Shouldn’T Something Like This Be Recorded As A Hate Crime?

[sp1814]

There is an argument to suggest that random violent attacks should not be categorised as hate crimes, even when the crime is obviously driven by hate (as the details here suggest):

https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertsamaha/the-town-without-a-hate-crime?utm_term=.laxGMBAQ7E#.laxGMBAQ7E

Is Indiana right not to recognise hate crimes? Does this give succour to those who may wish to spend their evenings randomly attacking a fifteen year old child who’s mere presence upsets them so much that they need to put them in hospital?

[sp1814]

'allegedly'.

[EDDIE51]

The problem with 'Hate Crime' is that an attack on a person of one ethnicity or religion by a person of a different ethnicity or religion can be treated more harshly than one where victim and perpetrator are of the same racial / religious group. That to me is wrong and actually increases racial / religious tension. It also involves extra investigation to establish if the motive was 'Hate' or just ordinary plain aggressiveness.

[sp1814]

EDDIE51

The difference between hate crime and other violent attacks is that the perpetrator has singled out someone because of a specific trait. If the general population have a 1/150,000 of a violent assault, but specific demographics run the same risk but additionally have a greater risk because of their age, sex, gender, race, religion isn't it fair that the law should recognise this?

[woofgang]

I agree. I think its as bad to attack someone for any reason. It may be that there are good statistical reasons for keeping count of attacks against specific members of society but it shouldn't result in different sentencing.

[Jackdaw33]

A crime is a crime is a crime, irrespective of motivation. IMO Indiana is showing common sense.

[kvalidir]

Yes of course it should. I don't think it ought to take any really deep thinking to understand that beating someone up because they've done something to tick you off is less serious than beating someone up because they are black, Jewish, gay, a woman, an immigrant etc, but apparently I see to be in the minority thinking that on this thread, but surely it's glaringly obvious.

[woofgang]

Why? I mean surely beating someone up is plain wrong whatever the reason? I get that if there was legitimate provocation then that might be taken into account. But why is it worse to do it because of someones race/colour/religion/gender than "because he looked at me funny" or "I wanted his wallet and he wouldn't give it to me"

[naomi24]

The assailant has been charged with ‘assault’.
Does specified motivation call for a more serious charge? I’m not sure. Regardless of motivation the injury inflicted would have been the same.

[vetuste_ennemi]

// If the general population have a 1/150,000 of a violent assault, but specific demographics run the same risk but additionally have a greater risk because of their age, sex, gender, race, religion isn't it fair that the law should recognise this?//

Why? To what end? How is "greater risk" (with all the fine calibrations of "age, sex, gender, race and religion" to be accommodated) measured? And by whom?

[sp1814]

v_e

That would be easy - measured by statistics which will reveal the likelihood of an attack. However it wouldn't include random attacks, but attacks that where the assailant was targeting a specific group.

I think the danger in not categorising hate crimes is that when sentences, the attacker is treated like a normal human being. And normal human beings don't attack without at least some provocation.

Think about it this way - 'normal' attacks will have driver which could be money, football rivalry, robbery, jealousy etc.

There is a reason for them and we can all be a victim of such attacks. But over and above that, there are people who want to kill or physically hurt others on top of that. I think that these special cases should be treated specially, because they go outside what is normal. We all have the potential within us to get into a fight with someone who cuts us up in their car.

Few of us have the propensity to walk up behind someone and hit them repeatedly over the back of the head because we do not approve of their race.

That's why I think hate crime is a special category of violent crime.

[woofgang]

Sorry, can’t agree. Attacking people because they are different is one of the oldest reasons of all.

[Spicerack]

//to walk up behind someone and hit them repeatedly over the back of the head because we do not approve of their race. //

Ah, it's becoming clearer now.

[Spicerack]

If some of us are more equal than others, it follows that some are less equal.
If I got beat up (lol, couldn't happen), why should it matter less than someone else (you perhaps) getting beaten up.
Amongst all the awful laws 'the terror' inflicted on us, this stands out as one of the worst, imo.

[Old_Geezer]

Apart from gathering information on the perpetrator, I don't see the point of labelling a crime a 'hate crime' in order to treat it differently. A victim is still a victim no matter what excuse a perpetrator has. Until it can be justified I'm unconvinced there should be such a category. Are some crimes labelled 'love crimes' ?

[Haggisdj]

sp1814

What is the difference between attacking someone because of their colour/relegion and attacking someone because of the football team that they support?

[Old_Geezer]

Your justification seems to relate to why a victim might be targeted, not to the specific incident and so isn't particularly helpful in dealing with the specific incident.

Tolerance or acceptance of traits within society is a seperate issue and needs to be dealt with as such. Tying it in to specific crimes, such that one victim sees their attacker treated differently to another, simply "muddies the water" and is unfair to those attacked who don't get their incident labeled.

[youngmafbog]

The problem with a 'hate crime' is where is the line. Religion, race, gand/turf, belief, political support, where is it?

Personally I think an attack is an attack, regardless of motive. Keep records if you like for stats (but they can just be bent to suit any agenda) but dont treat the crime any different. Come down hard on all.

[anotheoldgit]

I agree that if a person goes out specifically to beat someone up simply because they are black/ white homosexual etc, then that should be classed a hate crime.

But you could have a situation where there are two people one white and straight the other black and gay who were mates and they have an argument which ends up with the white straight punching the black gay chap, would it be fair to class that a 'hate crime'?

[youngmafbog]

Or a black fella punches a white fella at a football match. Is that because of hatred of the other fella team or racial because he hates whites?

It is a nonsense classification.

[Togo]

I hate the "haters".....................Is that a hate crime?