|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 14, 2024 8:03:42 GMT
Assault remains illegal whatever the motivation. However the law now tries to add additional protection (and deterrent) for some groups who have historically been attacked simply because of their group identification. Makes absolute sense even if we don't agree doesn't it ? Rog It makes absolute sense if you ignore, for example, equality of justice between the sentencing for someone convicted of a hate crime vs. someone convicted of an identical crime not considered to be one of 'hate'.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Apr 14, 2024 8:07:46 GMT
If the black man attacks a white man simply because he believes him to be Jewish or gay (for example) and his motivation is to attack that group rather than that man ?
Anyway details now emerging indicate the assailant's motive in the Australian attack is connected to his mental state.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 14, 2024 8:13:21 GMT
The attack might be connected to his mental state but that doesn't diminish the terror the victims felt when they were being attacked, I would imagine.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Apr 14, 2024 8:22:05 GMT
Assault remains illegal whatever the motivation. However the law now tries to add additional protection (and deterrent) for some groups who have historically been attacked simply because of their group identification. Makes absolute sense even if we don't agree doesn't it ? Rog It makes absolute sense if you ignore, for example, equality of justice between the sentencing for someone convicted of a hate crime vs. someone convicted of an identical crime not considered to be one of 'hate'. If you and I have an argument resulting in you breaking my nose, it is an assault and the circumstances would be examined to see what justification or provocation may have prompted the assault ... this evidence may affect charging and indeed sentencing. If you attack me breaking my nose having chosen me at random because you believe me to be a gay man , this evidence may also affect charging and sentencing. The second case , whilst an identical assault is aggravated by the hate of a specific group and may, subject to the evidence be considered a more serious offence because of that. In the same way if I commit burglary at your home I can be arrested and charged. If whilst committing the burglary I carry a weapon this fact aggravates the charge and I may be liable to a more serious sentence. Rog
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Apr 14, 2024 8:22:47 GMT
The attack might be connected to his mental state but that doesn't diminish the terror the victims felt when they were being attacked, I would imagine. On that we are in total agreement. Rog
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 14, 2024 8:27:31 GMT
Yes the state can only make policy that makes interventions at the macro level, not the individual level. People often confuse themselves by not understanding this difference. Going back to the core point, do you consider that the law that makes it a more serious offence to violently attack ambulance crew or firefighters at work, is also misguided and unfair? I do. Also the new proposed law for shopworkers. Nobody deserves to be beaten up. Equally. Whatever their job is. It's unjust to vary a punishment tariff based on the job of the victim. Going back to the original point I could concede that a greater deterrent may have some value to society, for a limited term. When the youngsters of today grow up though, no longer beating up homosexuals, any such differentials should be removed. An equal society needs to have the same rules for all. A tiered society, with certain groups having special privileges, isn't an equal society. Well we will just have to disagree on those several points. No-one deserves to be beaten up, but when those beaten up are public service workers (ambulance crew, firefighters etc) and they are beaten up simply because they are going about their work trying to help the public, it makes good sense to give them increased protections because otherwise there is a risk that those people with conclude that itβs too dangerous and scary to be one of those public service workers, and then society has a problem that no-one want to be ambulance crew or a firefighter. And there is of course also the cost to the public purse from such people being off sick with injury, damage to public property (the vehicles) etc. And more basically it sends a message that society considers it particularly socially unacceptable to perpetrate such attacks. Regarding your last point, it seems you still donβt get the concept of the rules vs the outcomes. A disabled person is entitled to benefits (the rules) so they can have roughly the same minimum living standard as an able person (the outcome). Do you consider it unfair that a disabled person gets money from the State whereas hard working people donβt? From your previous arguments it seems to fall out that you consider this to be unfair because the State is treating different categories of citizens differently.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 14, 2024 8:28:39 GMT
Well it is usually fairly obvious when they shout βfuck you nigger/paki/queer/jewboy/trannyβ etc etc. It is not a hate crime simply because the victim had a protected characteristic, it is only a hate crime if the attack was clearly driven by hatred of the protected characteristic. Obviously! So an attack on someone who does not have a characteristic is not driven by hate ? What is the driver for a violent maniac to attack someone for no reason? It does sometimes happen but you are saying there is no hate involved. Does the attacker in the circumstance in fact like the person they are attacking? I have explained this previously.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 14, 2024 8:30:10 GMT
I have a protected characteristic under the equality act (Ass burgers syndrome diagnosed in 2003). If someone beat me up at a bus stop but they happened to be unaware that I had a protected characteristic would it be a hate crime? Whereas if they initially shouted 'stop talking you irritating aspie' before doing the beating up it would be a hate crime. Not all disabilities are visible. Does a hate crime need to have a prelude of shouting or abusive language indicating the hate? No, yes, yes and no. There can be indications other than shouting abuse that it is a hate crime.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 14, 2024 8:32:46 GMT
If a black man attacks a white man it's very unlikely to be considered a hate crime. Can you cite any evidence for this? Iβm not necessarily saying it isnβt true but one should try to avoid making unsubstantiated statements to justify an argument point especially when they carry a hint of racial profiling. And anyway, lots of attacks are for reasons other than hate of a protected characteristic. So what?
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 14, 2024 8:34:17 GMT
Assault remains illegal whatever the motivation. However the law now tries to add additional protection (and deterrent) for some groups who have historically been attacked simply because of their group identification. Makes absolute sense even if we don't agree doesn't it ? Rog It makes absolute sense if you ignore, for example, equality of justice between the sentencing for someone convicted of a hate crime vs. someone convicted of an identical crime not considered to be one of 'hate'. This is irrational, the two crimes cannot be identical if they are different.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 14, 2024 8:35:23 GMT
If the black man attacks a white man simply because he believes him to be Jewish or gay (for example) and his motivation is to attack that group rather than that man ? Anyway details now emerging indicate the assailant's motive in the Australian attack is connected to his mental state. Rog And it has to be mentioned that there are a lot of homophobic black people around! Like most of Africa!
|
|
|
Post by β on Apr 14, 2024 9:06:21 GMT
I avoid buses anyway so it should be okay.
|
|
|
Post by ianali on Apr 14, 2024 10:15:41 GMT
I avoid buses anyway so it should be okay. I also avoid buses. Get some very odd passengers on them.
|
|
|
Post by fi on Apr 14, 2024 10:26:09 GMT
I often travel by bus...
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Apr 14, 2024 12:04:01 GMT
Me too ... although I have to accept I'm very odd π
Rog
|
|