Sentencing, Murder and Hate Crimes

do we not already ? have mandatory life sentence for murder i mean,

the legal industry itself will veto any real change in justice as it would adversely effect their profits

shitty way to be i agree

Its also about a form of justice. I'm at more risk of being targeted with a homophobic hate crime then you. You probably wont be ever beaten up or murdered because you are heterosexual. If I get beaten up while someone is shouting homophobic abuse its very very different to me being beaten up without that abuse. The impact on me as a target or victim is much stronger who was targeted because of sexuality is much stronger.

Of course. Anyone can. But the impact on hate crime victims is worse because they are targeted because of who they are.

Life should mean Life, in a shed hell hole

Should a crime be punished on the basis of what impact it had on the victim? Or should a crime be punished based on the crime itself? I think that's a question worth exploring. If I steal from Elon Musk, or from a homeless person, should my punishment be less/more, even if the crimes are identical?

Sure, but if we just killed everyone who ever committed a crime, the recidivism rate would be zero. Sure let's just purge everyone. No people, no crime.

I see the point, but I don't think it's a particular gotcha. People commit crimes. Even if every single criminal was locked up for life, crime would still happen. Look at the US; 0.66% of the entire population is currently in prison (8 times higher than Ireland), and yet there's still crime everywhere.

Keeping an already small number of murderers in prison for life has no real gain to Irish society. It's a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the total crimes committed. And they're usually not violent.

Let me get this straight: there's a difference between a "hate" murder and a "nothing personal but you're in my way" murder, which is not motivated by hate?

So somebody gets irritated by a couple of ostentatiously gay guys flirting and bitching with each other and each doing a bad attempt at being Graham Norton and finally decides to clock one of them to shut them up, the guy resists and a real fight develops that sees the gay guy severely beaten and disfigured, so much so that he dies. That's a hate crime?

Whereas a burglar gets disturbed while rummaging through a house by somebody who sees his face so the burglar hits him with a poker several times to ensure he will never be able to pick him out of a line up. That's not a hate crime?

They're both murder, or at the very least if the accused is VERY lucky, they're both manslaughter. I don't see how one should be elevated in seriousness over the other.

But if "hate crimes" are to be promoted over "ordinary decent criminal just doing his job" crimes in terms of public opprobrium and sentencing, well that's not going to end well for the very minorities that are most susceptible to those "hate" crimes in the first place.

Why shouldnt it be considered?

For someone who has been violently raped their whole life could be spent in fear/traumatised/reliving it all/unable to build relationships/unable to forget what happened.

If someone is beaten up because of who they are its a different matter than just being beaten up.

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.