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

From the Guardian article - 'alternative groups have often endured abuse.'

This certainly seems to fit Goths into the profile of groups against whom criminality should be seen as 'hate crime'.

It seems highly likely that Sophie Lancaster would be alive today if she had been blond and wearing a track suit rather than looking different and that seems to be central to police thinking. It was the motivation of the people who killed her that makes this a hate crime. In itself, I am comfortable with that thinking. Of course, it doesn't offer any extra protection. In the main, I maintain that when committing crime, people don't anticipate getting caught.

However, there are many areas in which motivation is simply not an issue. Theft for instance. If someone breaks into my car and steals my sat-nav it doesn't matter why they have done it. Whether the motivation is to sell it on to buy drugs or to keep it to use themselves, it is treated the same by police and courts.

If MY daughter, a white, blond, 'normal' looking businesswoman had been murdered in the same way as Sophie Lancaster, I don't suppose that I would have been left feeling any differently to Sophie's parents.

So I'm not sure how I feel about Goths, or anybody else being singled out as a group included as victims of hate crime.

PP.

and, of course, there is the argument that identifying them as a group with the potential to be victims of hate crime it reinforces the view that they ARE a group against which hate crime can be directed.

Or something.

I find it slightly ironic that punks are being included in this. They must have returned to their original roots because when I was a lad punks were more or less indiscernible from skinheads and were often the ones doing the beating up.

I've been going round in circles with this and this is what I have finally decided on

Using the case of Sophie Lancaster as an example as I see it two crimes were committed.

One was murder. This murder was also motivated by intolerance and prejudice and where intolerance and prejudice result in violence that is an additional crime not just against the individual but also the group of people that they identify with and society as a whole.
As such then I think there should be additional consequences to such a crime.

I think it would be difficult to define hate crimes against sub-cultures in law. Where do you draw the line, how do you define sub cultures etc but I *think* where you have leeway is when it comes to sentancing and this can be included as an aggrevating factor. I'm not sure that I have a full understanding of the law but this could be taken into account when sentancing and when it comes to parole

I think also there is more discretion in sentancing when it comes to charges like GBH and ABH.

This sends a message not only will we not tolerate violence, we, as a society will not tolerate the intolerance and prejudice that fuelled that violence

Classifying incidents as hate crimes is a good thing. It establishes the extent of the problem,it could identify 'hotspots' where people are vulnerable and raises awareness so wider actions can be taken to hopefully prevent such crimes from happening.

Sort of following on from Peanut. I think the question "Is Smacking a Goth a Hate Crime?" is too advanced for me.

The questions I am interested in before attempting to answering the titled question is

a) What was the point of introducing the term hate crime in the lexicon of British Law?
bi) Over what range of actions does the term apply? For example does it criminalise activities that would otherwise not be classified as a crime?
bii) At the other end of the range, where the crime of murder has been established, does the labelling of the murder as a hate crime actually make any difference to the sentencing?
c) Is the category of Hate Crime fit for purpose, i.e., is it meeting a society need (at least on balance)?
d) What range of categories should the term "Hate Crime" be applicable to?

By the way, the OP referred to 'smacking a Goth'.

Actually this cropped up because of an incident much more serious than that.

A young woman who looked 'different' whilst wearing 'uniform' that identified her as a member of a small identifiable group of people, was murdered without any other provocation.

You can read an account of the attack here - I warn you, it isn't an easy read:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sophie_Lancaster#Background

It is clear that this was an attack on people who were identified by their assailants as being 'different'.

My discomfort about the label 'hate crime' surrounds the fact that whatever it is called, it can't offer the victim any more protection.

PP.

there's a link in the OP and several other links from that which show the young lady in question. What seems very clear is that had she dressed differently she would still be alove.

I think, on balance, that a sub-culture is similar to but not the same as a lifestyle (such as a religion) and that what we need, generally, is more tolerance.

Whitby welcomes the goths at any rate. They look lovely for the most part, IMO.

I suspect that Whitby's attraction is the fabled Bram Stoker connection.

I wish that I had had the testicles to dress differently - although as a teenager, I uess that we all adopted appropriate 'uniform'. In my case it was loons and what went with them.

I am a great fan of Steam Punk and Frock coats. But suspect that there wiould be a certain prejudice in my workplace. I would certainly get the wee taken.

There is a Christian movement amongst Goths:-

http://christiangoth.com/

I suppose that I ought to say that Goths are Mostly Harmless.

PP.

PP, it may not offer extra protection directly but it pin points one reason why this happened.

One question that people ask is why an event like has happens. Some victims of crime and/or their families go on to campaign for changes in law or to promote preventive measures and awareness of whatever the issue is.

While this doesn't change what happened, or can't take away the grief, often you hear if this could prevent even one such event happening again it would be a measure of comfort.

