[Misc] Hate Crime

[beorhthelm]

hate crime, means you're prejudice against some characteristic of the person and thats the motivation. you didn't murder them, you murdered what they are.

special measures, the organisational equivalent of put on the naughty step. you're failing to provide public service, determental to patients/pupils/public.

 

[beorhthelm]

..
As usual, with sensitive subjects like this, people can become somewhat hysterical. JK Rowling, for instance, has been receiving death threats and been accused of “murdering” Brianna Ghey. Streamers playing the latest game, Hogwarts Legacy, have been doxxed and suffered death threats to their families - even their young children.

anyone threatening violence to someone because a vague tangential link to a death, doesn't have full mental capacity developed. if it wasn't dangerous it would be comical.

 

[NorthstandRacoon]

Get with the programme. Everything must be labelled. Everything must be captured. Everything must be measured. But interestingly, nothing ever changes. Except to worsen.

Agree.

 

[Zeberdi]

There’s no difference for the victim or the victim’s family if someone is murdered because of a characteristic. The victim is still dead and the family still bereft .

However, there is a public policy aspect to having hate crime legislation in any society that recognises the equal rights of its citizens:

When someone is targeted for being disabled, because of race or LBGT etc then there is not just one victim but a group of victims- an attack against one gay man for being gay is an attack on gayness itself or an assault on a disabled person because they are disabled is an attack on being disabled - how we as a society deal with hate attacks sends a message to everyone in that particular group how they are valued ( or not).

Unfortunately hate crime legislation often looks better on paper than in practice.


The ‘Hate’ element of any crime is notoriously hard to prove - not only do you have to prove the normal component of the men’s rea of the act (ie that it was in the mind of the defendant that he knew the act was wrong/intended to carry it out) but you also have to prove that the defendant carried out the act because of the victim’s race, sexuality, disability etc.

It’s not enough that the defendant attacked a gay or transgender person, the attack had to happen because of it. It goes to motive which is the hardest element in any crime but in hate crime there is often a lack of evidence.

Hate Crime law are not ideal

1. The laws are very complex and the OP was right to raise the Q&As imo - the definitions of hate crime lacks clarity and relies on the interpretation of the police which ( in itself with a proven history of institutionalised racism and misogyny in it’s ranks) can be inconsistent.

2. While a crime may be recorded by the police as a ‘hate crime’ it will not be prosecuted as such unless evidence of such is submitted to the CPS and the ‘Hate’ element of a crime will not even be included in the file to the CPS unless the Police thinks there is evidence in the first place to support it. The CPS then decide whether what the police has submitted contains enough evidence of a hate motive before an assault can even be prosecuted as a hate crime.

3. It is also hard to know if hate crime legislation are failing to have a deterrent value and hate crimes are increasing or whether the increases in hate crimes are due to improvements in police reporting. However, police statistics aside, hate crimes remain very difficult to prove in court.

4. The biggest criticism I have with hate crimes is that victims get treated inconsistently - and we risk creating a two- tier system of hierarchy - where the same act on the same type of victim for example is more serious than others based on a lack of evidence.

 

[Zeberdi]

All will be revealed in the trial.

You are assuming it will get through the CPS stage - (see my post above)

The courts quite rightly will bring the alleged hate crime element into it, for the reasons I said above.

Again, it is up to the Police and CPS whether it even gets to court - the Court can’t bring the hate element into sentencing unless the Police and CPS have already decided there is enough evidence of a hate crime being committed to stand up in court. It’s exactly the same as any prosecution.

Just because the Police have recorded it as a ‘hate crime’ it doesn’t mean it will be prosecuted as one ( again see above).

It may well be that this crime was motivated by a transgender hostility but whether there is enough evidence to prove it or even enough to include it in the CPS report is another matter entirely.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The police have designated a recent murder as a "hate crime". Why? What exactly does this mean? Aren't all murders "hate crimes"? What's the alternative description? So many of the labels used by the authorities are just stupid. A personal opinion of course.

I’m sure this is a rhetorical question but it’s to specify a crime which is motivated by prejudice. Hopefully you can see a difference between hitting someone up because, say, they were mouthy in the kebab shop queue and purely because they are “different”?

 

[Hamilton]

The murder of a child is tragic. It isn’t a sliding scale of tragedy based on what they identify as, in my mind. Hate crimes are tragic. Random attacks are tragic. It’s not a competition to decide which is most newsworthy.

