In the Tesla thread I pointed out the inconsistency on whether motive matters. I don’t think you answered that point. If your position is that motive never should be an element of a crime, that is a consistent position. But, it seems to be the opposite of your position in the Tesla thread.
Maybe I’ve watched too much TV, but doesn’t motive or reasoning matter?
Doesn’t intent tie to motive? Which is part of cracking a case.
Intent would also inform whether there was premeditation which affects charges and sentencing, no?
Sure, the deed and damages are done, but intent and motive and reasons should still matter.
Intent and motive are different things
Did you intend to kill the person? Yes = murder No = manslaughter.
The reason for the killing is immaterial (unless you’re arguing an affirmative defense)
2 Likes
Establishing motive is useful to make the case that an accused committed the crime in question. That’s different from using motive to determine the degree of punishment.
As Windy and Slowguy explain, motive and intent are different, but they can tie together. Suppose A shoots and kills B, and one issue is whether A intended to kill B or just wound (or frighten) them. If the prosecution had evidence of a motive to collect on a life insurance policy, that would help prove intent, because merely wounding or frightening B won’t result in paying out on the policy.
The vast majority of crimes don’t have a motive requirement, though the prosecution may want to prove a motive to help show that defendant committed the crime. But, there are some crimes for which motive is an element that must be proven.
I don’t particularly remember what I said (or what I was arguing) but I generally don’t think motive should matter in crimes.
What about (not in this case, but generally speaking) - insanity defense?
What about it?
If you’re pleading insanity and are insane you were incapable of understanding what you were doing or that it was wrong
Example: an insanity plea in a murder 2 case. The intent to kill is there, but the law is carving out a special case for absence of motive.
IIRC correctly 2nd degree murder is the unlawful intentional killing of a human without premeditation or something close to that.
You’re still intending to kill the person so motive is immaterial. If you’re asking about raising an insanity defense that is (again IIRC) an affirmative defense (which I said above) where motive could play a role.
An insanity defense doesn’t imply lack of motive. It implies that the accused was not responsible for their actions due to a mental illness or defect at the time of the crime, and that they were incapable of understanding right from wrong. For example, the motive to kill someone might have been a desire to shut up the butterflies talking to you in your head. Motive exists, but you came to that motive through some mental illness
But intent (different from motive) is used to determine punishment, no? If someone intended, planned, and committed the crime that’s a different defense and sentence than for someone who “just snapped”.
Someone who “snapped” still may have had intent. Intent distinguishes between someone who deliberately committed a criminal act and someone who accidentally committed that act. If you “snap” due to stress or anger or sadness, and kill someone, it was still an intentional act, not an accident.
All of that is separate from what we were originally talking about, which was the idea of laws that authorize or even demand a harsher punishment for the same crime based on a characterization of motive.
He’s attacking her for not proactively signing a statement assigning motive. Co-signing someone else’s description, crafted for political purposes, of why this person did what he did. You seem a little scattered on this. If motive shouldn’t matter then, given noone appears to dispute intent, there’s no need for politicians to weigh in with statements like this and ideally they wouldn’t. There’s context here as the linked articles make clear, but if you’d prefer to deemphasize motive (and I’m with you on that), then you should be on the side of the politician who’s refusing to sign the performative statement, not the ones propagating it.
You were equating some anti-Tesla crimes with terrorism, which is based on motive.
As a generality, I agree that motive should not be an element of the crime (though it may come in on sentencing or for proof of some required element). But, there are exceptions where motive should be an element. That, however, does not really get us any closer to determining whether bias crime should be one of those exceptions.
But, she was willing to assign motive. She just disagreed on how to classify that motive. She identified two motives, whereas the rest of Council identified only one.
Regardless of her position, it’s not performative to make clear that this attack would be more acutely felt by a subset of the community — a subset that has often been singled out for persecution. Yes, one could express support for that subset without specifically attributing motive to this attacker. That’s a distinction without much of a difference. Issuing a statement that entirely omits any mention of Jews or Zionists would have been far worse than issuing a statement with a controversial characterization of motive.
I missed this in one of the linked articles:
“…what I felt the statement lacked was an acknowledgement that, based on his recorded comments, this was both an act of antisemitism and anti-Zionism.”
Which is a little confusing when read alongside the police affidavit:
“Mohamed said this had nothing to do with the Jewish community and was specific in the Zionist group supporting the killings of people on his land (Palestine).”
Regardless, I was trying to express general support for politicians refusing to be brow-beaten into co-signing statements which they believe to be imprecise and/or politically motivated (which I stand by), though the degree to which that covers this case isn’t as clear as I thought.
Removed from the facts of this case, it’s hard to agree or disagree as a general matter. There are times to stand one’s ground, and there are times to go along in the interests of solidarity and expedience. Either approach might better serve the public interests, depending on the specifics.