Hate Crimes? Thought Crimes? Crimethink?

We don't use the term, but if a normal crime involves an offence against a protected group such as gays or blacks AND the crime was motivated by their sexual or racial hatred of them, it then becomes an aggravating factor - ie makes it more serious.That seems quite right to me, laws are intended to guide moral behaviour, they signal society's disapproval of various acts and are used to promote its values.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

It seems that your society also disapproves in the same way.The application of the law is not purely for purposes of punishment - it also tries to rehabilitate, to protect society from further harm and to deter. It signals the behaviours it requires of its citizens through the penalties it places on the crime.If its lawmakers have decided that a particular crime requires special treatment in order to rid society of it, it does that by increasing the penalty and signalling its displeasure.Crime against individuals simply because of the colour of their skin or their sexual preferences or because they are a particular sex is something our societies have decided it doesn't want. So it increases the normal penalty to demonstrate that. It's a perfectly usual approach to sentencing.If a teenager punched another teenager on the nose and another teenager punched a blind pensioner on the nose, the second offence would catch a steeper penalty than the first for exactly the same crime.I doubt you would question that. It's the same logic. We judge the harm higher in the second than the first because we find it far more objectionable.

I can't speak for the US but in the UK, society does not disaprove of hate crime more than other crime, it's not a crime itself, it's an aggravating factor ontop of the basic crime. So a simple common assault has a penalty, if that assault was caused by the offender's dislike of Asian people, it would attract a higher punishment. That's because the law believes that the message "this society dislikes crimes against minorities and would like it to stop" needs to be heard. It's a label that increases the penalty for an offence.

What risk?

You're quite right.The assault offence is the 1861 Act, the racially/religiously aggravated assault offence is 1998. I'm now officially confused.The sentencing guidelines run both the 1861 act and the 1998 act into one. Statutory aggravating factors being disability and sex.Assault: Definitive guideline – SentencingIt's as though ordinary assault has been bumped up. But as I say, I'm now properly confused.

Then obviously not. Crime is an act that causes harm, not a thought that can't. If you punch someone because he's black, that's an act that causes harm. If you just think that you'd like to punch the guy, no one knows and no one is harmed.

Same here. But I think individual countries that have suffered genocidal tragedies can be forgiven for having enacted some very specific laws that are generally out of character.

The reason 'hate crime' has a higher sentence is because society has decided that racism and other isms are something that needs special treatment. It's a signal that society disaproves of it and is taking it seriously. In theory, the extra sentence is also a deterrence, though I doubt that it has any additional effect.

That's a contradiction. Something becomes a crime when a law is enacted. But I don't understand the point in any case. Society has agreed that discrimination against vulnerable people for religious, sexual and racist reasons is a wrong that they wish to put right and created laws to help them do that. It doesn't trivialise anything, murder is still atrocious. If you assault someone just because he's a homosexual it simply adds a further element of nastiness to the act which requires further punishment.

That's why no-one is punished for simply being a racist, it has to be associated with a physical act - punching someone just because they're black as an example. And I'm giving you the reasons why it was introduced - it was to combat things that we as a society believe to be wrongs that need to be specifically addressed. A very practical thing. Are you talking about a real case or an imaginary one? It seems to me that in both cases of deliberate, planned murder, both would get the maximum sentence.The race/religion/sex motivated offences are generally stand alone and judged on their own circumstances, the main sentence is calculated based on harm and seriousness plus the circumstances of the crime, victim and perpetrator. They're all different you'd find it hard to find a way of having your own crime 'trivialised'.But in any case, it makes no sense to say that it trivialises one offence by treating another one in a different way. That happens as a matter of course every day. A man stealing food to prevent starvation is not treated the same as one who steals purely to deprive.

I don't see much point simply repeating myself so I'll stop after this.Punching someone in the face is a crime. The punishment for that crime will depend on it's circumstances which vary enormously. There are mitigating an aggravating factors that are weighed up by the judge from punching in self-defence - where the offender will be found not guilty - to multiple punches causing large injury done to a vulnerable victim with premeditation in front of children etc. One such aggravating factor is a racist motivation. The reason that has been identified as an additional aggravating factor is because we know that racism and its consequences are something that we as a society want erradicated or at least reduced. One way is to point out that it will be treated more harshly. It's also a more general signal that we disapprove. Laws both relect and guide the values of our society.

What slippery slope argument? They are reviewd in court.

Only if you think punching a homosexual/black/disabled/vulnerable person in the mouth is a thought crime. In the UK it's called an aggravating factor which IS reveiwed in court. If it is found that the prime offence - punching someone in the mouth - was wholly or partially motivated by racial motives, then the punishment is made proportionally higher.But when you're talking of extreemly serious crimes like murder - which you seem to be most interested in - you've probably reached the maximum anyway. In your country you can only execute someone once, regardless of how much many would like to try.The criminal laws about discrimination are mostly applied to low level crimes of assault and public order - adding an uplift there generally is rather minor but does send a message.I think where it has a greater effect is in how likely a crime is to be prosecuted. A punch up outside a pub involving a racial element is more likely to be prosecuted than one between two drunk 'friends'. That's because our society has decided to deal with racism, homophobia and - as it happens, domestic violence - as social priorities.

All legal systems are socio-political - they are designed to show society's displeasure at certain activities and therefore do deliberately aim to socially-engineer. The concepts of deterrence and retribution are there to control anti-social activities. Laws reflect our values. This is generally regarded as 'a good thing'.At various points in time we decide to target particular crimes that we feel need special attention so we make old laws tougher or create new laws. Anti-terrorism is a new focus as is cybercrime. Knife crime here in the UK has been prioritised. Some laws are distinctly political - employment law and minimum pay regulations for example. Equality issues and crime against vulnerable victims are now given priority in an attempt to control discrimination. Most people wouldn't argue about most of this unless they have issues with government or particular policies.On the 'slippery slope' front, when hate crime becomes simply talking about disliking gay people in a mild and thoughtful fashion amongst likeminded individuals, causing no disturbance, there might be a point. For as long as it can only be an aggravating factor to a 'real' crime there's no problem.

Which of course is impossible and therefore never done even in the most repressive regimes. All crimes involve thought - when they don't, they are not crimes because the perpetrator is not mens reus and therefore can't be held responsible for their actions. Laws define actions we disaprove of. Most people agree with the principle. Thats the stuff of movies - a silly trivialisation, bumper sticker stuff. Hate crime law targets the actions of the actor, his thought are only known through his actions. He can think what he likes, he can say what he likes - within limits - but he can't beat someone up just because they're black, jewish, disabled or homosexual. Socity has said, up with this we will not put. And I agree.