Nope, wrong decision

Hate crime laws should be extended to cover the disabled, transsexuals and people targeted because of their sexual orientation, the Law Commission has said.

The commission said it “sent the wrong message” that although police can record hate crimes against a number of groups the law does not allow all those offences to receive tougher punishments in the courts.

That someone punches you because you are richer in melanin, worship a different God or none, get your sexual jollies one way or another, the point that matters is that someone has assaulted you by punching you. That’s the crime that has been committed and that’s the crime that should be punished.

The very idea of a “hate crime” itself as a definition is hateful.

16 thoughts on “Nope, wrong decision”

  1. The original argument for hate crimes was reasonable. If someone punched you because you’re melanin-rich, as part of a campaign to keep melanin-rich people out of their area then that’s a more serious crime than merely punching you.

  2. When every crime is a hate crime, no crime is a hate crime.
    Is this just an excuse to bring in tougher prison sentences via, you should pardon the expression, the back door?

  3. Nicely summed up by Gene Hunt (PBUH):

    Sam Tyler: I think we need to explore whether this attempted murder was a hate crime.
    Gene Hunt: What as opposed to one of those I-really-really-like-you sort of murders?

  4. Following on from the three comments above, if you have “hate crime” then there is no particular reason why some reasons for hating people should be privileged above others.

    The trans-phobia of the rad-fems, the anthropophobia* of the deep greens, the hatred of freedom of the Islamists (as well as their rampant anti-semitism) and the francophobia of all right-thinking Englishmen – all are just as valid “hate” as the ones currently seen as recordable.

    I’d note, re Richard’s point, that it should actually be two crimes – one is the thumping somebody, the other is the conspiracy to deny access or force out.

    And – re Doc-Bud – yes, there are murders where there isn’t necessarily hatred. People snapping in a fight, burglars surprised by an occupant they thought out, some domestic violence, drug or alcohol fuelled insanities, even terrorist atrocities where the victims are essentially random passers by.

    * I had to look that one up.

  5. SE, two problems with recording two crimes

    1 if the thumping is effectively discouraged, the second crime disappears

    2 for the sake of consistency, you’d have to identify and prosecute any behaviour that’s intended as discriminatory. Which is how we got to calling the police when we’re ‘abused’ on twitter.

    There’s a point where the justice system becomes too crude a tool for making people play nice.

  6. Niels,

    1 is a success, not a problem. If the second crime is then progressed some other way, well, then …

    2 is a matter of degree. I agree we’ve gone too far in prosecuting speech and opinion but active attempts to interfere with people’s rights to movement or association will generally fall foul of not-particularly new laws (although they may be expressed in new ways.)

  7. Hate crime is a leftist attack on free speech.

    Also as SE points out–only white/straight etc peoples “hate” counts as “hate”—the antics engaged in by the left’s client groups do not.

  8. The end game here is *everybody* will be a special class of victim except heterosexual white Englishmen who aren’t FtM transexuals, crossdressers, wheelchair users, or converts to Islam.

    You also have to notice the wider context this is taking place in, where the shadow secretary of state is threatening the English judiciary that they’re too white, male, and English and he’s going to do something about that. The Tories and Lib Dems aren’t exactly falling over themselves to disagree either.

    Can we pretend this is still about “equality” rather than malice?

  9. I can see an argument for recording hate crimes, certainly. If you’re policing an area, and an awful lot of gay / black / jewish people are getting thumped, seemingly for no other reason that that they are, then it’s a useful indication that more of the same is on the way, and that can inform how you plan for that.

    I can also see a ‘conspiracy to…’ adjunct.

    But I can’t see that thumping someone for their colour is intrinsically morally worse than thumping them because they talk funny, or because you want their wallet.

  10. If I am of previously good character, and you move in next door and play loud music all hours of the day and night until I snap and go ’round and punch you, and afterwards regret losing my temper, then I will receive a lighter sentence than if I am known to be violent, you move in beside me, and I take a swing at you because I don’t like your face.

