Two people have recently been found guilty of "racially aggravated murder" in the case of the killing of Anthony Walker. Now this was a horific crime but I can't help asking whether the fact that it was racially motivated should make it different (in terms of sentance if nothing else) from any other murder? As an example there was a case in the paper yesterday of a pair of twins who with an accomplice broke into their own grandmothers house and killed her for her savings - is this any less a crime because it wasn't racially motivated?

As far as I can see in both cases you have someone who is dead ans someone who has killed them for their own selfish and warped reasons so should a distinction be made between them or should justice be colour blind?

I suppose it's the same as asking whether there are degrees of murder. For example, murder with diminished responsibility or aggravated manslaughter. I think distinctions can be made between a man hitting another man and accidentally killing him and two boys driving an ice axe into the skull of a young boy on the grounds that he was of a different ethnicity. Surely there's got to be a distinction there.

I think that although distinctions can't be made under law [as to lengthening the sentence because of it's racial motivations] they should serve a longer sentence to send a clear message that this sort of behaviour will under no circumstances be tolerated and that those who perpetrate crimes like this will be severely punished.

Yes and no. It may not be common knowledge but in terms of behaviour classed as discrimination there is a very definite pecking order of unacceptable behaviour. Racism ranks as the highest priority followed by sex discrimination. Cant remember how the rest of the discriminatory conduct is ranked or everything that is considered however it includes: disability; ageism, gender (ie homophobia etc), political beliefs including trade union activities and think you'll find there are a whole load more.

So returning to the question in hand, although all murder is a totally reprehensible crime; if it is done on racial or religious grounds then we are condoning the equally reprehensible conduct and practices that led to rise of Hitler, the Holocaust and other genocidal crimes of this nature which have occurred periodically over the past 50+ years.

I think so.

Anthony Walker wouldn't be dead if he was a white boy - he was murdered because the guy went out specifically to kill a black man.

The murderer didn't kill because he needed to, or because he was really angry, or because he was mentally ill (things which are taken into account when looking at sentencing) he murdered because he was racist (something that should also be taken into a account).

Anthony Walker's murder was a despicable crime and nobody on the radar of reasonableness would deny that. I think that there is another agenda behind the heavy emphasis on the racial aspect, however:

(1) Establish a connection in people's minds between 'racism' and the dreadful act of putting an axe in someone's head

(2) Describe anybody who voices any reservations about immigration etc as 'racist'

(3) Ergo, anybody who raises concerns about immigration is likely to be the sort of person who would undertake or support a dreadful crime.

Murder is Murder in my view, but then again i'm not educated in the Law.

Originally posted by angle20
Anthony Walker's murder was a despicable crime and nobody on the radar of reasonableness would deny that. I think that there is another agenda behind the heavy emphasis on the racial aspect, however:

(1) Establish a connection in people's minds between 'racism' and the dreadful act of putting an axe in someone's head

(2) Describe anybody who voices any reservations about immigration etc as 'racist'

(3) Ergo, anybody who raises concerns about immigration is likely to be the sort of person who would undertake or support a dreadful crime.

I don't agree.
The crime was racially motivated in this case, so why try to hide it?

Any crime can now be sentenced more severely if it is racially motivated... I'm not sure if I agree with that. At the end of the day killing someone for any reason is wrong, but I can see the reason for it as racism seems to be increasing in some sectors of the population and isn't a desirable trait.

Originally posted by Cyclone
Any crime can now be sentenced more severely if it is racially motivated... I'm not sure if I agree with that. At the end of the day killing someone for any reason is wrong, but I can see the reason for it as racism seems to be increasing in some sectors of the population and isn't a desirable trait.

I'm not so sure I know which side of the fence you're on Cyclone. Would you care to clarify...

Purely as a point of law, any offence from minor up to murder is treated more seriously as far as sentence is concerned if there is a racial motive. This is written into the statute books for all judges and magistrates.

Causing the death of somebody else is always wrong, but I do think the case of Anthony Walker was particularly horrendous.

People kill for various reasons, and usually the victim knows their killer. Anger, jelously and greed often play a part. But this poor lad was killed by complete strangers just because of the colour of his skin. They weren't in a rage or blinded by emotion - they went out in cold blood to kill a black man.

