mrph: (Default)
[personal profile] 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...?

Date: 2007-10-09 10:06 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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.

Profile

mrph: (Default)
mrph

March 2020

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22 232425262728
293031    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 29th, 2026 01:14 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios