Philosophy Discussion Forums

Not following you there, Gertie. If there's humor or irony involved , I'm often a bit thick. What's the "sock" reference?

Lagayascienza wrote:Not following you there, Gertie. If there's humor or irony involved , I'm often a bit thick. What's the "sock" reference?

Oh ''sock'' is just slang - a ''sock puppet account'' is a second account someone makes, without letting people know. I might have missed the announcement tho? They're often used to bolster the original account's position, or cause mischief.

Gertie wrote: ↑November 28th, 2024, 6:36 am

Lagayascienza wrote:Not following you there, Gertie. If there's humor or irony involved , I'm often a bit thick. What's the "sock" reference?

Oh ''sock'' is just slang - a ''sock puppet account'' is a second account someone makes, without letting people know. I might have missed the announcement tho? They're often used to bolster the original account's position, or cause mischief.

Ah, ok.

Good Egg an I are definitely not the same person. We just both happen to have the word 'Egg' in our user names.

If I really wanted to have a sock puppet account, I would probably not use such similar names...

Fried Egg wrote: ↑November 28th, 2024, 7:27 am Good Egg an I are definitely not the same person. We just both happen to have the word 'Egg' in our user names.

OK.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑November 26th, 2024, 7:33 am And now you are 'pretending', again, that the difference between any old crime and a hate crime is unclear. It isn't. If the crime is committed against me because I am (e.g.) a male, not for any other reason, that is a hate crime. And it doesn't matter whether the crime is committed verbally or in writing; the hatred remains the same. Simples.

Fried Egg wrote: ↑November 26th, 2024, 10:31 am Any kind of legal judgement that relies on establishing the contents of the perpetrators inner thoughts is never going to be simple by virtue of the fact that it relies on inferring something rather than the measurement of objectively verifiable facts.

Furthermore, one's motivations are usually complex, involving a large variety of factors where hate of a group identity might be present to greater or lesser degrees. If it is one of the lesser factors, is is still a hate crime?

And in practice, the distinction is far from clear. For instance, some transgender activists have lobbied for deliberate misgendering to be classed as a hate crime. I would strongly disagree with this idea (but might accept that it is at least impolite) but the point here is that it is not always clear when somebody says something whether they were being hateful.

If hate crime forms part of the context of a crime, then yes, it is not an easy thing to deal with. But no (significant) court case is. Wisdom and judgement are needed if a fair and just verdict is to result. If such things were easy, anyone could do them, and we wouldn't need judges, and maybe not even juries either. But things aren't that easy, so we very much do need judges, juries, skilled lawyers and other representatives, and so on.

I suppose my main point here is, just because these decisions are difficult doesn't mean we can just ignore/dismiss them. And we probably shouldn't be trying here, as they must do when drafting new laws, to anticipate all possible situations in which our conclusions might be implemented. Because it isn't possible. We have to do the best we can. And the misnamed "hate crime" is a case in point.

Fried Egg wrote: ↑November 26th, 2024, 10:31 am Personally, I think people should be free to say things that I might consider hateful. Where we draw the line is where people are directly inciting people to imminently carry out criminal acts. (i.e. I think the American protections of free speech are about right on this matter).

And now we move away from hate crimes, in the direction of American-style free-speech individualist libertarianism. I think we should leave that sub-thread for another topic, don't you?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑November 26th, 2024, 7:45 am We have already discussed and agreed, I think, that the label "hate crime" is an unhelpful misnomer. But that's just a bad choice of label, and does nothing to discredit the whole idea.

Good_Egg wrote: ↑November 27th, 2024, 5:28 am So what would be a good label, and why does the bad label persist ?

An accurate label might be "crimes against protected characteristics" - CAPC for short. I suggest that the reason proponents of such measures don't like that is that it puts the emphasis on the (amoral and essentially arbitrary) decision of government as to what characteristics to put on the protected list. Whereas "hate crime" achieves emotional resonance by labelling the act with the evil of hatred, whether or not it is in fact present in any particular case (see D above).

I suspect the bad label persists because that's what happens. Once a phrase is adopted, it stays that way, no matter how inappropriate it might be. That's humanity for you.

My best suggestion is "group crime". After all, some group crimes are driven by hatred, others merely by strong antipathy toward the group — an antipathy strong enough to provoke the criminal to commit a criminal act against an individual they have no argument with, except that they belong to the group.

