Sign in to follow this  
Soapyw

Hate incident / crime

Recommended Posts

I have a feeling this will be coming up a lot in the immediate future, so was interested to hear peoples opinions on what constitutes an offense.

I understand when its appropriate to apply the word hate, race religion etc. But does that have bearing on determining if something is an offence?

For example, saying why don't you just go home to a foreign person. Not nice but no offence? Why don't you f off home becomes a possible public order offence with a race angle?

So there has to be a standard, regular offence for a hate crime to be recorded as such? Am I understanding that correctly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are hate incidents - any incident which the victim, or anyone else, thinks is based on someones prejudice towards them because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender.

Not all hate incidents will amount to criminal offences, but those that do become hate crimes. "Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender."

Then there are racially or religiously aggravated crimes - an offence will be racially or religiously aggravated if:

a) at the time of the offence (or shortly before or after), the offender demonstrates to the victim hostility based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group, or

B) the offence is motivated wholly or partly by hostility towards members of a racial or religious group based on their membership (or presumed membership) of that group.

Hate incidents and crimes should have an enhanced service by the police and CPS whereas racially or religiously aggravated crimes attract higher sentences at court than their 'standard' counterparts.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are hate incidents - any incident which the victim, or anyone else, thinks is based on someones prejudice towards them because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender.

Not all hate incidents will amount to criminal offences, but those that do become hate crimes. "Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender."

Then there are racially or religiously aggravated crimes - an offence will be racially or religiously aggravated if:

a) at the time of the offence (or shortly before or after), the offender demonstrates to the victim hostility based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group, or

B) the offence is motivated wholly or partly by hostility towards members of a racial or religious group based on their membership (or presumed membership) of that group.

Hate incidents and crimes should have an enhanced service by the police and CPS whereas racially or religiously aggravated crimes attract higher sentences at court than their 'standard' counterparts.

 

Does that not suggest that some people are being treated differently because they are from a particular segment of the community - I seem to recall my oath in 1968 included the words "without favour or affection, malice or ill-will" - are these no longer principles by which the Police should operate? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does that not suggest that some people are being treated differently because they are from a particular segment of the community - I seem to recall my oath in 1968 included the words "without favour or affection, malice or ill-will" - are these no longer principles by which the Police should operate? 

Effectively yes. You could punch me causing injury purely because you hate me for being annoying, and yes, you've committed an offence which you could be jailed for, but if you punch me causing injury because you hate me because I am black, gay, transgender and Jewish you'd get a longer sentence. That's the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 In my force, hate crime or otherwise, it doesn't matter what the officer attending, assessing the circumstances & applying their knowledge of the law thinks. It's down to what's been said to & recorded by the call handler that dictates. If you try to apply common sense there's a whole department of civilians to send you snotty e-mails & write on the incident that you need to crime it. So if somebody says in the initial call, perhaps just to get a quicker response, that they've been called a nasty name then you may as well record a hate crime regardless of the situation you find when you're actually at the scene.

 

Makes you wonder why they bother training police officers & don't just use some cheap untrained security firm instead ..............hang on a minute :panic: :panic: :panic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my Force despite being the Rules since 1998, replacing similar rules - and there being a national standard by which crimes must be recorded since 2002, many police officers still do not realise/ want to accept that the rules to record crimes are not the same as pure legislation and not the same as charging standards.

So some officers unfortunately argue, put unprofessional, snotty comments on official records about why they don't think a crime should be recorded. Of course the Rules prevail, because the Rules are the Rules. And invariably the professional civilians whose only job is to ensure those rules are applied are right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they are, always. So unless it's a live incident why bother sending an officer at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was some of the worst written legislation ever. It is what the complainant perceives and takes very little, if any, heed in what was in the mind of the speaker. There is a very thin line between hate crime and free speach.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does that not suggest that some people are being treated differently because they are from a particular segment of the community - I seem to recall my oath in 1968 included the words "without favour or affection, malice or ill-will" - are these no longer principles by which the Police should operate?

but it didn't work so legislation was needed.

Like if a 13 year old had sex with a consenting 12 year old they could go to prison for life as a rapist but do exactly the same thing to a consenting 13 year old it's 5 years. If an 18 year old did the same thing with a 13-15 year old he could get 14 years.

Some victims need different treatment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Appears bad legislation indeed, perhaps it needs explained to Sir Cliff. Anyway this subject is starting to digests, largely my fault I must concede.

What I from time to time ponder is that we all use descriptions based on height, weight, nationality, colour etc etc. Someone could walk into our office looking for someone & be directed towards the Asian, the bald bloke, the goth looking female, the bloke with the Scottish accent etc etc (or all of the above

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was some of the worst written legislation ever. It is what the complainant perceives and takes very little, if any, heed in what was in the mind of the speaker. There is a very thin line between hate crime and free speach.

You are confusing a racial incident with a racially aggravated crime. A racial incident is where the victim perceives what has happened to them as a racial incident. It's not necessarily a crime and even if it is, it's not necessarily a racially aggravated crime.

A racially aggravated crime under the Crime and Disorder Act needs some evidence other than just the victim's perception.

You still need the primary offence (assault, public order etc) to have been committed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 .....or for someone to say it's been committed, even if it hasn't, then it's still a crime, or at least has to be recorded as one so we can be media bashed over detection rates for being unable to solve stuff that didn't happen in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.....or for someone to say it's been committed, even if it hasn't, then it's still a crime, or at least has to be recorded as one so we can be media bashed over detection rates for being unable to solve stuff that didn't happen in the first place.

When was the last time a force has been 'bashed over detection rates'? Especially as we haven't had detections since April 2015.

If you can show a crime hasn't been committed then it isn't recorded. If all you've got is doubt then it must be, but so what? Someone says they're a victim of crime, you can't show it didn't happen, record it and move on.

You'll still be paid at the end of the month and the government can't say you can be cut because crime is down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are hate incidents - any incident which the victim, or anyone else, thinks is based on someones prejudice towards them because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender.

Not all hate incidents will amount to criminal offences, but those that do become hate crimes. "Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender."

Then there are racially or religiously aggravated crimes - an offence will be racially or religiously aggravated if:

a) at the time of the offence (or shortly before or after), the offender demonstrates to the victim hostility based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group, or

B) the offence is motivated wholly or partly by hostility towards members of a racial or religious group based on their membership (or presumed membership) of that group.

Hate incidents and crimes should have an enhanced service by the police and CPS whereas racially or religiously aggravated crimes attract higher sentences at court than their 'standard' counterparts.

 

That answers my question, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are 3 hidden replies in this thread that you do not currently have access to as a Guest User of our forum. To unlock the forum register for an account for FREE today by clicking HERE
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.