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

[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.