By defining and acknowledging attacks on people who belong to different sub-cultures strengthens our hand when it comes to tackling a root cause through preventive measures, education, early intervention etc and if necessary harsher penalties

Please let's not make one kind of aggressive illegal act be more important than another because the person involved is of some subculture.That's like saying whites attacking a black person is more important than a white person attacking a white person.There can be no degrees of importance of any sort in murder/rape/GBH.The crimes should be treated and dealt with exactly the same immaterial of who or what the victim is.

As I said i tied myself in knots about this

The only way I could resolve it for myself was that crime wasn't more or less important, that it was motivated by intolerance or prejudice was additional to that. If that makes sense

I am by no means expert in the law, or even particulary knowledgable so please keep that in mind

I think though when it comes determining sentences things are taken into account

The defence will offer mitigating factors and the prosecution aggrevating ones and these should be taken into account

>That's like saying whites attacking a black person is more important than a white person attacking a white person.

Is that what proposed UK legislation says?

In the US, bias crime laws don't say that. What bias crime law here says is that whites attacking a black person *because he is black* is more henious than attacking him because you wanted his wallet, he flirted with your wife, or he looked at you funny. Because that kind of assault isn't just meant to harm the victim, it's meant to send a message to other members of the "out" group: "Hey, you (with the different colored skin / nose piercing / same sex partner / etc), we don't want your kind here. Stay under the radar, stay out of our way, or you're next".

Incidentally, bias crime is a federal offense in the US, so charges cannot be filed at the local level, so a local police department couldn't do something like what is proposed in the link in the OP over here. That may or may not inform my perspective on which "out" groups need protection and which don't. We had a case here some years ago where a teenage jock ran down another youth for being a member of a punk band. Since no one called in the Feds, no hate crime charges were filed (and the kid wound up being convicted only of vehicular manslaughter and sentenced to probation, anyway, so it likely wouldn't have resulted in any further consequences if there had been).

There's another thing that winds up the cycling afficianados - if you kill someone with your fists you get jail.
If you do it with a motor vehicle (even with intent apparently - depending on whether they can even be bothered to try and prosecute for that) you generally get a £50 fine and 3 points on your license.

Sad to see that the US seems to have this quirk of law rather the same as the UK.

(Sorry I know this is largely irrelevant to the topic at hand)

Richard Littlejohn's written a column saying this is a ridiculous move. I'm now off the fence and am totally behind classifying this as a hate crime.

That and convincing arguments presented in this thread.

"> 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?"

Statistically, probably not.... but statistics are dingo's kidneys at the best of times.

There was a case a few years ago where a couple were refused access to public transport because they were goths. There was also the infamous case in the US where teenage punk Brian Deneke was deliberately run over and killed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Brian_Deneke). There are undoubtedly other cases that don't get reported or commented on because this stuff isn't taken seriously.

I'm glad that Richard Littlejohn is against it, because that chases away any doubt I had as to the validity of the thing.

Richard Littlejohn becoming a rallying call for like minded folks?

I have misjudged him!

PP.

'In the US, bias crime laws don't say that. What bias crime law here says is that whites attacking a black person *because he is black* is more henious than attacking him because you wanted his wallet, he flirted with your wife, or he looked at you funny. Because that kind of assault isn't just meant to harm the victim, it's meant to send a message to other members of the "out" group: "Hey, you (with the different colored skin / nose piercing / same sex partner / etc), we don't want your kind here. Stay under the radar, stay out of our way, or you're next".'

Yes, that's an important aspect.

The OP also mentions attacks because of wearing a certain football shirt. And the above makes me wonder "well, shouldn't that be seen as a hate crime?" People have certainly been murdered brutally not because of anything to do with them personally, but because they are part of that group. (That's even leaving aside things like Celtic and Rangers, which has a whole additional layer of bigotry and bitterness).

What if it's the other way round? Who beats up who depends on numbers or willingness I guess. I used to get attacked by chavs all the time for being a skater but a few times the chavs got their maths wrong thinking they could mess with us and got it back just as bad if not worse. As a skater I was outnumbered 20-1 but it was more about oppertunity. The hate in these situations is mutual usually. I think if we are going to use statistics to define morality (a good plan) we should at least be bloody thorough about it.

I don't think motivation should play any part in the law. If it does we're anthropomorphising a system and no-one is morally consistent. What's the point of an inconsistent law?

Motive and intention already comes into the law, the difference between murder and manslaughter being the most obvious example

I don't regard this as inconsistant but flexibility.

I think there needs to be this flexibilty within the law that recognises the circumstances in which the crime occured and intention behind it

Ok then what.The sentencing is harder and heavier?Or it's a mitigating circumstance? What is the point?If it leads to some crimes being deemed more important than others it's wrong.In law all are equal.

It's why cop killers are treated the same as those who kill children,the elderly,the vulnerable.There are no distinctions made because murder is murder whatever the victim.