Which brings to mind various bits of hate crime legislation - whereby attacks on individuals because they are part of a particular group is treated more harshly than if the attack was purely individually motivated (i.e. assaulting someone because they are gay, or of Indian descent). And I'm in two minds on that - because one the one hand, attacking people is just plain wrong either way around, but on the other hand, attacking people because of group membership makes that whole group more afraid and has an awful effect on chunks of society rather than just individuals.
And I wondered if there was scope for a more general approach to this - rather than picking certain groups and saying "Attacking these people is worse." of saying "Attacking any people because of their affiliation is worse than attacking them for individual reasons.", and having this therefore include all groups as a blanket approach. You'd obviously want to be careful to make sure that people couldn't claim that you punched them because they were a member of the "unpleasant idiot who needed a good thumping" group, but that sounds like the kind of thing that the legal system is used to dealing with anyway.
Treating a crime more seriously because the victim was chosen due to their membership of a group.