Put an end to 'hate crimes'

Watch
username521617
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
Scenario 1: Jeff is a very violent man. Mike looks at Jeff "the wrong way." Jeff decides to beat Mike to death. Jeff committed murder.

Scenario 2: Jeff is a racist. Mike is black. Jeff sees Mike and decides beat him to death (racially motivated). Jeff committed a hate crime.

Personally, I see this (hate crime) as an entirely political phenomenon that should not be its own crime category. In both instances, Jeff committed murder - he killed a man unprovoked because he wanted to. Yet in the second instance this would also be regarded as a hate crime. But why should it be another crime? Why should a man's personal motivation for killing be its own named criminal offense?

This is essentially thought policing. It's punishment for one's unsavory beliefs and not for their actions. We already have names for so-called 'hate crimes': murder, assault, harassment, and so on. We do not need to tack on an additional crime category which is more-or-less there to politicize the action and make a statement.

Murder is murder. It is no worse and in practice no different to kill someone when motivated by an irrational hatred of their skin colour, religion, sexuality or gender than it is an irrational hatred of something else (or no apparent reason at all).
0
reply
CookieButter
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
(Original post by Dandaman1)
Scenario 1: Jeff is a very violent man. Mike looks at Jeff "the wrong way." Jeff decides to beat Mike to death. Jeff committed murder.

Scenario 2: Jeff is a racist. Mike is black. Jeff sees Mike and decides beat him to death (racially motivated). Jeff committed a hate crime.

Personally, I see this (hate crime) as an entirely political phenomenon that should not be its own crime category. In both instances, Jeff committed murder - he killed a man unprovoked because he wanted to. Yet in the second instance this would also be regarded as a hate crime. But why should it be another crime? Why should a man's personal motivation for killing be its own named criminal offense?

This is essentially thought policing. It's punishment for one's unsavory beliefs and not for their actions. We already have names for so-called 'hate crimes': murder, assault, harassment, and so on. We do not need to tack on an additional crime category which is more-or-less there to politicize the action and make a statement.

Murder is murder. It is no worse and in practice no different to kill someone when motivated by an irrational hatred of their skin colour, religion, sexuality or gender than it is an irrational hatred of something else (or no apparent reason at all).
Its always important to define the motive behind a crime so as to be able to differentiate between crimes. This is important for statistics and trends which in turn are important for identifying problems that need addressing by the government. Its important for understanding a crime and therefore, Its important for deciding an appropriate punishment for said crime. A person who's crime is racially motivated is going to be a danger around anyone who is from a different race. So defining the motive has important implications on how the criminal is dealt with in prison etc.

defining the motive is very important.
1
reply
Trinculo
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
I have a problem with the idea of "thought crimes", but the notion of hate crimes in of itself is problematic. The vast majority of "hate crimes" in police stats involve no physical contact or even spatial proximity. Most "hate crimes" especially in the last few months reported are internet postings or telephone abuse.
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
(Original post by Dandaman1)
Scenario 1: Jeff is a very violent man. Mike looks at Jeff "the wrong way." Jeff decides to beat Mike to death. Jeff committed murder.

Scenario 2: Jeff is a racist. Mike is black. Jeff sees Mike and decides beat him to death (racially motivated). Jeff committed a hate crime.

Personally, I see this (hate crime) as an entirely political phenomenon that should not be its own crime category. In both instances, Jeff committed murder - he killed a man unprovoked because he wanted to. Yet in the second instance this would also be regarded as a hate crime. But why should it be another crime? Why should a man's personal motivation for killing be its own named criminal offense?

This is essentially thought policing. It's punishment for one's unsavory beliefs and not for their actions. We already have names for so-called 'hate crimes': murder, assault, harassment, and so on. We do not need to tack on an additional crime category which is more-or-less there to politicize the action and make a statement.

