Are there no Liberal Parties Anymore? Conservatives Clamp Down on Freedom

[Aexodus]

Then that would be pre-meditated murder, in which case we don’t need a new category.

AFAIK there is no other instance where motive is in itself a crime. Motive simply explains why the person committed the crime. Hatred is not an intent so i don’t know why you mentioned that.

[Vanoi]

Then that would be pre-meditated murder, in which case we don’t need a new category.

Yes but how do you determine pre-meditated murder? Motive and intent. That's what makes it different from let's say second-degree murder.

Motive and intent should matter when it comes to crimes and sentencing for them.

[Aexodus]

Yes but how do you determine pre-meditated murder? Motive and intent. That's what makes it different from let's say second-degree murder.

Motive and intent should matter when it comes to crimes and sentencing for them.

AFAIK, and I’m no legal expert, but motive is generally only used to arise an intent, or prove an intent. It does not make the sentence worse, harsher or longer. Intent can have that affect however. Also, motive is not always required to convict.

tldr motive generally only affects a guilty/innocent verdict, ergo the kind, but not scale of sentence.

edit: https://www.justia.com/criminal/aggr...ating-factors/

hate is the only motive that is ever used as an aggravating factor, in certain countries

Hate Crimes: Some states have enacted laws that allow sentencing enhancements if the state proves that the defendant was motivated by bias or animus based on a group characteristic. Most hate crime statutes include categories like race, religion, and national origin. Some states include categories like sexual orientation and gender identity as well.

[Vanoi]

AFAIK, and I’m no legal expert, but motive is generally only used to arise an intent, or prove an intent.

Motive is just opportunity. Motive is just a reason to do something. Intent is what reason that is.

It does not make the sentence worse, harsher or longer. Intent can have that affect however. Also, motive is not always required to convict.

Do you think motive shouldn't determine how harsh your sentence is? At least in the US motive is taken into account when you are being sentenced.

Of course motive isn't always required but that's irrelevant to what we are talking about in regards to hate crimes which usually have a motive.

[Pontifex Maximus]

AFAIK, and I’m no legal expert, but motive is generally only used to arise an intent, or prove an intent. It does not make the sentence worse, harsher or longer. Intent can have that affect however. Also, motive is not always required to convict.

tldr motive generally only affects a guilty/innocent verdict, ergo the kind, but not scale of sentence.

edit: https://www.justia.com/criminal/aggr...ating-factors/

hate is the only motive that is ever used as an aggravating factor, in certain countries

Having been asked to weigh in here, I'd comment that "hate crime" laws are generally dubious and given my training almost always federal offenses. The difference between federal and state laws are of course highly pertinent to this discussion and sadly most usually misconstrued. It is difficult to prove intent absent a blatant confession as to the intent to commit a crime on the basis of some legally protected class. Anyone who isn't a fanatic could easily dodge such a charge in a criminal proceeding. While I generally believe that the government should not try to convict people on the basis of what they are thinking, even when they commit a violent crime, I find myself on the side of "you're a dumbass" if people are willing to admit to such motivations. Such things must be uniformly applied however. The moronic concept that hate crimes can't be committed against whites/straight people/Christians, for example, must not be permitted to take root.

[Love Mountain]

This again reminds me of why I really like the Political Compass so much. It correctly separates Social and Economic contexts into Left/Right and Authoritarian/Libertarian axes. I think it's a much better representation of the political spectrum than things like the "Horseshoe theory". Having said that, I think that the usual complaints stem from the fact that politicians are much more prone to being politically expedient than politically principled as a consequence of our democratic systems. Though European P.R. systems are better in this regard than Winner-Take-All politics, but they are still vulnerable to the same flaws (albeit to a lesser extent).

Judging on this issue in particular, I do find myself in agreement with Aexodus, however... I think what we lack here are actual legal experts who can tell you the proper context of such legislation and laws. I have some experience in this area but I'm not exactly someone who attended law school and I'm definitely not familiar with UK law. What I can tell you is that here in the states, there are a number of ridiculous laws and a number of fairly obvious laws that don't get enforced for a number of good reasons.

A lot of laws were put there for symbolic reasons, as a means to make a point by politicians or as part of a move to distract the public from something, other laws are simply made for "convenience" and for use at the discretion of law enforcement. While conservatives would be quick to point out the worst-case scenario, where people are charged with relatively innocuous and dumb reasons, like sentencing an obviously illiterate woman to jail for 8 years... In an "ideal" world, similar dumb laws would be used to punish egregious offenders, like sticking as many charges as you can on a repeat wife-beater, or giving as many tickets/charges as you can to some obnoxious rich kid who's speeding. The goal here is to make a point, not to necessarily police every single possible offender.

I imagine that similar laws on pornography, dog whistling, and other types of "harassment" in UK are there for similar reasons. If a bunch of guys make leering remarks and dog-whistles about a pretty girl, that's not necessarily harassment. It's just guys being guys. If a group of guys are obviously pursuing and harassing the woman however, then that's just another law you can stick the s with. Same with any type of harassment. Of course it feels like a gross overcomplication of the system. I think it's much more simple to make a law that broadly covers public disturbances and give law enforcement the authority to use it as they see fit in order to police gross offenders. Of course abuses of having such broad overreach are possible, but what is the alternative? Having police be legally powerless against s being s? That's the argument that would be made for and against such systems.

