Are 'hate' crimes worse than 'ordinary' crimes?
Discussion
I've been wondering about this recently. Suppose a chap has, for either genetic or acquired reasons, a predeliction for wearing bobble hats. Suppose another person sees the bobble hat wearer and says to himself ( or his friends) 'look, another of those b**tard bobblers, I'm going to go and fill him in', and then proceeds to work violence on the bobble-hat wearer. This is obviously a 'hate' crime. Thing is, is it worse than the nasty person beating up the innocent one for no reason at all? From the point of view of the recipient of the violence, does the reason why he is being beaten up really matter?
I'm concerned that the curent focus on hate crimes might tend to distract people from the fact that they are crimes and that whatever motivates the crime is less important than the fact of the crime itself. What does the panel think?
John
I'm concerned that the curent focus on hate crimes might tend to distract people from the fact that they are crimes and that whatever motivates the crime is less important than the fact of the crime itself. What does the panel think?
John
Very true. After all a beating is a beating no matter what the reasons for committing the crime are. I can't help but think that the constant talk of racially motivated crime (for example) does nothing but perpetuate the situation further.
If it hadn't been categorised in that way then perhaps there would not be as much tension as if people had been allowed to make their own minds up...
If it hadn't been categorised in that way then perhaps there would not be as much tension as if people had been allowed to make their own minds up...
Describing any crime of violence against a person's property as anything but a "crime" provides some "excuse" for the behaviour which trivialises the crime - in my view.
Oh...its a "race" crime - because the victim was of one colour and the attacker another. No its not - its just a crime. Should be treated as such and no especial excuses made for the criminal in any way. You commit a crime of violence against ANYONE you should expect to be treated the same way - harshly.
Similarly because an attacker came from a deprived background - IS NO EXCUSE.
We must be wary about allowing ANY crime against persons or property to be trivialised or "excused" in any way because it is common.
Oh...its a "race" crime - because the victim was of one colour and the attacker another. No its not - its just a crime. Should be treated as such and no especial excuses made for the criminal in any way. You commit a crime of violence against ANYONE you should expect to be treated the same way - harshly.
Similarly because an attacker came from a deprived background - IS NO EXCUSE.
We must be wary about allowing ANY crime against persons or property to be trivialised or "excused" in any way because it is common.
I think the point is, why treat an assault (or any crime) differently because of the colour of the persons skin? That's the definition of racism.
It only increases racism because people are getting treated differently, if we all got treated the same, no-one would complain (except the scum trying to get away with their blatant crimes).
It only increases racism because people are getting treated differently, if we all got treated the same, no-one would complain (except the scum trying to get away with their blatant crimes).
The definition of a racially motivated or other type of hate crime is before, at the time of or immediately after the offence, hostility was shown towards a member of a minority community in relation to his/her membership or presumed membership of, or being a particular race, creed, colour, nationality (including citizenship or ethnic origins or nationality.
Religion does not come into it at the moment.
It is perceived as a more serious crime if it is racially motivated homophobic or any other type of hostile actions towards minority status because of the damage it does to those minority groups within society.
There is always the flip side that you could quote, what is more serious, a punch on the nose or a punch on the nose because it is a black or brown nose?
It hurts just the same to anyone, but the fear of being a minority group member is increased because of the fact that they are first singled out for this treatment because of an uncontrollable gene at the begining of their life.
The saying sticks and stones etc could be applied here but if they are followed up by the actual physical administration of the threat due to their minority status, that is what makes it so serious.
A burglary to any person is distressing. To be told that you are being sinfled out because you are gay/black/brown/wear bobblehats, just makes it even more unacceptable. That is why offences of this nature are being treated in this way.
A racist crime or incident is defined as
" Any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person"
Religion does not come into it at the moment.
It is perceived as a more serious crime if it is racially motivated homophobic or any other type of hostile actions towards minority status because of the damage it does to those minority groups within society.
There is always the flip side that you could quote, what is more serious, a punch on the nose or a punch on the nose because it is a black or brown nose?
It hurts just the same to anyone, but the fear of being a minority group member is increased because of the fact that they are first singled out for this treatment because of an uncontrollable gene at the begining of their life.
The saying sticks and stones etc could be applied here but if they are followed up by the actual physical administration of the threat due to their minority status, that is what makes it so serious.
A burglary to any person is distressing. To be told that you are being sinfled out because you are gay/black/brown/wear bobblehats, just makes it even more unacceptable. That is why offences of this nature are being treated in this way.
A racist crime or incident is defined as
" Any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person"
madcop said:
A burglary to any person is distressing. To be told that you are being sinfled out because you are gay/black/brown/wear bobblehats, just makes it even more unacceptable. That is why offences of this nature are being treated in this way.
A racist crime or incident is defined as
" Any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person"
OK, I think we can all accept that a 'hate' crime is different to an 'ordinary' crime. Motivation is always an issue with any of humanitity's doings. WHat I am wondering about is whether there should be any difference in the way the crime is handled by all involved. Should the investigation/effort to catch the perpertrator and bring him to justice/punishment if convicted be different?
