Common Sense at last.

[sodthisforfun]

Yes, we all know what a hate crime is. George Orwell taught us that in school.
You really do have trouble understanding the point: why do we need separate categories for:
1: crime; e.g. punching someone for a non religious reason
2: hate crime; e.g. punching someone for a religious reason

If you want to discourage people from punching, why do you need a 4x longer sentence for one sort of punch than another?

4 x is a bit of a stretch, bit like your racism being better argument.

It's a deterrent. Do you not get it? You seem to think that people being taught that racism etc and hate crime isn't ok is the 'thought police' at work. Do you not see how strange and wrong that it? I call it learning, evolving. It's what we've done with law and order for years. As I keep saying, nobody is forced to commit a crime against someone because you don't like the colour of their skin. Nobody.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

Why does any crime have different levels of punishment for different crimes?

That's a contradiction. A crime cannot also be different crimes at the same time.

Assault is bad, even if there is a reason. Assault purely because of a persons race, you work it out ?

If someone punches you because they're jelous you drive a better can than they do, you would be satisfied with a shorter sentence than if they punch you because they don't like your skin colour. Why?

4 x is a bit of a stretch

Those are literally the max sentences; 6 months versus 2 years. That 4x.

It's a deterrent.

Why do you have two different detterents for the same punch?

 

[sodthisforfun]

That's a contradiction. A crime cannot also be different crimes at the same time.


If someone punches you because they're jelous you drive a better can than they do, you would be satisfied with a shorter sentence than if they punch you because they don't like your skin colour. Why?

Don't quote Yafo as me please.

 

[sodthisforfun]

If someone punches you because they're jelous you drive a better can than they do, you would be satisfied with a shorter sentence than if they punch you because they don't like your skin colour. Why?

Because racism is ****tish, unnecessary and has no place in a civilised society.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

Because racism is ****tish

And there we have it. 6 months in jail for the punch, plus 18 months in jail for having the wrong ****tish thoughts. Orwellian.

 

[sodthisforfun]

And there we have it. 6 months in jail for the punch, plus 18 months in jail for having the wrong ****tish thoughts. Orwellian.

And there we have it. Someone who thinks it's perfectly acceptable to not punish people for racist based violence and let it be perfectly acceptable.

Please give me an example where someone got another 18 months.

 

[sodthisforfun]

• Three months more in prison for a 23-year-old man who racially abused and physically attacked security guards escorting him from Thameside prison to hospital after a seizure.
• An extra six months imprisonment for a 17-year-old boy, who admitted robbing a transgender man in Aylesbury, making a combined total of five years and 10 months imprisonment.
• A prison sentence doubled because a 20-year-old caught with knives in Woolwich shouted racial abuse at his carer.
• Two women who were both fined £180, rather than £120, for racially abusing a woman outside a school in Epsom, when she was collecting her children.
• A woman whose curfew order was increased by four weeks to 12 weeks, after racially abusing a woman who was working in a pub in Maidstone and shouting homophobic abuse at a police officer.
• A man who racially abused white hospital staff in Swansea had his prison sentence increased by a third from 15 weeks imprisonment to 20 weeks imprisonment.
• An extra three months imprisonment on top of a 15 month sentence for a man whole stole from an autistic victim in Caernarfon.

looks pretty sensible from the snippet above from the link that I put in earlier. No 4 times but I guess that doesn't fit into your sensationalist orwellian propaganda.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/yorkshire-an...gher-prison-sentences-hate-crime-perpetrators

 

[Gerrydelasel]

An extra six months imprisonment for a 17-year-old boy, who admitted robbing a transgender man in Aylesbury, making a combined total of five years and 10 months imprisonment.

Investigating officer Detective Constable Bruce Wilson, of Aylesbury Local CID, said: “This was an appalling unprovoked attack against a man due to his transgender status and was motivated by hate."

Why did the boy deserve a longer sentence because he hated the transgenger man for being transgender, rather than if he didn't hate him or hated him for a different reason, but robbed and assaulted him anyway?

No 4 times but I guess that doesn't fit into your sensationalist orwellian propaganda.

