Southern Poverty Law Center's Criteria for Naming 'Hate Groups' Subpoenaed

[PRB]

So you are in favor of prosecuting thought? or Thought Crimes?

More like, I'm in favor of punishing only people who can be proven to intentionally commit a crime, you ARE aware that prosecution requires proving intent, otherwise it's just an accident, right? What you're saying seems to be, you're in favor of punishing intentional acts the same way as accidental acts.

 

[PRB]

So are you now saying Criminal offenses against persons or property are not crimes but somehow thought crimes are?

no idea how you got that, but no.

 

[mad cow]

More like, I'm in favor of punishing only people who can be proven to intentionally commit a crime, you ARE aware that prosecution requires proving intent, otherwise it's just an accident, right? What you're saying seems to be, you're in favor of punishing intentional acts the same way as accidental acts.

That's what the Criminal in "Criminal offenses against persons or property" is all about.

Ask me my opinion of Accidental and you would get a different answer.

EDIT:
Do you think people should be prosecuted for accidental Thought Crimes?

 

[PRB]

That's what the Criminal in "Criminal offenses against persons or property" is all about.

Ask me my opinion of Accidental and you would get a different answer.

EDIT:
Do you think people should be prosecuted for accidental Thought Crimes?

I don't think people should be punished for accidental anything.

What is your definition of "criminal offenses against persons or property"? does it or does it not require intent?

If accidental would be a different answer, then by definition accidental is not criminal, am I missing something?

 

[pcosmar]

"criminal offenses against persons or property"? does it or does it not require intent?

Criminal intent,,yes.
The reason for that criminal intent (ie,hate) are irrelevant.

If a person is violently assaulted, ,it is a crime. Any reason (money, anger, hate etc) are irrelevant.

am I missing something?

I am convinced of it.

One day you are defending and promoting the Global Warming scam and now rising in defense of the SPLC.

 

[pcosmar]

I don't think people should be punished for accidental anything.

Manslaughter should not be punished?

What about property damage or injury?

Someone drives into a building injuring the occupants and should not be prosecuted?

 

[mad cow]

People should be prosecuted for crimes no matter their thought process.

People should not be prosecuted for accidents no matter their thought process.

People should never be prosecuted for what they think.

 

[PRB]

People should be prosecuted for crimes no matter their thought process.

Define crime

People should not be prosecuted for accidents no matter their thought process.

Define accident

People should never be prosecuted for what they think.

Agreed

 

[PRB]

Manslaughter should not be punished?

What about property damage or injury?

Someone drives into a building injuring the occupants and should not be prosecuted?

Not unless you can prove he intended to do it.

This is why George Zimmerman is free, you can't prove he intended to kill Trayvon.

If you want to punish people without raising the burden of proof on prosecution, you're advocating for the state rather than a jury of peers. There's a word for people who want easy prosecution on facts alone, rather than allowing jurors to decide whether a person is guilty.

 

[mad cow]

Define crime



Define accident


Agreed

I could ask you to define every word you have used in this thread but where would that get us?

If you agree that people should never be prosecuted for what they think,how can you defend hate crimes?

Hate is nothing but an opinion.Should people be prosecuted for their opinions?

 

[osan]

Interesting, but it raises a question: how does anyone know whether all the docs or even any docs will be "right"?

Looking at it from their perspective, I get a subpoena, I say I will need time to gather everything. In that time, if I knew the documents in question were to be damaging, I would probably get rid of some (or just deny they exist) and doctor the rest to mitigate any damage that might result.

If I had any brains at all, no such standards would ever be committed to paper. When asked how such organizations are rated, I would respond with something along the lines of "our people are experts who know the relevant issues and work from their endless experience and first-hand knowledge of these affairs and organizations. We do not employ people who need lists of criteria, but only those who know what they are doing."

What is anyone going to say to that? Whatever the angle of attack, the shrewd jerkoff is going to have a plausible response - probably one that is strongly so.

So again I reiterate: how would anyone know whether the docs produced were complete and true? An organization like SPLC could not be trusted to tell you the color of the sky, much less to produce that which is legitimately demanded of them.