Murder is murder. It is no worse and in practice no different to kill someone when motivated by an irrational hatred of their skin colour, religion, sexuality or gender than it is an irrational hatred of something else (or no apparent reason at all).
It is murder with a racially aggravated motive, which will be taken into account when sentencing.
Do you have a reference to show where it is a separate crime?
Your post doesnt really make sense.

I am all for the law recognising and imposing a more severe sentence when crimes are racially motivated because racisim is a particularly nasty element that needs to be discouraged where it occurs.
1
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
(Original post by Trinculo)
I have a problem with the idea of "thought crimes", but the notion of hate crimes in of itself is problematic. The vast majority of "hate crimes" in police stats involve no physical contact or even spatial proximity. Most "hate crimes" especially in the last few months reported are internet postings or telephone abuse.
Does that mean absue and harassment are acceptable. The victim doesnt get to choose the medium.
0
reply
Trinculo
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by 999tigger)
Does that mean absue and harassment are acceptable. The victim doesnt get to choose the medium.
They're not real crimes. The majority of reported "hate crimes" are in actual fact what the home office classes as "racist incidents"; and "racist incidents are strongly linked in character to "offence". All that is necessary is that the witness (there need not be an actual victim) is perceives an incident to be motivated by race. It does not matter what the alleged perpetrator or anyone else thinks, perceives or intends - as long as a witness thinks that there was a racist motivation.

So, if I type "I hate All Blacks" into a forum reply on a rugby board - and some casual observer percieves this (even mistakenly) as racially motivated abuse - it will be recorded (if reported) as a hate crime, and contribute to those post-Brexit figures.

There is no longer a threshold for offence, ergo no longer a threshold for what constitutes a crime. If someone thinks its a crime - it's a crime, and that's all there is to it.
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by Trinculo)
They're not real crimes. The majority of reported "hate crimes" are in actual fact what the home office classes as "racist incidents"; and "racist incidents are strongly linked in character to "offence". All that is necessary is that the witness (there need not be an actual victim) is perceives an incident to be motivated by race. It does not matter what the alleged perpetrator or anyone else thinks, perceives or intends - as long as a witness thinks that there was a racist motivation.

So, if I type "I hate All Blacks" into a forum reply on a rugby board - and some casual observer percieves this (even mistakenly) as racially motivated abuse - it will be recorded (if reported) as a hate crime, and contribute to those post-Brexit figures.

There is no longer a threshold for offence, ergo no longer a threshold for what constitutes a crime. If someone thinks its a crime - it's a crime, and that's all there is to it.


Give me the actual legal offence you are talking about i.e the legal reference.

Are you opposed to racism, agree with it or indifferent?

Also racist or religious incident does not automatically equal crime.

Attachment 602754

Clearly there is a threshold for whether it is a crime and there is a further requirement that you provide the evidence for the specific crime you decide to charge with, thus you dont understand the law and what does or does not constitute a crime. There is more to it than you describe.
0
reply
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
If you only cared about the result and not the motivation then attempted murder and manslaughter would not be crimes, the former would be nothing and the latter would just be murder.
1
reply
username2950448
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by RayApparently)
If you only cared about the result and not the motivation then attempted murder and manslaughter would not be crimes, the former would be nothing and the latter would just be murder.
But the OP does not disregard intent in this way, he just doesn't believe racial motivations for killing are a relevant consideration.
0
reply
Trinculo
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by 999tigger)
Give me the actual legal offence you are talking about i.e the legal reference.

Are you opposed to racism, agree with it or indifferent?
https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...s-2015-to-2016

I'm opposed to racism.

I do not see that saying on Facebook that there are too many Albanians in Lincolnshire, constitutes a hate crime.
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by Trinculo)
https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...s-2015-to-2016

I'm opposed to racism.

I do not see that saying on Facebook that there are too many Albanians in Lincolnshire, constitutes a hate crime.
I've pointed out above how you are misinformed about how the law works.

Your examples of looking up all blacks or saying there are too many Albanians in Lincnolshire would not constitute hate crimes. Feel free to probide examples of where people have been prosecuted and under what law.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by Dandaman1)
Scenario 1: Jeff is a very violent man. Mike looks at Jeff "the wrong way." Jeff decides to beat Mike to death. Jeff committed murder.

