On Guard for Thee Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 I think motive matters. You don't seem to think so. A guy kills his wife because he catches her cheating. I'd say that's a heinous crime. But a man who kills his daughter because she refuses to wear a Niqab. I think that's worse. I'm using the comparison of crimes motivated by race. Are those the same as other comparable crimes. Or are they worse because of the motive? If we allowed motive to govern how we apply our laws we would be all over the map. No thanks.
ToadBrother Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 If we allowed motive to govern how we apply our laws we would be all over the map. No thanks. But motive does play a part. Motive is what makes the difference between manslaughter and second degree murder, and in some respects between second degree and first degree murder (the presence of intent AND premeditation). Beyond even charges and conviction, motive also plays a part in sentencing.
Boges Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 I just want to be clear. That means hate crime legislation is bad? No one seems to wants to answer that.
Boges Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 I just want to be clear. That means hate crime legislation is bad? No one seems to wants to answer that.
WestCoastRunner Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 But motive does play a part. Motive is what makes the difference between manslaughter and second degree murder, and in some respects between second degree and first degree murder (the presence of intent AND premeditation). Beyond even charges and conviction, motive also plays a part in sentencing. Motive may play a part in the charges and sentencing but shouldn't be held separate from honour killing and domestic violence. I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
poochy Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 Almost exactly like it does today, which is almost exactly like it was 10 years ago, with a couple new versions of the iphone thrown in for good measure, and of course, electric, powered by our own sense of self satisfaction, flying cars.
ToadBrother Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 It's domestic violence. Period!!!! It's very sad that we are arguing whether this is honour killing vs domestic violence. The sad fact is that women are being murdered by men in domestic violence. But we make allowances all the time. Hate crimes are judged differently than regular crimes, and crimes committed with a weapon are often prosecuted and penalized far more severely than crimes committed without a weapon. Honor killings usually have a different context than other forms of spousal or family murder. It's not a matter of whether one is worse than another, but in general spousal and family assaults don't have a strong element of premeditation. They may follow along a long chain of incidents of growing violence in many cases, but quite often an act of extreme violence like murder or attempted murder is a sad end in an escalating series of assaults. Honor killings usually involve considerable premeditation involving multiple members of the family, and also reflect alien and unacceptable cultural values. While I imagine one can find Western-based groups that may approve of these sort of actions, in general honor killings are a feature of Central Asian and Indian cultural groups (predominantly Muslim, Hindu and Sikh). So another reason to treat honor killings more severely is to send a message to members of such cultural groups in Western nations that these violent customs will not be tolerated, and that all members of a family who contribute to the conspiracy to carry out honor killings will be prosecuted along with the actual perpetrators.
On Guard for Thee Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 But motive does play a part. Motive is what makes the difference between manslaughter and second degree murder, and in some respects between second degree and first degree murder (the presence of intent AND premeditation). Beyond even charges and conviction, motive also plays a part in sentencing. Motive can cause a jury to make a distinction at sentencing, and that is understandable. But it should be left out of determining conviction.
WestCoastRunner Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 I just want to be clear. That means hate crime legislation is bad? No one seems to wants to answer that. You seem to be hell bent on separating honour killing from domestic killing as if North American domestic killing gets a pass. I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
ToadBrother Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 Motive can cause a jury to make a distinction at sentencing, and that is understandable. But it should be left out of determining conviction. But motive does play a part in the charge that the police and Crown will decide to lay. For instance, the difference between criminal negligence causing death or manslaughter on the one hand and a murder conviction on the other is that the former charges do not involve a motive to cause death, whereas the latter is based upon the Crown's view that death was the intended consequence of the criminal act. Motive is interlaced throughout a criminal prosecution, from the initial charge, through trial, through conviction, sentencing, and even eventual release and parole. Motive, along with means and opportunity, are the cornerstone requirements of a criminal conviction in most, if not all modern legal systems.
WestCoastRunner Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) But we make allowances all the time. Hate crimes are judged differently than regular crimes, and crimes committed with a weapon are often prosecuted and penalized far more severely than crimes committed without a weapon. Honor killings usually have a different context than other forms of spousal or family murder. It's not a matter of whether one is worse than another, but in general spousal and family assaults don't have a strong element of premeditation. They may follow along a long chain of incidents of growing violence in many cases, but quite often an act of extreme violence like murder or attempted murder is a sad end in an escalating series of assaults. Honor killings usually involve considerable premeditation involving multiple members of the family, and also reflect alien and unacceptable cultural values. While I imagine one can find Western-based groups that may approve of these sort of actions, in general honor killings are a feature of Central Asian and Indian cultural groups (predominantly Muslim, Hindu and Sikh). So another reason to treat honor killings more severely is to send a message to members of such cultural groups in Western nations that these violent customs will not be tolerated, and that all members of a family who contribute to the conspiracy to carry out honor killings will be prosecuted along with the actual perpetrators. This is part of the problem. We should be treating them as equal crimes and not differentiating them. I have spoken with female East Indian leaders in Vancouver and they agree that this should be treated as a common female domestic violence issue. It's a male/female issue not a cultural issue and the better that Canadian society addresses it, the better off everyone will be. Edited October 22, 2015 by WestCoastRunner I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
ToadBrother Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 This is part of the problem. We should be treating them as equal crimes and not differentiating them. I have spoken with female East Indian leaders in Vancouver and they agree that this should be treated as a common female domestic violence issue The only feature they have in common is that at least one person who is a close family member ends up dead. As I said in my post, honor killings frequently involve multiple members of the family in a conspiracy to commit murder, whereas most domestic murders do not involve anywhere near that level of premeditation, and in some ways are more a descendant of the older legal concept of "crime of passion", in other words an impetuous and unplanned act of violence.
