Racist motivation?

[El D]

Following the verdict today on the barton murder case, I was a little perturbed to hear that it is the judge who decides whether the attack was racially motivated. Surely, an evidential aspect of the case which can add 15 years to a mans sentence should be decided by the jury. It is an element of the crime, not of the sentencing. What was the thinking behind this policy?

[Oneeyedvic]

I believe that the 15 years is media hype - there is no extra sentnace for racially motivated murder - only gbh / abh.

[Grunty]

That was exactly what I thought when I saw the news. Apparently right in this case, but what about others? In a similar vein, at the reporting stage, a crime is recorded by the police as racist if the person reporting it believes it was so (unless that has changed in the last few years).

[Grunty]

My wording was responding to the question, not to Vic's answer. (Don't know if he is right or not).

[woofgang]

Why does it matter? does it hurt more to be kicked in the face if its racist?

[stevie21]

It's a bit of a change of subject but I hate hearing about people objecting to minimum sentences as this "removes any flexibility from the judge". If judges had shown themselves to be handing out sentences that reflected certain crimes then there wouldn't be a call for minimum sentences!

I think part of the reason that certain convicts get seemingly lenient sentences is due to
1. Judges being aware of overcrowding in prisons and looking to avoid or minimise custodial sentences where possible
and
2. Encountering rape and murder every day that you go into work means that it has less shock value and judges stop viewing such crimes with the same gravity that the rest of us do.

Personally, if I saw someone lose �10K in fraud, I'd think "another one? ah, well, there's procedures to get that money back" rather than being totally taken aback. I guess judges have become habituated to crime.

Excuse my attempts to hijack the thread - the commonality was powers being removed or left with the judge.

[gary baldy]

There is some explanation here:
http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/racial1.htm
The Walker case is evidently racially motivated. Judges can be idiots sometimes but one thing they know is the law. If the law calls for an increased sentence then it is their duty to apply it.

[Ward-Minter]

stevie, don't quite get your point but I am full of cold!! Murder has only one sentance---LIFE, there are no other options available to the judge. It is unique in that case as it is purely prescribed by law.

Grunty, when the crime is reported it is ANYBODY who deems the incident racist, not just the aggieved. Ergo, the "black" victim may deem it as "one of those things" but the constable, his sergeant, his inspector, the crime recording clerks, any witnesses to the event etc etc etc may think otherwise. Therefore, it will be reported as racist.

[Ward-Minter]

just to qualify my above post.

The victim could be white aswell. It was a generalisation as I envisage the vast majority of racists crimes are against non-whites.