BBC Headline: Arson attack 'racially motivated'

[Woodchuck2000]

Linky

Two questions.

1) What has happened to journalistic standards?

But Syeda's father, Syed Sorafot Ali, 76, of Churchill Street, died from a suspected heart attack after rushing to the scene and later died.

2) Why does the motivation for the crime matter? It really annoys me that in current reportage, crimes which are 'race hate' are somehow worse than others. Is it intrinsically worse for a white man to attack a black man than for a white man to attack another white man? Could someone please explain this as I've obviously missed the point...

[Sinizter]

Because everyone else is better than white people following the PC logic round here.

[nichomach]

Oh, crap. One of the most recent convictions for a racially motivated attack was of some Asian thugs for killing a white lad. Contrary to what the "It's political correctness gone mad!" propagandists would have you believe, it's perfectly possible for someone to be convicted for a racially motivated attack on a white person - LINKY. And as the head of the CRE in Scotland stated:

Let's be absolutely clear about this - racially motivated crime can occur against anybody, whatever their race or ethnic background.
The murder of Kriss Donald was callous and brutal, and the racial motivation was clear adding to the horrific nature of the crime.
Throughout the long and harrowing process of achieving justice Kriss's family has acted with dignity and local communities have stood together in solidarity, proving a strong example of how racial hatred must not be used as a divisive weapon.

[Rave]

Quite. In fact the BNP attempted to appropriate the Kriss Donald case for their own ends and were quickly condemned by his mother- which I find enormously admirable, given the utterly horrific fate which befell her poor son. I'm not entirely confident that I wouldn't fall victim to blind hatred in similar circumstances.

2) Why does the motivation for the crime matter?

Well, either you commit a violent crime against another person because you have a personal grievance with them- or you do it out of hatred born out of pure prejudice. Neither is acceptable, but in the first case there may (note may) be mitigating circumstances. In the second case there are none.

It really annoys me that in current reportage, crimes which are 'race hate' are somehow worse than others. Is it intrinsically worse for a white man to attack a black man than for a white man to attack another white man? Could someone please explain this as I've obviously missed the point...

Indeed you have, as Nicho has just pointed out.

[Woodchuck2000]

Oh, crap. One of the most recent convictions for a racially motivated attack was of some Asian thugs for killing a white lad. Contrary to what the "It's political correctness gone mad!" propagandists would have you believe, it's perfectly possible for someone to be convicted for a racially motivated attack on a white person - LINKY. And as the head of the CRE in Scotland stated:

I'm entirely aware that 'race hate' crimes can take place against white people - the example in my original post was purely illustrative.

I still don't understand how the racial motivation in the example you give was "clear [sic] adding to the horrific nature of the crime".

If someone is murdered, that is a horrific crime. There may be mitigating circumstances irrespective of the race of the participants and these can be taken into account. What you appear to be saying however, is that a racial motivation makes the crime worse. If a person murders another of the same race in a random act of unprovoked violence, is that by definition less of a crime than a person murdering another out of some racial motive?

What I'm suggesting is that for two (hypothetical) identical murders in terms of circumstance and outcome, a racial motivation should not change the relative severity of the crime or indeed affect the sentence.

[nichomach]

Woodchuck, you might be aware of that, but Sinizter clearly wasn't, and I replied in order to make it clear that that was the case.

As to your second point, I assume that the evidence given in the course of the trial - LINK
- comprising

Eyewitness accounts of the abduction, statements said to have been made by the accused, mobile phone records and forensic evidence...

were sufficient to make clear the racial motivation to the satisfaction of the jury.

With regard to your latter points, it has long been the case that factors such as motivation, premeditation, the vulnerability of the victim etc. may be taken to have aggravated the offence and are considered when sentencing. For instance, the murder of a police officer will generally attract harsher sentencing as will the murder of a child. Partly, this reflects moral outrage, and partly it is a matter of public policy to make clear that certain kinds of behaviour will not be tolerated. Racial motivation has merely been added to that list as a potentially aggravating factor that is of relevance when determining either the sentence or in the case of murder the minimum time that must be served before an offender is eligible to apply for release on life license.

If your position is that all people who commit the same nominal offence should receive the same sentence regardless of considerations such as the nature of the victim, the level of premeditation, or their motivation for carrying out the offence, that is of course a view, but one with which I respectfully disagree. I believe that it should be possible to take factors like these into consideration as aggravating or mitigating when sentencing, to make clear the contempt in which society holds such aggravating factors, or to ntemper justice with mercy where there are mitigating factors.

[SteveC]

If someone is murdered, that is a horrific crime.

....

What I'm suggesting is that for two (hypothetical) identical murders in terms of circumstance and outcome, a racial motivation should not change the relative severity of the crime or indeed affect the sentence.

Agreed completely, assuming the murders are identical in terms of circumstance and outcome, and those are both known for certain.

My thinking is that if circumstances or outcome are unclear, establishing such a motivation might act as a counter-argument to those suggesting that other factors affecting the case are predominant.

Racially motivated crimes do imply a sense of premeditation. Additionally, if a murder is 100% racially motivated, it cannot be motivated by anything else, which might potentially be considered a mitigating factor.

If that makes sense.

[nichomach]

Do you mean mitigating or aggravating, Steve?