On Guard for Thee Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 But motive does play a part in the charge that the police and Crown will decide to lay. For instance, the difference between criminal negligence causing death or manslaughter on the one hand and a murder conviction on the other is that the former charges do not involve a motive to cause death, whereas the latter is based upon the Crown's view that death was the intended consequence of the criminal act. Motive is interlaced throughout a criminal prosecution, from the initial charge, through trial, through conviction, sentencing, and even eventual release and parole. Motive, along with means and opportunity, are the cornerstone requirements of a criminal conviction in most, if not all modern legal systems. No, the difference you speak of is intent, not motive. The crown lays the appropriate charge based on what they deem was intent, and of course what evidence they have to support the charge.
Boges Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 You seem to be hell bent on separating honour killing from domestic killing as if North American domestic killing gets a pass. I'm say it's comparable to hate crimes. Toad made the argument very well.
ToadBrother Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 No, the difference you speak of is intent, not motive. The crown lays the appropriate charge based on what they deem was intent, and of course what evidence they have to support the charge. Without a motive, how does one establish intent?
Michael Hardner Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 Can we get back to the topic ? Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
On Guard for Thee Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 Without a motive, how does one establish intent? There could be a thousand and one motives for killing someone, it's when someone succumbs to one of them and intentionally kills that the law is broken.
On Guard for Thee Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 Back on topic, good idea. Of course it's hard to speculate what Canada will look like in 4 years, but, if we go by what the PM designate has been saying so far we could see a much more conciliatory relationship between provincial parties than we have for some time. Justin faced the press just yesterday and actually answered a hefty number of questions on a variety of topics ad without everything having been vetted beforehand, and he did well. We haven't see that in quite a while with Harper so it gives us hope that there actually will be some real change. Of course we have to keep his feet to the fire to deliver on those promises.
ToadBrother Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 Back on topic, good idea. Of course it's hard to speculate what Canada will look like in 4 years, but, if we go by what the PM designate has been saying so far we could see a much more conciliatory relationship between provincial parties than we have for some time. Justin faced the press just yesterday and actually answered a hefty number of questions on a variety of topics ad without everything having been vetted beforehand, and he did well. We haven't see that in quite a while with Harper so it gives us hope that there actually will be some real change. Of course we have to keep his feet to the fire to deliver on those promises. It's a good sign that he isn't starting out his Ministry with the level of paranoia that Harper exhibited almost from the beginning, and indeed right until the end. In the end, after four years, I'm sure the Liberals will have kept some of the promises they should have, will have kept some of the promises they shouldn't have, will have been unable to fulfill some of the promises they should have, and will have not fulfilled they promises they shouldn't have made to begin with. Just like every other government before them. In four years, we'll see some changes, likely a more open Senate selection process, carbon pricing of some kind (like a carbon tax, and not cap and trade), maybe a new electoral system (though the more cynical think the Liberals will find some way to prevent it or at least to minimize the nature of the change). We'll be part of TPP, C-51 will still exist, but with Parliamentary oversight. Hopefully Parliamentary committees will regain some clout. In general, the most significant changes will have little or nothing to do with government. We will still by and large be a commodity-based economy and thus at the whims of international markets and the global economy. New technologies for recreation and other purposes will come on the scene, again with little overt government influence (other than normal regulatory approvals like CSA approval). The genius of modern representative forms of democracy is that they are designed so that most of the functions of government, and indeed the way society carries on, are heavily insulated against political tampering.
On Guard for Thee Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 It's a good sign that he isn't starting out his Ministry with the level of paranoia that Harper exhibited almost from the beginning, and indeed right until the end. In the end, after four years, I'm sure the Liberals will have kept some of the promises they should have, will have kept some of the promises they shouldn't have, will have been unable to fulfill some of the promises they should have, and will have not fulfilled they promises they shouldn't have made to begin with. Just like every other government before them. In four years, we'll see some changes, likely a more open Senate selection process, carbon pricing of some kind (like a carbon tax, and not cap and trade), maybe a new electoral system (though the more cynical think the Liberals will find some way to prevent it or at least to minimize the nature of the change). We'll be part of TPP, C-51 will still exist, but with Parliamentary oversight. Hopefully Parliamentary committees will regain some clout. In general, the most significant changes will have little or nothing to do with government. We will still by and large be a commodity-based economy and thus at the whims of international markets and the global economy. New technologies for recreation and other purposes will come on the scene, again with little overt government influence (other than normal regulatory approvals like CSA approval). The genius of modern representative forms of democracy is that they are designed so that most of the functions of government, and indeed the way society carries on, are heavily insulated against political tampering. I would tend to agree with your points. Especially your comment about committees. I think that's where a lot of good work actually used to get done.
Scotty Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 It'll look...about the same as now. Just more heavily in debt. It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 Honour killing is no different than domestic violence resulting in death and will be treated the same in the courts. It's entirely different in every way. It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 Honour killing is no different than domestic violence resulting in death. What part of that don't you understand? Saying a lie twice doesn't make it true. It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) It's domestic violence. Period!!!! It's very sad that we are arguing whether this is honour killing vs domestic violence. It's sad that purported feminists will stretch truth to the breaking point to defend those with cultural and religious motives for murdering women. Edited October 22, 2015 by Scotty It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 If we allowed motive to govern how we apply our laws we would be all over the map. No thanks. We have ALWAYS used motive to govern how our laws are applied. It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Recommended Posts