Scenario 2: Jeff is a racist. Mike is black. Jeff sees Mike and decides beat him to death (racially motivated). Jeff committed a hate crime.

Personally, I see this (hate crime) as an entirely political phenomenon that should not be its own crime category. In both instances, Jeff committed murder - he killed a man unprovoked because he wanted to. Yet in the second instance this would also be regarded as a hate crime. But why should it be another crime? Why should a man's personal motivation for killing be its own named criminal offense?

This is essentially thought policing. It's punishment for one's unsavory beliefs and not for their actions. We already have names for so-called 'hate crimes': murder, assault, harassment, and so on. We do not need to tack on an additional crime category which is more-or-less there to politicize the action and make a statement.

Murder is murder. It is no worse and in practice no different to kill someone when motivated by an irrational hatred of their skin colour, religion, sexuality or gender than it is an irrational hatred of something else (or no apparent reason at all).
We categorise crimes further than just ''murder'', ''theft'', etc, as it can help us identify deeper issues in a society than simply looking at how much crime there is overall.

If there are a lot of racially motivated murders, attacks, etc, then this indicates a society with racial problems/tensions.

If little data exists on an issue then it's difficult for people to really notice or act on it.
0
reply
username1921011
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
Actus reus and mens rea. The two elements of a crime.

Mens Rea is the intention, for example murder is the intent to kill or commit GBH. Whilst intention can be imputed there is an intent to commit the relevant crime and this intent decides the sentence. This in and of itself is not an offence for prosecution, acts must be 'more than merely preparatory' https://www.criminallawandjustice.co...minal-Attempts to be something on which a conviction can be secured ie the mens rea (the thought) is not reason for conviction by itself.

Actus Reus is the act. This is what we convict for based on the intention, the 'mens rea'. You cannot convict without both elements (mostly, some offences are strict liability like speeding but that's a conviction for actus reus without mens rea not vice versa so not applicable in the context of 'thought crime')

I agree in some instances the label hate crime is irrelevant, a hate crime murder for example (although it does provide a metric by which to assess such crimes). The criteria for its application can also be a little loose in my opinion (I can't cite the case because I've forgotten it but there was one conviction for hate crime because he said 'you ugly black [email protected]' before proceeding to commit GBH and was found guilty with no further evidence of racism, as in the fact he may have said it to frustrate and antagonise the target rather than represent his actual opinions was legally irrelevant). However in others its useful, for example when hatred is genuinely being stirred and the law is not equipped to cope by other means (Anjem Choudary for example). There is nothing inherently illegal in preaching anti-western sentiment as a religious position but it infringes on 'hate crime' laws because it calls for violence against a whole group and advocates such (his supporters agree with the killing of Lee Rigby for example) which allows (a) for a conviction with aggravating factors ie a proper adequate sentence, (b) to avoid the thorny issue of freedom of speech as in theory that was disposed of in drafting the legislation, and (c) Provides a record of the person(s) bigotry toward another group in society.

(Original post by 999tigger)
I've pointed out above how you are misinformed about how the law works.

Your examples of looking up all blacks or saying there are too many Albanians in Lincnolshire would not constitute hate crimes. Feel free to probide examples of where people have been prosecuted and under what law.
Well as of a few days ago 'over sweeping condemnations of Israel' is antisemitic https://www.theguardian.com/society/...me-jews-israel which is a hate crime by definition plus in law a hate crime is simply an 'incident which occurs due to ones orientation(s) according to the CPS http://www.cps.gov.uk/northeast/vict...es/hate_crime/. Under the racial and religious hatred act 2006 the definition is thus "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious [or racial] hatred" as a yardstick, as in 'too many albanians' if intending to 'stir up hatred' which can be an imputed intention in court might be grounds for conviction (as racial/sexual orientation legislation reads in essence the same).
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
Actus reus and mens rea. The two elements of a crime.