John
johnelliott said: WHat I am wondering about is whether there should be any difference in the way the crime is handled by all involved. Should the investigation/effort to catch the perpertrator and bring him to justice/punishment if convicted be different?
John
Quite frankly NO.
The effort to get the perpetrator before a court should be the same in each case, whether racially motivated or not.
It is then up to the courts to implement the sort of punishment that says that the law will not accept this kind of behaviour anyway and if there happens to be a hate motivation around a specific minority group, the punishment should be even more severe.
Hmm.. difficult one this 
No - unequivocally no. A crime is a crime.
Is not any act of violence a hate crime, or do many people attack others because they're quite fond of them? Can, for this purpose, violent agression and hatred be separated?
Surely it's a hate crime whether you hit someone because they've got a big nose, a bobble hat, a feather boa, a flash car, ginger hair, dark skin, wear a particular footy team's colours about their person, or because they're 'looking at your bird'.
It boils down to another case of positive discrimination as a clumsy mechanism by which to effect social change.
It is extremely illiberal however, insofar as to differentiate between two crimes on grounds of who the victim and what the perpetrator is thinking at the time of the act serves to make some crimes 'thought crimes' and others just 'plain old crimes'. The liberal paradox exists here as everywhere therefore.
It seems that minority cultures have, under liberal auspices, insitutionalised the idea that they're discriminated against and this gives rise to a 'victim by default' culture. If an act is deemed racist by the recipient, then it is a racist act. Therefore, any act against a member of a minority will, unless the individual concerned is rather more enlightened and circumspect than joe public and genuinely has no axe to grind, or you advertise in advance that you'll be potting Leroy not because of his race but because he Mungoed your wife, be assumed to have racial motive.
(I've excluded homosexual and feminist contexts from this although this broadly applies equally in those cases).
It is just another way to forcibly integrate society largely against it's will, it's divisive in the extreme and in no way aids mutual understanding and tolerance between social groups and it brings us back to a point I've made before:
Melting Pot? My arse....
>> Edited by CarZee (moderator) on Monday 13th January 19:10
No - unequivocally no. A crime is a crime.
Is not any act of violence a hate crime, or do many people attack others because they're quite fond of them? Can, for this purpose, violent agression and hatred be separated?
Surely it's a hate crime whether you hit someone because they've got a big nose, a bobble hat, a feather boa, a flash car, ginger hair, dark skin, wear a particular footy team's colours about their person, or because they're 'looking at your bird'.
It boils down to another case of positive discrimination as a clumsy mechanism by which to effect social change.
It is extremely illiberal however, insofar as to differentiate between two crimes on grounds of who the victim and what the perpetrator is thinking at the time of the act serves to make some crimes 'thought crimes' and others just 'plain old crimes'. The liberal paradox exists here as everywhere therefore.
It seems that minority cultures have, under liberal auspices, insitutionalised the idea that they're discriminated against and this gives rise to a 'victim by default' culture. If an act is deemed racist by the recipient, then it is a racist act. Therefore, any act against a member of a minority will, unless the individual concerned is rather more enlightened and circumspect than joe public and genuinely has no axe to grind, or you advertise in advance that you'll be potting Leroy not because of his race but because he Mungoed your wife, be assumed to have racial motive.
(I've excluded homosexual and feminist contexts from this although this broadly applies equally in those cases).
It is just another way to forcibly integrate society largely against it's will, it's divisive in the extreme and in no way aids mutual understanding and tolerance between social groups and it brings us back to a point I've made before:
Melting Pot? My arse....
>> Edited by CarZee (moderator) on Monday 13th January 19:10
madcop said:
The effort to get the perpetrator before a court should be the same in each case, whether racially motivated or not.
It is then up to the courts to implement the sort of punishment that says that the law will not accept this kind of behaviour anyway and if there happens to be a hate motivation around a specific minority group, the punishment should be even more severe.
Hmmm, not so sure about this idea, that the punishment should be more severe for a hate motivation. I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but I am questioning.
Surely the victim of any violent act, where there is no discernible 'hate' motive, is going to have something about him or her that has attracted the violence. Could be many things, but the most likely is vulnerability. I can't imagine many perpertrators are going to attack a tougher looking person than themselves. Isn't attacking a vulnerable person as bad as attacking one of a different race?
Suppose we have two victims attending the cases where their attackers are being tried. The severity of the attacks was, for the purposes of this dicussion, identical. One is from an ethnic minority and his attacker gets 5 years. The other is white, and his attacker gets 3 years. How could this possibly be fair?
John
johnelliott said:
I can't imagine many perpertrators are going to attack a tougher looking person than themselves.
I am not vulnerable. I do not look vulnerable!
I sometimes have been attacked when I have had my partner at the end of his leash with 42 pearly whites on display. It does not mean that I will not be attacked.
People that do, definately hate me (or what I stand for)
They are not punished more for this than any other person they attack. I accept this because there is nothing I can do aboutt it except deal with it in the appropriate way when it happens.
Isn't attacking a vulnerable person as bad as attacking one of a different race?
Its exactly the same. Ethnic populations are perceived as vulnerable, even though they have some very violent and dangerous people within their midst.