I agree with the direction you're taking here, but not so much with the details, the specifics. Why would/should there be a "list" of "protected characteristics", when all people, and all characteristics, are given/offered protection?

Good_Egg wrote: ↑November 27th, 2024, 5:28 am A random mugging impacts everyone. A mugging that is obviously targeted against a Clelsea supporter because they are a Chelsea supporter is a "group-ist" crime in your terminology. But thereby has less wider impact...

Good point. But "everyone" is also a group, the largest (and therefore most significant) of them, d'you see?

Fried Egg wrote: ↑November 27th, 2024, 8:37 am An interesting and pertinent case at the moment in the UK is the British Muslim's proposal to update the definition of "Islamaphobia" in UK law. The proposal is currently being considered by the government but there are a number of groups that have expressed concerns that it "...does not sufficiently differentiate between (i) prejudice and discriminatory actions against people who identify or are identified as Muslim, and (ii) criticism of the beliefs, ideas, and practices that might fall under the umbrella of Islam. It poses a risk to legitimate freedom of speech and thought and of religion or belief and it also threatens to give inadvertent succour to extreme Islamic groups abroad, including some Islamic states at the UN who use accusations of Islamophobia to silence criticisms of the human rights abuses they perpetrate." (quote from Humanists UK).

The above example illustrates the difficulty in drawing the line between between tackling hate crime and protecting free speech. There is an inherent tension here. And we certainly don't all agree on where to draw the line.

I wonder if my suggestion of "group crime" would help in this case? It would allow us to distiguish clearly between actions taken against individuals because they follow Islam, and the perceived shortcomings of Islam itself. I agree with you that these are clearly two different things. The first is a legitimate accusation of criminal behaviour, the second is legitimate questioning of an ideology (not its members).

Good_Egg wrote: ↑November 28th, 2024, 4:55 am I find that I'm a little surprised that UK law has a definition of "Islamophobia".

Does it also define "phobias" about Protestantism or Zen Buddhism ?

How can that possibly be consistent with the notion of equality under the law ?

You're familiar with the concept of reification error... ?

Could this be as simple as saying that we have a law against Islamophobia, because we have noted numerous cases of it, in practice, while we have not been so troubled with anti-Protestant or anti-Buddhist crimes?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑November 28th, 2024, 11:02 amIf hate crime forms part of the context of a crime, then yes, it is not an easy thing to deal with. But no (significant) court case is. Wisdom and judgement are needed if a fair and just verdict is to result. If such things were easy, anyone could do them, and we wouldn't need judges, and maybe not even juries either. But things aren't that easy, so we very much do need judges, juries, skilled lawyers and other representatives, and so on.

I suppose my main point here is, just because these decisions are difficult doesn't mean we can just ignore/dismiss them. And we probably shouldn't be trying here, as they must do when drafting new laws, to anticipate all possible situations in which our conclusions might be implemented. Because it isn't possible. We have to do the best we can. And the misnamed "hate crime" is a case in point.

Normal criminal prosecutions can be difficult to prove yes, even when you are just trying to establish that something physically happened (and how). But when the thing you are trying to prove itself only happened inside someone's head then it is so much harder, if not impossible.

But really, I'm just trying to make the point, not that hate crimes are difficult to prove, but even the conceptual distinction itself is not clear, not universally agreed upon (as you appeared to suggest it was in earlier posts).

And ultimately, I do not believe that people's thoughts should be a crime.

Pattern-chaser wrote:

Fried Egg wrote:Personally, I think people should be free to say things that I might consider hateful. Where we draw the line is where people are directly inciting people to imminently carry out criminal acts. (i.e. I think the American protections of free speech are about right on this matter).

And now we move away from hate crimes, in the direction of American-style free-speech individualist libertarianism. I think we should leave that sub-thread for another topic, don't you?

I disagree. "Hate speech" is very much part of the general category of "hate crimes", and therefore very much on topic.

And since when did the advocating for free speech get one labelled as an "individualist libertarian"? The thing about free speech is that it is for everyone, wherever one sits on the political spectrum. It is an integral part of a free, democratic society and the true test of whether you're really a supporter of free speech is when you support the right to speak, even those whom you strongly disagree with (and even if you find what their saying vile and offensive).

Fried Egg wrote: ↑November 28th, 2024, 2:15 pm And ultimately, I do not believe that people's thoughts should be a crime.

Rape vs. 'consensual' sex?
Murder vs. manslaughter?

