Jerod Lee Loughner Found Unfit for Trial

Someone finally figured out Jerod Lee Loughner is mentally ill. Too late to do anyone any good, but there you go.

Formspring Question #112--One Step Ahead of the Thought Police Edition

Why do you oppose hate crime legislation, but consider homicide worse than manslaughter?

I had to think about this question a while just to figure out what you were asking me. I think you are wondering why I oppose labeling an offense a hate crime even though it inherently possesses malice of thought when I think premeditated murder is worse than an unintentional killing. Is that it?

It is an interesting question. Answering it has been on edge to avoid hypocrisy, but I think I have a solid rationale for opposing hate crime legislation while still considering malice of thought in murder a true crime. My rationale boils down to not believing hatred is a crime, but plotting to murder someone is.

Think about it this way. A white supremacist can hate a black civil rights leader all he wants. It may make you uncomfortable to know there are people roaming about with those kinds of thoughts in their heads, but the world is full of rough edges. His opinion on the color of other people’s skin is his own. That is true even if he snaps one day, concocts a plan to kill the civil rights leader, and carries it out. Plotting the murder and carrying it out are crimes; the racist motivation behind it is not. It still ought not be a crime to hate the murdered civil rights leader even after the deed has been done. That is the thought police at work. They need no further encouragement.

I think hate crimes legislation is usually motivated by a desire to feel enlightened by punishing incorrect thought. The problem with labeling offenses as hate crimes is two fold. One, it is extremely nebulous to determine someone’s thoughts about committing a crime. Would it be a hate crime for a Barack Obama voter to vandalize Glenn Beck’s house? Howe about stealing a social Security check from an elderly woman? Is that ageism? Do we have to determine the mindset of the perpetrator in any crime involving people of different races/ yes, you would, and good luck with that. What are you going to do, by the way? Punish the perpetrator twice for not for not following the rules of political correctness in committing his crimes?

The second problem is realism. The law is not concerned with your warm fuzzies. It is results oriented. As much as one thinks courts like to take as much power for themselves as possible--and I am not discounting a radical change as “enlightened” legal scholars take more places on the bench--but determining someone feelings about committing a precedent they are eager to set. It is podium pounding politicians who go for hate crimes legislation.

So I oppose hate crime legislation, but support homicide being considered a horrible crime because I separate opinion and plotting as actual crimes. People ought to be able to think whatever they want, no matter how vile. Just try not to be living next door when they finally go off.

Formspring Question #112--One Step Ahead of the Thought Police Edition

Why do you oppose hate crime legislation, but consider homicide worse than manslaughter?

I had to think about this question a while just to figure out what you were asking me. I think you are wondering why I oppose labeling an offense a hate crime even though it inherently possesses malice of thought when I think premeditated murder is worse than an unintentional killing. Is that it?

It is an interesting question. Answering it has been on edge to avoid hypocrisy, but I think I have a solid rationale for opposing hate crime legislation while still considering malice of thought in murder a true crime. My rationale boils down to not believing hatred is a crime, but plotting to murder someone is.

Think about it this way. A white supremacist can hate a black civil rights leader all he wants. It may make you uncomfortable to know there are people roaming about with those kinds of thoughts in their heads, but the world is full of rough edges. His opinion on the color of other people’s skin is his own. That is true even if he snaps one day, concocts a plan to kill the civil rights leader, and carries it out. Plotting the murder and carrying it out are crimes; the racist motivation behind it is not. It still ought not be a crime to hate the murdered civil rights leader even after the deed has been done. That is the thought police at work. They need no further encouragement.

I think hate crimes legislation is usually motivated by a desire to feel enlightened by punishing incorrect thought. The problem with labeling offenses as hate crimes is two fold. One, it is extremely nebulous to determine someone’s thoughts about committing a crime. Would it be a hate crime for a Barack Obama voter to vandalize Glenn Beck’s house? Howe about stealing a social Security check from an elderly woman? Is that ageism? Do we have to determine the mindset of the perpetrator in any crime involving people of different races/ yes, you would, and good luck with that. What are you going to do, by the way? Punish the perpetrator twice for not for not following the rules of political correctness in committing his crimes?

The second problem is realism. The law is not concerned with your warm fuzzies. It is results oriented. As much as one thinks courts like to take as much power for themselves as possible--and I am not discounting a radical change as “enlightened” legal scholars take more places on the bench--but determining someone feelings about committing a precedent they are eager to set. It is podium pounding politicians who go for hate crimes legislation.

