Intent matters!

This is a discussion I have had multiple times this year, and I was wondering if anyone could make sense of it, or spot a fallacy.

 

Person 1: The phrase "hate crime" doesn't make a lot of sense because it would mean additionally punishing people because of the opinion they hold whilst committing said crime.

Person 2: No, because intent matters. It's literally in the law!

 

What I think is going on here is that person 2 seems to be (intentionally) conflating the dictionary definition of intent (the purpose behind an act) with the legal definition (the desire and will to act in a particular way). Legally, intent refers to the willingness to commit the criminal act itself, not the motivation behind the crime. Is person 2 committing a fallacy or is it just a good old misunderstanding?

I will say that trying to point out to person 2 that intent doesn't mean what they think it does is almost always a fruitless exercise that leads nowhere

Thank you for presenting this interesting discussion. Let's analyze it step-by-step to identify any logical fallacies, cognitive biases, poor logic, or reasoning within the conversation.

**Person 1's Argument:**
"The phrase 'hate crime' doesn't make a lot of sense because it would mean additionally punishing people because of the opinion they hold whilst committing said crime."

**Person 2's Counter-Argument:**
"No, because intent matters. It's literally in the law!"

### Analysis

1. **Person 1's Argument:**

Person 1 is arguing that "hate crime" laws involve additional punishment based on the perpetrator's opinion or belief (presumably the "hate" motivation). This argument makes the implicit assumption that the opinion itself is being punished, rather than the consequences and societal harm tied to crimes motivated by hate.

- **Straw Man Fallacy**: Person 1 may be misrepresenting the purpose of hate crime laws. These laws are typically designed to address crimes that are motivated by bias against a particular group, recognizing that such crimes can have broader societal impacts, instill fear, and target entire communities. It's not about punishing the opinion per se but about addressing and deterring the specific harm that bias-motivated crimes cause.

2. **Person 2's Counter-Argument:**

Person 2 responds by stating that intent matters, both in common understanding and in legal frameworks. However, Person 2 may be conflating the general concept of "intent" with the specific way "intent" and "motivation" are used in legal contexts.

- **Equivocation Fallacy**: This fallacy occurs when a word with different meanings is used ambiguously in the argument, causing confusion. Here, "intent" is the word in question. While Person 2 is correct that intent matters in legal contexts, they might be confusing "intent" (the purposeful action) with "motive" (the reason behind the action). In hate crime laws, it's often the motive of bias or hate that enhances the severity of the crime, not just the intent to commit the act.

### Broader Context and Clarification:

1. **Legal Context**: In legal terms, many crimes already consider intent (mens rea) crucial. Hate crime laws specifically add an additional layer that punishes not only the criminal act (e.g., assault, vandalism) but also the motive if it is rooted in certain bias or prejudice (e.g., race, religion, gender). Thus, the motive (hate or bias) is critical in enhancing the punishment because it reflects the broader threat to social cohesion and public safety.

2. **Person 1's Potential Misunderstanding**: By suggesting that hate crime laws punish the opinion, Person 1 might be misunderstanding the rationale behind these laws. The law recognizes that crimes motivated by hate can inflict greater harm on both individuals and communities compared to those without such motives.

3. **Person 2’s Point**: Saying "intent matters" is valid but potentially misleading if not properly explained. In hate crime statutes, it's the motive (the hate or bias) that enhances the crime's severity because of its identified societal impacts.

### Conclusion:

- **Person 1** appears to misunderstand the rationale behind hate crime laws, which do not punish opinions but rather account for the greater societal harm caused by crimes motivated by hate.
- **Person 2** may be making an equivocation fallacy by not clearly distinguishing between "intent" and "motive," leading to potential confusion.

Both parties could benefit from a clearer understanding and definition of terms such as "intent" and "motive" within both legal and general contexts.

Person 1: The phrase "hate crime" doesn't make a lot of sense because it would mean additionally punishing people because of the opinion they hold whilst committing said crime.

From a sociological and legal perspective, hate crimes carry an additional punishment not for the opinion held, but because the crime intimidates and harms the broader community that shares the victim's characteristics. In other words, others are harmed besides just the victim which justifies are more serious penalty.

Person 1 shared an opinion based on a misunderstanding of the law. No fallacy.

 

Person 2: No, because intent matters. It's literally in the law! 

It is true that intent and motivation/opinion are different. I would call this a strawman fallacy where person 2 is arguing against an argument not made - person 1 was not arguing about intent.

Preface, I'm not a lawyer. But I spend a lot of time listening to lawyers break down cases on social media, so I have some knowledge of the topic.

So, the theory as to why hate crimes are punished more severely is that, in addition to the primary victim (The person who was assaulted, the person whose property was vandalized, etc.) the community of people in the targeted demographic are secondary victims, as it instills some level of terror into them. Particularly if hate crimes against them are rampant, it may make them too afraid to go out or live their lives as normal.

But, from a legal perspective, there are a lot of cases were intent does matter, in both respects. One example I can think of off the top of my head is Donald Trump's recent criminal trial in New York where he was convicted of felony counts of falsifying business records. This particular crime can be charged either as a misdemeanor or a felony. The difference is that, it rises to the level of a felony if business records were falsified with the intent of furthering or concealing a different crime. In Trump's case, the prosecution argued that he falsified business records in order to conceal payments to a woman he had an affair with, which by itself would be a misdemeanor. But it rose to the level of a felony because his status as a political candidate and the fact that the affair was concealed because it was viewed as damaging to his chances of being elected, also made those payments a violation of campaign finance law. Campaign finance law, in this case, dictating how much money can be spent on political campaigns and how it must be publicly disclosed.