Therefore I do think that the fact that this was racially agrivated should be taken into account.

However, I would also like to reiterate that ALL killing is wrong, and I think all sentences for murders should be longer. Life imprisionment should mean life imprisionment - not out in eight years with good behaviour.

Originally posted by evildrneil
Two people have recently been found guilty of "racially aggravated murder" in the case of the killing of Anthony Walker. Now this was a horific crime but I can't help asking whether the fact that it was racially motivated should make it different (in terms of sentance if nothing else) from any other murder? As an example there was a case in the paper yesterday of a pair of twins who with an accomplice broke into their own grandmothers house and killed her for her savings - is this any less a crime because it wasn't racially motivated?

As far as I can see in both cases you have someone who is dead ans someone who has killed them for their own selfish and warped reasons so should a distinction be made between them or should justice be colour blind?

It shouldn't, but it seems that it does... Cos the PC brigade and black/asian communities get their panties in a bunch anyway if someone so much as looks at them sideways so always kick up a strop if any given murder is racially motivated.

You only had to watch The Bill about 2 years ago to see that, and yes I know Sun Hill is fictional but the storylines are based on what goes on in real life Policing.

But realisticzlly speaking, murder is murder regardless of whether the victim is white, black, asian or from Pluto... And they should bring back the Chair for it IMO... If you kill, you should pay for it with your life.

Originally posted by Rich
You only had to watch The Bill about 2 years ago to see that, and yes I know Sun Hill is fictional but the storylines are based on what goes on in real life Policing.

Are they all sleeping with their mothers then? Sorry but I don't think the Bill is an accurate depiction of what goes on in the Police force today.

Originally posted by JonJParr
Are they all sleeping with their mothers then? Sorry but I don't think the Bill is an accurate depiction of what goes on in the Police force today.

Have a look at http://coppersblog.blogspot.com/ especially the archives for a more accurate depiction. The fact that the Police supplys link is to the stationary box website tells you all you need to know!

I know this is slightly off-topic but since someone mentioned , "The Bill" and its 'realism'...........
The very last time I watched ,'The Bill' the last scene was a a Black and White pair of male policemen celebrating their , "marriage" outside ,'SunHill ' , complete with kiss .
All the other members of the police station were standing round , applauding . Aah!!
After that bit of propoganda , I couldn't watch it again , somehow .

mixed race relationships are wrong eh?

Yesterday I heard a report that one of the killers said he wasn't a racist. ''I've got nothing against black people, it's just those alive bstards I can't stand'' he seemed to say.

I would say racist murders differ from other most other murders, in that most murders have some motive or other, be it jealousy or profit or whatever.

It's hardly suprising there's killings of this type though, given the climate of resentment against black people which is clear to be seen everywhere, including right here on Sf. I saw a diatribe of venom against Somalis on one thread recently, including one idiot who claimed a Somali woman who worked in Sainsburys always shat in the corner of the shop instead of going to the toilet.

Well, to all you people out there who imagine your lives would be any better or happier if there were only white people on this island - I say this: My grandparents were all Irish, and when they first came here, they were the scum, who were responsible for crime, who weren't civilised and shat in the corner of shops etc.

And anyone else with Irish ancestors out their who doesn't like immigrants or blacks remember - what you say about them now is only a repeat of what someone said about your ancestors.

murder is murder,its just the way the pc brigade and the media like to embelish it, racist murders sell more papers

Originally posted by depoix
murder is murder,its just the way the pc brigade and the media like to embelish it, racist murders sell more papers

Take that logic to it's conclusion and you could say ''Oh it's just the PC brigade going on about Peter Sutcliffe targeting women. It's neither here nor there, the tabloids go on about it to sell more papers.''

Originally posted by depoix
murder is murder

I disagree.

The recent case where the woman killed her son after 30+ years of caring for him.

Is that the same as when a few years ago a man took an axe to the head of a complete stranger on Lincoln High Street?

No, of course it isn't.

There is a big difference between murdering your rapist and murdering an innocent child because you felt like it.

We always look at the motivation for murder, it always affects sentencing. Why shouldn't it in this case?