Common assault and battery shall be summary offences and a person guilty of either of them shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both.

Section 29(1)(c) creates the distinct offence of racially or religiously aggravated common assault. A person is guilty of this offence if he commits a common assault which is racially or religiously aggravated within the meaning of section 28. A person guilty of this offence is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

So it is written into law that you can receive 4x the sentence for the same assault, if you happen to hate the victim for a certain reason. Assault and hate him because he has brown hair? Up to 6 months. Assault and hate him because he has brown skin? Up to 24 months. Thoughts about hair colour; not a crime. Thoughts about skin colour; a crime up to three times worse than the assault itself.

 

[sodthisforfun]

Investigating officer Detective Constable Bruce Wilson, of Aylesbury Local CID, said: “This was an appalling unprovoked attack against a man due to his transgender status and was motivated by hate."

Why did the boy deserve a longer sentence because he hated the transgenger man for being transgender, rather than if he didn't hate him or hated him for a different reason, but robbed and assaulted him anyway?

Why should someone be attacked simply because of who they are? Do you think that shouldn't be taken into account? I thought motivation and intent was an important part of the criminal court process. Can be the difference between murder and accidental death.

 

[JohnD]

By the time you read this, the South Norwood Conservative Club will probably have removed the photos and other details of their bonfire-loving members from their facebook page.

https://videos.dailymail.co.uk/vide...84319262/1024x576_MP4_7688118185284319262.mp4

 

[Gerrydelasel]

Do you think that shouldn't be taken into account? I thought motivation and intent was an important part of the criminal court process. Can be the difference between murder and accidental death.

Yes, but until recently 'hate' was not considered a unique form of motivation with its own special categories. Some types of hate are now counted, but others are not, making it not blind justice but preferential justice. Previously, accidental death became muder if you intended to kill the person. But it didn't matter if you intended to murder him because he was transgender; that was irrelevent. You killed him on purpose. That was all the mattered. His murder was considered no more special than anyone else's similar murder.

Now the reason behind the intent is also considered relevant, but only if it ticks certain boxes. Did you kill him because you hated him, or simply because you like killing? Why is the former now considered so much worse than the latter? Moreover, why is it considered worse to kill someone because you hate their skin colour but not because you hate their hair colour? Why is it worse to kill someone because you hate their religious beliefs but not because you hate their political beliefs?

 

[noseall]

Why should it be a crime to hate people of a certain race?

It isn't. Only in your imagination.

 

[EFLImpudence]

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?

 

[EFLImpudence]

It isn't. Only in your imagination.

No, Gerry is questioning someone else's imagination.

 

[sodthisforfun]

Yes, but until recently 'hate' was not considered a unique form of motivation with its own special categories. Some types of hate are now counted, but others are not, making it not blind justice but preferential justice. Previously, accidental death became muder if you intended to kill the person. But it didn't matter if you intended to murder him because he was transgender; that was irrelevent. You killed him on purpose. That was all the mattered. His murder was considered no more special than anyone else's similar murder.

Now the reason behind the intent is also considered relevant, but only if it ticks certain boxes. Did you kill him because you hated him, or simply because you like killing? Why is the former now considered so much worse than the latter? Moreover, why is it considered worse to kill someone because you hate their skin colour but not because you hate their hair colour? Why is it worse to kill someone because you hate their religious beliefs but not because you hate their political beliefs?

You don't strike me as an unintelligent man Gerry, far from it. However, I do find your stretching the whole thing to include people's hair colour or hatred of cats and dogs to be far fetched and you're playing the devil's advocate a little badly.

I am sure, if this society ever gets into a position where someone is harmed because they voted Labour, or men are frightened of women and suffer indecency on a regular basis by the hands of women, or a persons hair colour is enough to incite violence, then there will be laws put in place to combat that. Just like they've been put in place for hate crimes. Until then, I daresay the examples you give are a poor comparison.

I do not think we will ever agree with each other and I am happy with that. I actually don't care either way if there is a special law now to include hate crime so long as it's punished, but I do understand why.