"Corrective rape"

[Farren]

CT I'm not selecting endless proliferation of laws for the sake of it, just targeted laws for large, distinct categories of widespread crime.

[California Tanker]

Like murder for the sake of intimidation?

What does it matter what the root cause of the intimidation is? Laws against 'terroristic threats', or other such attacks designed to incur widespread discomfort already exist to be used in most jurisdictions, and you don't need to come up with a new law to prohibit some cause of action that nobody had thought of before. It used to be race. Now it's sexual orientation. Tomorrow it could be religion. The next day it could be against anyone who buys a Japanese car. You're talking about needlessly adding laws to the books to perform an end function of sentence enhancement which expresses society's particular displeasure which can already be accommodated by the existing laws.

Basically, I submit that a criminal law should only be written if you're trying to punish/prohibit a certain activity which, for some reason, has no law already on the books to apply against it. Closing a loophole, if you will. A simpler legal system is far more easily understood, and far more reliably applied.

NTM

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by Farren

Thankfully, I cannot see Sovereign's opinions on the matter, only the fact that he vomited something up on this thread.

Don't worry; I read it.

You didn't really miss an opinion, per se; it was more like a tinfoil-hat word salad.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Like murder for the sake of intimidation?

What does it matter what the root cause of the intimidation is?

Because motive is often the dividing line between different kinds of crimes, and degrees of the same crime.

Is that news to you?

[California Tanker]

I suggest that it is merely sufficient to look at the intended effect, not anything more in-depth than that. There's murder, and there's muder with intent to intimidate. There's your difference in degree for the same crime of pre-meditated murder. If it was intended to intimidate homosexuals, muslims, or people with full-body tattoos is incidental to transgression against society of trying to intimidate any specific group. Further, you don't have to come up with laws to protect any specific group that may find itself on the receiving end of an activist crowd.

NTM

[seebs]

Why am I not surprised that yguy started the exact same thread both here and TalkRat?

I guess this topic just gets him hot.

[Naru]

Originally Posted by seebs

Why am I not surprised that yguy started the exact same thread both here and TalkRat?

I guess this topic just gets him hot.

Yeah, starting the same threads on multiple forums is coberst's job.

[Adam]

OMG ill will itt.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

I suggest that it is merely sufficient to look at the intended effect, not anything more in-depth than that.

"intended" = motive.

There's murder, and there's muder with intent to intimidate. There's your difference in degree for the same crime of pre-meditated murder.

Part of it. Not all of it. The target also matters. Or are you also unaware that murder of a federal judge, president, a minor, etc. carry aggravating circumstances? That not all murders are equal?

If it was intended to intimidate homosexuals, muslims, or people with full-body tattoos is incidental to transgression against society of trying to intimidate any specific group.

It is not incidental.

Further, you don't have to come up with laws to protect any specific group that may find itself on the receiving end of an activist crowd.

NTM

Yes, you do. Because the legal system has so often been complicit in the lack of justice, the act of spelling it out clearly and making the punishment worse not only deters the crime, but forces the judicial and legislative establishment to stop ignoring the problem.

[California Tanker]

"intended" = motive.

Not so. Two examples.

I shoot someone. Act.
I kill him. Intended effect.
I did not like him. Motive.

I set a bomb in Northern Ireland. Act.
I wish to garner attention to my cause and force others to my will. Intended effect.
I am an anti-abortion activist. Motive.

Act and effect can be identical for multiple different motives. The bombing motive could just as easily be eco-terrorism or in the furtherance of getting the British out of Ireland. But the affront to society is not that they're anti-abortionists or anti-British or whatever. Indeed, there is no law prohibiting such, the motive can be perfectly legal. It is that people think that by carrying out these acts they can enforce compliance and/or fear on society. The underlying motive is totally irrelevant to this affront.

Or are you also unaware that murder of a federal judge, president, a minor, etc. carry aggravating circumstances? That not all murders are equal?

I can live with people like the President, a Judge or the police being treated a little more harshly. They are the embodiment of society itself, not of any particular segment or individual within the society. It's a sortof '60-40 in favour' opinion for me.

It is not incidental.

I believe it is. I don't care why anyone is using terror tactics. I just care that they are. Anyone who uses intimidation tactics against an abortion clinic is acting just as reprehensibly as someone using initimidation tactics against blacks.

the act of spelling it out clearly and making the punishment worse not only deters the crime,

I have no problems with making the punishment worse to both increase deterrance and to signify society's displeasure for an act against a group. I suggest that we can achieve this same effect by using laws which are currently on the books of most jurisdictions without having to single out any sub-group to have particular protection and adding yet another page to the Penal Code.

NTM