The entire concept of hate crimes goes out the window here, doesn\’t it?

In principle, I agree with you. However, I understand that Greater Manchester Police are just changing the way that they record these crimes and that this may be useful from a statistical perspective. It does not change the way that the crime is prosecuted.

That said, once the statistics are gathered I would not be surprised if there is a call to prosecute them as hate crimes also.

It appears Greater Manchester police have solved all other crime in Greater Manchester, so they’re resorting to make-work exercises to keep their officers busy.

Perhaps, instead, we should second some of their officers/management to other police areas around the country to try and improve (or should that be ‘reduce?’) crime rates elsewhere?

Is hating the police,politicians,local councillors,lefties in general and Justin Bieber a hate crime?

.. is it just me, or did 3 comments (including mine) disappear?

The GMP are going to be very busy, what with those who wear a blue scarf having a hate/hate relationship with those who wear a red scarf. Maybe they should run a joint operation with Liverpool police, who face similar problems.

Tim Worstall, nail on head.

If I’m kicked to death in the street will it be because I’m a ginger, bourgeois, a cyclist, fat, old or should we just say that kicking people to death in the street is a bad thing, murder in fact, punishable by a life sentence whoever it is that you’ve done this to and for whatever reason?

If multiple people are attacked because they are ginger then it is worth considering recording crimes motivated by hatred of gingers to see if there is a problem that requires special attention.

If people are attacked because they are ginger then other gingers will feel at greater risk compared to a ‘random’ attack. For that reason it might be considered an aggravating factor and merit a worse punishment than a ‘random’ attack.

It’s not a bad thing that a group you identify with doesn’t have crimes against them monitored or punished in such a way; it means you’re likely less at risk of being attacked.

“For that reason it might be considered an aggravating factor and merit a worse punishment than a random

(All it takes is one stray apostrophe. Why we never hear the views grocering community)

“For that reason it might be considered an aggravating factor and merit a worse punishment than a random attack.”

The logic of that one has always escaped me. One can understand all crimes being treated equally.
Lets say there was another London bombing by Islamic militants, causing considerable loss of life & injuries. Its entirely possible there could be repercussions on the tea towel wearing community. One can understand why an attack on a member of that community should be treated with due seriousness. But attacks on anyone should be treated with due seriousness. If those are treated with greater severity it implies other attacks are less serious. So ends up inflaming exactly the sort of feeling it is supposed to combat.

This sort of thinking was one of the causes of the riots & looting, couple years back. Anyone lived round certain areas of London knew, gangs of pigmentally blessed youths were in the habit of looting shops. Why so many of them are secured like fortresses & have no more than 2 kids at a time notices. Behavior that wouldnt have been tolerated in other areas were just part of the rich tapestry of urban life. The only difference with the riots was the scale, not the events themselves

It occurs to wonder- if the victim of an alleged hate crime is unable to testify (perhaps because she’s dead), does the prosecution have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the aggressors hated her or her group, rather than, say, being merely inhuman,callous and indifferent?
The latter motivation of course would be a threat to everyone, not just some sub-group, so should it receive a longer sentence?
And what happens if persons are prosecuted for “hate crimes” and an acquittal is obtained because only the crime can be proved, not the hate?

Pat, the facts of “the defendant murdered this person” and “because the victim was white” are separate (but related). The latter fact is an aggravating factor – something that influences the sentencing. No-one will be acquitted if the court is persuaded that the person is a murderer but not persuaded that his crimes are racially motivated.

Do people in a given area really feel afeard the same way / to the same extent in the following scenarios?

A) people are attacked ‘randomly’;
B) people of a particular ethnicity are attacked because of their ethnicity (the attacker shouts, “I hate you black bastards” or summat).;
C) elderly people are being targeted because of their vulnerability (they are less likely to be able to resist etc);
D) young women are attacked because they are young and female.

