In your case, there's not much difference and not much point. You've already committed the crime. But to your bigoted, murderous thug friends, it's a message. You've looked at the issue upside down. It's not "If I beat someone over the head with an iron bar, etc ..." it's "If I hate punks, goths, Hells Angels, Mutley riders, or Pakistanis, I'm going to get a stiffer prison sentence if I start offing them". It's a deterrent to your acting in a violent fashion on your pre-existing hatred of ... whomever. Some people don't understand the concept It's wrong to hate people based upon their differences. Those same people will however will understand that if they go out looking for ~minorities~ to give a kicking to, they are going to come a cropper. It actually may work to reduce prison numbers. If racist thugs understand that they are not going to receive a light rap on the knuckles for performing their disgusting acts on innocents but instead are going to get really banged up, they may decide not to risk breaking the new law. I'm being optimistic here, but I don't think unreasonably so. Depends on how you tell them. If you are not yourself inciting hatred, I hope that you will be entitled to your free speech. If you are telling them with your hobnailed boots, perhaps you need to re-think your strategy if you don't fancy the thought of a stretch in t'nick.
When an offence is charged the "Hate" part is added as an "agravating" factor So it is mainly there for sentencing purposes. The offender can be found guilty of the offence such as an assault or a Public Order offence and then they decide if it is a hate crime and sentence accordingly thats how it works in practice anyway.
..........and another useless thought. We now have hate crimes and love crimes (you now hated the person at the moment of the offence but used to love the person) so can we please have " I don't give a feck if you live, die or are permanently disabled crime". You know what I mean, a categorised section for if you happen knock the old block next over with your van whilst he is mowing the lawn. Or you happen to drop a brick out of your 1st floor window onto a nice young chap walking past below with a baseball cap on,
It's not any worse than any other attack on any person,it's one person/persons assaulting another person/persons. The world is half full of shitbags,some are spoiling for a fight all the time,some only when they're pissed/stoned/whatever,some just when the fancy takes them.No complicated legislation will ever change that,nor will you educate aggression out of people "Goths",are,(so I hear from my younger relatives),perceived to be non-violent,so they are bound to get picked on by people from more aggressive youth tribes...not right,not fair,but thats how life is. And why should an attack on the filth be any different?.After all,not long ago one of them assaulted a member of the public wh died shortly afterwards.All captured on film.Despite previous for similar assaults,he got away with it. If the law is going to punish people for assault,at least mete out the punishment equally,and stop looking for reasons to justify it.
So if a gang of yobs come down your street and start damaging things you go out and confront them one of them assaults you and as a result breaks your arm. He should get exactly the same punishment as the man in the house across the street who beats his wife up and breaks her arm I a sure you will say yes but in reality things don't work like that
That is the whole point under discussion - if a crime is committed for motives of hatred, should that motive be taken into account as an aggravating feature in sentencing? Or should it be defined as a separate offence in law? Successive governments have favoured making hate crimes separate offences, which I (and many posters in this thread) think is unsatisfactory.
Ok the alternative one here since age 12 Now 313 . I need to think this over as its something that touches me. 2 friends stabbed in a nightclub because of how they looked .. From behind in the buttocks they assumed punched. The pub we drank in tear gassed quite often thrown through window . all cowards. My children have always been allowed to look as they want . Both mine had long hair ( not me forcing it on them ) my eldest when about 5 was held in a corner in class and had the back if his hair cut off at the back. Worst for me was when he was 8 he came home I could smell petrol assumed it was me !! It was him. my so has Autism so quiet and not great socially . he has long hair now and he covers his face as he doesn't like eye contact. He did not speak for years. when age 8 he was ok at school had one to one support. Was supposed to be watched. anyway the petrol... It was him. Because he was different these kids in the playground found strimmer petrol hedge cutter petrol left unattended ., they poured it on him pushed him to the floor rolled him in it. They then repeatedly hit his head against a van. He went back to lessons said nothing .. The smell which reeked was not picked up .. He said nothing as at the time could not read faces . So because the kids where laughing and smiling he assumed they thought it was a game but couldn't understand why they hurt him. Eventually I managed to get him to explain .. I went into school in utter rage. He was targeted as one he was Autistic and 2 looked and acted different. my youngest has had some scroat now start on him due to his hair. so this week cut it off as he couldn't cope with this nasty kid. At school I was picked on by tutors!!!! But I never backed down. My boyfriends have been shouted at and had agro but luckily not too bad . Poor Sophie Lancaster and her boyfriend ... He still says I wished she had ran and left me I wish I had died . kicked to death while curling up over her unconscious boyfriend .. Trying to protect him. Would I do the same ? If anyone threatened or attacked my family or a boyfriend I'd wade in. would I try and protect them . yes with every fibre of my body. I'd lay my life on the line . hate crime .... Sadly if you look different , or a bit weaker , or disabled , or do not fit I that little box of normal you will get targeted at some point. By uneducated feral shits concidered " Normal" What is normal ??? I have never backed down .. I have been alternative and proud since age 12. I have a full sleeve of tattoos now . fashion I just wear what I like If you choose to look different you may get jip. Now you have to either back down or just stand proud and take it all on the chin. you need wit and an attitude to put morons off. my look is like a suit of armour. its been people I'm close to that hurt me most. you should have the right to wear and walk about as you want With out fear. My sons In particular my eldest who hardly speaks and is very shy . He doesn't stand out much now and is dam clever!! He comes out with really intelligent stuff unlike his mother ! What the hell gives a group of 10 / 11 year olds the right to attack him in a group Douse him in petrol !!!! Because he has a disability ? he was born that way!!!! Not his choice . thats hate .... I need to think on this ..
We love to categorize things, don't we? To a certain extent crime needs to be categorized in order to provide a guideline for punishment, but thereafter each crime should be assessed individually, unless some kind of drive-thru court system is planned... Window 1: State your crime. Assault and battery Naughty boy, drive to window 2 for judgement please. Next! State your crime. Assault and battery with added hate Ooh, you utter bastard. Park over by the guillotine and wait for the guy in the mask...
Thought crime? Isn't that just bullying? Or to give it it's modern name, cyber-bullying. It all amounts to the same name-calling, insulting and threatening process that starts in the playground, with some victims being more sensitive to them than others. But how far do you go to police that?
Racist chanting at public events, e.g. football matches. Are we all happy for that to be punished or is that too far down to road towards thought-crime legislation? Racist language between individuals, e.g. one person insulting someone else to their face based upon their race? Should this be subject to racism laws or again, is this too far?
Too far, in my opinion, but it's practically unenforceable anyway. I'm sure you could pick a hundred people out of a crowd, identify them, then stick 'em up in front of the beak, but how much would that cost, just for a slap on the wrist? Tear gas would be a much cheaper option...
Good question. I will stick my neck out and say that it should not be subject to the law. The principle of freedom of speech is far more important than upsetting a few sensitive souls, which is not saying I agree with those sentiments. Surely extreme cases could be dealt with under public order legislation, and education ?
Threatening to attack and kill someone, or inciting others to do so, or conspiring to commit crimes, has been a crime for a long time. That is beyond the level at which the principle of freedom of speech applies. The right to free speech does not extend to falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre (per the US Supreme Court). Insulting someone, saying something which they choose to be offended by, or saying you hate them (without threats) is a different matter. Freedom of speech should apply. Unfortunately UK law at the moment restricts free speech rather more than it should, IMHO.
