ChatterBank0 min 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
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.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.
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).
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.