Sentencing, Murder and Hate Crimes

Guy who worked in first bar was gay btw - missed that bit

In no way am I denying the impact of crime. Never have done, never will.

But in asking a justice system to consider the impacts of crime as a primary or important, we create a hirearchy of victims.

To illustrate my point:

You get beaten up for being seen kissing a man, by some homophobic scumbags, you recover physically, recover mentally, move on with your life after a couple of weeks.

Same night, I get beaten up for being seen kissing a man, by some other homophobic scumbags, I recover physically, but suffer from problems leaving me unable to form nice relationships, withdraw emotionally and generally have a pretty bad time for many years.

Would I be right in saying that you see me as more of a victim than you in that scenario? Despite the fact that the crimes were identical. I think that's where we probably diverge in our views of how justice should be done.

Politicians will talk and give sympathies but they and the justice system in this country condone violence and crime by the lack of sentencing and resources put against policing here.

We all hear of cases of people committing further crimes despite 60/70 charges already. By allowing that,they're giving carte blanche for criminals to go further as they're not being punished.

So much judgement akin to victim blaming in the description of scenario 1.

I’m not surprised you are confused. What’s with all the coy reporting on the RTE news ? They seem to be going out of their way to say something, without actually coming out ( no pun intended) and saying it.

Oh get lost, you insufferable prig!!

Being annoying is not an excuse for murder, manslaughter or even common assault. THAT was my point.

Gay people have as much right to be irritating pricks as anyone else. It does not justify their being assaulted for it.

The problem with bringing in a classification of "hate" crime with the implication that it can be ranked above similar crimes because of the motivation of the perpetrator's prejudices actually trivialises and belittles people.

Here's another scenario: Drunken Cork/Kerry/Clare/Galway hurling/football fan on the LUAS on all-Ireland weekend, slobbering out loud about his team's innate superiority to everyone else and singing his song of support, whether it's Rose of Tralee/The West's Awake/De Banks/etc irritates someone into punching his lights out so that a fight erupts in which he gets killed.

Is the puncher justified? No. Of course not.

Is it fair or relevant to inquire into the sexuality of the victim in order to determine whether it could be a "hate crime" or just an "ordinary" crime?

No. That would be stupid. But if it makes a material difference to the severity of the crime or the sentence, then this is just the sort of enquiry that would have to be made.

Kicking someone's teeth in or smashing a bottle over somebody's head is the essential crime. Asking whether the motivation was "hate-based" or not is impertinent. And unnecessary.

mens rea is used in determining guilt. hate crime legislation is for determining sentencing.

you can say that about most of the criminal justice system. The purpose is appropriate sentencing. it achieves that aim.

why not do both?

Personally, I'd be in favour of hate crime legislation. If you can show that a particular crime was targeted at a protected group because of their protected characteristic, then that makes it worse than being chosen randomly. But, you have to prove that aspect in addition to the crime itself. It isn't just assumed because it happened to this person, as opposed to someone else.

What concerns me slightly is the sentencing end of it, and mandatory minimum sentences imposed by law, as opposed to tariffs set by a judge which I think are a good idea. It's a lot more meaningful for a judge to able to say you have to serve a minimum of 25 years, rather than a life sentence being imposed by law, which could end up being only 12 years.

Another aspect came up yesterday with an FG TD initiating a private members bill that will impose a two year mandatory sentence for assaulting a front line worker. The trouble with this is you will get people (eg victims and prosecutors) considering - does this assault actually warrant 2 years in prison? So, you'll get victims maybe deciding not to press charges, or maybe the DPP deciding the same thing. It's far better to have that question answered in an open court, independently by a judge, imo.

Too many looking to create a hierarchy of victims.

Some people think prison is there to rehabilitate. I see prison as protecting wider society from crime. How many times do we see people with hundreds of convictions.

Personally I don't give a damn about rehabilitation because I'd have a sliding scale of every increasing sentencing for each offence.

For murder the punishment should be life without parole. The victim's family get a whole life sentence. Why shouldn't the perpetrator?

Well at least he gets to suffer in prison for a very very long time. Personally I'd prefer the bullet. The thought of spending the rest of my live in prison makes me shudder.

Apparently part and parcel of living in Ireland involves no reporting of obvious facts