(I assume this is the best place to post this. Hip Forums doesn't seem to have a section for just legal questions.) At the present time in US history (and I am just limiting this to the present time), are there any laws the criminalize thoughts per se? Interesting story. When I took a law class in high school (the teacher called the class "Street Law" FWIW), he brought up an interesting point. Some laws seem to almost criminalize thought. For example, intent is the element in a number of laws. Murder. Insider trading. Assault even, just to name a few (cf. hate crimes, for the last one). I assume, though, the SCOTUS has ruled the criminalizing of thoughts in these cases is just unavoidable. It is neither direct nor deliberate. But are there any crimes that do, in fact, criminalize thoughts in and of themselves? I know some people do in fact make this argument with hate crimes. Fortunately, though, the Supreme Court has not concurred. Are there any other examples of this that may make a better case for what I am talking about? Thank you in advance to all who reply.
the mind is a slippery squirmy thing, that i don't believe anyone can reasonably be held accountable, for everything that might occur to it. what we are responsible for, is insuring, that harm go no further, that it not escape from the mind, into harmful physical behaviors, actions, or even the encouragement of them in others. consideration and the avoidance of causing harm is the foundation of morality, and laws, are created with the intent, that when harm is caused, something can be done about it, something to discourage more harm from continuing to be. that my not be the entire history of why they exist, but it is the one legitimate reason to have them. i believe its possible, for people to be considerate enough of each other, to not need such a mechanism at all, but as long as people refuse to, as long as they think they are doing the world a favor by creating that need, or simply refuse to look beyond what they believe to be the box of their own interests, then we're left without the option of not creating some sort of mechanism, to deal with their doing so. literal thought crimes as such, no. but hate speech is a real and legitimate concern. precisely because, at its root, it is encouraging people to cause harm. (or at the very least excusing their doing so)
No, there are no laws that criminalize thoughts per se. How could there be? How could anyone prove such a crime beyond a reasonable doubt without any physical evidence of it? You are correct that mental state (mens rea) is an element of a crime. It matters a lot whether an act was deliberate, reckless, careless or completely unintentional. The intent is inferred by the jury from the evidence at hand. As for hate crimes, hate alone isn't a crime, but it can lead to enhanced penalties if there is evidence that a criminal act was motivated by hatred of a group.
is there a mind reading device that i'm not familiar with? if not, i really don't see how you could literally criminalize a thought. hate crimes are a pretty decent example of as close as we can come with current technology. although since it is based purely on the races of those involved with no concern for motivation, it's really more about the thoughts of the prosecutor than the criminal. i guess child porn would also be a sort-of example, but again you're really prosecuted based on the fact that you made or purchased said porn than the fact that you "thought" about it.
The main issue that I can think of where "thought" is debated as a crime is gun violence. Basically to reform the gun laws we need this. People need to be prevented from having guns BEFORE the crime. Of course this is unacceptable to gun owners. And why it seems many mass shooters have legal weapons. Although there are red flags it's just words at that point. It applies in other areas too. For example if you have a stalker it's often hard to do anything. Cops can give restraining orders but the 40 messages on your phone making threats not so much since nothing happened yet.
It's not really considered a crime as such, but Colin Kaepernick's kneeling for the anthem and being banned from the NFL or whatever. In the book 1984 these sorts of things were what was considered "thought crimes." Not actual thoughts, per se, but just acts of nonconformity.
Hmm. Explain how thought is a crime when it comes to gun violence. And how exactly do you propose to prevent people from having guns before the crime?
That part is easy, just make guns disappear. If there are no guns, there will be no more gun deaths. Seriously, look how replacing pencils with keyboards has eliminated spelling errors. And look how putting cameras on cops has ended conflicts with criminals. That's the kind of simplistic math that seems to be churning around these days. Never mind that a gun is a very simple machine to build, even with hardware store parts. And of course if the government becomes the only owner of guns, we'll all be so safe and comfortable that we can finally relax and bask in the freedom of America. Actually I think getting rid of the guns wouldn't be so hard. Just go after the largest group of gun owners and shame them into utter submission. Since that group is white people the shame part is really easy, just call them all racists for daring to own guns. As for thought crimes, well, we will need Ms. Cleo, Dion Warwick and the Psychic Friends Network (who oddly failed to predict the failure of their venture).
Black magic. Possibly a thought crime. Secret psy-police investigate. Culprits locked up as prisoners of distinction. Psychomec becomes reality. The future is unwritten.
If there are red flags, then the guns aren't being withheld for thoughts, but actions or mental incapacity. Just as we wouldn't allow young children to carry loaded guns around due to them being incapable of understanding the responsibilities involved in that action, so too certain individuals may have shown, by their actions, that they are not responsible enough to possess a gun. Same with a stalker, it's their actions, such as phone threats, that allow a restraining order to be issued.
Spot on. Consider the recent revelations about Taylor Swift's use of facial recognition technology to scan fans. Or at least that's how it's being portrayed in the wheatpaste factories. Taylor Swift is a brand, worth millions. What expense would her employees (basically) spare to keep her absolutely healthy and free from vermin from microscopic to Cro-Magnon? They have determined some of these stalkers are genuinely inclined to be any measure of problem. I see this as the private sector providing what the government has discarded by using technology and solid investigation. Mental health has become a soul-burning cash machine since the government graciously bowed out. I realize I'm expecting a lot, but I do remember a time when crazy relatives went to a very secure place to study their wholeness with the earth and universe. They didn't always go so peacefully, but then, the white suits had them before the thought to reach for the knife, gun, bottle or pot of boiling grits. During the 60s the crazier elements of my family tree (which more resembles a shoe or halibut maybe) mostly smoked pot and/or drank. I only recall hearing about a step cousin who used LSD and rode his bike on the beach and quit peaking in an ambulance after pedaling into granite blocks the size of small cars (an Atlantic inlet). During the 70s they got Quaalude 714s etc. Sure, the suicide rate went up as they lost jobs, college degrees, marriages and sleep, but most of the users of that fine product were moved from it either gently or the hard way. I don't mean to suggest that drugs cause any specific things to happen when it comes to mind control. And that's basically how the drug business works. Not only with chemical weakening, but also with "therapy" so you understand better why you're just going to have to get used to it (what "it" is). And like it or not, some people really are crazy and it has nothing to do with politics, religion or lack of a sex life. It's because they have either been born that way or suffered some phenomenon that can manifest itself in the mind with varying degrees of other bodily effects. Of crazy, I know the term makes some cringe but it's what I grew up understanding about people with oddly tuned minds both in and outside of family. Getting us mired in terminology, and I admit my guilt, only maintains control over the discussion, by the people who created and proselytized the weird variations in terminology for "crazy".
And yes, I did pass that difficult test I have been studying my ass off for the last several weeks to pass. (No, it's not a palindrome)
From my understanding, this idea is central to the plot of Minority Report. I have yet to see the movie tho.
