Mother tormented to suicide by teenage gang. UK Police indifferent. Peter Dow cares.

[jonajuna]

This makes a lot of sense, since the reason behind special sentences for assaulting police is that, by assaulting a representative of the state, the criminal's attacking society in general.

When I mock the mini-arsenals officers now lug around, I'm not mocking the officers, but the policies that've compelled them to tool up. When criminals are emboldened by weak punishment the police must rely on brute force. But other public servants are denied even that option. If any assault on a public servant carried severe penalties, I suspect we'd all be safer. And the police can stop dressing like Imperial Stormtroopers.

does that mean i have to stop dressing like luke skywalker?

i like my utility belt

 

[Azrael]

Unless you have a warrant card, go for it!

 

[Azrael]

or indeed just realising that all of us are as valuable as the next and assault is assault and should receive a severe sanction

bit like removing the hate from hate crime

crime is crime if you discriminate on the basis of the colour, creed, sexuality or gender of the victim you infer that one victim is more worthy than another

any discrimination, even positive discrimination, remains discrimination

I agree that there shouldn't be blanket "hate crime" rules. Attacking a victim because of their creed, sexuality or ethnicity should certainly bump up the sentence. But so should attacking them because they're vulnerable, elderly, or because you were tanked on drink and thought it would be a laugh to make another human being scream.

There should however be a specially harsh sentence for attacking a public servant in the execution of their duties. For the moral reason that you're attacking society as a whole, represented by the public servant at that time. And the pragmatic reason that it'll help to scare thugs off assaulting police officers, firefighters and teachers.

 

[jonajuna]

And the pragmatic reason that it'll help to scare thugs off assaulting police officers, firefighters and teachers.

or just allow us to thump 'em back without fear of losing our jobs

 

[Azrael]

Well police can already thump 'em back, with anything from a telescopic baton to a taser, and I agree that law-abiding people should be allowed to carry similar weapons. (If armed self-defence "escalates" confrontations as the authorities claim, why is it OK for the police festoon themselves with an ever-increasing arsenal of weapons?) But self-defence will always be second best to deterence. Weapons can help deter, but a powerful law is best.

 

[detective-boy]

[1]. If I have the law wrong, it's an honest mistake.

There are two aspects (as is explained later in the article you link to).

The use of any force is judged on subjective reasonableness (i.e. what the actual defendant honestly believed to be the case).

The amount of force used is judged on objective reasonableness (i.e. waht a reasonable man would have considered reasonable in the situation the defendant believed himself to be).

 

[detective-boy]

Hence there should be law passed regarding assult on a public servant whilst doing their duty.

The current general law is perfectly adequate. To invent a new offence which simply repeats what is already there would be gesture legislation.

The legislation is not the problem. The lack of reporting is. As are deficiencies in sentencing which can be addressed by guidance to Courts and / or legislation about minimum sentences.

 

[detective-boy]

crime is crime if you discriminate on the basis of the colour, creed, sexuality or gender of the victim you infer that one victim is more worthy than another

That is NOT what hate crime is all about.

It is not treating the victims of the same offences differently, it is recognising that the same act may, in different circumstances, have a much more serious effect and, hence, amount to a much more serious crime. It also has a far wider effect in that it has an impact on family, friends, collegaues, whole communities who share the victims characteristic that was targetted than an "ordinary" crime.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

always somebody elses fault eh blagsta

you clients must hate you

*clicks him back to ignore list and makes note to self.. must not remove from ignore*

Not always someone else's fault, rather actions always have a context which can help to understand those actions without excusing them.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

crime is crime if you discriminate on the basis of the colour, creed, sexuality or gender of the victim you infer that one victim is more worthy than another

You don't really mean that do you? We discriminate between crimes all the time; indeed it would be very odd if we stripped all crimes of their context and just viewed them in relation to legislative headlines (e.g. murder, fraud, theft, assault).

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Giles]

Why should, say, a random attack on a stranger, be considered more serious if the attackers motive was "because he's a paki" as opposed to "because he was wearing a united shirt" or "because he looked at me bird" or "because I f***ing felt like hitting him"?

Giles..

 

[Peter Dow]

And where's Peter Dow in all of this?

I am here and having had a good initial say as the OP (thanks mods ) yet not fully given the green light to post more because a moderator edited out my "cut and paste", I am thinking that maybe I should keep a low profile in this topic while I am ahead?

I mean supposing a point comes up in this discussion, and my reply to that point I have somewhat anticipated and tried to include that point as part of the original post but as part of the "cut and paste" it was removed by the moderator.

I would be thinking, well if I repost that which has already been removed by a moderator into order to reply to this good gentleman's or lady's point, I am going to further annoy that moderator. But then if I don't enter the debate then it looks like I have no arguments to back up the original post. So it is a dilemma. To debate or not to debate, this is the question.

From bitter experience, I tend to tip-toe in any forum where I am getting "grief" from the moderators because I have been banned from so many forums.

It is like trying to defuse a bomb. You think you are doing OK then BANG! you have been banned!

I can come out of my bunker when there is no shelling from the moderators.

 

[Azrael]

There are two aspects (as is explained later in the article you link to).

The use of any force is judged on subjective reasonableness (i.e. what the actual defendant honestly believed to be the case).

The amount of force used is judged on objective reasonableness (i.e. waht a reasonable man would have considered reasonable in the situation the defendant believed himself to be).