Are people really complaining that if they were randomly attacked, their attacker will see slightly less a sentence than someone who specifically targeted the elderly (all else being equal)?

“I think if you infer in a negative way (instead of a literal way) that there are *less serious* crimes from a statement that there are *more serious* crimes then you are looking for a problem where there isn’t one. ”
Far from it, UKL. If you describe an attack on a member of a group because they are a member of a group as more serious then we can also say it is less serious. In the example I gave, would you regard aggressive tea-towel wearing as justification for an attack on the wearer, because the attacker was provoked by the atrocity? Is that the can of worms youre glad has been opened?
Once you have a hierarchy of intents, why expect it to operate only in the direction you favour?

I don’t think it’s particularly about the individual victim, it is the aspect of crime that it is against society. The people identifying with a particular group that appears to have been targeted will feel more vulnerable.

It’s but one aggravating factor taken into account when sentencing, among myriad aggravating and mitigating factors. People are sentenced on the circumstances, not a blanket “you attacked a person therefore you get a year”.

Another aggravating factor is the “Presence of others including relatives, especially children or partner of the victim”. It doesn’t mean the individual who is attacked without his children present is less deserving of sympathy.

UK Liberty,

“Do people in a given area really feel afeard the same way / to the same extent in the following scenarios?”

How can we know the level of feardiness of two or more separate people in various hypothetical situations?

I do recall that during the random Beltway Sniper attacks ten years ago, people in the area were pretty bloody afeard:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks#Public_reaction

@ ukliberty
@ B) not just race. My autistic younger son was of the same ethnicity as most of the feeder group for the sink local school by which he was repeatedly targeted. My seriously bright elder son ended up in hospital several times because he was so obviously brighter than those around him (not a problem when he was in a primary school class three years older than he was.
“Oh no, we cannot tell you who the culprits were” because it would breach confidentiality.

33 @ Mr Potarto.

Because, the problem is, the members of these groups might not agree with the hierarchies that are being decided for them. Might think their getting a raw deal out of this more important thing. Might see this as justification for getting their equality in first. If you follow my reasoning.

@ anyone who read ukliberty’s post #33
As a child I told my father that I never started fights: I just finished them. Because I was skinny and smallish I was occasionally attacked by young thugs.
As a pre-teen I was drawn into a small group that opposed bullying (mostly by “working-class” thugs on smaller middle-class boys) [I was a year younger than the others so saying I (much later) took up boxing as a bantamweight (under 8stone 7lb/54 kilograms) overstates my size]; John was brilliant but smaller than I (despite being a year older) and diabetic, Martin looked like Hank Marvin (and was a good guitar-player even as a pre-teen); Stewie, who was the only of us who looked as if he could fight, was only called on in emergencies.
In my view someone who is punched in self-defence deserves less sympathy than an innocent guy shot by a psychotic. Before Arnald or Owen Jones screams: I sympathise with the innocent Mr Hiles and his family, I am talking solely about self-defence.

What’s wierd about this sort of legislation is that it seems to promote the idea that kicking someone to death in the street for no particular reason than that you were bored is morally superior to killing someone simply because you hate the group they belong to.

No, what’s weird is that people think it seems to promote that idea.

ukliberty – “If multiple people are attacked because they are ginger then it is worth considering recording crimes motivated by hatred of gingers to see if there is a problem that requires special attention.”

Why? I am not sure it is the job of the state to go around correcting people-s thoughts. If someone believes that gingers deserve to be kicked to death, I fail to see any need for the state to intervene right up to the point they go out to kick some gingers to death. That is the point of a free society. We hold whatever views we like as that is our right. They do not pick and choose which views they deem acceptable.

“If people are attacked because they are ginger then other gingers will feel at greater risk compared to a ‘random’ attack. For that reason it might be considered an aggravating factor and merit a worse punishment than a ‘random’ attack.”

