Is an attack on a Goth (or member of any other sub culture) any worse than an attack on a normal (whatever that means) person. Is the concept of 'hate crime' just another piece of PC nonsense or does it have real value ? Is it a stepping stone to 'thought crime' ?
The term hate crime, in my understanding, were purely coined for use in refering to people being attacks for being different. Is it any worse than any other attack like being mugged? I dont think so as an attack is an attack. The difference will lie in the severity, a punch or being stabbed for example. I think the concept has real value as it will go some way to explain it. Thought crime? thinking is yet to be outlawed and there will never (well not in my lifetime) a way of policing it
Following on logically then, anybody attacking a Hells Angel could be charged with Hate crime. What is the difference it is still an attack?!! People can and do harbour prejudiced thoughts and beliefs about all sorts. The problem only becomes a crime when they act on their prejudice in a way that is criminal or harmful to the victim........There is nothing new here just the words "hate crime"..................Mods and Rockers, Conquistadors and Mayans, Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens come to mind. Even 'me and BMW drivers' with the minor exception that I haven't yet deliberately rammed one off the road. But don't think I haven't thought about it!!!:biggrin: Over to the 'Thought Police'................
The idea behind punishing "hate crimes" more severely than those of other motives seems to me to be one-part judicial and two-parts social reform. Put another way, it is the thinking-class's way of both dealing with a particular type of crime and and at the same time, highlighting its heinous nature. The argument would be that this type of crime would not exist but for the wriong-headedness of a certain type of individual (I refer of course to perpetrator, not victim!). The extra weighting for hate crime is an attempt to social engineer a "needless" crime out of society. Some violent crime exists for very specific reasons - mugging, armed robbery, "self defense" and such. The end goal is not the violence itself, which is merely a means but with some other motivation. Hate crime is an end in itself so the punishments for, and discussions around it, reflect the senselessness of the crime and the desire to elimminate it from society. There's simply no need for it. Breaking into a premises to steal food and money because you are hungry or too lazy to work is very different from burning down an Indian Takeway because you don't like Indians. You can eliminate hunger or perhaps even laziness by means of social reform/welfare/works schemes, but the same methods won't work for hate crimes.
I think that if you are the victim of an attack and lets say for example your nose is broken, it hurts the same regardless of colour, religion, sexual preference etc so I`m in favour of them all being just crimes. I`m a bit fed up with so many people being oversensitive and taking offence so easily, surely a bit of the old sticks and stones mentality is a good thing. That is not to say I encourage abusive behaviour but I imagine at some stage we have all been given grief because we ride a bike, maybe even if it just the fact that you are served differently in a pub/shop/garage depending if you are riding or driving. And along the lines of the original question though , why is the murder of a police officer thought of by some as worse than the murder of a civilian ? The thought police are already in action, look at the grief in Sunderland because of the football club`s new managers political beliefs. Imagine he was a strict Muslim with views on women`s rights and gays etc, would anything be said then?
I think police officers are a special case. They have taken on the role of defenders of our society and as such an attack on them is an attack against us all, therefore they deserve a higher standard of protection but they also must maintain a higher standard of behaviour.
So when the annual 'motorcycle road safety initiatives' (speed cameras targeting bikers) start up, is that considered a 'hate enforcement'?...
I believe their job is to serve and protect, or something like that but I cant agree that murdering a police officer is worse than murdering a nurse, doctor, fireman, lolipop lady, aa/rac staff member, chemist, etc. After all they all do jobs that directly assist us when we need help. And what about fisherman and miners risking their lives to provide food and fuel. And what about those members of the public who actually help when they see a crime being committed. I firmly believe a crime is a crime regardless of the victim , although personally I don't mind if Mick Philpott for example is topped in the near future.
That seems to indicate that, in your view, there crimes and there are crimes and that the victims of such are not all the same. Why does Philpott deserve special attention? In my own opinion, there are people, particular kinds of murderers for instance, for whom I have no problem with being victims of murder themselves. Philpott for instance - he gets murdered in prison and I won't bat an eyelid over it much less feel bad. I realise that this is somewhat two-faced of me - I abhor "hate crime" but I am OK if the victim of a hate crime is someone like Philpott. So be it, I know the difference. Hate crime exists for itself, it is its own motivation. Other violent crimes are usually crimes of "necessity" - as a society we can try to work on ways of reducing or eliminating the necessity but with hate crimes, you have to suppress and eliminate the hate. You can do this in two ways - and they are not mutually exclusive - one is educate people to be accepting of other cultures and other people's feelings; and two, make the consequences of acting upon your hate too awful to want to risk.
Should a random attack, without a motive, on a 'normal' member of society be considered a hate crime ?
