Hmm, i'm not too sure, i'd say yes its a good thing and I think it could work. However don't get me wrong here but with racism I don't think it always would work. Because its more common for black people to be abused due to the colour of their skin they will get protection, I know its less common, but sometimes white people can also be abused because they are white and often not treated the same way a black person would be in this situation. Would the racism hate crimes also be there for white people?

---

"For the first time in the UK, Attorney General states homophobic crimes will not be tolerated"

---

This is actually a little confusing.
It suggests that these crimes were previously tolerated.

Does this mean that they weren't considered crimes before, but perhaps misdemeanours, or even less?

Does this mean that they were previously not treated with the seriousness that any hate crime deserves (regardless of the target)?

---

by Byron
(quotes)
What do people think? Should specific groups be accorded protection from discrimination, and should there be heavier sentances for paticular sorts of hate crime? Or should all crimes be treated the same, irrespective of motive? Are measures like this the best way to tackle prejudices like homophobia and racism?

---

I'm very much in favour or rigid equality, and think that the definition of homophobia given by the CPS is rediculous in that it contains the word perceived. People's perception is a very unreliable. Espeically when you're the victim of a crime.

If the crime had motivations of hatred proven seperately, beyond a reasonable doubt, then yes I think that there's 'more' of an offence to answer for, but merely going on the victim's or any other person's 'perception' then I think there's something amiss

---

by Taz
(quotes)

This is actually a little confusing.
It suggests that these crimes were previously tolerated.

Does this mean that they weren't considered crimes before, but perhaps misdemeanours, or even less?

Does this mean that they were previously not treated with the seriousness that any hate crime deserves (regardless of the target)?

---

It was very inconsistent - some police forces treated them very seriously, others tended to be, if not dismissive, then rather disinterested. It was very unclear and patchy. Now it's been explicitally stated that they should be treated in just the same way as racist hate crimes are.

Spike: if it could be proved that a white person was the vitim of a racist crime - it's very uncommon, but it has happened - then exactly the same rules would apply.

---

by SPIKE
Would the racism hate crimes also be there for white people?

---

Yes! You get racially motivated attacks on white people. Both as 'black' people attacking whites due to and also whites attacking other whites (for instance Jews). Race isn't just a question of skin colour and racist crimes aren't always about white vs black. (though it is the most common)

There also has to be care taken that racist crimes are that and not just that the accused is a different colour, as not all crimes against someone of a diffent colour are racially motivated.

The race relations laws are as applicable to you if you are a victim of crime for being white as they are for any racial group.

Until this statement the official position was that violence due to the victim's sexuality had no special consideration. It was an act of violence and the issue of sexuality was not considered relevant.

However, I think it is worth pointing out that no new law has been passed. Homophobia still has no recognition on the statute books. The definition above is doubly meaningless as it defines homophobia as being a homophobic attack. Can anyone say 'circular definition'?

If I am refused a job for being openly bisexual, there's nothing I can do. Or if my landlord kicks me out. This statement really is so much hot air.

However, having said that, I am opposed to additional sentences because a crime is motivated by racism, homophobia, or even misogyny. GBH is GBH. Rape is rape. This is the crime. Not the hate. Hate cannot be a crime. What we need is full awareness of the problems these 'hatred of others' creates. We need the police force to be trained in how to deal with reports of these crimes, to do so without worsening the crime, but not different sentencing. If I get beat up by some random idiot for no reason it is going to be a lot easier to report this than if I am assaulted for my sexuality. Some compassion for the police in receiving a report of this kind is needed to make them approachable. The sad fact is that compassion is rarely the response today. This is what needs to be tackled.

Please don't misunderstand. I'm talking about existing crimes motivated by hate. We do also need protection for other forms of victimization. We need to be able to know that our jobs are secure despite revelations about sexuality. We need to know we won't be thrown out of our homes because the landlord saw you with kissing someone of the same gender. For this we need recognition and protection, but that has yet to happen.

JayJay, discrimination on grounds of sexuality will be made illegal by the end of 2003 due to EU directives - see here, from The Independent's site.

---

by Jayjay
However, having said that, I am opposed to additional sentences because a crime is motivated by racism, homophobia, or even misogyny. GBH is GBH. Rape is rape. This is the crime. Not the hate. Hate cannot be a crime.[/b]

---

When sentancing, the motivation behind the crime is always taken into account. A woman who commits manslaughter after years of physical abuse could well recieve a different sentance to someone who killed another man during a pub brawl. Taking the prejudice behind a crime into account is but an extension of this - punishing crimes commited in an extrodinarily callous and vicious fashion particularly harshly. No one is punished for hatread alone, if you did that you may as well set up a Ministry of Love right now.

