Devil made me do it

[_EAllusion]

With a watermelon and fried chicken in it, amiright?

I love fried chicken, collard greens, and watermelon. That's as much about being a southerner as it is about being black.

Have you ever watched Bait car?

Everyone likes fried chicken and watermelon. They're tasty. You just can't write posts without frequently incorporating racial stereotypes. It's just ingrained in you.

[_subgenius]

Unless you are dismissing EA's response to your OP I'm not sure what you are still looking for to further the discussion. He already answered your question when he said, "The idea is that motive helps determine how culpable a person is for a crime and how likely they are to reoffend in a given set of circumstances. That's why manslaughter and murder aren't the same thing."

Perhaps you can clarify in relation to EA's response. If you want to steer this in the direction of debating "hate" as a motive, let's just be direct about it.

Well, simply saying that a motive helps determine does not speak to how it helps determine.
The idea of re-offending is not satisfied by motive because there is no support that instinctive behavior would be any more or less "repeatable" than a well thought out plan for revenge.
So, how have we justified "in the moment" as being less worthy of punishment than after "counting to 10" ?

[_EAllusion]

Well, simply saying that a motive helps determine does not speak to how it helps determine.
The idea of re-offending is not satisfied by motive because there is no support that instinctive behavior would be any more or less "repeatable" than a well thought out plan for revenge.
So, how have we justified "in the moment" as being less worthy of punishment than after "counting to 10" ?

Yep. No support at all.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25043811

Oh.

There are two ideas I expressed. One is that some kinds of motives are thought to be predictive of likelihood of future offense. Premeditated crimes, for example. The second is that different kind of motives are believed to indicate how culpable someone is for a crime by illuminating intent and knowledge. For example, if you negligently kill someone on accident, you are thought to be less criminally responsible for that person's death than if you purposefully do so. If you are asking people to justify thousands of years of mens rea tradition, I think you would be served to get off the Socratic horse for a second and demonstrate you've made some effort to interact with and understand it.

[_Bach]

Well, simply saying that a motive helps determine does not speak to how it helps determine.
The idea of re-offending is not satisfied by motive because there is no support that instinctive behavior would be any more or less "repeatable" than a well thought out plan for revenge.
So, how have we justified "in the moment" as being less worthy of punishment than after "counting to 10" ?

Yep. No support at all.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25043811

Oh.

There are two ideas I expressed. One is that some kinds of motives are thought to be predictive of likelihood of future offense. Premeditated crimes, for example. The second is that different kind of motives are believed to indicate how culpable someone is for a crime by illuminating intent and knowledge. For example, if you negligently kill someone on accident, you are thought to be less criminally responsible for that person's death than if you purposefully do so. If you are asking people to justify thousands of years of mens rea tradition, I think you would be served to get off the Socratic horse for a second and demonstrate you've made some effort to interact with and understand it.

This AGAIN, from the same intellect supporting "hands up - don't shoot". EA, you may want to give serious thought to "mouth shut - not stupid"!

[_subgenius]

Well, simply saying that a motive helps determine does not speak to how it helps determine.
The idea of re-offending is not satisfied by motive because there is no support that instinctive behavior would be any more or less "repeatable" than a well thought out plan for revenge.
So, how have we justified "in the moment" as being less worthy of punishment than after "counting to 10" ?

Yep. No support at all.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25043811

That particular study is a rather narrow view of my premise, as conceded by your citation's following statement:
"However, aggression is a heterogeneous construct and different types of aggression may confer different levels of risk for future violence."

However, I can concede your rebuttal to a minor extent...but is it then justifiable that a higher possibility of recidivism merits a harsher punishment? Is this "higher" rate in an of itself meaningful if it is only a small percentage higher? Meaning that if impulsive recidivism is at 10% but premeditated recidivism is at 11% then the latter should receive a harsher punishment?
In fact, premeditation may be the victim of some bias on this matter.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 6913012208

Oh.

There are two ideas I expressed. One is that some kinds of motives are thought to be predictive of likelihood of future offense. Premeditated crimes, for example. The second is that different kind of motives are believed to indicate how culpable someone is for a crime by illuminating intent and knowledge. For example, if you negligently kill someone on accident, you are thought to be less criminally responsible for that person's death than if you purposefully do so. If you are asking people to justify thousands of years of mens rea tradition, I think you would be served to get off the Socratic horse for a second and demonstrate you've made some effort to interact with and understand it.

No horse for me here, but you seem to comfortable in your saddle.

The OP notes the following notion:
A man shoots another man with the intent to do harm
A man yells "faggot" and shoots another man with the intent to do harm

Why does the latter deserve harsher punishment from a society that cherishes free speech? (Clearly the shooter's proclamation is nowhere near the notion of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater)

And again:
mens rea is not at issue here, perhaps you and your horse meant actus rea?...because the OP assumes that by impulse or by plot the acting party has the knowledge. How would an "impulse" exempt one from knowing their actions were illegal?
In other words, the shooter in the above example has the "guilty mind" (men rea)...how is it that the shooter is deemed to be "more guilty" and how does that then merit "more" punishment?
When the crime and effect are the same? Especially since merely yelling "faggot" at another person is not a crime at all.

