E.

g.c.

How do I refer to you? Mr. Tidbits?

Great question. The law only cares about the intent of the defendant. If I sell you drugs, the law asks whether I intended to do so, not what your intent was in buying them (use them, give them to friend, flush down the toilet). Same here. If the Humane Society used this film, and they could, for a [socially beneficial] purpose, they would be protected because their intent was not prurient, regardless of what any given recipient might use it for.

That's one of the great difficulties with First Amendment interpretation. How do say it's protected speech for one purpose, but unprotected speech for another purpose? For years pornographers used the ruse of distributing their wares under the guise of “educational” material to circumvent pornography statutes.

One of the other commenters said this film came from Japan, and that Stevens was distributing it but did not make it. Don't know if that's true, but if it is you couldn't go after him for the actual cruelty to the dogs.

The legal difference between intent and motive is as follows: Intent means a person meant to do it, i.e. it wasn't an accident or stupid reckless behavior. Motive is why a person did something. The law does not require proof of why a person did something. Often the “why” is locked in the defendant's head, and nobody knows what the “motive” was unless he/she talks. So the law relies on intent as the element of the crime. An “element of the crime” is what the prosecutor must prove to establish guilt. They do not have to prove motive. Btw, telling the jury that they don't have to prove motive is a stock part of many prosecutor's opening statements.

Here's a real example of a simple misdemeanor criminal statute.
“A person commits the crime of harassment if the person intentionally:
(a) harasses or annoys another person by:
(A) subjecting such other person to offensive physical contact.”

As you can see, motive is not mentioned in the statute. Example: If I shove you in a bar, and witnesses say they saw me reach out to shove you (intent), it doesn't matter whether the motive was because you were hitting on my date, whether you were in my way as I was trying to get to the Men's Room or whether I didn't like the message on your tee shirt. All that matters is that I shoved you and did so intentionally.

You also asked, “Are you saying motive is not a part of the difference between an intentional murder and a premeditated one?” Yes, actually that's true. Premeditation requires contemplation and [usually] planning. Intent can be formed almost instantaneously…you're hitting on my date or I see something I don't like printed on your tee shirt, so I reach out and shove you. Intentional, not premeditated. No motive need be proven.

Perhaps a good and understandable example would be a serial killer. Who knows what motivates a serial killer? I don't. But, serial killers do contemplate and plan their killings, often stalking their victims and planning the event prior to the kill, or at the very least they contemplate, obsess sometimes, about how to kill in certain situations. They act with both intent and premeditation, but the “motive” is unclear to most rational people, and therefore not necessary for conviction.

It's part of the reason I tend to lean to a Black position on the 1st amendment.

I am not sure I understand your point. You are establishing a difference between intent:

“the state of a person's mind that directs his or her actions toward a specific object.”

and motive:

“something that causes a person to act in a certain way, do a certain thing, etc.”

which I cannot see.

Also I don't understand why motive would be more than “an evidentiary issue to help prove certain levels of intent.” when applied to hate crimes vs. other crimes. The defendant beat the victim. Why? If it was because he disrespected the defendant 's favorite football team, it is not a hate crime and the extra penalty doesn't apply. If it was because the man was a member of a protected group then it is. Simply put it is a matter of evidence whether it is a hate crime or not.

Are you saying motive is not a part of the difference between an intentional murder and a premeditated one? Perhaps an example would help. If I killed my uncle to inherit his fortune is that motive or intent? Can you move from intentional murder to pre-meditated murder without a motive? Or turning it around can you prove intent without motive? Honestly I don't know, I am not harassing you. Perhaps I am relying on common definitions of the words rather than legal ones.

Are there no other crimes in which motive plays a part in determining the level of punishment?

By separate victims I meant that the defendant committed a crime against the victim only because the victim was a member of a protected group. Thus the crime was also against the group. The crime is the same the only difference is the motive. You don't need motive to convict the defendant of battery. You do need it to convict him of the hate crime.

Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of reasons to question the very idea of a hate crime. Why would we protect one group over others? What is gained – extra deterrence, satisfaction of extra revenge, the good feelings and future votes of the protected group? I just don't see freedom of speech as one of them. Nor do I believe adding motive to establish the level of the crime would disqualify the law.

Golden Retriever? Mine is sitting next to me.

I think this quote says is all. The sad part is that overzealous activists usually end up setting back their own agendas by cutting with such a broad stroke. Let’s hope they revise the piece quickly and get these…creatures…locked up for a long time.

My God, this Stevens person…thing, had got me seeing red.

If this didn't involve something under the PC scope, the NEA and other liberal “cool people” would be defending the videos, actually tame compared to some other things of what is claimed to be “art” [sic] and protected as a form of “free speech.” (Politically incorrect things may be ruthlessly suppressed.)

Next level. How does that apply to “hate crimes” where a prison sentence is enhanced,…”

I believe I do have a problem with the concept of hate crimes for the same reason, judging intent within the law. This is however, a much more tough nut to crack.

Premeditated murder is by its own definition, a worse crime by the intent of the victim while second degree holds a lesser sentence. Is intent built into these laws? Not exactly, premeds are planned while 2nd degree is “spontaneous.”

Hate speech prior to a crime, is that premeditated or spontaneous? If testimony can be shown that a bunch of guys were going out to “kick some fags” is that different than the punks who plan to beat up homeless guys for kicks? Both groups are anti-social monsters.

If I were King, I would leave sentencing more firmly in the hands of judges so they could throw the book at the heinous without the need for specific guidelines. Tied to that, I'd have oversight examinations of sentencing to verify that justice as defined by the law was really being carried out. I don't want some rich guy getting off easy just because he looks more like the judge than the victim does.

I wouldn't worry too much about language. The miracle of Google and Wikipedia can illuminate much. It is good for the soul to do some self-education.

Thank you. I understand the difference in levels of intent (negligence, recklessness, intentional, pre-meditated, etc.) This is different from motive. Traditionally, motive is not a legal requirement for conviction, but is only an evidentiary issue to help prove certain levels of intent. Adding motive as an element of the crime seems a departure from traditional principles of crinimal law.

I'm not sure I agree that hate crimes are based on separate victims. If that were the case, it would not be a sentence enhancement but would be charged as a second, separate, criminal charge. Admittedly, this is an issue that requires more research on my part. At this point I'm just asking questions and absorbing responses and opinions.

The idea of different levels of punishment based on motive (intent as you call it) is well established in the law. The various degrees of murder, for example, are based on motive without a single thought to the rights of the murderer's rights to think what he wants.

Also well established is the idea of crimes against society. To the extreme that we jail people who commit victimless crimes, such as drug use, solely on the crime against society idea.

Next level. How does that apply to “hate crimes” where a prison sentence is enhanced, often by years, for what one says during or prior to the commisssion of a crime, while the same words spoken in a different context, with different intent, would result in no penalty or could be applauded for their artistic or political value?

The video displayed in this case came from Japan where dog fighting is legal. Are you going to decide if the display was for or against the act. How about bull fighting? How about two ants placed in proximity to each other to demonstrate inter-species warfare?

I'm not defending dog fighting, I'm defending the right of free speech. When a word's acceptability is based upon implied intent, you can't disallow it.