Mens Rea is the intention, for example murder is the intent to kill or commit GBH. Whilst intention can be imputed there is an intent to commit the relevant crime and this intent decides the sentence. This in and of itself is not an offence for prosecution, acts must be 'more than merely preparatory' https://www.criminallawandjustice.co...minal-Attempts to be something on which a conviction can be secured ie the mens rea (the thought) is not reason for conviction by itself.

Actus Reus is the act. This is what we convict for based on the intention, the 'mens rea'. You cannot convict without both elements (mostly, some offences are strict liability like speeding but that's a conviction for actus reus without mens rea not vice versa so not applicable in the context of 'thought crime'

I agree in some instances the label hate crime is irrelevant, a hate crime murder for example (although it does provide a metric by which to assess such crimes). The criteria for its application can also be a little loose in my opinion (I can't cite the case because I've forgotten it but there was one conviction for hate crime because he said 'you ugly black [email protected]' before proceeding to commit GBH and was found guilty with no further evidence of racism, as in the fact he may have said it to frustrate and antagonise the target rather than represent his actual opinions was legally irrelevant). However in others its useful, for example when hatred is genuinely being stirred and the law is not equipped to cope by other means (Anjem Choudary for example). There is nothing inherently illegal in preaching anti-western sentiment as a religious position but it infringes on 'hate crime' laws because it calls for violence against a whole group and advocates such (his supporters agree with the killing of Lee Rigby for example) which allows (a) for a conviction with aggravating factors ie a proper adequate sentence, (b) to avoid the thorny issue of freedom of speech as in theory that was disposed of in drafting the legislation, and (c) Provides a record of the person(s) bigotry toward another group in society.



Well as of a few days ago 'over sweeping condemnations of Israel' is antisemitic https://www.theguardian.com/society/...me-jews-israel which is a hate crime by definition plus in law a hate crime is simply an 'incident which occurs due to ones orientation(s) according to the CPS http://www.cps.gov.uk/northeast/vict...es/hate_crime/. Under the racial and religious hatred act 2006 the definition is thus "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious [or racial] hatred" as a yardstick, as in 'too many albanians' if intending to 'stir up hatred' which can be an imputed intention in court might be grounds for conviction (as racial/sexual orientation legislation reads in essence the same).

Not sure what your point is? (sorry read the Guardian article now.) They have the definition. its just up to the CPS to follow the guildelines and use some common sense to distinguish infringements that are in the public interest to prosecute and those which are not. I doubt very much someone saying there are too many albanians will amount to inciting racial hatred. Do you have examples where such a case has been prosecuted? Again it would be up to the CPS to look at all the evidence and context of where it happened. Are you saying someone whose intent is to incite racial hatred shouldnt be open to prosecution?

Mine is to dandaman and Trinculo that they make all these claims, but they are false in terms of what the law is. Neither have bothered to support their claims with actual law. If you start telling me the law sayz X Y or Z, but cant indicate which law, then it looks like the person is speaking nonsense.

It wasnt me that started the thread making the claims.
0
reply
username1921011
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by 999tigger)
Not sure what your point is? (sorry read the Guardian article now.) They have the definition. its just up to the CPS to follow the guildelines and use some common sense to distinguish infringements that are in the public interest to prosecute and those which are not. I doubt very much someone saying there are too many albanians will amount to inciting racial hatred. Do you have examples where such a case has been prosecuted? Again it would be up to the CPS to look at all the evidence and context of where it happened. Are you saying someone whose intent is to incite racial hatred shouldnt be open to prosecution?

Mine is to dandaman and Trinculo that they make all these claims, but they are false in terms of what the law is. Neither have bothered to support their claims with actual law. If you start telling me the law sayz X Y or Z, but cant indicate which law, then it looks like the person is speaking nonsense.