[_EAllusion]

That particular study is a rather narrow view of my premise, as conceded by your citation's following statement:
"However, aggression is a heterogeneous construct and different types of aggression may confer different levels of risk for future violence."

That line is setting up the idea that aggression with different causes may indicate different levels of risk of future violence. The study then finds that yes, premeditated aggression is more predictive of future violence than impulsive acts of aggression. This is what people have intuitively believed for a very long time. This study is an example of empirical confirmation of that intuition that guides criminal penalties.

Why does the latter deserve harsher punishment from a society that cherishes free speech? (Clearly the shooter's proclamation is nowhere near the notion of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater)

If you want to argue the merits of hate crime laws, you should write better. You asked about why motives should matter at all when it comes to criminal penalties. I gave some examples of why motive matters. Sensing that you actually want to discuss hate crimes, I even addressed that before talking about your general question. There's a lesson here.

mens rea is not at issue here, perhaps you and your horse meant actus rea?...because the OP assumes that by impulse or by plot the acting party has the knowledge. How would an "impulse" exempt one from knowing their actions were illegal?
In other words, the shooter in the above example has the "guilty mind" (men rea)...how is it that the shooter is deemed to be "more guilty" and how does that then merit "more" punishment?
When the crime and effect are the same? Especially since merely yelling "faggot" at another person is not a crime at all.

Given that you've now contrived the discussion to particular sort of hate crime, rather than your actual OP, you should probably acknowledge you're interested in a different discussion. I was busy answering the question, "Why does motive matter to you?"

[_subgenius]

That particular study is a rather narrow view of my premise, as conceded by your citation's following statement:
"However, aggression is a heterogeneous construct and different types of aggression may confer different levels of risk for future violence."

That line is setting up the idea that aggression with different causes may indicate different levels of risk of future violence. The study then finds that yes, premeditated aggression is more predictive of future violence than impulsive acts of aggression. This is what people have intuitively believed for a very long time. This study is an example of empirical confirmation of that intuition that guides criminal penalties.

I do not consider "intuition" to be a sufficient justification for hate crimes receiving harsher penalties than "non-hate" crimes. Nor does this response address the OP challenge of expressing your own consideration of the issue. I doubt that your cited study was instrumental in forming your own opinion on the matter.
However, if you truly believe that position then you would need to justify that harsher punishment deters this "increased" recidivism.

Why does the latter deserve harsher punishment from a society that cherishes free speech? (Clearly the shooter's proclamation is nowhere near the notion of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater)

If you want to argue the merits of hate crime laws, you should write better. You asked about why motives should matter at all when it comes to criminal penalties. I gave some examples of why motive matters. Sensing that you actually want to discuss hate crimes, I even addressed that before talking about your general question. There's a lesson here.

Perhaps, but the OP is rather clear on the parameters of the discussion. All things being equal with one exception...in fact, it assumes premeditation for both circumstances.
So, perhaps it is not "writing" but "reading" that is the culprit here.
Nevertheless, planning to murder someone because they are black will carry a harsher punishment than planning to murder someone for their money. What is the "scientific" and/or "intuitive" justification for that?

mens rea is not at issue here, perhaps you and your horse meant actus rea?...because the OP assumes that by impulse or by plot the acting party has the knowledge. How would an "impulse" exempt one from knowing their actions were illegal?
In other words, the shooter in the above example has the "guilty mind" (men rea)...how is it that the shooter is deemed to be "more guilty" and how does that then merit "more" punishment?
When the crime and effect are the same? Especially since merely yelling "faggot" at another person is not a crime at all.

Given that you've now contrived the discussion to particular sort of hate crime, rather than your actual OP, you should probably acknowledge you're interested in a different discussion. I was busy answering the question, "Why does motive matter to you?"

The OP specifically mentions "hate crime" - are you accusing me of contriving the OP from the actual OP?
However,
you have yet to actually provide a response to why motive does matter to you. Unless you are claiming that it matters because your intuition tells you so...or perhaps it matters to you because of a rather scientific sounding study concludes that when the motive is premeditated there may be a greater chance of repeat behavior?

So, while you may have been busy trying to answer the question you have yet to actually answer any question posed in the OP.
But thank you for your input, it was indeed interesting.

[_honorentheos]

In this thread, EA has said -

I don't think that crimes motivated by bigotry towards protected classes of people deserve harsher punishments. I think that veers off into the territory of punishing the content of people's beliefs that are socially condemned.

In fact, he stated it as his very first sentence in his first response. Yet subby is accusing,

I do not consider "intuition" to be a sufficient justification for hate crimes receiving harsher penalties than "non-hate" crimes. Nor does this response address the OP challenge of expressing your own consideration of the issue. I doubt that your cited study was instrumental in forming your own opinion on the matter.

However, if you truly believe that position then you would need to justify that harsher punishment deters this "increased" recidivism.

Subby, your OP danced around the issue of hate crimes and focused specifically on motive.

EA's response included studies confirming that premeditated aggression is, as EA summarized, "predictive of future violence". His reference to intuition is not to say this is the source for his view. It may be, but he hasn't said as much instead opting to support it with data.

Seriously, if you want to debate whether or not hate or bigotry should be a consideration in determining the appropriate charges or determining sentencing for a crime then just say that. Your argument with EA is swinging at shadows.