Ghost of a flea: A hate crime

? Bauhaus: Hollow Hills | Main | Christopher Hitchens is God ?

March 13, 2008

A hate crime

Sophie Lancaster and Robert Maltby of Rossendale, Lancashire were set upon by a pack of feral youths* aged 15 to 17, kicked and stamped in the head until Maltby lost consciousness and Lancaster lost her life.

Prosecuting, Michael Shorrock QC told the court the young couple, from Bacup, were walking home from a friend's house when they "fell into conversation" with a group of teenagers. The talk was friendly and good-natured, the court heard, but five of a group of youths "turned" on Mr Maltby.

The accused had started the violence, with a flying kick to the head of Mr Maltby, the jury was told. The gang, "encouraging each other and laughing" punched, stamped and jumped on his head until he was unconscious, Mr Shorrock said. As Miss Lancaster kneeled down, cradling her boyfriend's head on her lap and calling for help, the accused and the then 15-year-old youth who has already pleaded guilty to murder, turned on her.

Lancashire and Maltby were so badly mauled paramedics could not initially identify Lancaster as a woman. It took her thirteen days to die. The young couple were singled out, assaulted and murdered because they were dressed as goths.

Scoop Shachtman of the Drink-soaked Trots (whence this story) asks if it is time for another law or whether murder is an adequate charge in this case. The two victims belong to a very clearly identifiable group. If their clothes had identified them with a traditional religious affiliation, there would be additional legal consequences under hate crimes legislation for their attackers. Not only this but the supposedly greater protection afforded under the law for a couple clearly at greater risk of being singled out for harm. I tend to agree with Will in the comments at the Drink-soaked Trots, murder should be an adequate charge. The difficultly, of course, is that murder is no longer an adequate charge.

The law goes so far as to protect the identity of the droogs for no other reason than they carried out this pogrom at the tender age of 15, 16 and 17 and not 18. I have reservations at society granting special status to any identifiable group** including murderous youths though - and I am speaking from personal experience - goths are regularly singled out for violence. The problem is that I have no confidence anyone in England any longer enjoys the protection of the law.

There are well meaning people, good hearted people, sanctimonious, weak kneed, bleeding hearts... you know the type, people who will blame anyone - society, racism, the victim, the weather - anyone but those who actually commit crime for crimes they commit. These well meaning people are responsible for at least two consequences of the psychological drama they enact as public policy. First, they have enabled at least two generation to be raised without fear of consequence for their trespasses against others. From littering to multi-generation dole collecting to pack assaults on the elderly, to flying loaded passenger jets into office buildings there is no atrocity self-anointed progressives will not excuse. Second, in denying the citizenry the protection of the law, let alone the right to protect themselves, progressives have undermined the sole criterion for a viable State, viz the monopoly on the use of force. Whether your name is Charles I, Louis XVI, Nicolae Ceauşescu or a well meaning Gordon Brown there can be only one end to that road. The current anarchy will provoke gangsterism or rule by the mob if these are the only forms of rule to be had. The people will have law if it is only the law they can cobble together for themselves as a last resort against whatever remaining sanctions the police, the schools and a hectoring press can beat them with. At some point, even middle-class arts students on a gap year will arm themselves and take their chances in the courts rather than risk life and limb in the streets.

* No, not those "youths". Or at least they need not be.
** With the possible exception of serving police officers, the fire brigades or anyone else whose responsibility is explicitly to uphold the rule of law.

Posted by Ghost of a flea at March 13, 2008 06:57 AM

Comments

I don't know if it's the adequateness of the charge that is in dispute so much as the likelihood of an appropriately harsh sentence being meted out.

Our Canadian experience has been that the law will say one thing (i.e. life imprisonment with no parole for 10-25 years), but the judiciary and corrections system combine to reduce the net effect to a farce. I.e. you're serving life in the pen and supposedly no parole for 25 years but you're actually back on the street in much less time.

Posted by: Chris Taylor at March 13, 2008 11:16 AM

Point well taken. The charge is fine, the consequences of a conviction - even the likelihood of a conviction - are the problem.

Posted by: Ghost of a flea at March 13, 2008 11:39 AM

In a more civilized time these "youths" would have already discovered what a "short drop and a sudden stop" means.

Posted by: dpatten at March 13, 2008 09:41 PM