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

[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.