If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Hate Crimes
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Why is there a need to differentiate certain crimes as to the motiviation of the crime?
So a person gets assaulted for being gay. Why is that different from being assaulted for any other reason.
Prejudice shouldn't be illegal. ALL acts that violate a person's rights should be clamped down.
So a person gets assaulted for being gay. Why is that different from being assaulted for any other reason.
Prejudice shouldn't be illegal. ALL acts that violate a person's rights should be clamped down.
0
Comments
Another example. Some teen attacked this Muslim woman for being a Muslim. Again. That's not their call. Religious freedom is a core American value so the attack was an attack on a person and on a core American value we protect...and have fought other countries to protect.
Murder is illegal and society states its wrong to murder.
The MOTIVATION behind a crime should NOT be in question. Harm and the violation of rights is still caused IRRESPECTIVE of the motivation behind the crime.
And the values of the country are being violated.
That isn't prejudice, it's discrimination and if we made that legal what sort of world would we live in!
All assaults should be clamped down on, I don't think that a homophobic attack necessarily worse that a normal attack,
but it's important to differentiate motivations in order to fight crime.
Would it? I think a person has a RIGHT to be prejudiced, as long as they don't violate the rights of others.
Is it? The result is still the same. A person is still hurt physically and emotionally as a result of the attack.
you're more likely to be effective in fighting crime. I don't think gay people, black people etc deserve special treatment but I don't see a problem with calling an attack a hate crime.
Of course they don't deserve special treatment.
Then if someone attacks someone on the grounds of prejudice surely they are violating that person's right to live freely and safely?
Of course motivations behind crimes need to be recognised and monitored. If motivation is understood then the crime could be tackled and the criminal dealt with accordingly.
Well duh. That's not the point.
Ummm....so therefore isn't it vital to differeniate between crimes, especially those with prejudice involved? Like the example you stated.
You're the one without a point here.
Crimes are committed due to very different motivations, so to understand crime it is vital to differentiate. For example gbh; someone may be attacked because the criminal is drunk, or wanting to steal from that person, or the victim is black and the attacked is racist, or the victim is gay and the attacked is homophobic, or the victim is a woman and the attacker was trying to rape them etc.
So you're saying the motivation for crime is irrelevant?
A hate crime should not 'worse' than another simply because prejudice is involved. The effects are still the same.
Now if in general a crime goes up in frequency...then again the crime is impacting on society. But it doesn't happen with the first crime against an individual. Hate crimes impact on society from the first crime.
Hmm..depends what the crime involved. Whatever the motivation behind the crime, the victim is still left traumatised.
However I think crimes fuelled by prejudice need to be differentiated because otherwise prejudice can never be eradicated (not that it ever will be though...). If you've got someone attacking people just because they are gay, it is different to someone attacking people to steal their bag.
I don't think hate crimes impact on 'society'.
You fail to realise that many crimes 'harm' society and its values. Hate crimes are no different in that regard.
That is why all different crimes and the motivations behind them need to be individually recognised because they all harm society in different ways.
There is a difference and I agree that it can have an impact upon society, usually in the shape of moral panic, fear or accusations.
Since America is 80% White. Do you think the same conclusions could be drawn by White people? How. We know we're the majority...and have to be welcome in America.
You never saw the riots on the Caer Park estate against assylum seekers then did you. It took one or two lads to kick off on some Iraqi people and of course, as narrow minded and sheep-like this world is, about thirty (at least) joined in. Hate crimes and prejudice have an impact on people, it acts as an influence that is passed down generation to generation.
Ok, so a friend of mine came in to work today with stitches in his face because somebody had beat him up in a club toilet. Do you honestly think it's Ok to beat somebody up just because of say... their sexuality?
Indeed, cracking down on hate crimes may seem oppressive if you want to go "paki-bashing" or whatever, but at the same time (and for once I'm agreeing with the police and the government) this enforcement is acting as a tool to teach people to stop being so petty and to open their minds to see that they're not the only skin colour/race/sexuality that has any rights in this world.
The difference between somebody going out and beating a person for being black and somebody going out and beating a person for stealing their girl is that the racist person will in all likelihood re-offend, beat up another black person for the sake of their skin colour.
It doesn't impact on society? Where the fuck do you get your info from kid? Because the riot happened one night, it was planned for the BNP and national Front to come down to Wrexham to start another riot. Hey, if you're going to say stuff, back it up with relevent information.
How do I know about the riots? I work behind a popular bar and get a lot of information on the area reguarding the riots. I've seen gangs of lads threaten my brother because of his sexuality. Otherwise he could walk around fine without being too scared to go through certain areas of Wrexham.
Sorry Monocrat, but back it up with more than three sentences and a relevent link, then maybe I'll think you have an educated opinion on the matter.
Prejudice will always exist. It's knowing when not to violate the rights of others that is paramount here.