Common Sense at last.

What Sodthis obviously has not considered is the converse of his thinking - namely that it is LESS serious to commit a crime against someone who is not a member of a designated group.

What type of person is not a member of any of these designated groups?
From what I can tell from what you've written, you're male, white, straight, non-religious.
Tell me, how many times do you suffer abuse walking down the street for being any of these things, verbal or otherwise?
 
Sponsored Links
If I do happen to get murdered you think I am less important than someone who does not conform to any one of those four categories.

You do not think I should campaign for equality; why is that? Discrimination?

Had I, for example, a facial disfigurement, would that be different?



Oh, I've just realised - I am old, I can say they murdered me because of that, so I am equal.
 
Have you yet discovered a 'hate crime' that is not also a normal crime? Other than in Nottinghamshire, of course.
 
Have you yet discovered a 'hate crime' that is not also a normal crime? Other than in Nottinghamshire, of course.
Sorry, are you being patronising? You didn't even know that hate crimes may carry a bigger punishment. As I said, go have a read about hate crimes and what they entail. And do a little bit of understanding.
 
Sponsored Links
Please go back, yourself, and read the first post in my thread - not forgetting the thread title.
 
Sorry but the bit that is missing from the debate is the concept of aggravating factors. The crime is the crime and the sentence the sentence, but there can be aggravating (and mitigating) factors.

John punched David on the nose because they'd been having a row about David cutting him up on the road. There may be a mitigation to reduce the sentence.
John punched David on the nose because he dislikes David. This would be the baseline offence
John punched David on the nose because John hates Jews and even though David isn't jewish, John thought he was. Aggravating factor likely to increase the sentence.

Remember as with most crimes (not all) its the Mens Rea (guilty mind) not the Actus Reas (Guilty Act) that fuels the sentence/punishment
 
Sorry but the bit that is missing from the debate is the concept of aggravating factors.
It is not missing, it is the very crux of the argument. Classically, aggravating factors (e.g. lack of remorse) simply mean the court can push the sentence up to the legal maximum and no further. "Throw the book at him!".
It is not at all clear why hatred for David should now be considered a special type of aggravating factor that increases the maximum sentence, by several times (and to which classical aggravating factors also still apply!). "Throw a different book at him!"
Does David's nose bleed more because the punch was motivated by antisemitism?
 
Hatred of David doesn't trigger the aggravating factor. Its targeting David because John hates jews.. The mens Rea is more serious..

I could accidentally hit someone in the face and cause a broken nose - no crime vs deliberately hitting them and only causing a nose bleed.

Its the Why that always (some exclusions apply) drives the sentence.
 
1) I could accidentally hit someone in the face and cause a broken nose = no crime
2) Deliberately hitting them and only causing a nose bleed = crime
3) Hit him with exactly the same deliberation, and cause exactly the same nose bleed, but do it for reasons of antisemitism = a worse crime with a longer sentence. Why? Because you hurt his religious feelings as well as his nose? (Even if he wasn't even Jewish?)
 
Last edited:
No - its not about him, its about why the perpetrator did it
 
I'm not arguing with you, I'm trying to explain it to you. I'm trying to get across that a person with a protected characteristic is not getting some sort of special protection.
 
Hate crimes can motivate others and that hatred can manifest within individuals without any outside provocation.

People can hate another and commit acts of violence simply because that person is of a certain race. The victim need do nothing to provoke, other than be of a different race or religious background.

That is a dangerous thing.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top