I don’t want news to be editorialised by trusted sources, I just want the facts.

I agree with regards to each crime being tragic, but behind that tragedy sits context.

There are crimes of passion, vengeance and terror. Each is committed for different reasons and so shifts our understanding of crime.

In the case of this girl, police believe she may have been killed because of views fueled by hate. This girl was a young transgender girl who was growing up in an environment where gender is being vigorously debated in sport, politics and society. It is asking us to consider change and that can feel threatening to some. People tend to dislike change.

Police are concerned that this murder could be down to attitudes towards this girl. Those attitudes are reinforced or placated by our understanding of how different we are. Society, politicians and those who control our institutions deserve to hear about crimes being committed due to hate.

Sadly, one murder is not the same as another. Context is everything. I’d imagine that the stabbing of Tommy Lee Royce would not be viewed in the same light as the stabbing of, let’s say, Charlie Fairhead. Both are tragic. Both have different context.

I’m interested in what fueled the motivations of the two young people who committed these crimes. They are children themselves. Who or what has reinforced their views? Because if this is a hate crime, then they may have wielded the knife, but stood behind them are people, narratives, media and organizations that also at best bear some responsibility and at worst are directly responsible.

That is why reporting this as a possible hate crime is important. Reporting context helps us change.

 

[portlock seagull]

An innocent 16 year old boy was stabbed to death the other day. Didn’t even make the news headlines with the BBC, whilst the Brianna Ghey story had three separate articles.

The difference being that Ghey’s case was more newsworthy as she was transgender.

Both are tragedies and deserved equal coverage, which they did not receive.

It’s worrying that kids killing other kids is so normal now it’s no longer mainstream news. Sign of the times?

 

[Springal]

If we’re talking about media influence / bias - then a 13 year old girl from South East London has been missing for a week (she’s black by the way) with practically no media coverage.

A mum seemingly with alcohol & mental health issues disappears and it’s all we’ve heard about for 2 weeks (she’s a pretty blonde white woman…)

 

[Psychobilly freakout]

There’s no difference for the victim or the victim’s family if someone is murdered because of a characteristic. The victim is still dead and the family still bereft .

Usually I tend to agree with you my friend, but I totally disagree with this, especially if you know your child was murdered just because for example they were Trans, Black, Gay or a Goth as all have happened, the knowledge they would be alive if they had not been one of the afore mentioned.
In fact personally I would be more angry that my child had been murdered for no other reason that ignorance, and to tackle ignorance you need information, and education, which labels such as hate crime do.

 

[jcdenton08]

I’m sure this is a rhetorical question but it’s to specify a crime which is motivated by prejudice. Hopefully you can see a difference between hitting someone up because, say, they were mouthy in the kebab shop queue and purely because they are “different”?

For argument’s sake, in your entirely hypothetical scenario, what if the person being mouthy in a kebab shop were, for example, trans?

The headlines would read “Trans woman murdered in kebab shop” and it would be classed by definition as a hate crime by the wider public, even if not the police (who would investigate and find the person was being mouthy, and it had nothing to do with them being trans).

My argument is, of course, completely irrelevant bullshit responding to be an equally irrelevant bullshit what-if scenario.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

Crime of passion

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

For argument’s sake, in your entirely hypothetical scenario, what if the person being mouthy in a kebab shop were, for example, trans?

The headlines would read “Trans woman murdered in kebab shop” and it would be classed by definition as a hate crime by the wider public, even if not the police (who would investigate and find the person was being mouthy, and it had nothing to do with them being trans).

My argument is, of course, completely irrelevant bullshit responding to be an equally irrelevant bullshit what-if scenario.

As I understand it, the police/CPS only push for a hate crime if there’s reasonable evidence to suggest it is. My scenario was purely to illustrate a difference in context.

You have surely read most of this thread, and have an idea of the principle of hate crime. What is your issue with this principle?

 

[Acker79]

For argument’s sake, in your entirely hypothetical scenario, what if the person being mouthy in a kebab shop were, for example, trans?

The headlines would read “Trans woman murdered in kebab shop” and it would be classed by definition as a hate crime by the wider public, even if not the police (who would investigate and find the person was being mouthy, and it had nothing to do with them being trans).

My argument is, of course, completely irrelevant bullshit responding to be an equally irrelevant bullshit what-if scenario.