Suppose we have two victims attending the cases where their attackers are being tried. The severity of the attacks was, for the purposes of this dicussion, identical. One is from an ethnic minority and his attacker gets 5 years. The other is white, and his attacker gets 3 years. How could this possibly be fair?
It is not but you do not get many offences of racially motivated essence on white people. When this happens, then the perpetrators ARE charged with the offence of racially aggravating it.
I have recently charged 2 Asian yobs with racially motivated assaults on a white lad.
I hope the courts will deal with them in the same severe way they do when the tables are turned. I won't hold my breath though!
madcop said:It is not but you do not get many offences of racially motivated essence on white people. When this happens, then the perpetrators ARE charged with the offence of racially aggravating it.
I have recently charged 2 Asian yobs with racially motivated assaults on a white lad.
I wasn't talking about racially motivated attack on a white person, I was talking about (and should have made it clearer) about an attack on a white person by another white person.
Carzee has said what I have been suspecting, that tougher action on 'hate' crimes than on other crimes is basically a form of positive discrimination. I believe positive discrimination to be a bad thing
John
Damn fine question Mr Elliot.
Not just positive discrimination IMHO. I think one of the points from Madcop's first post is key in justifying the distinction. A crime that is perceived to be motivated by discrimination against a group, damages the group as well as the individual. More damage has been done, therefore it is a more serious crime.
And, just to be clear, measuring a criminal's intent is a perfectly legitimate. For example, it is the distinction between murder and manslaughter.
The second thing is the effect that it has on the stability of the community as a whole. If it likely to spark reprisal attacks, then it is well within society's rights to treat the crime as being more serious and set stiffer punishments as a deterrent.
Consider all of this in the light of the sectarian violence in Northern Ireland. It's good old fashioned white on white, christian on christian mindless stupidity. Do we really not think it is useful to identify certain crimes as being "sectarian" in nature and treating them more harshly than indescriminate crime?
Not just positive discrimination IMHO. I think one of the points from Madcop's first post is key in justifying the distinction. A crime that is perceived to be motivated by discrimination against a group, damages the group as well as the individual. More damage has been done, therefore it is a more serious crime.
And, just to be clear, measuring a criminal's intent is a perfectly legitimate. For example, it is the distinction between murder and manslaughter.
The second thing is the effect that it has on the stability of the community as a whole. If it likely to spark reprisal attacks, then it is well within society's rights to treat the crime as being more serious and set stiffer punishments as a deterrent.
Consider all of this in the light of the sectarian violence in Northern Ireland. It's good old fashioned white on white, christian on christian mindless stupidity. Do we really not think it is useful to identify certain crimes as being "sectarian" in nature and treating them more harshly than indescriminate crime?
TheLemming said:
What is worrying is the definition of a racially motivated (or "Hate") crime being (IIRC) one that is percieved by the victim as such.
Surely some modicum of proof should be involved?
The definition is "One that is perceived to be racist by the victim OR ANY OTHER PERSON"
So the victim may not perceive the act as a racist incident but someone else who happens to be in the locality when it happens, may well do so and it MUST be recorded as such because of that fact.
The modicum of proof is that the victim or other person perceived it to be so. They would be asked why they thought that but all the same it has to be recorded even if they do not give a specific or reasonable answer.
madcop said:
TheLemming said:
What is worrying is the definition of a racially motivated (or "Hate") crime being (IIRC) one that is percieved by the victim as such.
Surely some modicum of proof should be involved?
The definition is "One that is perceived to be racist by the victim OR ANY OTHER PERSON"
So the victim may not perceive the act as a racist incident but someone else who happens to be in the locality when it happens, may well do so and it MUST be recorded as such because of that fact.
The modicum of proof is that the victim or other person perceived it to be so. They would be asked why they thought that but all the same it has to be recorded even if they do not give a specific or reasonable answer.
So someone can be charged with a more serious offence of "racially motivated whatever" simply if ANYONE percieves it to be a racist incident?
Please tell me Im wrong, this is insane!
No - it's quite right - which means as a white person, you're *highly* likely to be charged with a racially aggravated crime if you offend against a person of another colour, whatever your motivation might have been. As I said in my earlier post..
TheLemming said: Please tell me Im wrong, this is insane!
Lamping Leroy because he shagged your wife? Racist crime...
Attacking Abdul because he's tring to take your wallet or car? Racist crime...
Rebuking Wasim because he called yuo a pick fcuking zionist? Racist crime...
Fcuking insane. And they think they're promoting integration and multiculturalism? I've said it before & I'll say it again - these so-called liberal policies of positive discrimination cause tension between races, sexes & social groups rather than prevent it like they're supposed to..
Positive discrimination is the same as any other sort of discrimination - it's wrong..
Disciminating in favour of an ethnic minority applicant or victim is the same as discriminating *against* a white secular applicant or victim.
It might seem like it's for the greater good, but at what cost to those who have to live through the 2 or 3 gnerations before it has the desirec effect, if indeed it ever does have the desired effect which I doubt sincerely.
>> Edited by CarZee (moderator) on Friday 17th January 14:36
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff