Final English Paper
Have you ever had a crime committed against you? In today’s society we are faced with crime all around us. There are crimes committed out of rage, revenge, jealousy, love, greed, etc; but there is another type of crime, or one could say act of violence, called hate crimes. Have you ever thought maybe that crime was committed against just because of your racial background, or religious beliefs? Throughout this country’s history, hate crimes have taken place, either by known groups who hate and, most commonly, individuals that are inspired by hate. Not until recently have the people of this country ever wanted to pass a law that would punish the guilty to an even higher extent because the crime was committed out of hate. There are two sides to every issue. Whether or not the issue is valid or if it is an unrealistic concept created by the media or by the federal government, then, in my opinion, passing a law of this type is totally unrealistic. It is almost impossible to prove that a crime is committed out of a bias hate. I feel that a law that punishes hate crimes should not be passed.
One main question that would be asked is, “Prove it?” Saying just that, in some cases destroys the effectiveness of the law, especially if and when the crime is committed when both parties share the same sexual, ethnic or religious back- ground. Now, I think that the money grubbing lawyers and the media would love this new law because, for one, the prosecuting lawyers would, in many cases, use it against the defendant, especially if it was a white vs. black case, or vice versa. The media would emphasize racial discrimination just because the general public, especially minorities, love controversies that may make them sympathetic. Also, I would think that this law would tie up more court time. If you think about it, there would be more cases popping up all over the place and also what ever case is going to be herd the word, hate, would probably be thrown in there as well which would drag the case out even longer. Maybe, not as much in criminal cases, but more so in civil suites. Look at how “sue happy” the public is now. This law would only add to it. For example, people sue their neighbors for their pets going to the bathroom on their lawn. How ridiculous is that? Another example is a lady put here dog in the microwave t...
... middle of paper ...
...t “rape with hate” or “murder with hate.” You should be punished for the actual crime, not your feelings that go along with it.
Now even if this law were passed, would the police and courts enforce it? If they didn’t, what would be the point of passing it to begin with. I guess you could say that about any law but in my eyes I could see our “system” twisting everything around. They would probably convict innocent people of “Hate crimes” and let the guilty people of “Hate” go. I don’t think it is fair to add another category to the crime list that could in the long run, ruin some peoples lives. I just think that it is wrong. I hope you see my point of view and agree with my opinion.
Bibliography
Jacobs, James. Hate Crimes. Challenging Intolerance
14 Nov. 2000 >http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=PA0212H- s57549sl&type=ART&artno=…
Grigera, Elena. Hate Crimes. Corrections Today
14 Nov. 2000 >http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=PA0212H-s57520sl&type=Art&artno=
Walker, Samuel. Hate Speech. The History of an American Controversy
Hate crimes are terrible things that are becoming more and more common in America because people don’t like the way they look or feel. The purpose of the “ Debate: What is a Hate Crime” is to teach people of a crime that is becoming quite important in the society.
. Spaid argues that hate crime laws, sometimes referred to as “reform laws,” are ultimately ineffective, harmful, and maintain an oppressive and violent system in which it claims to resist. These laws “include crimes motivated by the gender identity and/or expression of the victim,” (79) implicated in seven states across the country, such as the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, created after the hate murders of these two men fueled by bigotry and hate. Proponents of these laws argue that they would work as “preventative messages,” and increase the regard in which these crimes are considered, under the terms of preserving the humanity of these victims, often trans women, while increasing their visibility. These
The KKK was set up to build an all white society based on Christian beliefs. They claim that
The term hate crime first appeared in the late 1980’s as a way of understanding a racial incident in the Howard Beach section of New York City, in which a black man was killed while attempting to evade a violent mob of white teenagers, shouting racial epithets. Although widely used by the federal government of the United States, the media, and researchers in the field, the term is somewhat misleading because it suggests incorrectly that hatred is invariably a distinguishing characteristic of this type of crime. While it is true that many hate crimes involve intense animosity toward the victim, many others do not. Conversely, many crimes involving hatred between the offender and the victim are not ‘hate crimes’ in the sense intended here. For example an assault that arises out of a dispute between two white, male co-workers who compete for a promotion might involve intense hatred, even though it is not based on any racial or religious differences... ...
Currently there are only two federal laws and 21 states, plus the District of Columbia, which protect sexual minorities from hate crimes, and both federal laws are worthless in persecuting nearly all cases reported. The first, the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, merely requires the FBI to collect and examine hate crime statistics given to them from state and local law enforcement agencies. However, these statistics must be volunteered from the agencies, which leaves a rather large looph...
