Hate crime legislation...?

[mrph]

As some of you will be aware, there's an online (UK) petition to broaden the definition of hate crimes in the wake of Sophie Lancaster's death.

Personally, I have to say that I'm unconvinced by the concept of hate crime laws. Not just in this case, but generally. On the other hand, I don't actually have any facts and figures about this to hand - it's just a vague unease.

I'm sure someone out there knows rather more than I do, though. So...

1. Are they effective when a case comes to court?
2. Do they actually make a difference as a deterrent?
3. Should two similar crimes be treated differently depending on what motivated them - should the courts treat a completely random attack differently from a hate crime...?

I know this is a very emotive subject - and I do want to see the people responsible for this sort of attack jailed for a very long time. But is this the best way to do that? Are the existing laws sufficient - or do they need strengthening in other ways...?

Comments

[philipstorry.livejournal.com]

1. Only if you have evidence of the hate.
2. Yes. Hate crimes have tougher sentences, and parole boards tend to be tougher for those convicted.
3. Yes, two similar crimes should be treated differently if there is evidence of hate.

I sat on a jury, and can't tell you specific case details. But I believe it benefits society to talk about one of the cases in general terms.

It was an assault case, and the jury was given three options: a) guilty of racially aggravated assault; b) guilty of assault; c) not guilty.

The assault in question was spitting in someone's face. There was plenty of evidence for the spitting - but the racially aggravated portion hinged on a racist comment uttered before the spitting. The jury debated this extensively, and sought legal clarification from the judge before deciding that it was indeed racially aggravated.

There were doubts, but it was felt on balance that had the victim been white, they would not have been attacked. That was the crucial factor.

(I had no doubt it was racially aggravated, but those that did found great relief when the accused's family unleashed a torrent of hateful verbal abuse on the announcement of the verdict, although somewhat less pleased about being led out the back door of the courts so that the family couldn't assault us as we left the court. Scary stuff.)

I see no great difference between attacking someone of a different colour and uttering racist remarks, assaulting someone from a different lifestyle (goth, gay, furry, BDSM, whatever) and uttering remarks, or assaulting someone who supports XYZ team whilst uttering suitable epithets and wearing ABC team's colours. The remarks or behaviour could simply be a result, but it's far more likely that it's a cause - hence giving juries three options. It's a good system, which allows fair judgement of cases.

All the above examples are, to my mind, hate crimes. In fact, all are "difference crimes" - assaulting those that are different. The difference made the incident more likely, and possibly more savage, as it's apparently OK to attack those that are different than those that are the same. (Any psychologist would probably testify to that effect.)

If those wiser than me could codify the legal requirement of a "difference", of any kind (town of dwelling, music preference, car make ownership, I don't care) then I'd happily stand behind such legislation. As such, I support the spirit of this petition.

Any crime that bases itself, or is made worse by, intolerance of difference should be treated more seriously. Otherwise, we will have no tolerance in society worth mentioning.

[mister-jack.livejournal.com]

Person A: someone randomly attacks someone.
Person B: someone randomly attacks someone because they of group X.

I not sure how the person B is more of a threat to society than person A?

[mrph.livejournal.com]

That's a large part of my starting position on this.

Another thing I wonder about is just how much you can rely on the law to enforce tolerance. Equality laws make sense to me, although some are badly implements.

Hate crime laws seem like an odd step back from that, in some way. I worry that they reinforce the difference (and sometimes the resentment) if someone thinks that an attack on them gets taken more seriously than an attack on us.

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

B happens a lot more frequently and is likely to get more support from people in the attacker's environment.

[missfairchild.livejournal.com]

What happened to Sophie Lancaster and her boyfriend was appalling and I hope that whoever was responsible is put away for a very, very long time.

But I'm not convinced that it was a "hate crime". They were walking through a park known as the haunt of violent gangs in the small hours of the morning. Chances are that anyone walking into the path of the gang would have been attacked whether they were goths, crusties, trendies or dressed head to foot in M&S machine-washable office wear.

