h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/03/manchester-police-goths-punks-hate-crime

"Manchester police to record attacks on goths, emos and punks as hate crimes"

Is this not absolutely mental? I understand the concept of a hate crime. It allows for harsher punishments of racists, homophobes and the like. But this?

If I choose to go out dressed as Ozzy Osbourne and some thug smacks me saying "eurgh, Goth", why is that a worse crime than someone hitting me for wearing a Leeds shirt?

If my ginger mate goes out and gets slapped for being "a ginge", why doesn't he get the same protection as someone who chooses to have green dreadlocks?

I just can't get my head around this at all.

Very weird And, no I can't quite get my head round it either

Is it, I guess the question is, a 'worse' or more 'bad' chrime, to beat someone up, because their wearing certain clothes, (I.E., a goth, say), than because they belong to a certain 'football tribe', (I.E., wearing a particular football team, tee-shirt), or, indeed, to beat someone up, because 'they looked at me funny...', or whatever lame excuess the violent thug had in their head, for attacking someone hmmm. Surely in some respects, a person, who, for absolutely no reason whatsoever, randomly attacks a non-goth, non-gay, non-disabled, non-black, random person on the street, is kinda more 'dangerous' an individual, as they're vilent activity is truely random and aimed, potentially at every single person on the plannet, rather than a group defined by whatever subjective means they otherwise might use, to define a 'goth', or 'gay', or 'whatever'...
Yet... somehow it sort of seems a bit more err.... 'distasteful', for want of a better word, when an individuals v 'random' vilence, is directed towards a particular group, or groups of people ... naa... can't quite decide in my head, really, it brings in too many differnt things, associated with both the chrime, and the punishemnt thereof, is a total nut-case, who truely* randomly attacks at random* more likely or less likely to reoffend, than someone who picks only on people who wear a certain brand of tennis shoe, or... and, in fact, does the likelyhood of a more severe punishment, provide any deturant to vilent thugs, and nutters, to prevent them comitting their 'random' acts of vilence, whoever they might be directed against dunno...

it's illegal to smack someone,
a hate crime is going a bit far - no matter what they look like
does naming it as a hate crime have more serious consequences than assault would have?



what if it's just a pale kid with dark hair and someone smacks them is that goth kid hate crime smacking or just normal pale dark haired kid assault?

Does it matter how much physical harm was done? Hate crimes can be prosecuted even if they consisted of verbal abuse.

Bullying is a hot-button issue now, partly due to some high-profile cases in which susceptible students were verbally harassed to the point where they killed themselves.

I don't know any Goths at all, but this can be explained by demographic means: Goths are vanishingly rare among my age group [60 and up]. Survivor bias is probably not an explanation, as the concept of Gothicness came along when my generation was far too old to apply for membership. Maybe there are some would-be goths among my generation, but the younger Goths discriminate against them. That would be discrimination based on age, which is illegal, but it's unlikely that those discriminated against were denied jobs or apartments or seats on busses because they weren't Goths.

The question is, then, whether Goth-bashing people prosecuted for hate crimes would be more or less likely to go out and bash someone else if they weren't stopped? I think they would likely be walking time bombs. Loose cannons. Free-floating hostility always manages to erupt, regardless of whether there is any logical target for it to erupt against.

the particular Goth that has sparked this debate was kicked to death. For dressing in black and having a pale complexion.

It's a difficult question. On the one hand, being beaten up for dressing like that is harsh. Being beaten to death though? On the other hand, you can change how you dress, but you can't change the things to which hate crimes currently apply.

Oh, dear!

"It's a difficult question. On the one hand, being beaten up for dressing like that is harsh. Being beaten to death though?"

Yeah, it's murder. Plain and simple. A horrible, horrible murder. But a hate crime?

>>It allows for harsher punishments of racists, homophobes and the like.<<



Sophie Lancaster was one of the 'and the like' - the 5 teenagers that attacked her, attacked her *because* she was a Goth.

In my book that's a hate crime, that's one of the 'and the like'

I think a lot of the point of asking for it to be made a hate crime is that, yes, there ARE laws against kicking someone to death. And lots of other things. But the punishments don't seem to put people off.

What happened to the ones who killed that Goth (a young woman, wasn't it?)

The Goth (and punk and emo etc etc) subculture is a huge thing in a lot of people's lives, similar to a religion to them. Perhaps we really ought to recognise that in law?

(of course, as an ex-goth I am very sympathetic to this topic)

I still think it's murder not a hate crime
people will use anything to single someone else out,
in this horrid case it just happens to be how someone dressed
if and I hope it will be, the law is as it should be they will go to prison for a number of years for murder
they are murderers calling it a hate crime somewhat dilutes that in my opinion
murder is murder is murder. I for one hope they dont get a soft / short sentence (sometimes I am horrified by how short a prison term some people get) but don't call it something else. they are murderers and thats what they should have to live with

it's a tricky one. I can't really decide what I think about this.

But, I have to say, if we change the attribute from Goth to Woman. Or Muslim. Or disabled - that makes it a hate crime. So, why is Goth different?

On the cycling oriented forums I frequent this has sparked a debate about whether cyclists should get some protection related to this (not sure it's protection, more retribution ).

You'd be surprised how much vitriol you can get for no apparent reason just for daring to venture onto the road on a human powered vehicle with two wheels, and our adversaries are armed with a tonne of metal cage with an engine... rather than just fists, elbows and boots.

Not sure I really go with it all really because in the end there are many minority groups and many s out there who wlll go for *anyone* they feel is different and (more importantly) weaker and more vulnerable than them.

I suspect there's adequate law out there already to deal with this - it just needs to be enforced.

The reason/excuse for attacking anyone should be immaterial.Everyone provided they are doing nothing illegal and are not infringing anyone's rights should be able to be what they like,wear what they like,be tall,fat,thin,short,ginger,blonde,male,female,gay and belong to any racial group without the expectation of being attacked because of someone's bigotry to anyone choosing to be different.

Excuses and reasons are only for the family and friends who have lost a much loved one.Excuses are not important in a courtroom and should play no part in any charges or sentences.

This is just so the police can look as if they are actually doing something.It's a pointless exercise.

"So, why is Goth different?"

Put it this way. If someone is beaten to death because they're ginger, support the wrong football team, are a bit posh, are a bit common, should that not be a hate crime? Why is Goth different?

Hate crime's always seemed a bit daft, but I can sort of see the point of it for homophobia/racism/etc. But this just strikes me as odd. Why pick out a single subculture and say "YOU! IN THE BLACK EYELINER! YOU ARE WORTHY OF SPECIAL LEGAL STATUS THAT WE SHALL DENY TO THE KID IN THE PARKA AND THE OTHER KID IN THE TRACKIES."

I thought Smacking a Goth was a euphemism.

Seriously though, you can call it a hate crime, and it's not unlike homophobic bullying, but how should policing, sentencing, legislation be changed as a result?

The victim was attacked *because* of their identity and lifestyle choices and therefore highlighting this reflects that such choices are valid and upheld by society.

If a minority group are singled out for attack it's right that they should be singled out for protection.

If you wish to build a house and there’s a lonely hanging from some tree, you’d probably have your application denied in favour of the ‘s right to be

Only follows if you dress like one your entitled to special treatment too

> If a minority group are singled out for attack it's right that they should be singled out for protection.

True. If there's a trend. Is there?

Reading the article, it looks like that's what they're trying to find out. There are no plans to change the actual hate crimes register. The police will merely be recording statistics on anti-goth crimes in the same way as they do for hate crimes. That seems eminently sensible.

TRiG.

Police being sensible. *faints*