X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:04:52 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Brett's dubious propositions
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>>>I don't have a clue as to what your motivation was. I never said I
>>>knew what your motivation was. What are you talking about?
>>
>>        You said "chooses to ignore".  I didn't ignore it, I cut it out for
>>reasons of length.
>
>You ignored it, precisely in the sense that although almost this
>exact issue was discussed, you failed to address the arguments
>I made.

        I didn't ignore it.  Repeating it is not going to make it come true.

>You may have ignored it for reasons of length, I take your word

        Hey, let's play "twist words until they mean what I want them to mean"!

        Since when is editing == ignoring?

>for it. (Thus, I think, I now *know* why you did it. Imagine
>that! I know what was happening in someone's mind! Will wonders
>never cease?) I assume that was a CHOICE of yours. Thus, you
>chose to ignore it.

        You know only after I told you.  If an alleged criminal does not speak,
how are you going to convict them for thought crimes?

>What has this got to do with your motivations?

        I give up, what *does* it have to do with my motivations?

>>>>>A great many convictions depend on proving what people are
>>>>>thinking. Are you, Brett, willing to say that all such convictions
>>>>>result from laws which should be struck down?
>>>>
>>>>        Like...?  Crimes need *proof*.  What exactly does proof of thought
>>>>constitute?
>>>
>>>Like... murder. To prove someone guilty of murder, you have to prove
>>>that he had a certain intent. Next question.
>
>Thus it is established that we CAN prove (in the legal sense) what
>thoughts someone has. And Brett acknowledges this:
>
>>        Intent: buying a gun, stalking, etc.  Physical proof.
>
>Right. We can have PROOF of intent.

        But NO (caps lock is such fun! :) proof of what they were thinking.

>I now have no idea what is your objection to (what you inaccurately
>call) "thought crimes." You said it was that we can never have
>proof of what was going on in someone's mind. You now say that
>we can have physical proof of intent. Intent is in the mind.

        No, intent is proven by physical actions.  How can you prove what that
person was thinking?  A "crime" of hate can not be proven unless admitted.

>What is your objection?

        You can not prove what a person was thinking at the time of an alleged
crime unless they tell you.  Even then you have no way of verifying it.

        So crimes that (say) add N years for "hate motivated" crimes are laws
that can not be enforced by any rational measure.

>>>Brett, you declined to say whether you want to strike down every
>>>law such that conviction for violation of that law would require
>>>"proof of thought." Do you want to do that, or not?
>>
>>        There aren't any (at least here in OH.)  Our thought crimes law was
>>struck down.
>
>You confusing man.

        I'm sorry if I'm confusing you :).

>An intention is a thought.

        And?

>Proof of murder requires proof of intent.

        No, proof of murder requires various things.  Pre-meditated murder
requires proof of intent.  Even then all you can show is that that person
wanted to kill, not what they were thinking.
        So a "law" that defines a "hate crime" as "murder motivated by hate" is
not going to hold up, as it didn't here in Ohio.

>You agree we can have proof of intent.

        But not on your equating intent with thought.

>Thus, unless they have repealed murder laws in Ohio, you have in Ohio
>a law that requires "proof of thought" for conviction.

        Nope, but thanx for playing.

>>>>The laws against murder are reactive.  Quota laws are supposed to be
>>>>proactive.
>>>
>>>A) I don't understand this distinction, please explain it.
>>
>>        Reactive: in response to an action.  Proactive: in anticipation of an
>>action (or inaction).  Obviously murder is after someone dies, the so-called
>>quota bills are in anticpation of a lack of hiring/promotion.
>
>There is no dichotomy here.

        Nor here, nor there.  Nor in a tree or on a bee.  No dichotomy
anywhere!  (Apologies to Suess and the Cat.)

>Murder TRIALS are only after someone dies. MURDER takes place only
>when someone dies.

        Only when someone is killed (and the various and sundry attachments
that define criminal intent, which is not the same thing as a criminal
thought).

>The so-called quota bills (and I note the
>dubious example you give is NOT a bill) might be violated. In that

        Thankfully, the past 12 years have seen executives unwilling to let
such a bill pass, despite repeated attempts.  But that is only the federal
government....

>case, there would be a trial. The trial would take place only
>AFTER the wrongdoing. It would be, in your sense, REactive.

        The trial, as always is reactive, by definition.

        Some clarification:

        The fire department is a reactive agency vs. fire.

        A smoke detector is a proactive agency vs. fire (or the detection of
one, if you will).

        You have the fire dept. to fight fires that *will* occur.  You use the
smoke detector against the fire that you *think* will occur--the one in your
residence.

        A thought crime law attempts to criminalize behaviour that has not yet
resulted in any crime (in the current sense of the word).

        Tell us, what is the difference between assault (say to rob) and
assualt (say because of race)?
        An attack is an attack.  The current law(s) fully punish the act.  The
"thought" crimes attempt to plumb the depths of the criminal mind and determine
if the motivation was a racist thought (get the [minority]) or greed.
        Now, unless the assaulting agent confesses to being motivated by
thought Y, how do you intend to prove that they were indeed motivated by
thought Y?
        You can't.

>Murder LAWS are put into place BEFORE the murders which are tried
>under them.

        Under our current system of justice, you cannot try someone for
thinking about murder, can you?
        But various bills would criminalize certain thoughts, like wanting to
murder because of race.
        (BTW-you're starting to mix the quota and thought crime debate)

>Just as quota bills (if there are any) are. The LAWS
>are put into place to try to PREVENT the wrongdoing. They are,
>in your sense, PROactive.

