I literally said that you can't charge someone with intent alone (there are acceptions, like conspiracy to commit certain crimes, but, "intent", is used in a different context, there). Separating intent from a crime does not set a dangerous, Fifth-Amendment-circumventing situation where you can be charged with the same crime twice.

Attempt

id argue attempt suggests intent

And attempt is a violation of law

The intent is not the violation of law

If you kill a guy and are charged with killing and hate, what purpose does the hate charge serve?

i see what your saying

hate crime is weird is general

legally speaking

If your not guilty of murder can you still be charged with hate?

cuz a lot of that is subjective

If yes you are in double jeopardy

If no the hate only serves to punish you for the same crime twice, double punishment

taht i dont follow

because u can be exonerated of murder and still be charged with manslaughter

for the same incident

https://youtu.be/D7xD1krG9eI

yea i happen to agree with that guy, its more of a first amendment issue then 5th

And can a white supremacist kill a jew and it not be racially motivated? Of course. The idea of hate crimes is just a way to expand punishment on idealogies that the court doesnt agree with

And how would that white supremacist prove that the killing of the jew was not racially motivated

u cant be asked to prove a negative

its the onus of the prosecution to prove it was

and our legal system is not black and white, the judge and jurors are typically pretty savvy

How would you prove the motive? Point at his tattoo?

Jurors aren't savvy, they are your peers, no smarter than you or i

lots of ways, but im not here to do a hypothetical prosecutors job for them!

I wouldnt want me on a jury

chances are u wouldn't be selected then. and a collective body of 12 people discussing facts is smarter then the average bear

My wife has been on a jury, and i wouldnt want her either

you aren't gonna convince me based on anecdote!

id rather have jurors then arbiters of justice

Me either, but that doesnt mean either can intellegently seperate ideology from motive

I think alot of it has to do with our attempt to punish things we find detestable, like killing a black dude cuz hes a black dude. I would argue their is a delineation between that and killing a black dude for fucking ur wife- its not cuz hes black its cuz his cock is in ur wife

and hate crime laws are trying to account for that delineation

its a reductive response and i dont want to discount the merit of your argument. Which i gathered as an ideology should not be punishable by law, which is what that video alluded to. I can totally see the argument where it infringes upon the first amendment.

Killing the guy fckn your wife could be a crime of passion and therefore not premeditated, therefore is already subject to lesser charge than murder 1

Its kind of like charging someone with reckless driving and driving under the influence at the same time

i guess i should have worded it better to account for the premise. If u walked into in a killed him yea, but say u discovered the pattern and made the decision to end his life.

a for useful scenario would be remorse in criminal procedings, in sentencing a judge will account for the defendants attitude towards a crime. if the defendant does not see what they did as wrong we treat it differently then if they show genuine remorse and understanding. in this scenario you would be punishing to sociopathic tendencies or ideology that what they did was justified.

Remorse is an argument about the role of criminal justice is it reform or punitive? Hate crimes have nothing to do with reform, its all punitive

the important word in the concept of criminal justice is justice