(no subject)
Jun. 2nd, 2009 06:44 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Have posted a few links over at
seeingred about the attacks on Indian overseas students here in Australia, which have included a petrol bomb and a stabbing that has left a student in critical condition. (I'd love to think the violence was just a Melbourne thing, but I'm very worried it's affecting more than one group of visible OS students and more than one city.) Anywho, for me, the most hopeful was The Age's report that the Victorian A-G is pushing for hate crime laws, which would increase sentences for crimes motivated by homophobia, sexism, and religious prejudice, as well as racism.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
no subject
Date: 2009-06-02 10:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-02 10:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-02 11:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-02 12:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-02 10:48 am (UTC)I believe that people should be made to answer for their actions. I don't believe that people should be made to answer for their thoughts.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-02 10:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-02 11:05 am (UTC)OTOH, a hate crime affects far more people than just the victim of that crime - and it's intended to.
Hmm.
Isn't that the definition of an act of terrorism? As I understand it, a hate crime is one motivated by a dislike for the different. Whether anyone else is affected doesn't seem to have entered into it in the cases that I've read (which is, admittedly, a very small sample).
no subject
Date: 2009-06-02 11:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-02 11:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-02 12:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-02 12:39 pm (UTC)If person A bashes person B, motivation should be considered in the sentence, not in terms of the charge.
From a purely practical point of view, I cannot see how being able to charge an alleged offender with (for example) both assault and a hate crime is going to make things better for the victim or necessarily worse for the alleged offender - or, more importantly from a big picture POV, reduce the likelihood of similar future assaults.
IMHO, in order to reduce the level of violence in a society, more prevention (through campaigns and law enforcement visibility), better complaint clear-up rates (through increased law enforcement patrols and investigations) and better conviction rates (through more effective investigations and prosecutions) are key.
Philosophically, I think it's inappropriate to criminalise a point of view, even one with which I'm vehemently in disagreement.
Finally, is it ethical to seek what is effectively a two-tier justice system - one level of prosecution for offenders targeting victims either randomly or specifically aiming at members of the majority, and another level of prosecution for offenders targeting members of a minority? Shouldn't we seek equality of opportunity for members of minorities, rather than discrimination, preferential or otherwise?
no subject
Date: 2009-06-02 01:11 pm (UTC)(A violent bigot specifically targetting Christians would be aiming at a majority, but would still be affected by a hate crime law which covered religious beliefs, as the proposed Victorian law does.)
no subject
Date: 2009-06-02 11:30 pm (UTC)