Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Should there be a legal distinction between a "hate" crime and a crime with another motive?
because otherwise you couldn't prosecute against racism successfully enough
surely it's only actions and their consquences that should be made crimes rather than their motivation
So we shouldn't worry about the fact that racialy motivated crime bypasses the usual reasons of need and greed?
but does the different motivation warrant a different legal classification?
dark truffles answers that below
it's a crime in itself, but it can't be punished because of free speech and differing opinions and stuff.
btw i have a query. you're mixed race right?
it's not like i'm advocating an acquiescence towards racially motivated crimes. I'm just asking whether it's right for them to be treated differently *legally*. If you beat up someone for no reason, which does seem to happen quite often these days, should you be treated differently from if you beat them up for a racist reason?
anyway, the query. if you're mixed race and you have a child with a black man is that child mixed race?? and if you have a child with a white an is the kid mixed race??
they are more likely to re-offend for the same reason.
because a non-racially motivated crime could have any number of reasons for it
but more likely than whom? More likely than someone who committed a crime for another reason is to re-offend for the same reason? Seems reasonable I guess.
But what if race was a motivating factor in choosing a victim but not committing the crime? Say, if you were going to mug someone and decided to choose someone of a certain race because you happened to dislike them. Does that count as a hate crime?
So,yes,why wouldn't it?
You can't possible say it was going to happen anywayt.
- Very good cook
- hate crime
- Very hygenic
You don't want to bunk up with a vigilante.Trust me...
A few years ago we had some trouble on our street, cars vandalized, eggs thrown etc It was nothing major, but the police were called. When they came to interview me and my girlfriend at the time about it they seemed really itchy to report that there was a racial element to it.
...when I get home from work....
the victim cannot know for sure what the defendant's motives were, but if they called them a certain name, picked on aspects of their dress etc you could make a reasonable conclusion.
i'm not quite sure about the idea that the victim merely has to "feel" that they have been victimised due to their race/etc for it to be classified as a hate crime.
or just some judges opinions?
Our definition of a hate crime:
Any incident, which constitutes a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated by prejudice or hate.
what does Scotland have to say about hate crime
as to how 'islation' got in there....
rather than victim testimonies. But as with race hate legislation I'm against them for the same reason. They're discriminatory and skew the law in favour of some.
To some degree the victim should be irrelevant. It's the act and circumstance surrounding it that need to be considered in sentencing.
'Cartman's Silly Hate Crime 2000'
This sums up my feelings on the debate wholly.
I wont be able to participate, because I'm actually leaving my grotty, little cove to trawl through Southend in my best shirt.