Ideological crimes

[Loppan Torkel]

1. Do you consider ideological crimes to be different enough to warrant special punishment or treatment?
2. Do you consider crimes committed for ideological reasons to be morally better or worse than crimes committed for other reasons? (The alternative would be that you don't think there's moral distinction (neither crime is better or worse) between the two crimes)

Do you know if your nation has a distinction for and employ specific laws against "hate-crimes" and "acts of terror"? What's your opinion about it in that case?

 

[Tee Kay]

Bad poll options are bad.

I don't crimes committed for ideological reasons are different enough to warrant special punishment, nor do I think they're necessarily better or worse morally than crimes committed for other reasons.

 

[ParkCungHee]

While they are not necessarily better or worse, ideological crimes need to be dealt with differently than normal crimes under the understanding of hate crimes.

 

[Karalysia]

I think it's foolish to ignore the fact that crimes have different motivations and to ignore the motivation when considering punishment makes any justice system incomplete.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Bad poll options are bad.

Care to explain?

 

[ParkCungHee]

They're confusing and unclear.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

They're confusing and unclear.

A bit confusing at first look perhaps.

 

[Tee Kay]

I looked three times. They're as confusing as ever.

For instance. "Do you consider crimes committed for ideological reasons to be morally better or worse than crimes committed for other reasons?" The options are yes and no, but it's not a yes/no question.

 

[Flying Pig]

I've always answered either/or questions with 'yes'. They just irritate me. 'Do you think England or Wales are going to win the match?' 'Why yes, I do'.

Grr... anyway:

From a legal perspective, not really. Otherwise, all of the criminals would plead ideological motivation (or not, if it was deemed worse) where their motivations were different in order to get a lighter punishment. Morally, that's different - we hold up people like Brutus (the original) as heroes

 

[bhsup]

Ideological crimes, hate crimes....both are asinine labels and are a tool of thought police.

"Well sorry ma'am, you and your neighbor's husband were both murdered today. Unfortunately, your hubby was murdered randomly in a burglary gone bad, but the neighbor's hubby was murdered by a whack lefty because he was a Republican. So we're just gonna put your hubby's killer in jail for a few years because, well let's face it, that's just not that big of a deal....BUT BY GOD, SOMEONE MURDERED A REPUBLICAN BECAUSE HE WAS A REPUBLICAN, WE'RE GONNA FRY THAT BASTARD!"

Yeah, I'm sure the wife gives a crap why her husband was murdered. He's just as dead as her neighbor's husband.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I looked three times. They're as confusing as ever.

For instance. "Do you consider crimes committed for ideological reasons to be morally better or worse than crimes committed for other reasons?" The options are yes and no, but it's not a yes/no question.

Yes it is. You either consider these crimes to be either better or worse than other crimes, or you don't - i e there are no moral distinctions between the two crimes. The 'No' option should be answered if you think ideological crimes are neither better or worse than 'normal' crimes. You're of course free to explain why and in what way they are better or worse.

I agree that the options are a bit confusing though...

I've always answered either/or questions with 'yes'. They just irritate me. 'Do you think England or Wales are going to win the match?' 'Why yes, I do'.

Not the same. "Do you think that Englishmen morally are better or worse than Irishmen?" is a valid question in my mind, if you want to know the opinion on whether they differ morally.

Grr... anyway:

From a legal perspective, not really. Otherwise, all of the criminals would plead ideological motivation (or not, if it was deemed worse) where their motivations were different in order to get a lighter punishment. Morally, that's different - we hold up people like Brutus (the original) as heroes

There's treatment aspect to it also. A 'normal' criminal might fall into criminal behavior after he's released and there might be nothing more the society could do about it, but if the criminal committed the crime for an ideological reason - could he be released into society if he still holds the same ideals?

 

[El_Machinae]

1. Do you consider ideological crimes to be different enough to warrant special punishment or treatment?
2. Do you consider crimes committed for ideological reasons to be morally better or worse than crimes committed for other reasons?

