Common Sense at last.
- Thread starter EFLImpudence
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Is there any doubt?
Is white one of the designated groups (perceived characteristic)?
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,424
- Reaction score
- 540
- Country
What was their overriding motivation? You can throw in making money as well.
You can commit crimes for multiple reasons.
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,424
- Reaction score
- 540
- Country
I don't know this but are the classes as hate crimes or is sentencing different for hate crimes.
Perhaps the law is classifying them as such so as to tease out the motivation of a crime but the sentencing remains the same?
Perhaps the law is classifying them as such so as to tease out the motivation of a crime but the sentencing remains the same?
Sponsored Links
Correct.
S
sodthisforfun
Sigh.
S
sodthisforfun
You were insulting because he wouldn't answer your question. That is bullying.
The sentencing is worse for hate crimes.
For example, it is 6 months max for common assault, but 24 months max indictable for racially or religiously aggravated common assault.
It is up to 6 months for putting bacon on a doorknob (intimidation/harassment/threatening behaviour under the Public Order act), but up to 24 months indictable if the doorknob is on a mosque (religiously aggravated public order offence).
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 14,453
- Reaction score
- 2,143
- Country
So a victim of a non hate crime is discriminated against because the offender that assaulted him would get a lesser tariff than a similar offence that had an element of 'hate'.
That is aside from the liklehood that the police wont attend for common assault or a burglary anyway, but would if a hate crime is involved.
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,424
- Reaction score
- 540
- Country
Using that perverse way to look at it then able people are discriminated against as they can't apply for help that's exclusive for disabled people.
I don't know enough about how the law came about so any legal experts care to weigh in.
S
sodthisforfun
I agree somewhat - it does seem unfair on the face of it and everyone should be treated equally.
However, if everyone was treated equal in the first place then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,424
- Reaction score
- 540
- Country
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-we-nee...opposed-to-a-someone-they-might-identify-with
The way for a person to understand this, is to examine cases that occurred before Hate Crime legislation came into being.
The difficulty was that certain miscreants would take it on themselves to attack or beat other people because of public opinion, peer pressure, or cultural traditions.
So whites would attack blacks, blacks against whites, lots of people against Italians, Irish, Chinese, or Jews. Or it would be against gays. Or Christians or non-Christians. Or rich vs poor, poor against rich (based on car or clothing). Or even on ideologies such as Pro-choice or “lifers”.
The points that made Hate Crime so terrible is that it wasn’t directed at any one person (eg someone who had offended someone or over personal gain), it was petty much randomly dealt out to any innocent person minding their own business and for no other reason that the attackers (note usually plural!) thought they belonged to the hated group. What’s more, the attacker seldom had good reason to be aggressive towards the group in question! Sometimes it was over perception of lost opportunities, but more often it was just personal frustration, imagined persecution, cultural propaganda, In such cases it made it much harder to identify criminal intent, because there was no forensic reason to attack the other person except for a moment of opportunity to do so.
To make it worse, Hate Crimes were often celebrated by the community of the attacker. They would not feel remorse over what they had done to another, they often felt elation and a sense of service and duty - and their community often recognised and rewarded their service!
Thus it was necessary to put in place legislation to recognise such attacks were, as a civil society, unacceptable. That the groups involved were equal citizens and entitled to equal protection and right to security under law. This means that “mens rea” (“guilty mind” , ie the intent to do an illegal action) was now established in law - previously, guilty mind was hard to prove in court, and only in extremes would a jury feel vindicated in passing down guilty verdicts for cases which they considered the attacker might have been considered provoke or not of full sanity - by fixing the “Hate Crime” as “a thing” then juries could easily identify the concept and label it, and would feel secure in classifying the act as one of guilt in a “hate” aspect.
