Unless you're a nationalist, that's a VERY dangerous road to go down.

Plus the idea of having "hate crimes" is stupid in the first place. They should be removed

That's a different argument, but I kinda disagree. I think motivations should be determined, but not that people who commit them should be punished any more harshly. Like me throwing a black baby off a building, bwcause I hate blacks, shouldn't be punished any worse than me throwing it off a building because I feel like it.

Motivation can be determined without applying additional charges, also your motivation is irrelevant in the case of crime

Hate crime law violates the 5th amendment

I disagree. Motivation in absolutely necessary to determine. You been to we able to determine ***why*** someone shot aomeone else. Was it a personal dispute, racial emnity, self defense? These need to be determined.

How does a hate crime violate your right to not incriminate yourself?

@Deleted User
There are motiveless crimes; Ussually a psychopathology is involved, but there have been totally motiveless crimes committed.
*shrug*

5th ammendment is more than not incriminating yourself.

nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb

Oh I don't disagree, and these people should be treated for whatever disorder they have. There are exceptions. @Mandatory Carry

You cant be tried for the same crime twice, seperating motive from action creates a scenario where you can be

thats not true

Not really...

a murderer

wrote a letter to the family

and got tried again

because new evidence surfaced

the letter

cant be treied with the same evidence again

but if new evidence arised

fair game

Oh Jesus Christ, write all once, not. One. Word. At. A. Time.

just look at it as a cracked out haikou

Once a trial is over, irrespective of in later coming out what motivated the crime in question, they can't be tried again.
Separating intent from the crime doesn't mean you can be tried for the same crime twice. Emmit Till (probably spelling that wrong) demonstrates this.

the letter provided additional details pertaining to the case

if additional evidence arises they can be prosecuted again for the same exact crime

@Diddycon oh no, I'm not arguing with you. You're right. The reasoning behind a crime being committed isn't enough evidence for charging someone, which is why I can't really chsrged for beating up my neighbor, even though we have had property disputes (he was bratenbup a few months ago. I'd have motivation, but motivation!=solid evidence)

I was agreeing. Intent doesn't mean that much

Then it shouldnt be a crime to have intent

Disagree. Establishing intent or motivation gives you the people you need to start looking at.

motive means and opportunity!

Already covered by the degree of crime system

and if i accidently run over a baby running across the street. its not the same as if i pull on the curb and run over a baby on purpose

either way the baby is dead

Charging for intent serves no purpose other than to increase sentencing for the same crime

but the crime is different

intent is paramount in determining the degree of justice ( sentencing)

Agreed, but intent shouldnt be a separate crime

Intent is part of the case and proving guilt. It shouldnt be a seperate crime

if a crime is foiled what would they be charged with?

attempted =/ intent is what ur suggesting?

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.