QUESTION: What specific crime do you expect this legislation to penalize that has yet to be addressed by existing laws?

republicans hate facts Says:
You’re completely wrong. A second degree murder is ANY kind of murder other than the 1st degree, INCLUDING INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER which is NO-INTENT and OF THE MOMENT PASSION killing…

Just to clarify a bit further, under the Federal Criminal Code, 18 USC 1111 (which several states follow), 2nd degree murder is defined as any murder other than 1st degree. However, the statute defines murder as a homicide with malice aforethought, i.e., the specific intent to kill. 1st degree is defined in terms of typical homicides that involve some measure of planning, e.g. “murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, etc.” 2nd degree murder is limited to crimes where killing is specifically intended, but where no substancial plan occured.

Other types of homicide without specific intent, “…INCLUDING INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER which is NO-INTENT and OF THE MOMENT PASSION killing…” are not classified as second degree murder (or murder of any other kind), but as Manslaughter under 18 USC 1112.

republicans hate facts Says:
You’re completely wrong. A second degree murder is ANY kind of murder other than the 1st degree, INCLUDING INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER which is NO-INTENT and OF THE MOMENT PASSION killing where the person appeared to intentionally commit the act seemed present at the time but it appeared to be no way pre-meditated. Both are valid, and both refer to INTENT as the first degree can PROVE intent, and the second can only be INFERRED or GUESSED AT. So Plluhhhh, you’re wrong **hole!

Wow – lotta hate there. Perhaps you should be charged with a crime.

Is that what you learned in law school? Perhaps you should get a refund. Murder, as with most criminal law, is defined by statute, and varies from state to state. Many states, however, clearly define 2nd degree murder as a specific intent crime, but without any degree of planning. That is, the intent requirement is the same as for first degree murder, but without any plan to carry out the crime. Lesser degrees of homicide usually lack the specific intent requirement, and call for a lesser mental state (recklessness, negligence, carelessness, etc.) The one general exception to this is felony murder, which in many states many be proven merely by the commission of a felony that results in the death of another – but without any specific intent to kill. Again, these are all spelled out in the state code – there is no “second degree is any kind of murder other than the 1st degree.” Instead of responding with epithets and hyperbole, perhaps you should check your facts … and the law.

republicans hate facts Says:
In cases where there are murders that involved beatings, those beatings are already secondary crimes and are separately charged. What those that claim to think it’s WRONG and UNPRECEDENTED are clueless MORONS like yourself. To attack someone out of HATE is as much of a criminal charge as the act of assault itself. Charging people separately for separate acts is perfectly standard and reasonable. Using a ridiculous argument like yours is being intentionally intellectual and morally ambiguous/relativistic for the sole purpose of excusing those that commit crimes out of bigotry and hate.

Your statement is a tautology. You cannot prove that I am wrong by merely stating that “Charging people separately for separate acts is perfectly standard and reasonable” merely by stating it as thus. What standard? What degree of reasonableness? I’m not saying I have the answer here, but I will say that I am aware of no historical precedence in the American or Western European criminal laws where the intent or motive (or mens rea for you legal scholars) could be prosecuted as a separate offense.

Finally, you accused me of “excusing those that commit crimes out of bigotry and hate.” I am doing no such thing, and to make such an accusation, I would argue, is intentionally dishonest. I think we should throw away the key for someone who kills another for their religious beliefs, sexual orientation, race, or whatever. At the same time, I think we should throw away the keys for someone who kills because he wants the victim’s tennis shoes.

Hey, I love a spirited debate as much as the next guy, but your prolific use of invectives and conclusory statements shows a certain lack of mental fortitude on your part. I would suggest that you would better prove your points with logic and reasoning, and leave the “gop-tards” at home. (By the way, truth be told I have only voted for the GOP once, about 28 years ago, and still regret that mistake.)

“I want to FCUK HUCK”

(But spelled correctly, I could not post it spelled correctly)

Dear Governor Mike Huckabee,
What gays did Jesus bash?

.

As if the only important thing that Jesus ever did was die. It makes me sick.

December 4th, 2008 at 11:40 am
______

Yeah, just a minor detail. Ridiculous! ;)

bit’s not much interested in a Christian who’s not quick to discuss their faith.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Thats OK Bitomoron. I am not much interested in hatefilled bigoted morons like YOU that wear their Christianity on their sleeves because there is NOTHING IN THEIR HEARTS. You are a disgusting pile of hate and stupidity

BUT HUCKLEBUCK IS NOT THAT SMART

HE DOESN’T BELIEVE IN SCIENCE SO DNA IS A STRETCH FOR HIM

AND HE IS A HATER- NICER THAN SOME BUT A HATER

Word of advice, idjit. If someone proclaims to be a Christian, he/she does not have to prove to you if he/she believes in the Divinity. What is understood need not be discussed.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Closet Christian?

bit’s not much interested in a Christian who’s not quick to discuss their faith.

What is understood need not be discussed.

What does this mean?

You mean something like a person free soloing a mountain, and he slips and falls and immediately multiples his number of individual bones by about a 100. Of course, said person dies in the fall.

So was it the fall or was it mountain climbing that kill said person?

Zooey Says:
The difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder IS intent. The moment intent was formed is often an issue — one second is enough time to form intent.

As you point out above, intent is not, in fact, the issue. The one second is the issue. The intent requirement is exactly the same for both 1st and 2nd degree murder. The dispositive issue is when that intent was formed.

Zooey Says:
Are you f ucking serious? If you kill two people — even if it’s for the same reason — you have committed two separate crimes. What the hell does killing for money have to do with it?

I think you missed the point…. by just a little bit. We’re talking about two different examples of the same crime, but each receiving different treatment under the law. In my example, the killer of the short person would, naturally, be charged with murder. However, under a hate crimes statute, the person who killed the Catholic would be charged, not only with murder, but with the additional and separate offense of a hate crime.

The concern that many, both conservative and liberal, have with this is that is makes someone’s motivation a crime in and of itself, separate from the act of murder, assault, or whatever.

Zooey Says:
Wow, you’re weird.

Hmmm… harsh… I guess.

Zooey Says:
You might want to work on that compassion — and maybe add a dash of common sense.

Not sure where I am missing compassion or common sense. Since many of the points I was making above seem to have eluded you, maybe you should re-read it and get back to me.

Fundamentally, the question is, should the motive or intent (e.g. hate) be a separate chargable offense when a violent crime is committed? I think there are some good arguments that is should be, but you did not provide any.