The new laws recognised that there was a kind of motivation that was impersonal.
I agree of course that this kind of motivation should be recognized, but I don't see that recognizing the existence of racism, homophobia, etc., entails that crimes motivated by these should receive a larger tariff, above and beyond that already triggered by the aggravation of an attack's being unprovoked.
The reason for these laws is simple: to explain to those with power that they cannot do what they think they are entitled to do.
Again, I'm all for explaining this, but I don't think that sentencing is necessarily the clearest or most just way to deliver the explanation. It's unclear because (a la Liddle) it can so easily be spun as "special treatment for minorities"; unjust because it means that part of the sentence isn't a punishment for the crime committed, but an extra "message" for society at large that you want to broadcast on top.
no subject
I agree of course that this kind of motivation should be recognized, but I don't see that recognizing the existence of racism, homophobia, etc., entails that crimes motivated by these should receive a larger tariff, above and beyond that already triggered by the aggravation of an attack's being unprovoked.
The reason for these laws is simple: to explain to those with power that they cannot do what they think they are entitled to do.
Again, I'm all for explaining this, but I don't think that sentencing is necessarily the clearest or most just way to deliver the explanation. It's unclear because (a la Liddle) it can so easily be spun as "special treatment for minorities"; unjust because it means that part of the sentence isn't a punishment for the crime committed, but an extra "message" for society at large that you want to broadcast on top.