Originally posted by kathythebean
I disagree.

The recent case where the woman killed her son after 30+ years of caring for him.

Is that the same as when a few years ago a man took an axe to the head of a complete stranger on Lincoln High Street?

No, of course it isn't.

There is a big difference between murdering your rapist and murdering an innocent child because you felt like it.

We always look at the motivation for murder, it always affects sentencing. Why shouldn't it in this case?

why should I (for example) though get 15 years if I just go out and randomly kill someone, but get 30 years if I go out and randomly kill a white man because I don't like white people?

Originally posted by Cyclone
why should I (for example) though get 15 years if I just go out and randomly kill someone, but get 30 years if I go out and randomly kill a white man because I don't like white people?

I suppose it's because of your likelihood to reoffend through your motivation. In your first example you didn't like that person so you killed them. It was a personal vendetta against an individual. You have proven that you can kill (and therefore, potentially, kill again) and clearly you should go to prison. However, on release (assuming you have been 'rehabilitated') you can't kill the same person again.

In your second example, killing someone because of their ethnic background rather widens the scope of your potential to kill. A good proportion of society is now a potential target for you and therefore you are more dangerous and should be punished accordingly.

I guess in the eyes of the law, the crime of murder takes on different gravity depending on the personality of the crime. Euthanasia and the like are personal crimes with clear mitigating circumstances. Impersonal death such as serial killing and racially motivated killing appear to be more killing more for the joy of death and therefore more dangerous to society.

Originally posted by kathythebean
I disagree.

The recent case where the woman killed her son after 30+ years of caring for him.

Is that the same as when a few years ago a man took an axe to the head of a complete stranger on Lincoln High Street?

No, of course it isn't.

There is a big difference between murdering your rapist and murdering an innocent child because you felt like it.

We always look at the motivation for murder, it always affects sentencing. Why shouldn't it in this case?

I agree with you.

It's the same as someone earlier said about there being degrees of murder...

I certainly think the motive has to be taken into consideration, but I answered no in the poll. I think that a racially motivated murder should bear the same weight as any 'mindless' murder (not sure what official term might be used). So murders that accompany rape or robbery or anything like that should carry the same sentence, because the unfortunate victim died for no reason - be it because they were female, because they drove a nice car, because they had black skin – whatever, the sentence should be hefty.

I said in my first example a random person, not some I had a grudge against.
So the likelihood of killing against is just the same.

Originally posted by Cyclone
I said in my first example a random person, not some I had a grudge against.
So the likelihood of killing against is just the same.

Ah, yes, misread on my behalf.

Then I assume you would be classified under serial killing in that you have caused death for the narcissistic joy of it and would get 30 years as you would for a racially motivated killing.

If you are guilty of murder then that carries a mandatory life sentence - regardless of the motivation behind it.
However, it can obviously be extended dependant on the nature of the crime.

There are several different types of murder and manslaughter (as I found out to my detriment in my second year of Law) and dependant on the circumstance and the crime, the suspect would be charged with the appriopriate offence.

As mentioned above the woman who killed her son after 30+ years of caring for him is not the same as a person who goes out and brutally murders someone on the street. I have no doubt both of these were murder as this is based on intent to kill - but there are different circumstances for each and will therefore be dealt with differently.

I was thinking about this last week when three drunken and drugged up Asians were convicted of murder. Their victim was white but the Judge said it was not racist because they had previously attacked another Asian and racially abused a black resident.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4416988.stm

So it could be said that they hated everyone equally. In this case I wouldn't consider the colour of the attackers or victim, just the circumstances of the murder. They basically played football with his head and stamped on him until he was dead.

So the judge decrees it wasn't a racist murder. So be it, but it was horrendous and so deserves the full might of the law, not a half tariff.

30 years min for the lot of 'em

No, I don't think it should matter. Race may be the motivator but the crime is still murder. The punishment is supposed to fit the crime, not the motivation. I don't see how killing someone because they're black (and let's face it, it's rare that anyone dares admit that a killing of a white person could be racially motivated) is any worse than killing someone at random, or because they wear the wrong clothes or have the wrong hairstyle.