Thoughts?

 

[PRB]

I could ask you to define every word you have used in this thread but where would that get us?

I'll tell you what that gets us :

Crime : an act of harm to person or property which one has intended to do
Accident : an act of harm to person or property which one has NOT intended to do

If you agree that people should never be prosecuted for what they think,how can you defend hate crimes?

Because hate crimes do not punish the thought, they punish the crime. it specifically punishes the crime when intent is proven and it works under the assumption that lacking such intent, the crime could have been prevented.

Hate is nothing but an opinion.Should people be prosecuted for their opinions?

No.

 

[PRB]

Interesting, but it raises a question: how does anyone know whether all the docs or even any docs will be "right"?

Looking at it from their perspective, I get a subpoena, I say I will need time to gather everything. In that time, if I knew the documents in question were to be damaging, I would probably get rid of some (or just deny they exist) and doctor the rest to mitigate any damage that might result.

If you do not produce accurate evidence, it's called contempt of court. Good luck with that.

 

[mad cow]

Because hate crimes do not punish the thought, they punish the crime.

Hogwash,they punish the thought.Should a black man who murders a black man or a gay man who murders a gay man,all else being equal,get a lesser sentence than a black man who murders a white man or a gay man who murders a straight man?

 

[PRB]

Hogwash,they punish the thought.

If they punished the thought, they wouldn't need the action.

Should a black man who murders a black man or a gay man who murders a gay man,all else being equal,get a lesser sentence than a black man who murders a white man or a gay man who murders a straight man?

No. Not even hate crime advocates say that. You may occasionally hear extreme liberal idiots who think the mere fact the victim is a minority makes something a hate crime, but that's not the case, hate crime is a specific category of intentional crimes, it relies on proving intent, and therefore can't be dismissed as accident, heat of passion, self defense or "gay panic". It punishes the crime because it has intent, lacking intent, you have an accident, a self defense, an irrational act in the heat of a moment, or knee jerk reaction (all valid defenses).

 

[mad cow]

If they punished the thought, they wouldn't need the action.

Well that sends chills down my spine.But it is what you have been arguing for all thread and I have been arguing against.

That would obviously call for thought police.Minority Report here we come.

 

[PRB]

Well that sends chills down my spine.But it is what you have been arguing for all thread and I have been arguing against.

That would obviously call for thought police.Minority Report here we come.

No it isn't. Minority Report is PRE-crime, not THOUGHT crime.

Your ignorance on criminal law is not an argument or criticism of the system's underlying rule.

Again, to punish a crime, you need both guilty mind and guilty act, you cannot be punished if you lacked either (with exception of strict liability crimes). That is, how things ARE, whether you like it or not.

 

[mad cow]

Do you think a black man all else being equal,should get a lesser sentence for murdering another black man than murdering a white man?

Do you think a gay man should get a lesser sentence for murdering another gay man than for murdering a straight man?

Do you think a woman should get a lesser sentence for murdering another woman than murdering a man?

Do you think an immigrant from Mexico should get a lesser sentence for murdering another immigrant from Mexico than an immigrant from France?

 

[PRB]

Do you think a black man all else being equal,should get a lesser sentence for murdering another black man than murdering a white man?

Do you think a gay man should get a lesser sentence for murdering another gay man than for murdering a straight man?

Do you think a woman should get a lesser sentence for murdering another woman than murdering a man?

Do you think an immigrant from Mexico should get a lesser sentence for murdering another immigrant from Mexico than an immigrant from France?

I think I already answered you, no to all. The deciding factor is intent, and preventibility, not whether the victim is a minority group.

 

[mad cow]

Again, to punish a crime, you need both guilty mind and guilty act

Well this is where we differ,I don't consider a black man who doesn't like white men or a woman who doesn't like men guilty of anything and they should never be punished for their thoughts.

However a murderer should be punished for murder regardless of the race,sex,color,creed or national origin of his victim.

Then again,I'm neither a bigot or a mind-reader.