I think the whole "hate crime" thing sounds very Orwellian (especially in the terminology). Call it "hatecrime" and it's straight out of the Newspeak dictionary. Seems to me that the motivations for the crime should be taken into account in sentencing. After all, if you burn down an Indian takeaway, it could be because they gave you lousy service, Delhi belly, it was a random act, or you just don't like Indians. Any of those reasons may be mitigating or aggravating circumstances for arson. But arson there already is. Why do you need to invent another crime? Similarly, if you attack a Goth, it's assault. Why do you need to invent a specific sort of assault such as "assault by mindlessly prejudiced people"?
One thing to remember with hate crime it doesn't have to be a physical assault it can be judged a hate crime purely on a verbal assault, and this would be deemed as such by someone that was feeling sensitive at that time. There are many expressions that are or were in common usage that used at the wrong time or place would be considered as a hate crime, some times people are looking for problems that don't exist or are not meant as a detrimental statement.
The idea behind it is to send a message to people. It is an exercise in public education. "Act upon your unthinking hatred of others and you will be punished." "Does the judiciary have a role in education?", you may ask. In answer, I will ask, "What is the purpose of judicial sentencing?". Oddly enough, I think it will prove to be more effective than some of the other initiatives we've seen to promote racial harmony and tolerance of other cultures. Edit: I refer only to violent crime. Concerning verbal insults ... that's a whole other conversation :smile:
Wil I be banged up for thinking all multistrada riders are total fuckin muppets? Well, to be honest I don't just think that> I wholeheartedly believe it with great conviction
Well, you could argue, that "assault by mindlessly prejudiced people"? needs being brought to the attention of said mindless people. If a certain segment of society are wandering around in the belief that it's ok to abuse/attack goths, punks, whoever, then they'll continue to do so. Without education we/they are nothing. Clearly, they need to be educated. It's like the seventies/eighties in reverse. There is nothing wrong being a member of a sub-culture. Blimey, who'd of thought it, I'll continue to wear my scars of defence with satisfaction tho, I like to think I gave the bastards as good as I/we got. Some of them the only language they understand is receiving the same treatment. I've just read Loz's recent post which pretty much covers it ....
If a defendant is being prosecuted for some offence like violent assault or criminal damage, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt the usual set of facts - that the attack took place, that it was the defendant that did it, that it amounted to the offence as defined in law. If the prosecution is for a "hate crime", all the same things have to be proved but in addition the prosecution has to prove that the defendant did it for the motives given in the Act, such as hatred of the victim's race, religion, etc. The prosecution has an extra hurdle to jump to secure a conviction, and the defendant has extra chances of persuading the jury that there is a reasonable doubt. And it is pretty hard to be sure what somebody's motives were. The upshot is that the "hate crimes" legislation handicaps prosecutors and police, and may help some offenders get off. The proper way to deal with the whole issue is for the "hate" motive, if any, to be an aggravating factor justifying a more severe sentence for the standard crimes; not to introduce a whole category of new offences based on the same facts but with special motives.
Yes, what Pete said. Another way to deal with it is if you can charge the defendent with, say, GBH and also GBH with "Hate" at the same time. Juries can then decide on guilt without the risk of a guilty defendant getting off on a technicality due to him being charged with a hate crime where the "hate" element was unproven. Sentencing would be easy for this as if found guilty on both counts, the time to be served runs concurrently and the "non-hate" term swallowed up by the longer sentence of the "hate" aspect. Or a legal mechanism for setting aside the verdict on the lesser charge could be created. The system needn't be impossible or even risky.
This is ridiculous. If I murder someone, I've murdered them. What is the point of being accused of "murder with hate"? If I beat someone over the head with an iron bar, I can't see that my views towards punks, goths, Hells Angels, Mutley riders, or Pakistanis has anything much to to do with anything. It's just not acceptable to hit people with iron bars. This whole idea seems to me to be another piece of PC rubbish. As if you need some new law to "educate" people that loathing a subculture isn't a great way to go about life. People either know that and don't hate subcultures, or they know it and hate them anyway. Hate crime is thus related to thought crime, as you are trying to legislate against what is in people's heads, which is dodgy territory. Soon you'll be legislating against people who hate sprouts. Is this a way of banging up more people? If so, that seems odd when the prisons are overcrowded and there is no room to bang people up in any case. When burglars are given a slap on the wrist instead of time, what is the point of trying to create even more criminals whom you won't punish adequately anyway? Suppose I don't like fascist, racist skinheads. Is it a hatecrime to tell them so? Aren't they a minority subculture with their own views? So who decides what is acceptable and what is not acceptable?