So I oppose hate crime legislation, but support homicide being considered a horrible crime because I separate opinion and plotting as actual crimes. People ought to be able to think whatever they want, no matter how vile. Just try not to be living next door when they finally go off.

Julian Assange on 60 Minutes

I just watched the Julian Assange interview on 60 Minutes. beforehand, I knew very little about him other than the general word he was a weird information anarchist. From this interview, I think amoral egotist ought to be added to his description. Assange is flippant about the damage Wkileaks has caused because he values his own sense of chaotic freedom over any other principle.

The best example is his response to the charge the Taliban hunted down and killed informants who were working with the United States military in Afghanistan because field reports made public by Wikileaks revealed their names. He acknowledges, matter of factly, people died because of the revelations. He sjows no emotion about it, however. His freedom of the press trumps the liberation of the Afhan people. If a few have to die for the exercise of free press as Assange sees it, they are the broken eggs for an omelet. Ironic, considering he goes on later to express pride Wikileaks revelation of unreported civilian deaths in Iraq is a check on United states power.

He also hangs Bradley Manning out to dry, expressing sympathy Manning’s traitorous actions have made him a political prisoner, but that is the sum total of what he has to say. Volunteers who may be considering leaking documents onto the Wikileaks site should take note of Assange’s attitude towards you. Your fate mighrt be unfortunate, but Assange will not do much much than sympathize while you enrich him.

Make no mistake, he is being enriched. The background information on the interview stated Wikileaks drew in over $ 1 million in donations last year with only $ 500,000 in expenses. Where is the bulk of the money going/ Assange’s pocket would be my only guess.

He is getting an emotional kick out of the power he has acquired for himself to watch countries, corporations, and other major entities squirm under what he might reveal next. He is a little man who enjoys being big. For years, he was satisfied playing cloak and dagger games by running from country to country, changing his appearance constantly to avoid, as he says, kidnappers and assassins, all while displaying his hacker kung fu. It is all a clear ego trop for him. Whoever gets hurt along the way is irrelevant. While he is claiming those who are hurt are martyrs to freedom of the press, they are really martyrs to his egomania.

I have been inclined to say the guy ought to be prosecuted for espionage. I still do, but now I am convinced he is a far more dangerous man than just a top secret information leaker. He honestly believes whatever damage he causes is perfectly fine because it further the egomania of Julian Assange.

Julian Assange on 60 Minutes

I just watched the Julian Assange interview on 60 Minutes. beforehand, I knew very little about him other than the general word he was a weird information anarchist. From this interview, I think amoral egotist ought to be added to his description. Assange is flippant about the damage Wkileaks has caused because he values his own sense of chaotic freedom over any other principle.

The best example is his response to the charge the Taliban hunted down and killed informants who were working with the United States military in Afghanistan because field reports made public by Wikileaks revealed their names. He acknowledges, matter of factly, people died because of the revelations. He sjows no emotion about it, however. His freedom of the press trumps the liberation of the Afhan people. If a few have to die for the exercise of free press as Assange sees it, they are the broken eggs for an omelet. Ironic, considering he goes on later to express pride Wikileaks revelation of unreported civilian deaths in Iraq is a check on United states power.

He also hangs Bradley Manning out to dry, expressing sympathy Manning’s traitorous actions have made him a political prisoner, but that is the sum total of what he has to say. Volunteers who may be considering leaking documents onto the Wikileaks site should take note of Assange’s attitude towards you. Your fate mighrt be unfortunate, but Assange will not do much much than sympathize while you enrich him.

Make no mistake, he is being enriched. The background information on the interview stated Wikileaks drew in over $ 1 million in donations last year with only $ 500,000 in expenses. Where is the bulk of the money going/ Assange’s pocket would be my only guess.

He is getting an emotional kick out of the power he has acquired for himself to watch countries, corporations, and other major entities squirm under what he might reveal next. He is a little man who enjoys being big. For years, he was satisfied playing cloak and dagger games by running from country to country, changing his appearance constantly to avoid, as he says, kidnappers and assassins, all while displaying his hacker kung fu. It is all a clear ego trop for him. Whoever gets hurt along the way is irrelevant. While he is claiming those who are hurt are martyrs to freedom of the press, they are really martyrs to his egomania.

I have been inclined to say the guy ought to be prosecuted for espionage. I still do, but now I am convinced he is a far more dangerous man than just a top secret information leaker. He honestly believes whatever damage he causes is perfectly fine because it further the egomania of Julian Assange.