If the person being mouthy is trans it doesn't change anything. HT is answering the question 'what is a hate crime?' Your hypothetical is about media perception/reporting of hate crimes. Given the discussion around context of crimes helping to improve people/society/etc it certainly has a place in the discussion (does eroneous reporting of hate crime do more harm than good?) but media perception isn't a counter to the definition of what a hate crime is.

 

[jcdenton08]

For argument’s sake, in your entirely hypothetical scenario, what if the person being mouthy in a kebab shop were, for example, trans?

As I understand it, the police/CPS only push for a hate crime if there’s reasonable evidence to suggest it is. My scenario was purely to illustrate a difference in context.

You have surely read most of this thread, and have an idea of the principle of hate crime. What is your issue with this principle?

My issue is, if you read back to my original posts and the thread generally (you should), the reporting of these crimes. The very mention of someone being trans, or a POC, implies hate crime regardless of circumstance.

 

[Zeberdi]

Usually I tend to agree with you my friend, but I totally disagree with this, especially if you know your child was murdered just because for example they were Trans, Black, Gay or a Goth as all have happened, the knowledge they would be alive if they had not been one of the afore mentioned.
In fact personally I would be more angry that my child had been murdered for no other reason that ignorance, and to tackle ignorance you need information, and education, which labels such as hate crime do.

Yes, of course I agree to that - morally there is a difference (which makes the loss harder to bear) - but, in this particular sentence, I meant no difference physically - the victim is still dead and the family have still suffered an unimaginable physical loss so please take the comment in the context of the rest of my post which was a response to the OP’s initial question about why we even have hate crimes and how do we define them. Note the ‘however’ after the sentence you quoted where I go on to say why it is important to have hate crimes.

I do think how someone/family deals with an individual death is largely subjective but certainly agree there are aspects which make it worse for the survivors - eg its worse to know someone was robbed and murdered for the lousy few quid in their pocket and if it hadn’t been for the robbery, they would still be alive and worse to know the victim of a RTA died because of a drunk driver and not a random accident.

 

[Zeberdi]

As I understand it, the police/CPS only push for a hate crime if there’s reasonable evidence to suggest it is. My scenario was purely to illustrate a difference in context.

You have surely read most of this thread, and have an idea of the principle of hate crime. What is your issue with this principle?

Er, yes as I literally already outlined in detail above on the matter of evidence in response to another post, that seemed not to take that into consideration.

One can not assume that just because the police have reported this particular incident as a hate crime, it will automatically be considered at trial stage.

 

[goldstone]

Lots of guff from people who appear to know all about this stuff. My point is, why the term "hate crime". Surely there's an element of hate in all murders? So why can't the authorities find a better more grown-up description? To my mind "hate crime" sounds like a term a five year old would use.

 

[Acker79]

Lots of guff from people who appear to know all about this stuff. My point is, why the term "hate crime". Surely there's an element of hate in all murders? So why can't the authorities find a better more grown-up description? To my mind "hate crime" sounds like a term a five year old would use.

Partly simplicity. 'hate crime' is a lot easier to say than 'crime motivated by ignorance about a specific set of protected characteristics'

Partly because your premise is wrong. It's not true there is an element of hate in all murders. There's fear, greed, jealousy, mania, psycopathy, and probably many more. Some 'murders' are in defence, or desperation, some are accidental murders (thinking second degree murders).

 

[Zeberdi]

The headlines would read “Trans woman murdered in kebab shop” and it would be classed by definition as a hate crime by the wider public, even if not the police (who would investigate and find the person was being mouthy, and it had nothing to do with them being trans)

I understand your point - but the way you illustrate it seems a bit too hypothetical - how the media reports incidents influences public attitudes of course but the media are very unlikely to lead with a victim’s vulnerability (like someone being transgender) - that highly personal information is not likely to be released to the media unless it was pertinent to the crime ie the Police released it because the crime has been reported by them as a hate crime.

Lots of guff from people who appear to know all about this stuff. My point is, why the term "hate crime". Surely there's an element of hate in all murders? So why can't the authorities find a better more grown-up description? To my mind "hate crime" sounds like a term a five year old would use.

Perhaps you should have made your first post clearer if you were not looking for an explanation of what ‘hate crimes‘ were or why we have them. Not sure how you are defining ‘hate’ but with regard to ‘hate crimes’ it’s an apt term because it describes the intense hostility shown towards a characteristic of someone’s identity.