Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Ageist crime
We already have laws that define crimes that are "racially aggravated" and presumably, now we have the new anti faith discrimination laws, there will be a similar "faith aggravated" category. Ageism does exist in our society, and I believe laws are being considered to make it illegal (EG preventing age-based discrimination when recruiting staff).
So, should the government also introduce an "ageist aggravated" category of crime, to cover such as the recent murder of the 89-year old woman?
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Catso. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The question is how far should we breakdown crimes into individual categories. Can murdering a 89 year old be any less or any more serious than murdering a 25 year old. Murder is murder, whether its man, woman or child and sentences need to be harsher. Yes 89 year olds could be considered more defenseless than a 25 year old, but then so is a child, women could be considered more defenseless than a man, but it doesnt mean the murder of a man is any less serious than a murder of a women. If someone is willing to take someone elses life then they should be put away in prison for life, i think alot of sentences handed out are far too lenient.
Couldn't agree more Maggie-Mae, I can never understand these "life" sentences, just for a moment you think, great that's what they deserve, then you hear that they'll be free in just a few years. I think that we all feel a bit more emotional when it's a very old person or a child that's the victim, imagine how most of us could put up a damn good fight if our life was at stake, then imagine being so small or old that you have no power at all. Easy pickings for the true cowards of course.
Laws tend to be more reactive than proactive, we pass legislation more in response to major events more than we do "in case".
I think the special case status we give to rascist crimes stems from the second world war and the holocaust.
If Hitler had attempted to kill not Jews but everyone above the age of 50 I think we would already have the "Ageist aggrevated" category you refer to.
the harsher sentences for racially aggravated assaults etc is meant to act as an educational devise e.g. its not acceptable to attacked people BUT its REALLY not acceptable to attack people because of the colour of their skin. I presume this was introduced to address concerns at the level of attacks of this nature.
If old people were being attacked because they were old maybe something similar would be introduced but i have never heard of any such attacks.
I think you may have misunderstood the racially aggravated rules, these are not applied every time a white man attacks a black man or vice versa, they are only applied when he attacked the other "because" of this skin colour, so to apply the same sort of rules as you describe would / could not be used in the case you refer to � in fact I doubt they would ever be used.
If old people were being attacked because they were old maybe something similar would be introduced but i have never heard of any such attacks.
I think you may have misunderstood the racially aggravated rules, these are not applied every time a white man attacks a black man or vice versa, they are only applied when he attacked the other "because" of this skin colour, so to apply the same sort of rules as you describe would / could not be used in the case you refer to � in fact I doubt they would ever be used.
I think a lot of what people have replied can be summed up by undercover's last paragraph. This was exactly my point.
If a white person attacks and robs a black, I agree that in itself wouldn't necessarily be racially aggravated, but if one of the reasons was because they were black, IE they were chosen, over someone else, because they were black, then doesn't it become a racially aggravated crime?
Similarly it seems that on many occasions, old people are attacked, and/or killed/robbed, because they are old (and therefore an easier target).
In such circumstances, then why couldn't the attack be considered ageist aggravated, just as would the white person attacking a black, because they are black.
All crimes can be aggravated by the vulnerability of the victim. This is not the same as being aggravated by race.
Parliament has seen fit to introduce a range of lesser offences to do with public and violent disorder which are prefixed �racially aggravated�. These are only prosecuted when there is a clear indication that they would not have taken place had race not been an issue.
It has not seen fit to introduce a specific offence of �racially aggravated murder� and it is left to judges to adjust their �life� sentence accordingly if race is a factor.
Judges (and magistrates for lesser offences) have similar discretion to adjust sentences if they feel that the victim was particularly vulnerable (for example, old).
On a tangent to this - surely some decisions should be made based on age, sex etc. ie if you want to employ someone as a doorman, in general it would be better to pick the 6ft male beefcake rather than the 80yr old granny. Apparenly B&Q and Asda's have a discrimination process but in favour of us oldies. Saves constantly employing new staff (as youngsters tend to ove on) and oldies are more helpful and certainly more knowledgeable in the DIY game. Is there a fine line between common sense and positive discrimination??
1 to 14 of 14
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.