Are hate crime enhancements fair?

[odeon]

There are classic cases that undoubtedly qualify as a bigotry-based crime. These should be a category.
Crime has many categories.
I don't want pot smokers to be given the same penalty as a rapist. I don't want someone sexually harassing someone to get the same penalty as a child-rapist.
In Spain a black teen kid was chased, captured, and set ablaze some years ago. In Norway a black kid was chased and stabbed to death - for being black. His alternative would have been to stop being so black. I don't want these perpetrators to be dealt with in the same way as a muggery-gone-wrong case.

Sometimes a crime has a very specific intent, often with great sadism included. This should be taken into account, be it racism or any other kind of bigotry, such as when gays are attacked and killed simply for being gay. This IS different from a jealousy-murder, or another kind of crime-of-passion or personal gain.

QFT

[odeon]

Yes indeed. Curb stomping someone for being a nigger is not the same as beating up a black man for trying to mug you. But this is fucking common sense guys. Does there really need to be a written LAW telling you the differences in these things? Honestly now. I see all this as a gigantic waste of time.

If that written law is the only way to differentiate, then yes, IMHO.

[odeon]

The tweet thing is moving into very dodgy ground.  A man did go to prison in the summer for a 'hate crime' message on twitter.

It makes me feel quite uneasy when we lock people up for stuff they say.

Agreed. But at the same time, let's say you have a racist stirring things up on Twitter, pushing followers to beat up someone for being black or gay or whatever. Eventually, he reaches his goal and that someone is severely beaten. When, if ever, should that sort of thing be punishable?

[Adam]

That's different thoguh - that would be incitement to violence.

What's happening now is different

['andersom']

That's different thoguh - that would be incitement to violence.

What's happening now is different

Can you give some more specific examples? What it is like in the UK?

[midlifeaspie]

Hate crime enhancements create thought crimes.  I understand what purpose they are trying to serve, but my personal philosophy on the law is that it should always remain as subjective as possible.  If you strike someone in the face you have committed the crime of striking someone in the face.  If you strike someone in the face and the prosecutor can convince a group of 6-12 partially engaged citizens that you were thinking hateful thoughts about that person's race when you hit him, then the crime is worse?  That doesn't make sense to me, and runs the risk of destabilizing the entire system.  The most important asset the law has going for it is that it is accepted by all as inherently fair.  When that is lost, the whole thing comes crashing down.

[TheoK]

If you hit someone in the face except in self-defence, it was committed out of hate or at least Schadenfreude, so who the victim was doesn't matter. It's as bad in any case.

[bodie]

The tweet thing is moving into very dodgy ground.  A man did go to prison in the summer for a 'hate crime' message on twitter.

It makes me feel quite uneasy when we lock people up for stuff they say.

Agreed. But at the same time, let's say you have a racist stirring things up on Twitter, pushing followers to beat up someone for being black or gay or whatever. Eventually, he reaches his goal and that someone is severely beaten. When, if ever, should that sort of thing be punishable?

I understand about inciting violence.  The tweeter had said something like 'i hope he dies' about a player that had keeled over on the pitch.  No, it is not very nice, but is it worthy of a custodial sentence?  I think if you are going to have freedom of speech, then freedom it is.  If it has exceptions then it is not freedom of speech. 

Is it reasonable to assume that everyone 'likes' everyone else.  No.  So, i don't think people should be locked up for saying something nasty.  Obviously that is what he was thinking, so are we going to have the thought police out next

[odeon]

Hate crime enhancements create thought crimes.  I understand what purpose they are trying to serve, but my personal philosophy on the law is that it should always remain as subjective as possible.  If you strike someone in the face you have committed the crime of striking someone in the face.  If you strike someone in the face and the prosecutor can convince a group of 6-12 partially engaged citizens that you were thinking hateful thoughts about that person's race when you hit him, then the crime is worse?  That doesn't make sense to me, and runs the risk of destabilizing the entire system.  The most important asset the law has going for it is that it is accepted by all as inherently fair.  When that is lost, the whole thing comes crashing down.

There have been many cases where people have been severely beaten or killed for no other reason than their sexual orientation or the colour of their skin. IMO, something like that needs to be taken into account.

[TheoK]

An ex of mine was bullied in school, because her father's farm went well. That's out of hatred too, though judicially not a hate crime.

[odeon]

An ex of mine was bullied in school, because her father's farm went well. That's out of hatred too, though judicially not a hate crime.

Bullying is punishable by law, but unfortunately it's seldom enforced in any way.

[bodie]

Well, i reserve my right to hate whoever i want

[midlifeaspie]

Hate crime enhancements create thought crimes.  I understand what purpose they are trying to serve, but my personal philosophy on the law is that it should always remain as subjective as possible.  If you strike someone in the face you have committed the crime of striking someone in the face.  If you strike someone in the face and the prosecutor can convince a group of 6-12 partially engaged citizens that you were thinking hateful thoughts about that person's race when you hit him, then the crime is worse?  That doesn't make sense to me, and runs the risk of destabilizing the entire system.  The most important asset the law has going for it is that it is accepted by all as inherently fair.  When that is lost, the whole thing comes crashing down.

There have been many cases where people have been severely beaten or killed for no other reason than their sexual orientation or the colour of their skin. IMO, something like that needs to be taken into account.

How do you prove motivation?  It's far easier to prove objective facts.  Is it really a worse crime to have your teeth knocked in because you are gay, than to have your teeth knocked in because someone mistook you for someone who owes him money?

[bodie]

Today it emerges that a nineteen year old man has been arrested because he showed a picture of himself burning a poppy on facebook.

Yes it offended me.  The poppy is a symbol i hold very dear.  However, we are becoming a society that increasingly chooses to 'tell the authorities' whenever we get offended.  It is ridiculous.  I think the poppy symbolises those who lost their lives so that we could be free.  I also include the freedom to cause offence in that.

[TheoK]

How could it be illegal to burn a poppy?