Racially aggravated crime - does it make sense?

Neon Knight Sun 15 Oct - 1:57

Imagine the following scenario:

Two half drunk white men cross the street and begin an unprovoked attack on a black man. White Man A shouts several racial insults during the attack. White Man B, though just as physically aggressive, says nothing.

The crime is reported, the two white men are tried and found guilty of Actual Bodily Harm. Both are sent to prison but Man A is also found guilty of a racially aggravated offence:

"The offender demonstrating towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group"

And so he is given a longer prison sentence than Man A . . .

"In addition to the specific offences created by the Act, the law imposes a general duty on criminal courts, when sentencing an offender, to treat more seriously any offence which can be shown to be racially or religiously aggravated (Section 145 Criminal Justice Act 2003)"

Is the longer sentence for Man A logical or should his racial insults at the victim have made no difference to the seriousness of his crime?

Guest Sun 15 Oct - 22:00

Neon Knight wrote:Imagine the following scenario:

Two half drunk white men cross the street and begin an unprovoked attack on a black man. White Man A shouts several racial insults during the attack. White Man B, though just as physically aggressive, says nothing.

The crime is reported, the two white men are tried and found guilty of Actual Bodily Harm. Both are sent to prison but Man A is also found guilty of a racially aggravated offence:

"The offender demonstrating towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group"

And so he is given a longer prison sentence than Man A . . .

"In addition to the specific offences created by the Act, the law imposes a general duty on criminal courts, when sentencing an offender, to treat more seriously any offence which can be shown to be racially or religiously aggravated (Section 145 Criminal Justice Act 2003)"

Is the longer sentence for Man A logical or should his racial insults at the victim have made no difference to the seriousness of his crime?

Strange decision. White Man A offended the black guy's dignity, too, that's why it sounds logical.