[badass]

Motivation is a very important point in a lot of law.
Take theft for instance.
"To dishonestly apprapriate with the intention to permanently deprive"
If you accidentally dont pay for something, you are not guilty of theft.
In the same way, the motivation matters for sentencing when someone commits murder.
Surely you must agree that someone that murders someone purely because of their race deserves harsher punishment than someone who accidentally kills someone they just wanted to shut up with a nice hook as they were giving them verbal abuse.
Personally, I would rate racially motivated murder as even with any other murder when someone murders for no good reason e.g. not liking the look of the victim or just looking to murder anyone.

[Woodchuck2000]

Motivation is a very important point in a lot of law.
...
Surely you must agree that someone that murders someone purely because of their race deserves harsher punishment than someone who accidentally kills someone they just wanted to shut up with a nice hook as they were giving them verbal abuse.

I do indeed agree with that example.

Personally, I would rate racially motivated murder as even with any other murder when someone murders for no good reason e.g. not liking the look of the victim or just looking to murder anyone.

That's the position I'm attempting to adopt herein...

[Woodchuck2000]

With regard to your latter points, it has long been the case that factors such as motivation, premeditation, the vulnerability of the victim etc. may be taken to have aggravated the offence and are considered when sentencing. For instance, the murder of a police officer will generally attract harsher sentencing as will the murder of a child. Partly, this reflects moral outrage, and partly it is a matter of public policy to make clear that certain kinds of behaviour will not be tolerated. Racial motivation has merely been added to that list as a potentially aggravating factor that is of relevance when determining either the sentence or in the case of murder the minimum time that must be served before an offender is eligible to apply for release on life license.

If your position is that all people who commit the same nominal offence should receive the same sentence regardless of considerations such as the nature of the victim, the level of premeditation, or their motivation for carrying out the offence, that is of course a view, but one with which I respectfully disagree. I believe that it should be possible to take factors like these into consideration as aggravating or mitigating when sentencing, to make clear the contempt in which society holds such aggravating factors, or to ntemper justice with mercy where there are mitigating factors.

I'm certainly not arguing that no mitigating or aggravating circumstances should be considered in the dispensation of justice. What I'm suggesting is that a racial motive should not be on the list.

I would suggest that including a 'racial motive' as a potential aggravating factor within our society's justice system serves to reinforce the idea that people of different races should be treated differently. The current media fetish for labelling people when reporting a story is dangerous and irresponsible and sets individual facets of our community against each other. It portrays violence between two people as violence between racial or religious groups - "Black against White" or "Muslim against Christian", for example, rather than as an isolated incident between two individuals.

To support this division in our justice system codifies racial distinctions and, in my opinion, gives license for friction between racial groups where none should exist.

[Taz]

So if someone paints a swastika on a war grave, should racial motivation be taken into account? Or should it just be treated as grafitti?

[badass]

So if someone paints a swastika on a war grave, should racial motivation be taken into account? Or should it just be treated as grafitti?

Its vandalism. Plain and simple. The fact its a swastika and on a War grave are aggravating factors.
TBH I dont see the connection to race there.
If it was a Swastika on jewish grave that might be different.

[nichomach]

I would suggest that including a 'racial motive' as a potential aggravating factor within our society's justice system serves to reinforce the idea that people of different races should be treated differently. The current media fetish for labelling people when reporting a story is dangerous and irresponsible and sets individual facets of our community against each other. It portrays violence between two people as violence between racial or religious groups - "Black against White" or "Muslim against Christian", for example, rather than as an isolated incident between two individuals.

To support this division in our justice system codifies racial distinctions and, in my opinion, gives license for friction between racial groups where none should exist.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse, Woodchuck; the fact that there are racially motivated or aggravated crimes serves to prove that people are ALREADY de facto being treated differently on the basis of race, and that the savagery of assaults and even murders is being exacerbated by that. Consequently, the law is not "treating people differently" according to race, it's stating that race should not be a factor in how we treat people, and is enforcing that by regarding racial aggravation or motivation as a factor which should be treated as aggravating the basic offence. In essence, the law is saying that we should treat people equally regardless of race, and heaven help you if you don't. Bear in mind that the racial aggravation of an offence must ALSO be proved beyond reasonable doubt for that to be a factor; it isn't being assumed, it's being proven.

It's also worth noting, again, that a victim of a racially aggravated offence may be of ANY race (including, as shown above, white British); so on that basis, the law isn't drawing a distinction or division between racial groups, it's applying the same standard to all. If you are the victim of a crime, and that crime was aggravated or motivated by your race or ethnicity, whatever that may be, the law will deal with the offender particularly harshly. I'm perfectly happy that the law underscores the point that whatever your race, colour, ethnicity etc. you should not be made a victim of crime for it, and the law will regard any such victimisation particularly harshly.

In that sense, the only division it draws is between society and racist scumbags of whatever colour.

[Flibb]

What about murderers that prey on kids, women, gays, etc?? in all of these cases they are picking a single "type" of person.

The reasoning behind treating racially motivated crime differently, is that it is ment to encourage others to act the same.

[true786]

Firstly,

Its not the specific groups of people (asians,blacks etc) fault that the media chose to write that its a racially motivated attack.

Secondly an attack on a white person from an asian or black guy is just as much a racialy motivated attack.

As an Asian, If i saw a group of black or asian youths attacking a white person or anyone for that matter I wouldnt stand for it.

Also dont you think its important to know why certain attacks happend? For example by stating 'racially' motivated attack, atleast shows us that their is still some work to do in our communities to stem racism. And the same goes for homophobic attacks or any other types of attacks.

Education is the key not ignorance. Its not the publics fault the media is a pile of pi$$.