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that rather than considering the worst or best case scenario, lawmakers should approach such systems holistically to determine what needs or doesn't need to be changed. Of course all the good lawmakers go to the private sector and all the cynical ones rise up to the post of permanent secretaries where they are more concerned with benefits, pensions, and salaries. So expecting the system to change for the better is perhaps a little too hopeful. I might as well start a revolution if I really do want change.

On the topic of pornography, the British obsession with policing it still eludes me. I started watching pornography quite young, and perhaps I do have unhealthy fetishes and imagination regarding it. However, it was very useful sexual education at an age where sexual education is often poor or too... "clinical". I imagine my poor soul would've been quite lost in my first sexual encounter had I not been familiar with porn. I do remember getting caught with my friends reading erotica in 6th grade, that was quite a laugh, and I remember my father was grinning even as the school administrators were being very stern with us. Pornography is quite natural for kids to be curious about, and if you ask me, kids are the best judges of what's "appropriate" for them or not. I think it's quite ridiculous to continue policing kids' virtue as if every generation didn't participate in such debauchery and turned out fine in the end. If you ask me, today's kids are much better and smarter about their sexual activities than their parents. What with the insistence of condoms and people getting married later and later in their lives.

[Aexodus]

No. Steph may have had the intent to kill John, but the motive could be different. A mercy killing, or a revenge killing would be the motive. Either way it’s first degree murder.

No vanoi unless you have hate crime laws a la Britain you don’t factor in motive to the harshness of the crime, as far as I know. I may be wrong but that is what I believe is the case.

[Vanoi]

No. Steph may have had the intent to kill John, but the motive could be different. A mercy killing, or a revenge killing would be the motive. Either way it’s first degree murder.

No one said motive and intent had to be them same. You proved my point though. Motive is taken into account. A revenge killing would likley get Steph life in prison or even the death penalty depending on circumstances. A mercy killing though is different and it's likely Steph would be given a lesser sentence compared to someone else who committed the same crime.

No vanoi unless you have hate crime laws a la Britain you don’t factor in motive to the harshness of the crime, as far as I know. I may be wrong but that is what I believe is the case.

No, motive is taken into account. Your own example above proves that.

[Aexodus]

No one said motive and intent had to be them same. You proved my point though. Motive is taken into account. A revenge killing would likley get Steph life in prison or even the death penalty depending on circumstances. A mercy killing though is different and it's likely Steph would be given a lesser sentence compared to someone else who committed the same crime.


No, motive is taken into account. Your own example above proves that.

I never said motive shouldn’t be taken into account.

I said it shouldn’t be an aggravating factor. There is a difference. Motive being taken into account and being an aggravating factor are not mutually exclusive.

[Vanoi]

I never said motive shouldn’t be taken into account.

I said it shouldn’t be an aggravating factor. There is a difference. Motive being taken into account and being an aggravating factor are not mutually exclusive.

And I think it should and the US legal system already works that way. Motive should definitely be an aggravating factor. I'm sorry you don't agree but to each his own.

[Love Mountain]

Mens rea is the specific technical term you're looking for. At least in US law, as far as I know anyway.

[Aexodus]

Yes mens rea, (I read it on the wiki lol ) that’s intent yes?

[Love Mountain]

Pretty much.

[Aexodus]

Well now we understand eachother.

What kinds of motive should, and which shouldn’t be aggravating factors?

[Gaidin]

What kinds of motive should, and which shouldn’t be aggravating factors?

If a crime requires mens rhea then motive is an aggravating factor. It is literally why investigators go to lengths to prove there was intent behind the crime and why the crime was committed.

Typically, there is no specified motive by law, there is just a range in the sentencing and based on the entered evidence the judge will then sentence the guilty. Special cases are set aside by law. Like, say, hate crimes, should evidence be found of such motives. The country, state, or other levels of government have said, "these are special cases". Voters have not disagreed, as ever since the laws have been passed, politicians have not campaigned on retracting them, nor have voters demanded they do so.

And America is hardly the only country with law for hate crimes in some form, making this the perfect first-world example of a motive that can raise the ante if evidence of it is discovered.

[Vanoi]

I think all motives should be aggravating factors. It can make difference on the sentencing.

[Aexodus]

The US system does not currently work that way.

[Vanoi]

The US system does not currently work that way.

According to you? Won't say motive is an aggravating factor in every crime considering some crimes don't have or need a motive but it's definitely a major factor in most cases.

You can keep saying I'm wrong but considering you aren't even American I'm more than willing to bet I know my own legal system better than you.

[Aexodus]

Gaidin.

Aside from Hate crimes, motive is never an aggravating factor. Can we not see this is true?

[Gaidin]

No. If motive is a thing as well as means and opportunity, then it is as much an aggravating factor as means and opportunity.