High court rules for military funeral protesters

[opinterph]

Makes me wonder if they'll be on opposite sides of the ruling in this case.

That case argument was the one during which Justice Alito made the sarcastic remark toward Justice Scalia that I quoted above. I would guess it is highly probable that Alito’s finding will be oppositional to Chief Justice Roberts' and other members of the Court.

Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association​

 

[NCAA Umpire]

That's what I'm guessing.

BTW, did you catch Scalia's dissent in this case. Truthfully, I can see his point. When do we say, "Enough weakening of the 6th Amendment!"?

 

[palemale]

So thought can make a crime a hate crime then, huh? That is a very dangerous road to travel.

Considering all such crimes are in someway based on hate, categorizing some as "hate crimes" is just wrong.

In criminal law, the prosecution must always prove mens rea, Latin for "guilty mind." What the perpetrator thought is an element of every crime. For example, if I am in a bar and see your back pack on the floor, know it is yours, and walk out with it, I am guilty of theft. I know it is yours, but take it anyway. Same scenario, however, your back pack looks exactly like mine. Thinking it is mine, I pick it up and leave the bar. I am not guilty because I lack the mens rea to have committed a crime. I made a mistake, and thus lack the "guilty mind" necessary to have committed a criminal act. What I thought is the only thing that distinguishes a criminal act from an innocent act.

 

[NCAA Umpire]

You're confusing thought with intent. In your first example, your intentions is to steal; whereas, in your second example, your intentions is not to steal. That is different from simple thought.

 

[BostonPirate]

just so we all know?

Palemale has a real J.D.

 

[NCAA Umpire]

So do the members of SCOTUS, yet there are those here who believe their decision in this case was wrong. BTW, I don't think anyone here suggested Palemale had a fake J.D.

 

[construct]

You're confusing thought with intent. In your first example, your intentions is to steal; whereas, in your second example, your intentions is not to steal. That is different from simple thought.

Yes. And the thought necessary for hate-crimes is also more than simple thought. It also is intent. This really isn't a confusion. You actually have, I think, understood what both palemale and I have been saying about the element of thought in crimes. In order for there to be a crime, there must be a prohibited action along usually accompanied by evil intent. If that intent involves selecting the victim because of his actual or presumed classification by particular categories, then the crime is also a hate-crime.

 

[palemale]

You're confusing thought with intent. In your first example, your intentions is to steal; whereas, in your second example, your intentions is not to steal. That is different from simple thought.

Intent is a state of mind. How can one prove intent? By proving what is in the mind of the person accused of a crime.

 

[NCAA Umpire]

If that intent involves selecting the victim because of his actual or presumed classification by particular categories, then the crime is also a hate-crime.

Which is something I don't support. I don't think an attacker should earn extra punishment because he/she attacked a certain type of individual. It results in the cheapening of others at the expense of that special individual.

 

[construct]

So do the members of SCOTUS, yet there are those here who believe their decision in this case was wrong.

Generally the cases that get to the Supreme Court are hard cases--cases that can be very persuasively argued by both sides. Disagreement per se does not indicate disrespect for law.

 

[NCAA Umpire]

Intent is a state of mind. How can one prove intent? By proving what is in the mind of the person accused of a crime.

So the prosecution cross examines the accused on the stand and gets the accused to admit his intent to beat up someone. Good. Who cares whether the accused beat up a man or woman, gay or straight, black or white? An assault is an assault is an assault.

 

[NCAA Umpire]

Generally the cases that get to the Supreme Court are hard cases--cases that can be very persuasively argued by both sides. Disagreement per se does not indicate disrespect for law.

There are several SCOTUS cases that themselves disrespect the law, but that's another thread I suppose.

 

[construct]

Which is something I don't support. I don't think an attacker should earn extra punishment because he/she attacked a certain type of individual. It results in the cheapening of others at the expense of that special individual.

But don't you see, under a hate-crime statute, the attacker would not earn extra punishment because he/she attacked a certain type of individual.

There are other statutes which enhance penalties because of some characteristic of the victim. We punish assaults on peace officers or children more severely than assaults on other people. That's two examples of protected groups. That is not what hate-crime statutes do.

 

[NCAA Umpire]

I didn't say that was what hate crimes do. I'm opposed to the common definition (or whatever one can call it) of hate crime. Truthfully, the very term is ridiculous.

Is there a "thoroughly despise" crime? A "dislike" crime? How about a "put up with" crime?

 

[construct]

So the prosecution cross examines the accused on the stand and gets the accused to admit his intent to beat up someone. Good. Who cares whether the accused beat up a man or woman, gay or straight, black or white? An assault is an assault is an assault.

Should there be a distinction between first degree murder and negligent homicide? Why or why not?

 

[NCAA Umpire]

Because one has to do more with intent.

Asked and answered. Next.

 

[construct]

I didn't say that was what hate crimes do. I'm opposed to the common definition (or whatever one can call it) of hate crime.

Then, I suppose you aren't opposed to hate-crime statutes. Or is there a different reason besides the ones I responded to in post # 62?

 

[NCAA Umpire]

I'm opposed to hate crimes per se.

Now, it's time for me to get back to a little R&R and my paczkis.

 

[construct]

Because one has to do more with intent.

Asked and answered. Next.

Sure, but the victims of every sort of criminal homicide are equally dead, and their deaths were caused by criminals. Should the penalties be different?

And while we're at it, how would you propose one prove the proper mens rea for first degree murder? How would one prove premeditation (which is part of that mens rea)? One wouldn't ask the accused on the witness stand. One probably would never have the accused on the witness stand anyway. The mens rea, the criminal intent, often has to be proved without that confession.

 

[NCAA Umpire]

If 1st degree murder requires intent, one can determine if the murderer fully intended all along to commit the murder. If he did, we have 1st degree. If not, we have a lesser category.

Anyway, I really must get back to my paczkis. They're too delicious to ignore.