Do you know if your nation has a distinction for and employ specific laws against "hate-crimes" and "acts of terror"? What's your opinion about it in that case?

Well, I think that ideological intent can be used to mitigate punishment, but that it's a pretty slippery slope and so we should be careful.

As well, I tend to despise (or admire) ideological motivations more than 'normal' motivations. A protester who's 'disturbing the peace' can be more admired that the obnoxious jerk or the drunken idiot, for example.

Hate crimes, too, can warrant additional punishment, if the intent was to terrorise a group. For the same reason why an extortion or intimidation ring deserves more punishment that simple assaulters.

 

[Flying Pig]

Not the same. "Do you think that Englishmen morally are better or worse than Irishmen?" is a valid question in my mind, if you want to know the opinion on whether they differ morally.

I would ask 'Do you think Englishmen are morally different to Irishmen?'

There's treatment aspect to it also. A 'normal' criminal might fall into criminal behavior after he's released and there might be nothing more the society could do about it, but if the criminal committed the crime for an ideological reason - could he be released into society if he still holds the same ideals?

Very, very good point. Likewise would a terrorist re-offend after a peace had been brokered with his organisation? Our experiences in Ulster say probably not.

 

[GhostWriter16]

1. Do you consider ideological crimes to be different enough to warrant special punishment or treatment?
2. Do you consider crimes committed for ideological reasons to be morally better or worse than crimes committed for other reasons? (The alternative would be that you don't think there's moral distinction (neither crime is better or worse) between the two crimes)

Do you know if your nation has a distinction for and employ specific laws against "hate-crimes" and "acts of terror"? What's your opinion about it in that case?

I don't think there should be any difference, killing out of hate should be considered the same as any murder without cause. If I shoot someone because they are gay, because they are black, or because they looked at me funny, or even because I was in a bad mood, they should all be treated the same way, execution since there was absolutely no cause.

 

[Souron]

I do think motive should have a large impact on punishment. So yes, ideological crimes should be treated differently in sentencing.

The only arguement I have heard for or against the moral merrits of ideological crimes and actions, is that strong ideological conviction will trump lesser considerations such as empathy or selfinterest. This makes ideological crimes worse when they are in error (and statistically, they have to be most of the time). However, on the level of individuals, this effect is not really worth considering. So commiting a crime for ideological reasons is no better or worse then commiting it for other reasons. I am assuming that from society's perspective, the apparent criminal was infact wrong to commit said crime.

 

[JollyRoger]

Ideological crimes, hate crimes....both are asinine labels and are a tool of thought police.

"Well sorry ma'am, you and your neighbor's husband were both murdered today. Unfortunately, your hubby was murdered randomly in a burglary gone bad, but the neighbor's hubby was murdered by a whack lefty because he was a Republican. So we're just gonna put your hubby's killer in jail for a few years because, well let's face it, that's just not that big of a deal....BUT BY GOD, SOMEONE MURDERED A REPUBLICAN BECAUSE HE WAS A REPUBLICAN, WE'RE GONNA FRY THAT BASTARD!"

Yeah, I'm sure the wife gives a crap why her husband was murdered. He's just as dead as her neighbor's husband.

Sorry, Ma'am, your husband was killed in a barfight. The killer was motivated by self-defense, so we aren't going to charge him.

 

[bhsup]

Note, Jr, that I was saying "your husband was murdered" not "your husband was killed". Your situation isn't murder and therefore not comparable to mine.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Without motivation, how can you draw a distinction between the two?

 

[JollyRoger]

Note, Jr, that I was saying "your husband was murdered" not "your husband was killed". Your situation isn't murder and therefore not comparable to mine.

The only difference is motivation.

 

[bhsup]

Without motivation, how can you draw a distinction between the two?

Self defense is not murder. My initial post in this thread was comparing two like situations, someone was murdered. Nobody was murdered in JR's scenario.