When the topic of hate and bias crime legislation is brought up two justifications commonly come to mind. In her article entitled “Why Liberals Should Hate ‘Hate Crime Legislation” author Heidi M. Hurd discusses the courts and states views that those who commit hate and bias crimes ought to be more severely punished. She takes into consideration both sides of the argument to determine the validity of each but ultimately ends the article in hopes to have persuaded the reader into understanding and agreeing with her view that laws concerning the punishment of hate and bias laws should not be codified. Hate crime is described as a violent, prejudice crime that occurs when a victim is targeted because of their membership in a specific group. The types of crime can vary from physical assault, vandalism, harassment or hate speech. Throughout the article Hurd tried to defend her view and explain why there should be no difference of punishment for similar crimes no matter the reason behind it. Her reason behind her article came from the law that President Obama signed in 2009 declaring that crimes committed with hatred or prejudice should have more sever punishments. While the court has their own views to justify their reasoning behind such decisions, in the article Hurd brings up points and facts to prove the wrongfulness of creating such a law. However, though Hurd has made her views clear in the following essay I will discuss reasons why the penalties are justifiable, why they should receive the same degree of punishment, less punishment and my personal view on the topic.
The punishment of a crime should not be determined by the motivation for the crime, yet that is exactly what hate crime legislation does. It places emphasis on a crime for the wrong reasons. Hate crimes victimize more than just the victims, and this is why the punishments are more severe, but Sullivan argues that any crime victimizes more than the victims. He suggests that random crimes with no prejudice in place can be perceived as something even more frightening, as the entire community feels threatened instead of just a group. Proven in Sullivan’s article is the worthlessness of the “hate” label. I would agree that it only serves to further discriminate, instead of achieving the peace and equality that it pretends to stand
There are both state and federal laws that prohibit hate crimes, but proving an assailant committed a crime in prejudice is very difficult. Any type of crime can call for some form of punishment, from fines and short prison stays for misdemeanors to long term imprisonment for felonies. Once it has been reviled that an accused willfully committed an offense, proof must be given that indicates the crime was influenced by prejudice against a specific characteristic in order to show that it was also a hate crime. When this can be proven, the harshness of the crime automatically increases. People often wonder why hate crime punishment is harsher than for crimes that are not motivated by any type of bias. The basic reason for this is that most crimes are directed at an individual, but hate crimes are against an entire community. A burglar who breaks into a random home does so for personal gain, and usually doesn’t even know who lives in the home they are invading. Conversely, a person who chooses a victim based on a particular bias is singling out a ch...
Although proponents of hate crimes have some valid points I still remain in disagreement because when it comes to hate crimes their seems to be more questions then answers and there also seems to be a lot of uncertainty within the law itself. Hate crime laws should no longer exist in are justice system because every violent crime involves an element of hate and it is impossible to prove a person’s motive or hate in the court of law.
Again, the actual crime should be punished not the reasoning behind it. Murder is murder, robbery is robbery, rape is rape, regardless of motive. For example, Person A and Person B both assault innocent people. But while beating the life out of his victim, Person B calls him a "Nigger." His crime is considered a hate crime. Consequently, his crime will receive harsher punishment. Despite why the crime took place, the point is that a crime took place. No matter why the victim is chosen, he or she was still harmed, the family is still going to grieve, and someone must be punished. Whether a person is killed for money or drugs or out of hate or prejudice, the fact still remains that he or she has been killed. With hate crime laws, the hate is being looked at, more so than the crime itself. Even though hate is a terrible thing to have in your heart, all Americans have the right to hate whatever or who ever they want. Besides, if officials start punishing hate or unholy thoughts, they might as well make a new category of crime— thought crime. If this line of thinking were acted upon, then half of America would be behind bars.
...on, and Gendering of Federal Hate Crime Law in the U.S., 1985-1998.” University of California Press on behalf of the Society for the Study of Social Problems. 46: 548-571.
The current laws in effect regarding hate crimes are limited. Additionally, victims who experience a hate crime suffer much more traumatically than victims of other crimes do. Hate Crimes not only affect the individual, but their entire community as well.
...ith these differencesAs Barbara McQuade said, “A hate crime is different than a simple assault because it is an attack on not just one individual victim, but an attack on everyone who shares a particular characteristic.”As presented in this paper, hate crime isn’t new but isn’t talked about too much either. These crimes are not taken as serious as they should be. Attention was brought to what hate crime is, who commits them, at what ages they are being committed, how often they occur, which states have the most and which people are targeted the most. Hate crimes are done every day and it isn’t taken seriously. It can happen to anyone in this country at any time. After reading this paper there should be enough information gathered to try and avoid these crimes. It is also shown that participating to try and put an end to these crimes would be very helpful to society.
The issue (which, in my opinion, makes a good argument) is that it ‘’creates complicated moral problems by making it appear as if a murder is "worse" when committed because of the victim's race, religion, or sexual orientation.’’ (Hate crime laws, 2014). Murder is one of the worst crimes that can be committed and it can have several motives and reasons behind it. Allowing hate crimes to be punished more severely or stating that hate crime is more ‘’aggressive’’ and ‘’brutal’’ is not fair to other victims and treats them unequally.
A large problem in America has always been racial issues and still continues to be prevalent in our society today. The United States likes to boast its reputation as a “melting-pot” as many cultures, ethnicities, and backgrounds are mixed together, yet the country still continues to isolate individuals based on race. In the constitution, it says that everyone is supposed to have equal rights and liberties, yet after over 200 years, many minorities still struggle to obtain the same respect and equality that their white counterparts have always have. Laws should be created to enforce equality and justice for racial groups.