It wasnt me that started the thread making the claims.
I didn't read their posts, I simply noticed that you stated 'under which law?' without looking at any laws so I provided the legal background relevant to assess their claim. It's not BS as the law stands in statute, common law may be a different issue but I confess to being too lazy to fire up a case law search engine for the sake of this argument as they're not as easy to find as you'd expect. It's my pet peeve since I started my degree to have people demand 'what law?' constantly as if courts are machines that read the word on the paper and have no interpretative scope whatsoever. The logical next question you always get is which case, which isn't really relevant. Unless there is significant precedent in that area case law is guidance by which judges often find workarounds to claim it doesn't apply because the ratio is different or suchlike and it's only relevant if a higher court made the decision ie not binding. There haven't been many court of appeal or higher cases on such issues so the case law is largely irrelevant.

It would depend on the context. 'Too many' is inherently a negative statement so it would depend upon the preposition and supposition.

I'm obviously not saying that which is evident in the first half of my reply. I'm saying the criteria for hate crime is too low, mainly because its subjective based on the victim. If they 'feel' they were being racially discriminated against then they get that presumption in court and the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove otherwise which is ludicrous.
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
I didn't read their posts, I simply noticed that you stated 'under which law?' without looking at any laws so I provided the legal background relevant to assess their claim. It's not BS as the law stands in statute, common law may be a different issue but I confess to being too lazy to fire up a case law search engine for the sake of this argument as they're not as easy to find as you'd expect. It's my pet peeve since I started my degree to have people demand 'what law?' constantly as if courts are machines that read the word on the paper and have no interpretative scope whatsoever. The logical next question you always get is which case, which isn't really relevant. Unless there is significant precedent in that area case law is guidance by which judges often find workarounds to claim it doesn't apply because the ratio is different or suchlike and it's only relevant if a higher court made the decision ie not binding. There haven't been many court of appeal or higher cases on such issues so the case law is largely irrelevant.

It would depend on the context. 'Too many' is inherently a negative statement so it would depend upon the preposition and supposition.

I'm obviously not saying that which is evident in the first half of my reply. I'm saying the criteria for hate crime is too low, mainly because its subjective based on the victim. If they 'feel' they were being racially discriminated against then they get that presumption in court and the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove otherwise which is ludicrous.

So you didnt bother to read the thread and jumped in.

I was asking them to provide the relevant law they were talking about as if youd bothered to read the thread then it would not have backed up their claims .

Thanks for teaching me the law, but ever thought I might have already looked at it? sigh...
0
reply
MotherRussia
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
Anti-Russian hate crimes must be thoroughly punished
0
reply
username521617
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#18
(Original post by SHallowvale)
We categorise crimes further than just ''murder'', ''theft'', etc, as it can help us identify deeper issues in a society than simply looking at how much crime there is overall.

If there are a lot of racially motivated murders, attacks, etc, then this indicates a society with racial problems/tensions.

If little data exists on an issue then it's difficult for people to really notice or act on it.
A different crime category is not required in order to keep track of people's reasons for murder. What you're essentially saying is we need to charge Jeff with a new layer of criminality to make life easier for statisticians and criminologists compiling data. But there are other ways of doing this that don't involve the creation of new crime categories.

One's motivation to commit a murder should not be a crime in itself. If I killed someone because I didn't like their face or didn't like their skin colour, what is the difference in practice? There's none. And both involve hate, anyway. Why is killing someone because you hate them for other reasons not a 'hate' crime? What is the honest-to-God difference?

Again, it's there to politicize existing crimes and make the suspect's beliefs the focus and not their actions, because we live in a society that obsesses with making race and gender the subject of everything. We gotta punish them that extra bit more just to make a statement.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How do you prefer to get careers advice?

I like to speak to my friends and family (23)
10.13%
I like to do my own research online using careers specific websites (135)
59.47%
I like speaking to the careers advisors at school, college or uni (31)
13.66%
I prefer to listen watch videos or listen to podcasts of people in my chosen career (33)
14.54%
Something else (let us know in the thread) (5)
2.2%

Watched Threads

View All