I’m not either, but often unused laws are taken off the books or even difficult to get a conviction for. Certainly I think protecting people’s right to criticize the government is a vastly more compelling justification for freedom of speech than keeping a specific type of superfluous law off the books (in practice there will be other superfluous laws anyway).

“As for manslaughter vs second degree murder and teh patriot act thing, I should clarify that what I meant by motive was actually reason for doing th crime rather than the presence or absence of intent. The difference between manslaughter and second degree (as far as I’m aware) is intent, and the Patriot act language was specifically framed in terms of intent.”

No. -Voluntary- manslaughter means that the defendant -intended- to cause death or serious injury (just like murder). The only difference is that in the case of voluntary manslaughter the defendant’s motivation is considered less malicious (examples: sudden passion, imperfect self-defense).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_manslaughter

“(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;”

If you are trying to decide between a crime of terrorism and a lesser crime, there is no question that the person had an intent to cause harm - both charges require this. The question is: was the harm terroristic or not? The thing that makes the difference as to whether it is terrorism is whether the defendant intends to intimidate or coerce a civilian population. This is a thought-based distinction similar to hate crime legislation, which aims to administer more severe punishment for crimes intended to intimidate or coerce a minority.

As for manslaughter vs second degree murder and teh patriot act thing, I should clarify that what I meant by motive was actually reason for doing th crime rather than the presence or absence of intent. The difference between manslaughter and second degree (as far as I’m aware) is intent, and the Patriot act language was specifically framed in terms of intent.

As for keeping more dangerous people off the streets longer, that’s why most sentences are a range of punishments rather than a set punishment, and the judge has discretion within that range (as far as I understand it). I have no problem with judges deciding that some people who commit a particular crime are more dangerous than others and therefore maximizing their possible sentence (as long as they do it in a fair and unbiased manner), but I definitely have a problem with thought crimes being written into the books.

By contrast, the state is highly motivated to crack down on criticism of the state.

Just as an example, many films and some video games are officially banned in the PRC, but the ban isn’t rigidly enforced and these items are easily obtainable through counterfeit trade. By contrast, publicly speaking out against the state is dangerous, and avoided.

Our legal system takes even motive into account. That’s the distinction between for example voluntary manslaughter and second-degree murder.

Aside from that, part of the rationale for having a criminal justice system is to separate dangerous people from the rest of society, and if I am attacking people because they belong to a minority (it is assumed that) I am more likely to repeat the crime than if I am attacking someone because he slept with my spouse.

Motivation is also part of the legal definition of terrorism. For certain types of crime, if they are

“intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by
mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping”

section 802 of the PATRIOT act defined this as terrorism and subject to more severe penalties.

As for hate crimes, now that I think about it, our legal system takes thought into account to the extent of whether or not something was premeditated, but I don’t think they take motive into account (expect possibly unnofficially by letting judges set sentences within some guidelines). So since hate crimes legislation looks at motive rather than premeditation, it is different, and it’s not inconsistent to oppose that without opposing premeditation laws. Tricky, though.

As for longer sentences because it hurts more people- you don’t go to jail for less time if you murder someone with no friends or family. The sentence you get for murdering someone should be for that murder; if the people backing hate crimes legislation think that murdering someone for hateful motives also hurts other people, they should make those ancilliary effects a crime as well, and then prosecute the murderer on both charges. No one would ever stand for that, however, which reveals that the whole thing is a bad idea.

I think there are other laws that merit more immediate concern, such as punishing “encouragement of terrorism” with up to seven years in jail - some of these are so vague they could be used to crack down on criticism of the state.

Darwin: Intention (a thought) is a pretty big part of the punitive system for just about any crime in not just the American legal system but many others - you need to prove that the defendant had both a “guilty mind” and guilty actions to convict them of many crimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

Thought crime is a pervasive part of our legal system. Unless you are suggesting a major overhaul, the question is not whether thought should be taken into consideration, but how far to go in taking it into consideration.

My understanding is that the rationale for increased penalty for hate crimes is because they harm not only the immediate victim but also other members of the victim’s group who are terrorized or intimidated. I don’t find this particularly compelling, myself (this could be true of just about any crime), but you should address it if you want to flesh out your position on hate crimes.

As actual hate crimes legislation, yeah, I’m against any type of thought crime laws. Now, we actually have a problem in this position if we’re ok with premeditated (first-degree) murder having a larger penalty than unpremeditated (second-degree) murder, since that also seems like only a difference in thought; however maybe there’s a more refined legal distinction that I don’t know about.