However, someone can be punished if their vile crimes are motivated by nothing aside from blind hatred, and in my mind that's perfectly right. If they go out to cause harm for such an inexusable and pointless reason, it's only right they pay paticularly heavily for it. Hating someone because of who they are cannot be a crime. Thinking that your hatred gives you an excuse for violence most certainly should be. They're not being punished for their thoughts, but for the actions they justify by these thoughts.

---

What we need is full awareness of the problems these 'hatred of others' creates. We need the police force to be trained in how to deal with reports of these crimes, to do so without worsening the crime, but not different sentencing. If I get beat up by some random idiot for no reason it is going to be a lot easier to report this than if I am assaulted for my sexuality. Some compassion for the police in receiving a report of this kind is needed to make them approachable. The sad fact is that compassion is rarely the response today. This is what needs to be tackled.

---

I couldn't agree more. Moreover, I think the police should go pro-actively into communities to build up confidence - for example, in the way openly gay officers went on patrol in Soho after the 1999 nail-bombings.

---

[b]Please don't misunderstand. I'm talking about existing crimes motivated by hate. We do also need protection for other forms of victimization. We need to be able to know that our jobs are secure despite revelations about sexuality. We need to know we won't be thrown out of our homes because the landlord saw you with kissing someone of the same gender. For this we need recognition and protection, but that has yet to happen.

---

Thankfully, if the reforms to both the sexual offenses laws and discrimination laws go through this Parliament, we'll be well on our way (though will still have a damned long road ahead).

Agreed, if the laws forced on out craven politicians by the European directive are fulfilled, it'll be a huge forward step. And long over due.

However, I still disagree on the sentencing of violent hate crimes. OK, there's the additional issue in that I am opposed to sentencing as punishment, as it should be about reform (as should the whole of the judicial system), but that's another debate...


If someone assaults me because I have long hair and someone assaults me because of my sexuality, then they should both get the same sentence (assuming equal damage done). Yes, the second is likely to traumatise me more deeply, but differentiating because of motive is not necessary - creating a society that is free of homophobia is necessary and using the stick of extended penal punishment won't achieve that.

Your example of the battered woman is off the mark. That's extenuating circumstances. If someone beats me up because I'm wearing glasses and someone else beats me up because it's Tuesday, this should make no difference to sentencing.

Almost all acts of violence are caused by hate. Admittedly I placing the sociopath to one side here, but let's move on. Punishment, if we must take that root, must not differentiate between different forms of hate. It should only ask if the criminal was in extenuating circumstances (like violence against an abuser). Anything else only helps to perpetuate the divisions.

---

by Jayjay
However, I still disagree on the sentencing of violent hate crimes. OK, there's the additional issue in that I am opposed to sentencing as punishment, as it should be about reform (as should the whole of the judicial system), but that's another debate...[/b]

---

Indeed.

As you've probably surmised, I do agree with punishing offenders.

---

If someone assaults me because I have long hair and someone assaults me because of my sexuality, then they should both get the same sentence (assuming equal damage done). Yes, the second is likely to traumatise me more deeply, but differentiating because of motive is not necessary - creating a society that is free of homophobia is necessary and using the stick of extended penal punishment won't achieve that.

---

This laregly comes down to the general role of punishment in justice, which is, as you've said, another debate. Relating to this specific matter, however: reasoning, education, legislation, challenging recieved ideas; you can do much to rid society of homophobia without the stick. However, this is not solely about ridding society of homophobia, it's also about holding individual's to account for their actions. This is where it gets sticky, and I certainly don't believe in the ever-more draconian "example justic" espoused by the Daily Mail crowd. But by the same token, nor do I believe that stiff penalties for horrific crimes have no effect in deterring further crime. It is as ever a difficult balance, and detterecne is definitely not the only reason I support hard sentances for hate-motivated crimes - individual responsibility plays a heavy part. You should be held to account if you take it upon yourself to attack someone without any cause besides blind prejudice: just as a perpetrator of random violence should be held to account.

---

Your example of the battered woman is off the mark. That's extenuating circumstances. If someone beats me up because I'm wearing glasses and someone else beats me up because it's Tuesday, this should make no difference to sentencing.

---

I mentioned it precisely because it was extenuating circumstances. If someone attacks you for no other reason than they dislinke the fact you're wearing glasses (and they're up for a bit of violence), they should of course be punished harshly for commiting a random and motiveless crime. The thinking behind "hate crimes" is not completely removed from standard judicial thinking, it's merely a clarification: crimes commited with particularly vicious motives or no motive at all are treated more harshly than others which are more "understandable".