Blackstone said that killing someone by pushing him off a bridge under some momentary whim was a worse crime than many pre-meditated murders. Interesting to see that logic being denied. Notice the inherent ill-liberal nature of this – the law is not measuring the impact on the individual, but the impact on some nebulous “community” which does not have a voice, just loud spokespeople.

“It-s not a bad thing that a group you identify with doesn-t have crimes against them monitored or punished in such a way; it means you-re likely less at risk of being attacked.”

No, it means you do not have political power or a special interest group to lobby for you. That is all. What this means is that it is a worse crime to kill someone who belongs to a group that can be counted on to vote as a block.

FFS!

@ UKLib
“your idea of a war starting because a group is offended it isn t listed among the aggravating factors in the sentencing guidelines seems more far-fetched than Iain Banks s scifi.”

Its precisely this sort of discrimination between communities, causes tension between them. It reinforces the perception in some groups they are are under attack & their own use of violence is justified. Just try dealing with some members of the black & asian communities & how relatively trivial matters can escalate into threats or use of violence. Conversely, white communities perceive they are threatened with violence by the minorities, with inadequate recognition of their fears. And it really is all about perceptions, not figures & statistics. And there are always those who will take those perceptions as an excuse for what they see as retribution on representatives of other communities. War? It was perceptions of discrimination by the law drove a shooting war in Northern Ireland. When there s areas of cities where its unsafe to go depending on what group you come from, as is happening in the UK, I d say you re at the skirmishing phase.

“If people are attacked because they are ginger then other gingers will feel at greater risk compared to a ‘random’ attack. For that reason it might be considered an aggravating factor and merit a worse punishment than a ‘random’ attack.”
The problem with that is that crime motivated by hate is not worse than crime motivated by something else.
Where I live lots of Asians have been burgled – because they have gold. Now why is this less important than if it were done by racists?
(I would guess that the people responsible probably would like more rich Asian immigrants)

I can see a lot of reasons why law enforcement people might want to classify hate crimes by subculture. Viz if you noticed an increase in goth-on-punk (or whatever) violence in your area then the next time you saw a group of goths walking near a punk pub or vice versa you might get on the blower and find some back-up, sharpish. That’s just good intelligence work.
What I don’t see is that it is in any way to be reflected in sentencing. Hurting someone because you don’t like the way they dress, talk, the music they listen to or the god they believe in is morally the same as hurting them becuase you don’t like their individual face.

However, I now look forward to people being attacked because they are Millwall supporters becoming a hate crime. Oh, and for being tories. Or ‘posh’. hate crimes, all of them. Cuts both ways.

bloke in spain @44, it seems you think there is a list that blacks and Asians are on but whites are not. But the sentencing guidelines don’t mention black or Asian (or white). The relevant aggravating factor here is “Offence racially or religiously aggravated”.

Likewise there is sex and gender identity (not male or female), age (not a particular age) and sexuality (not a particular sexuality, e.g. homosexuality). The only aggravating factor that isn’t as ‘inclusive’ is “hostility to the victim based on the victim’s disability (or presumed disability)”.

“ukliberty // Apr 5, 2013 at 10:52 am

Mr Potarto,
You argued that an attack on a sub-section of the community should be viewed more seriously because it additionally instilled fear in that sub-section.

Not one attack. I am talking about multiple attacks, multiple attackers over time. That’s the context. I’m sure you are aware that at various times there are specific ‘groups’ (e.g. Asians or homosexuals) who have been singled out for a good kicking?”
But under hate crime it is more of a problem if
you kick Asians because you hate them rather than because you want their money even though the effect is the same!!!
BTW I benefited from hate crime because when I was burgled I said that it could have been a hate crime because my lodgers were black and the police spent slightly more effort on it.