It also served a purpose in sending a solid message to the society and these hate filled communities, that “hate” against a group is a criminal act. You could have freedom of speech to rant all you like amongst your peers, but if you then violated someone elses rights because of that hate, then “Hate Crime laws” were very clear that this was a very bad thing, and that extra punishment would be awarded for following such passions/planning. It is hoped that through removal of celebration, and recognition of the criminal anti-social act, that eventually serious hate crime will be removed from society - and that such social pressures will find better ways of resolving the real issues rather than just take the sickening anger and frustration and fear out on innocent (and often really nice and decent) people (because the most stupid part of hate crimes, is even when the hate might be justified, it is never the real justified target that bears the damage of the attack).
The way for a person to understand this, is to examine cases that occurred before Hate Crime legislation came into being.
The difficulty was that certain miscreants would take it on themselves to attack or beat other people because of public opinion, peer pressure, or cultural traditions.
So whites would attack blacks, blacks against whites, lots of people against Italians, Irish, Chinese, or Jews. Or it would be against gays. Or Christians or non-Christians. Or rich vs poor, poor against rich (based on car or clothing). Or even on ideologies such as Pro-choice or “lifers”.
The points that made Hate Crime so terrible is that it wasn’t directed at any one person (eg someone who had offended someone or over personal gain), it was petty much randomly dealt out to any innocent person minding their own business and for no other reason that the attackers (note usually plural!) thought they belonged to the hated group. What’s more, the attacker seldom had good reason to be aggressive towards the group in question! Sometimes it was over perception of lost opportunities, but more often it was just personal frustration, imagined persecution, cultural propaganda, In such cases it made it much harder to identify criminal intent, because there was no forensic reason to attack the other person except for a moment of opportunity to do so.
To make it worse, Hate Crimes were often celebrated by the community of the attacker. They would not feel remorse over what they had done to another, they often felt elation and a sense of service and duty - and their community often recognised and rewarded their service!
Thus it was necessary to put in place legislation to recognise such attacks were, as a civil society, unacceptable. That the groups involved were equal citizens and entitled to equal protection and right to security under law. This means that “mens rea” (“guilty mind” , ie the intent to do an illegal action) was now established in law - previously, guilty mind was hard to prove in court, and only in extremes would a jury feel vindicated in passing down guilty verdicts for cases which they considered the attacker might have been considered provoke or not of full sanity - by fixing the “Hate Crime” as “a thing” then juries could easily identify the concept and label it, and would feel secure in classifying the act as one of guilt in a “hate” aspect.
It also served a purpose in sending a solid message to the society and these hate filled communities, that “hate” against a group is a criminal act. You could have freedom of speech to rant all you like amongst your peers, but if you then violated someone elses rights because of that hate, then “Hate Crime laws” were very clear that this was a very bad thing, and that extra punishment would be awarded for following such passions/planning. It is hoped that through removal of celebration, and recognition of the criminal anti-social act, that eventually serious hate crime will be removed from society - and that such social pressures will find better ways of resolving the real issues rather than just take the sickening anger and frustration and fear out on innocent (and often really nice and decent) people (because the most stupid part of hate crimes, is even when the hate might be justified, it is never the real justified target that bears the damage of the attack).
Please quote the insult.
Apart from that, it was Noseall, for goodness' sake.
Grow up before you melt.
What bothers me about that poster is that it says "it is hate crime" rather than "it is a hate crime".
I can see legitimate arguments for a crime being decribed as a hate crime, i.e. a familiar crime such as an assualt, but which is motivated by hate or even by a particular sort of hate, if you wish to drill down that far. It can be put in the same conceptual category as 'a crime of passion' or 'a crime of desperation'.
But to conjure a new sort of crime called 'hate crime' is deeply sinister and tendencious because it is saying that hate itself is the crime. And hate is a feeling or thought, so 'hate crime' as a concept is different from 'thought crime' only in name. And so it follows with the sentencing disparity: By having a longer sentence available for the hate-criminal than for the common-criminal you are, by definition, giving the extra months in jail as punishment for the hate (i.e. the thought) and not for the assault (or whatever it is). Hate itself is now a crime. And from there, gulags follow close behind.
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
