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

[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?