---

Almost all acts of violence are caused by hate. Admittedly I placing the sociopath to one side here, but let's move on. Punishment, if we must take that root, must not differentiate between different forms of hate. It should only ask if the criminal was in extenuating circumstances (like violence against an abuser). Anything else only helps to perpetuate the divisions.

---

And we arrive at the nature of hatred, a thorny philosophical issue if ever there was! Sociopathy and phsycopathy aside, you're quite correct in saying most crimes are commited by hate. (Some, such as murder in the course of a robbery, are not.) Should we try to differentiate between types of hatred?

To an extent, yes, I think we should. Lot's of hatred isn't blind, it's specific, against an individual based solely on their actions. The person who carries out the act is a threat to society in so much as they're willing to carry out the act, but the threat of them repeating it is much reduced because in many cases it requires the same sort of circumstances to arise: these people can be more easily rehabilitated. But when the motivation is blind hatred of a paticular group for no more reason than who they are the severity and likelihood of repeat offending is raised considerably.

Unless special attention is paid to these sorts of crimes, they'll be perpetuated and repeated.

Does "special laws" (as some people see them) create more divisions? Maybe they can, but the opposite effect can also be observed: the stigma attacked to racist violence in many circles, for example. Changing people's ideas of what is and is not acceptable. Exacerbating tensions is always a real risk, but so is failing to address them. As ever, a right balance needs to be struck.

If someone is assaulted for being black and someone is assaulted for no reason, IF we should take into account motive, I'd be inclined to give the latter more, they are more of a danger. Motive should be considered, but not be the overall decision for punishment.

"Your honour, my attack was not motiveless! I attacked the individual because they are black/white/male/female/gay/straight." (delete as applicable)

"Well, in that case I will reduce your sentence."

Thanks for that well thought out, and cleverly argued post, Kieran. I was particularly pleased to note that there was absolutely nothing about it which would suggest it was written purely to aggravate and to get an agitated response. Keep up the good work.

Byron. I'm all for taking account of extenuating circumstances, but the divisions you are suggesting seem easy to attack. However, firstly I would like to point out that a killing while in the process of robbery would not be premeditated, and therefore would be manslaughter. Sounds picky but by their nature the motivation for manslaughter as opposed to murder is usually quite different.

Here's my problem. The crime is the violence, not the hate. And while I am not suggesting that crime against people who where spectacles and crimes against people for there race are comparable, they ultimately have the same motivation and must therefore receive the same punishment. Yes, racism is far more pervasive and socially excluding, but hate is hate. Disproportionate punishment helps breed resentment and doesn't tackle the underlying issue.

I didn't say the sentence should be reduced, far from it. I was commenting on you, who believes if you assault someone because of race, it should effect the sentencing. I was merely saying that I would be inclined to give MORE to a random attack, one without motive, because clearly the pepitrator has some sort of mental problem. Aren't you concerned about random assault, don't you think it should be tackled just as harshly as a race attack?

It had plenty to do with your arguement, so don't post what you said again. It's that simple.

Actually, if a 'random' attack is the result of a mental problem, then they are less likely to receive a straight forward custodial sentence and have some form of punishment under the Mental Health Act imposed. And then you are leading onto a *whole* other issue as to whether someone is mentally fit to plead and/or stand trial.

Oh, and btw, *please* remember to keep your posts polite and not have veiled digs at each other. We're trying te encourage civilsed debate. And, Kieron, it isn't your place to tell people what they can and can't post. That's the job of the staff, okay?

---

by KieranFrost
I was commenting on you, who believes if you assault someone because of race, it should effect the sentencing.

---

Kieran. May I make a suggestion? As a general rule, if I enter a debate, then I make a point of seeing what everyone's view is before posting. I mention this because I can only assume you have not read my posts, but are commenting on them anyway. If you do read them you will see that I have been arguing that racist attacks should receive the same sentencing as non-racist attacks. I do believe that the police force needs to address the way it handles racist, misogynist and homophobic attacks, but that increased jail time will not address the problem. Something for you to think over there, I would suggest.

Also, I guess I must explain my previous post. If you say that an unmotivated attack (whatever that is) receives greater sentencing than, say, a racially motivated attack, then every defendant will claim such a motive. 'I thought he was gay, m'lord.' Or some such. Thus getting a lower sentence. If Unmotivated attacks get higher sentences then conversely motivated attacks get lower sentences. Simple maths really. Although, as I have suggested, I am not sure what an unmotivated attack is. All actions have motives, however conscious.