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.