[livingarmchair.livejournal.com]

I was absolutely horrified when I read about Sarah Lancaster earlier in the year - but like you, I'm not convinced that creating more legislation and laws is the key.

Personally, I don't think the people who committed this crime would find a new law a deterrent - they don't find the law that forbids us from beating each other up as a deterrent. And actually creating a law would surely be a minefield of subjectivity?

The UK has gone law crazy over the years - in many cases, existing laws were fine and new ones not required.

[purp1e-magic.livejournal.com]

In answer to question 3, yes, motive really does matter. Hate crimes are generally committed by repeat offenders. If you catch someone who's committed murder and they had strong motives for killing that person just then, then you know they're not likely to become serial killers. Whereas someone who killed based on a dislike of the human race, or some subset of it, is much more dangerous. The same is true on a lesser scale of hate crime.

[mrph.livejournal.com]

Granted. Apologies - I should probably have been clearer when phrasing that point. Motive has to be considered.

But should this be something considered at the sentencing stage, when considering the risk of reoffending - or should it be a different crime?

And how does (should?) the law treat a "dislike of the human race" as opposed to a dislike of some specified (in law?) subset of the human race?

[emarkienna.livejournal.com]

I see what you mean - my feeling is that I'm not particularly for or against the idea of "hate crimes", though if we have them, it doesn't seem inconsistent that random attacks based on appearance should be included alongside the other categories.

The arguments in favour of the idea of "hate crimes" as far as I can see include:
* People who wish to commit violence against any person of group X is arguably more of a danger to society than someone who kills only under a very particular set of circumstances. As purp1e_magic says, they may be more likely to be repeat offenders. Neither may be more immoral than the other, but the length of sentences should also be about how much of a danger to society someone is. (I doubt it has any effect as a deterrent, but I suppose it's more about imposing a longer sentence.)
* Hate crimes have more of an indirect "chilling effect", since anyone who falls into the category being attacked will fear attacks on them, or have to change what they do, or avoid going out, out of fear of attack.

In both cases though, as mister_jack says, I can see that any "random" attack (killing someone randomly on the street out of prejudice, perhaps nothing other than "I didn't like the way he looked at me") fall into these categories also, not just those who fall into a limited set of categories (religion, race, etc). So, randomly attacking someone because they are group X isn't different to randomly attacking someone - though there is still the question of whether these should be treated differently to a non-random attack (though I guess it would be even harder to define such a law).

I did sign the petition as it happens, but I'm glad that people are thinking about the issue and not signing it if they disagree, rather than just knee-jerking and signing anything because of what happened.

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

Hmm...yes, I think that's what I am thinking. The effect of hate crime on the group its victim belongs to goes further than the death or injuries of the victim. It makes the rest of the group afraid until the culprit is caught, and still afterwards, if they know somebody hid the criminal and condoned what they had done.

On that basis, though, I think stranger rape should be redefined as always a hate crime.

[nemesis-to-go.livejournal.com]

There's a legal-profession view of all this here...

http://spangle-kitten.livejournal.com/409541.html

...which, by and large, notes that we do, in fact, have the legal framework to deal with this sort of stuff already. The petition, worthy though it may be in a kind of it-shows-we-care way, is based on a rather befuddled assumption that we don't.

[hex61.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately the use of "hate crime" status here tends to have resulted in rather unbalanced handling of both cases and judgments. In terms of policing "hate crimes" get prioritisation which means regular law and order stuff seems to be overlooked.

I'd like to have more honest statistics as well. However our police departments are financially incentivized to report what will support their community's image and further their own budgetary gains. So you cannot really trust their reporting.

[spangle-kitten.livejournal.com]

Have you read my legal witterings?

http://spangle-kitten.livejournal.com/409541.html

[mimmimmim.livejournal.com]

Was Sophie Lancaster an unusual case or just the only one to have resulted in a death? The park in the town where I live is a no-go area at night. (In the last incident, a couple were walking through with their kids at about 7pm and both parents needed hospital treatment after being beaten up - what makes it worse is that the police station's right next to the park AND the police service locally is being downgraded!)