Originally posted by donkey
Take that logic to it's conclusion and you could say ''Oh it's just the PC brigade going on about Peter Sutcliffe targeting women. It's neither here nor there, the tabloids go on about it to sell more papers.'' ok,so old mildred ex school teacher for forty years gets her head kicked in by a burglar, for example, the news may just hit page two of her local paper.

two fools fighting, one black,one white, one kills the other...its headline news..

Their victim was white but the Judge said it was not racist because they had previously attacked another Asian and racially abused a black resident. I think the judge in question needs his head looking at if these guys racially abuse a black person then go out and kill a white man. Not racist me thinks so , or can asian people racially abuse black guys but it dont matter ?

I see it quite simply. A horrendous murder was committed and a punishment has been passed. Quite clearly it was racially motivated, but if it hadn't been, I'm pretty sure the same sentence would have been passed.

The race issue has been metioned because that was the motivation behind the killing. So like any other murder, the motive behind the crime is reported on.

However, I'm pretty sure that the race aspect is irrelevant here. If someone axes someone else in the head, for no valid reason, then they would surely get the same sentence.

Lets not get into a ridiculous 'PC brigade' debate here. A guy was murdered unnecessarily in a sickening way. The murderer will get his punishment.

Is there anyone here suggesting that if the murder wasn't racially motivated, then the murderer should have a reduced sentence?

Surely we're clear here that taking a life means life in prison?

I think rascist murders are seen as a reminder of genocide. It could lead to the rise of neo fascism if it was not heavily punished.

However, and whenever someone willfully kills someone else apart perhaps from sympathy killing perhaps, the perpetrator should suffer life imprisonment, and nothing less.

They should have to work to live in prison, for prison meals, bed etc, any extra should be put to other use to maintain the prison or given to charity. The prisons would run themselves and they would be assured imprisonment for the rest of their life.

This is in preferance to bringing back the death penalty and getting their blood on our hands. It also applies to all no matter what the motive to murder.

Those guys could be out in 30 yrs, aged 50 + and kill again, for a different motive. The point is they're murderers, they'll go on living, and one day they'll be free to potentially do it again - to you or me. (touching wood against this).

Part of original post by Andy78
---Surely we're clear here that taking a life means life in prison?
I choose to disregard the racial motivation issue, as I see it... murder without any degree of justification, is still "murder most foul".

Unfortunately, I'm afraid that taking a life doesn't necessarily mean life in prison as you appear to think, in many instances it means very far from it.

If that were the case, then it would go some way towards appeasing those, such as myself, who would dearly love to see the death-penalty re-introduced.

As a hypothetical example... If you and I were to argue, say in a pub and I were to seize a handy nearby implement, perhaps a heavy glass ashtray and hit you over the head with enough force to kill you outright... Would your relatives, your bereaved wife, your fatherless children be satisfied and consider that justice had been done if, by the year 2015, when your ashes were blowing in the wind or your corpse was decomposing in its grave, I was walking the streets a free man?

That is the likeliehood of the outcome of my committing such an act, i.e. killing you in an unpremeditated manner and using a non-offensive weapon to do so.

I firmly believe that murder without any element of even partially justifiable cause or provocation should be punished with 'Life'. Not Life imprisonment but Life forfeiture.

In the above scenario, the argument in the pub... by intentionally putting you at risk of losing your life and directly causing you in fact to do so, I believe that I should lose my own life in turn. Only then would true justice be served.

In our current "civilised" society, members of our society who deprive others of their lives should be dealt with, not by being punished but by being permanently removed from that society, in other words by being eradicated... Thus helping towards ensuring the continued existence of the society and the increased safety of the majority of its members.


Obviously this is only a very brief outline of opinion with only one example shown. I accept that there are many arguments both for and against my beliefs in this matter but discussing them wasn't the purpose of this particular post.

Originally posted by Andy78
I see it quite simply. A horrendous murder was committed and a punishment has been passed. Quite clearly it was racially motivated, but if it hadn't been, I'm pretty sure the same sentence would have been passed.


highly unlikely, they have both been given 30 years.

I think Andy78 said life should mean life in prison, that that belief is commonly held - not that life does mean life imprisonment.