    In both cases the crime is the same, but the judge is allowed to take into account factors other than the exact crime that has been committed, such as the motive and the character of the criminal, in determining sentence.

    If you accept that situation then you accept that judges should have powers to vary sentences (within statutory limits) based on factors other than the exact crime that has been committed.

    So you cannot argue that in principle punishing crimes motivated by racial hatred more harshly than others is wrong without also arguing that for all crimes there should be a statutory punishment (possibly with statutory variations eg the third-off for an early guilty plea) which judges must hand down with no powers to either increase it or decrease it in line with the character of the individual criminal.

    If you accept that judges can have such powers, then you must argue that racial hatred is not one of the factors which judges should be taking into consideration, rather than claiming that only the ‘the crime that has been committed’ is ever relevant.

  11. G What you say= punishment by what is trendy–in the eyes of leftist scum.
    There maybe factors that mitigate crimes–like music being played at max volume all night–BUT there should be no circs that make a crime (that is the same act ) worse in some circs than others. If I commit a worse crime–stab instead of punch or beat someone to death instead of punch or punch a kid–then those are different crimes. An ordinary common or garden punch is a punch. Provocation might mitigate it somewhat but no circumstance should make it worse without it being another crime. Punching someone who is obviously ill or old or a minor should prob be GBH because of the danger of much greater phys damage to such people. This applies at every level of crime. A “straightforward” murder is a murder (murder by torture say, should bring extra charges because of extra-cruel acts–not imputed motives) –it is not made worse by the motives of the murderer(s). Saying that a murder done for racial reasons is worse than a murder for any other is leftist bullshit. We punish what was done–not on the basis of what may or may not have been people’s motives.

  12. G:
    You’re talking about mens rea ‘guilty mind’. This is important and should be taken into account. However, a ‘hate criminal’ already has a guilty mind! He is no more guilty if he attacks someone because they belong to a favoured group than he is because he wants their iPhone or wallet.

    A victim is no less harmed by deliberate violence if the victimiser is a criminal or a bigot.

  13. SE -its a nice bonus, but it feels like double counting to me. Would we prosecute a burglar for the individual thefts *and* systematically robbing a neighbourhood?

    G – I would hope that facet of judicial discretion is more to do with the lack of success of previous prosecutions? It’s one thing to ramp up the penalty untilvit shows some effect, quite another to claim to know the defendant’s state of mind.

  14. “The original argument for hate crimes was reasonable. If someone punched you because you’re melanin-rich, as part of a campaign to keep melanin-rich people out of their area then that’s a more serious crime than merely punching you.”

    Why is that more reasonable than punching someone because they are disabled or transsexual? The only consistent policy is to extend the concept as covering crimes against all groups or abolishing it completely. But the idea that racism is somehow worse than transphobia is preposterous.

  15. A “straightforward” murder is a murder (murder by torture say, should bring extra charges because of extra-cruel acts–not imputed motives) –it is not made worse by the motives of the murderer(s)

    The law disagrees with you, in that if you walk in and find your spouse in bed with your best friend, grab the nearest solid object to hand, and deal the third party a blow on the back of the head that causes them to die, you will (since 2010 when adultery ceased to be allowable as grounds for a ‘provocation’ defence to reduce the charge to manslaughter) be found guilty of the exact same crime as someone who decides that their boss is guilty of denying them a promotion they deserve, calmly goes about obtaining some rat poison and slips it into the boss’s tea: however, you will receive a lighter sentence.

    This is because, for instance, planning and premeditation are listed in the sentencing guidelines for murder as aggravating factors, ie, factors which make one ‘straightforward’ murder worse than another so-called ‘straightforward’ murder (in reality of course there is no such thing as a ‘straightforward’ murder: every murder is unique).

    Presumably you think that either planning and premeditation should not be aggravating factors to be considered by the judge when deciding on the sentence, or that there should be a separate offence of ‘murder with intent’?

  16. Murder with intent is murder.

    Murder without intent is manslaughter.

    Premeditation doesn’t alter murder. Bollocks to what some lawdogs think. Sentencing guidelines are written by leftist pukes at the Home Office.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *