SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
On April 12th, a terror-attack against the team of one of the major German soccer clubs, BVB, was reported by several news agencies. The attack was carried out with three bombs, enclosed by metal bolts for maximum damage. Luckily, only one player was injured at his hand. Some clumsy letters found at the scene pointed to an Islamic background, another equally clumsy pamphlet pointed to the left-wing, but due to the bad spelling and grammar was immediately suspected to be a false flag, potentially set by some right-wing extremist.
As evident by the links above, the media happily picked up the Islamic theme; the German right-wing party AfD (Alternative für Deutschland, alternative for Germany) also happily embraced the opportunity.
Turns out, the actual background seems to be a completely different one, neither political nor religious: The BVB is in the stock market. The perpetrator bought "put" options and tried to kill as many team-members as possible to make a fortune when the stocks would plummet.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Monday April 24 2017, @11:00AM (4 children)
That's as reasonable a definition of "terror attack" as any I've seen. Which leads to the more general question: is there any reason to make the distinction?
If someone plants a bomb and blows up a bunch of people, they're guilty of murder. What does it gain anyone to argue whether it was "terror" or "not terror"? That's a distinction without a difference. The bomber is a murderer, murder is a crime, and that's all that matters.
The same thing with "hate crime". If someone assaults another person, or slanders them, or commits some other criminal act - that's a crime. It makes no difference whether they "hated" the person or not - it's completely irrelevant. Justice is supposed to be objective, not subjective.
The only "mind reading" that comes into play (in some cases) is "mens rea", i.e., the person must have known what they were doing was illegal. This can come into play if someone is not be mentally competent, or when the law itself is unclear or not obvious (example: many people have no idea that Lèse-majesté is a crime in much of Europe).
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24 2017, @01:33PM
If someone plants a bomb and blows up a bunch of people, they're guilty of murder. What does it gain anyone to argue whether it was "terror" or "not terror"? That's a distinction without a difference. The bomber is a murderer, murder is a crime, and that's all that matters.
Well, as a legal matter, sure, but there are other perspectives where it could make more sense to make a distinction.
In theory, if they're doing it to "sway the masses", massive news coverage helps the bomber, and one should probably try to limit coverage to avoid that. Whereas, if it was, say, to settle a grudge against (some of) the people blown up, that doesn't apply.
In practice, "If it bleeds, it leads"; no newspaper is going to hurt their own sales by pushing such a story back to page 2 (and analogously for other news media), so I guess it doesn't really matter here, either. (Unless one's prepared to call for restrictions on freedom of the press in such cases, which I certainly am not.)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday April 24 2017, @01:46PM (1 child)
I'm not going to weigh in on the usefulness of "hate crime" or terrorism distinctions for crimes, but your assertions about "mind reading" in law simply aren't true. Intent is an important distinction in the definition of many criminal statutes, perhaps the most well-known being the difference between murder vs. manslaughter. Different "degrees" of other crimes are often also determined by intent (e.g., whether harm inflicted was intentional, negligent, etc.). And differing punishments for different intent are frequently justified because of the goals of criminal justice, which isn't simply an "eye for an eye" simplistic punishment system. Increased punishment for different intent may serve as deterrent for deliberate crimes society deems more egregious given their societal impact, etc. (or, theoretically, different crimes may need different rehabilitation depending on their intent, though in most systems the level of interest in actual "rehabilitation" is merely nominal).
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Monday April 24 2017, @06:46PM
Fair enough, but it's a matter of degree. As I understand it, "Mens Rea" covers the difference between murder and manslaughter: i.e., was it intentional or not.
Beyond establishing intent, I submit that it doesn't matter. Did that dude assault and rob you because he wanted your money, or because he disliked your skin color? What difference does it make? Differing societal impact because it was a "hate" crime? Is the dude going to hate you less, after spending more time in prison?
IMHO anything beyond establishing intent treads far too close to prosecuting "thought crime". From where it is far too small a step to punishing thought in the absence of crime.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday April 24 2017, @05:59PM
Making believable threats to someone is also a crime.
"Sending messages" via murder does both: 1. murder 2. makes a believable threat.
Hence, it's "more" illegal and the punishment is greater.