Pseudonyms argument is right in a way, that taking a life should mean forfeit of their own life. I would definitely be sickened if someone murdered someone I knew, and then walked free definitely.

If they were put in prison for the rest of their life and not allowed to have 'a life' such as marriage, kids and the rest of it, as seems to be allowed today within the prison walls, then they are basically in forfeit of their life without us murdering them.

Murder is judged by a jury and the people on the jury may not want the blood of murderers on their hands. They might believe 2 wrongs don't make a right. They will be looking at the case with some objectivity because it's not their family or friend.

Family members might not want blood, they may have forgiven. Who then has the right to pass judgement to kill, just for the sake of it, it won't bring the person who was murdered back. Do they go running off wielding an axe in revenge like crazed barbarians?

I always think, those who would opt for the death penalty, talk about eye for an eye from the bible, but this seems to be incongruous with christianity now. Does this mean that they would actually want them to be executed in the same way? Would they want to do it? Perhaps it says something about the mentality of the executioner, whoever would step up to it.

It seems to me all death is violent. Murder is attrocious because it's a blatant result of one persons evil actions extinguishing the life of another, but is it worse than death itself? It causes a wave of moral outrage internationally, but does killing the murderer take away the family's pain?

In the end it's about how you lived. I just don't think we're qualified to make the leap from punishment to execution without tarnishing our own (individual & collective) character.

Also mistakes have been made in the past. An 18 year old who protested his innocence on death row, was executed. Just too late, a woman came forward who proved his innocence. I would prefer that the murderers were imprisoned for the rest of their lives than for one more innocent to be murdered for something they didn't do.

there's a 25 page thread on teh death penalty if you want to have a look.

Originally posted by Cyclone
there's a 25 page thread on teh death penalty if you want to have a look.

yes, hang around.:hihi: :hihi: :hihi:

You're right, the question does rascist murder differ from murder.

I don't think it should be whether it differs, it does differ, but does murder differ from murder - the answer is no.

Is the author really asking if these rascist murderers should get more of a prison sentence than other murderers the answer is no, they should all get life.

I do believe RACIST MURDERS are far worse than MURDER because its aimed @ a specific race and not just in general....

MURDER is one of the worst things one can do,but to do it ONLY because of someones race IS 10x WORSE!!!!!!

I do believe RACIST MURDERS are far worse than MURDER because its aimed @ a specific race and not just in general....

MURDER is one of the worst things one can do,but to do it ONLY because of someones race IS 10x WORSE!!!!!!

I disagree. How is it worse to murder someone who is black than it is to murder, say, women, or children, or people who wear glasses?

It isn't.

If a murderer targets a specific type of victim then it is equally horrendous whether that victim is black, white, male or female.

I do believe RACIST MURDERS are far worse than MURDER because its aimed @ a specific race and not just in general....

MURDER is one of the worst things one can do,but to do it ONLY because of someones race IS 10x WORSE!!!!!!

Explain yourself. Why?

Why is it worse than killing someone because the colour of their hair, or because they looked at them funny?

I was thinking about this last week when three drunken and drugged up Asians were convicted of murder. Their victim was white but the Judge said it was not racist because they had previously attacked another Asian and racially abused a black resident.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4416988.stm

So it could be said that they hated everyone equally. In this case I wouldn't consider the colour of the attackers or victim, just the circumstances of the murder. They basically played football with his head and stamped on him until he was dead.

So the judge decrees it wasn't a racist murder. So be it, but it was horrendous and so deserves the full might of the law, not a half tariff.

30 years min for the lot of 'em

The fact that these animals had gone for a curry where they abused an Asian person doesn't change the motivation for the murder. If you apply the same logic then if Anthony Walkers' murderer had been for fish and chip before killing him, and abused a white chip shop owner, then it would have cancelled out the racist motivation for the murder. Clearly nonsense and clearly wrong.

IMO, the killers in both cases should have receive life that meant life. They don't deserve freedom and society doesn't deserve to to endure the risk associated with their freedom.

We always look at the motivation for murder, it always affects sentencing. Why shouldn't it in this case?

The sentence is always life isn't it?

The sentence is always life isn't it?

As you know, it is the mandatory minimum sentence people are talking about because in most cases this is what is actually served.