I think it is 'normal', 'traditional', and long-standing, that motivation ("people's thoughts") is a central part of trying a criminal case?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑December 1st, 2024, 8:16 am

Fried Egg wrote: ↑November 28th, 2024, 2:15 pm And ultimately, I do not believe that people's thoughts should be a crime.

Rape vs. 'consensual' sex?
Murder vs. manslaughter?

I think it is 'normal', 'traditional', and long-standing, that motivation ("people's thoughts") is a central part of trying a criminal case?

Do you like going around in circles? I have already addressed this point. Neither of the above examples refer to the motivations of the perpetrator.

The distinction between murder and manslaughter is one of premeditation and not one of motive.

The distinction between rape and consensual sex again has nothing to do with the motivations of the perpetrator. It is unbelievable that you even cite this as an example. If you're going to use this example, why not pretend also that the distinction between theft and a transaction is the thoughts in the mind of the one who takes possession of something.

With hate crime on the other hand, it is entirely down to the imputed thoughts of the perpetrator. e.g. It is okay to say something hateful (or do something hateful) unless I did so on the basis of race, sexuality, etc.

That said, I have already acknowledged that people usually try to establish a motive when attempting to convict someone of a crime. The motive is not the crime though!

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑December 1st, 2024, 8:16 am

Fried Egg wrote: ↑November 28th, 2024, 2:15 pm And ultimately, I do not believe that people's thoughts should be a crime.

Rape vs. 'consensual' sex?
Murder vs. manslaughter?

I think it is 'normal', 'traditional', and long-standing, that motivation ("people's thoughts") is a central part of trying a criminal case?

Fried Egg wrote: ↑December 1st, 2024, 8:45 am Do you like going around in circles? I have already addressed this point. Neither of the above examples refer to the motivations of the perpetrator.

These days, I find intellectual stamina harder and harder to come by. This is a new, and somewhat unsettling, experience for me. I sort of hoped you might have seen what I was getting at. Oh well.

In a difficult court case, the court (judge, jury, and lawyers) seeks to examine many things. One line of inquiry — one of many, we hope — is to inquire into the thoughts, intentions, and motivations of all parties involved in the alleged offence and its context (chronic, geographical and sociocultural). [To the degree that obtaining such insights is possible and practical.]

The examples I quoted often require such examination, I think. Because it matters, if a fair and just verdict is considered to be of value.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑December 1st, 2024, 9:31 amThese days, I find intellectual stamina harder and harder to come by. This is a new, and somewhat unsettling, experience for me. I sort of hoped you might have seen what I was getting at. Oh well.

No doubt much of our disagreement revolves around talking past each other and the imprecise way we are expressing our arguments. It might eventually come down to a disagreement about the facts of the matter, or ethical judgements, but until we get to that point we can only strive to overcome the communication problems we might be having.

I think it is true to say that all criminal action is inextricably linked to intention. Even things such as criminal negligence, the crime is the deliberate decision not to take the necessary precautions to prevent the accident occurring (rather than the accident itself being the crime). Hence we cannot fully separate the concepts of actions and thoughts when it comes to consideration of criminal justice.

So, to be clear, I am not trying to say that the criminal justice system should (or does) attempt to completely divorce actions from the motivations behind them. My contention is that with "hate" crimes, it is the motivation itself that is the crime, not the action. This is unique from most everything else we usually find prosecuted in our criminal justice systems.

In crimes that rest on the notion of consent, what is pertinent is whether the accused had adequate evidence to presume consent had been given, or took adequate steps to ensure that it had. Such cases can be difficult to resolve but they do not rest on the motivations of either party. It does not matter why the accused wanted what they took. Neither does it matter why the accuser consented or didn't.

Now, there has been cases of lesbians being accused of transphobia, of being a bigot, because they refused to consent to relations with a trans-woman. Now I'm not saying anybody has been convicted of hate crimes for this kind of thing but I think there is a danger that it will if we follow the logic of "hate" crime to its logical conclusion. Right now, one can refuse to have have intimate relations with another person for whatever reasons they like. It would be a sad state of affairs if such refusal could ever be construed as a hate crime.

So when I say that people's thoughts should not be a crime, I am not saying we should divorce consideration of thoughts and actions (in criminal justice), because all purposeful action has thought behind it (by definition). Only that the thought itself should not be the crime. And when you say that we always consider people's thoughts when considering whether somebody was guilty of a crime, I agree because it does not conflict with my assertion that the thoughts themselves should not be the crime.