Thanks for the clarification. That sounds exactly like what I objected to: ie, people in a warm courtroom judging the degree of force used in panicked darkness. As it's very hard to empathise with that situation until you've been in it, why not rely wholly on whether the belief behind the action was either genuine or reasonable?

It also has a far wider effect in that it has an impact on family, friends, collegaues, whole communities who share the victims characteristic that was targetted than an "ordinary" crime.

The same surely goes for attacks on the elderly, women, or indeed, any random act of violence or burglary.

 

[detective-boy]

Why should, say, a random attack on a stranger, be considered more serious if the attackers motive was "because he's a paki" as opposed to "because he was wearing a united shirt" or "because he looked at me bird" or "because I f***ing felt like hitting him"?

Are you incapable of reading my earlier post? That is exactly why.

 

[detective-boy]

The same surely goes for attacks on the elderly, women, or indeed, any random act of violence or burglary.

Yes, to a certain extent ... but not to the extent that research amongst victim groups suggests hate-motivated crime impacts.

There is a sort of continuum - random motivation is less damaging than motivation based on vulnerability, which is, in turn, less damaging than motivation based on hostility (for exactly the same amount of actual damage or injury or whatever, i.e. everything except motivation is identical).

 

[jonajuna]

That is NOT what hate crime is all about.

It is not treating the victims of the same offences differently, it is recognising that the same act may, in different circumstances, have a much more serious effect and, hence, amount to a much more serious crime. It also has a far wider effect in that it has an impact on family, friends, collegaues, whole communities who share the victims characteristic that was targetted than an "ordinary" crime.

sorry DB, but a smack in the face has the same impact on a person regardless of the motive for the smack

or stepping it up a notch

me being stabbed by a white guy and left for dead.. is that any less traumatic for me or my family to suffer than a black guy being stabbed?

differentiating on the basis of who the victim is is to suggest that one set of people are more deserving than another. no other way to see it

to quote
"That until the colour of a man's skin is of no more significance than the colour of his eyes; That until the basic human rights are equally guaranteed to all without regard to race"

Haile Selassie's Address To The United Nations Oct, 1963

 

[jonajuna]

You don't really mean that do you? We discriminate between crimes all the time; indeed it would be very odd if we stripped all crimes of their context and just viewed them in relation to legislative headlines (e.g. murder, fraud, theft, assault).

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

well murder has one level of seriousness really... a persons dead, sentenceing should be straightforward.. dont see what difference the "type" the victim was, unless one life is worth more than anothers?

theft has context of course.. value and "victim" from the person is always more serious than commercial for example.. but that is due to the "double crime" of theft from the person

assault comes in degrees already, common, abh, gbh, with intent.. dont see what difference the victim makes.. they were all hurt to the same extent depending on the level of assault.. and with assault the "strength" of the victim is already an intrinsic factor... a smack in the face to me could cause no more damage than common assault (temporary reddening) to an frail elderly person it could cause fractures hence gbh

dont see what difference me (as the victim) being gay or not (for example) really makes? i know plenty of gay guys that could rip me apart in a brawl....

or do we also judge on the fact im a small bloke with glasses and a bald spot developing?

how far do we take the differences and "vulnerabilities" that exist in us all?

 

[detective-boy]

sorry DB, but a smack in the face has the same impact on a person regardless of the motive for the smack

It doesn't though. Your statement betrays nothing but your own ignorance of the impact of hate crime and hate-related incidents.

If you get a brick through your window, simply because your window happened to be there when a bunch of random drunks happened to trip over a brick and decide it'd be fun to lob it through a nearby window the effect on you is a bit of short term irritation about having to clear up the glass and mend the window. It is also not something that is likely to happen again and you will pretty much have forgotten all about it a few weeks later. It is also not something which is the latest in a whole line of similarly individually minor things. You'd whinge to your family and friends about it, but they would not worry about their windows being next. They are unlikely to tell anyone else about it as it is seriously non-news, and so no-one at all beyond your immediate family will even know about it.

If you get the same brick, through the same window, but deliberately chosen because you happen to be black / gay / mentally disabled or whatever the effect not only be the same short term irritation about having to clear up the glass and mend the window but a longer lasting worry about whether it will happen again, or what will be next. It is also quite likely to be the latest in a series of similar, individually minor things which will have a cumulative impact on you which is more than the sum of the parts. Even if it is the first one, you will know that these things tend to develop into series and so you will worry about what will happen next far more. You'll whinge to your family and friends about what happened, and they will worry about being next. They will tell other members of your community and it will become part of a community concern, impacting way, way beyond your immediate family.

You may not have realised this previously. Many people (including many police officers and other professionals (especially the Courts!)) haven't. But please thing it through and do not simply dismiss the concept as you have done so far. Perhaps you may want to think about any members of minority groups that you know and ask them for their perspective (they don't have to be the "standard" groups - age, disability, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation - which are identified as being victimised on such a widespread basis in one way or another that it merits focused attention - cyclists being intimidated by 4x4s or vans on a regular basis will explain the concept to you just as well).

This is absolutely nothing to do with valuing the victim differently. It is about recognising that a hate-motivated action is different from one motivated for some other reason. The victim is worth exactly the same as any other victim ... but they have not suffered the same criminal damage, they have suffered a different, more serious one. This concept of differently motivated, similar crimes being treated as more or less seriously is not unusual in law at all.