside. So it comes down to a question of how bad you think the crime and intent is. To Mouthwash, Patine, Farm Boy, seemingly the intent is innocuous. Others disagree.

Ok, I suppose I didn't read all the information but collected partial evidence.

You have very artistic prose by the way.

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: Closed for review.