UKLib
You look at the wording of laws & statistics. Great if you’re interested in legal definitions & math. Most people don’t give a monkey’s. What they have is their perceptions of those things. Which is another thing entirely.
You tell a bloke attacks on racial groups are more important & he is going to take that quite literally to mean the two tinted characters who mugged his son on the way home is less important. Particularly as assaults on white males doesn t seem to figure much in anyone s concern list. So don t be surprised if he takes a blunt instrument to the head of a not so randomly selected member of the tinted community. May be he was. Maybe he wasn t. But WGAF? It s payback & they re all the same, aren t they? Different from us. Like the law says.

And Sam raises an interesting point;

*I can see a lot of reasons why law enforcement people might want to classify hate crimes by subculture. Viz if you noticed an increase in goth-on-punk (or whatever) violence in your area then the next time you saw a group of goths walking near a punk pub or vice versa you might get on the blower and find some back-up, sharpish. That’s just good intelligence work.*

And that s exactly what the police have been attacked for doing. And the justice system. So targeting groups with high rates of offending is discriminatory. Jailing them is a failure of the justice system. Musn t have discrimination in these areas because we are all the same.
Just a shame Sam picked two groups the authorities would be all over like a bad smell at the slightest provocation. Because theyre white & hetero & have no *special rights*

@UKLib
As I said, it doesn t matter what the law actually says. It is what it is perceived to say. As soon as someone like yourself starts talking about attacks on a group being *more important* than attacks on people in general, you re headed down that road. It really is a zero sum game in ordinary peoples minds. More>less. Because that is how the world is perceived to work.

As soon as someone like yourself starts talking about attacks on a group being *more important* than attacks on people in general, you re headed down that road.

But I haven’t – that’s been you and other commenters.

Lets see where we go with UK Libs thinking.
There s about a ten to one ratio between robberies of whites by blacks to blacks by whites on London streets.
1) A high proportion of black kids are into street robberies.
2) The overwhelming majority of their targets are likely to be white because there are more of them & they have more to steal.
Can t say I like this, but its a fact of life.
With UK Libs interpretation.
Attacks on whites is more serious because of the racial element. (Although we don t actually have any evidence, in each individual case, that this formed part of the motive – see above)
Whites feel threatened.
Seems like a good excuse to get an assault rifle & go looking for targets of opportunity down Tottenham High Road.

You should write a novel!

Good luck.

Mainly short stories, thanks.

I’m not convinced that hate crime laws are a good idea. But the point of them is surely to signal to potential victims and perpetrators that society strongly disapproves of the hatred, contrary to the mistaken impression each group may in its own way have formed that we sympathize with the underlying intent, even if disapprove of its precise expression.

ukliberty – “it-s you saying there is a difference in importance between crimes against ethnic minorities and crimes against whites. The law does not say there is a difference in importance, as I said @ 49 /50.”

How many people have been jailed or given harsher sentences under such laws for crimes against the politically under-organised? How many for attacking Whites? Heterosexuals?

Two Black men have just been convicted of plotting to kidnap and behead Joss Stone. In which race does seem to have played a part. Are they going to be charged with racially motivated motives?

The fact that people like you have drawn up a law that does not mention what they intend or reflect how it operates in reality just makes the law worse in my opinion.

bis: the root of the problem is violent bigots. Let’s not blame the victims.

SMFS: Everyone knows that we disapprove of murder. What violent bigots may not realise is that they are (with a few exceptions) alone in their bigotry.

PaulB
“bis: the root of the problem is violent bigots. Let s not blame the victims.”
Jeez Paul. The stock reaction of the unthinking left. Bigots do blame the victims. That’s the point of being one. I m against encouraging folk to become bigots.
If you have a situation where there’s no upside & indeterminate downside, the sensible decision is to not go there.

(Hell I hate the B word. So often used instead of thinking about why someone holds different opinions from ones own. It’s not actually hard to work out why some people might be racist, homophobic, anti-semetic etc etc. Just because their experiences have led them to different conclusions to ones own isnt a reason to despise them. there but for the grace of, go you.)