        And just how can you prosecute someone for attempted murder without
proving intent?
        By asserting that "they thought about it"?

        You can't try anyone for murder because they [don't] buy a certain
number of guns.  Ownership of a gun is not proof of intent to murder.
        You can, however, try someone because they [don't] hire a certain
number of people filling subset X specifications.  But not having N minorities
is seen as being a crime because "obviously" the person is discriminating.

        Reactive: you shoot someone.
        Proactive: you haven't hired N purple people yet, we'll make you do it.

        One assumes guilt before any proof of guilt.

>You have not made out a distinction between them.

        Perhaps you don't want to see the distinction.

>I should point out something which Brett has apparently forgotten.
>The issue about "thought crimes" arose in connection with Hate
>Crime laws, not in connection with quotas. If Brett is now

        No kidding.  Two separate issues, but one post.  (Imagine that.)

>claiming that quota laws (if there are any) are hate crime
>laws, I am willing to play along.

        No, but you seem to be claiming that.

>> The first is in response to actual wrongs, the second is done in order
>>to socially engineer society to prevent supposed wrongs that might occur.
>
>Nonsense.
>Murder laws are put into place in order to socially engineer society
>to prevent supposed wrongs that might occur. Agree or disagree?

        No, they are there to punish offenders *after* the crime has been
committed.

>>>>        Some would argue that since capital punishment hasn't put a
 noticeabl
>>>>dent in murder rates, that either the process should be abolished or made
 mor
>>>>efficient (fewer appeals, etc.).
>>>
>>>Oh, sure, I agree with THAT line of reasoning. I mean, in general, not
>>>just for capital punishment.
>>>
>>>But were you, Brett, claiming to have shown that affirmative action
>>>has not placed a noticeable dent in discrimination? If you were
>>
>>        No, that the current laws are ineffective, and can be used to shield
>>employers in the same way tobacco companies use the Surgeon General's warning
>>as a shield against liability.
>
>First claim: that the current laws are ineffective.
>No evidence.

        Check the ratio of minorities in various professional fields.  Do you
think this is the result of "effective" laws?

        First claim: no *dis*proof.

>Second claim, that the current laws can be used to shield employers
>in the same way tobacco companies use the SG's warning.
>No evidence.

        No evidence to deny it.  Tobacco companies do indeed use federal law as
a shield: clear precident.
        Quota laws can be used in the same way.  Since the government mandates
it, companies can not be sued for following the guidelines.
        Proven in many court cases against the tobacco companies.

>(It is far from clear that tobacco companies ARE shielded, by the
>way. It currently looks like they WON'T be.)
>
>Note that when he gives an example, Brett should be trying to give
>one that is actually relevant to his claim. Either one of his claims,
>though surely a good example would be relevant to both claims.

        Note that when you are trying to disprove an argument, you should
actually try to disprove the argument, instead of simply saying "you haven't
satisfied me, thus your claim must be false".

>>>Give one example.
>>
>> Universities setting aside a certain amount of scholarships for
>>minorities (lest they lose federal aid).
>
>In the first place, this is not a quota.

        Why not?

        No proof given. :D

>In the second place, I thought you were objecting to (alleged)
>laws interfering in the private sector.

        I'm objecting to all laws that try to punish through assumption of
guilt.

>Is it your view, Brett,
>that withholding federal aid constitutes interfering in the
>private sector? Just curious.

        Yup.  Withholding federal highway funds for states without a 21 driking
age interferes with state's rights, too.  Too bad we never had a governor
willing to challenge that edict.

>More important, you were supposed to be giving an example in which
>quota laws worked to protect employers who DO discriminate against
>blacks by giving them what you labelled as the tobacco company
>defense. Are you now claiming that universities have done that?

        I was not *supposed* to do anything.  What you want me to do and what I
do are not going to correspond very often.  Perhaps you should sue me for not
thinking correctly.
        And once again, I must restate the obvious:

        Who is going to admit to being racist and using he quota laws to shield
themselves?

>>        See above.  Why limit yourself to one?
>
>Well, let's see if you can give one.

        As soon as you stop denying, you'll find one.

>Then we'll investigate the
>broader claim that your model describes how quotas work in
>general.

        Not my assertion.  Simply another strawman of yours.

>>>And, even if you did give an example of a "current law that has
>>>a numerical quota, do you think that would show that it works
>>>the way you outlined in your fanciful imaginary example?
>>
>>   Depends on the law and the loopholes that have been discovered.
>
>So it does. So, does the one example you gave contain such loopholes?

        Sure does.  Check out the lawsuit against the Ivy League for "fixing
prices".  Their claim was that it was necessary to meet federal guidelines for
minority and disadvantaged students.

>Just to be clear. Brett has offered an objection to quota laws.

        Very good.

>He says that they may act to shield wrongdoers. I asked for an

        Good so far...

>example in which that happens.

        You might as well ask for an example of intelligent life on other
planets.  Does the fact that no one has proven it yet mean there isn't any?

>He offers the example of requirements
>on universities for receiving federal aid. We now need to know
>whether those requirements have the effect he claims they have.
>Do they have the effect of shielding universities that seek
>to discriminate against the minorities the requirements seek
>to protect? I would like to see the evidence for this claim.

        Ivy League.  Price fixing.

>I will happily say in advance: if there IS good evidence, I
>will be quite convinced that the requirements should be changed.
>Jamie

        We await your judgement :).

>>        Yes, it is, which is why I think the government shouldn't have the
>>power to enforce prejudices and discrimination.
>
>Nor do I! But that is not what is at issue.

        Yes, it is.  When you understand that, you will understand my
objections.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU