Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Argument about hate crimes
Rodney king police brutality case
Thesis for rodney king
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Argument about hate crimes
Exposition: Determining Hate Crimes?Hate based on race, religion and sexual orientation exist within any cultural rich societies. When this type of hate fuels a person into taking violent actions upon those they hate, it is called a hate crime; a topic which the American public is seriously concerned about. It has been a widely discussed subject on the media, and often debates of whether or not a crime should be attributed with hate are the center for discussion.Does hate crime imply on any case when a person is convicted for inflicting damage on someone "different"? It is often difficult to set a benchmark for measuring sufficiency of hate as a cause to label it in front of crime. The term can be conveniently stretched and squeezed by people with different ideas and biases.
The four white policemen who brutally beat Rodney King Jr., a black man, half to death for merely speeding is determined by the court¡¦s judgment, as officers performing their duty. Hate, to those particular jurors and judge, was not a valid concern. To them, the beating was not due to the officers¡¦ resentment for a black man, but because they were simply disciplining an offender of the law. To the minority groups, the court¡¦s ruling was outrageous.
From their point of view, the savage beating was unnecessary and hate was obviously the factor which induce the four cops to perform such a nasty feat. Because people have varying views and opinions, application of the term "hate crime&qu...
The beating of Rodney King from the Los Angeles Police Department on March 3, 1991 and the Los Angeles riots resulting from the verdict of the police officers on April 29 through May 5, 1992 are events that will never be forgotten. They both evolve around one incident, but there are two sides of ethical deviance: the LAPD and the citizens involved in the L.A. riots. The incident on March 3, 1991 is an event, which the public across the nation has never witnessed. If it weren’t for the random videotaping of the beating that night, society would never know what truly happened to Rodney King. What was even more disturbing is the mentality the LAPD displayed to the public and the details of how this mentality of policing led up to this particular incident. This type of ethical deviance is something the public has not seen since the civil rights era. Little did Chief Gates, the Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department, and the LAPD know what the consequences of their actions would lead to. Moving forward in time to the verdict of those police officers being acquitted of the charges, the public sentiment spiraled into an outrage. The disbelief and shock of the citizens of Los Angeles sparked a mammoth rioting that lasted for six days. The riots led to 53 deaths and the destruction of many building. This is a true but disturbing story uncovering the ethical deviance from the LAPD and the L.A. riots. The two perspectives are from the Rodney King incident are the LAPD and the L.A. riots.
This incident would have produced nothing more than another report for resisting arrest had a bystander, George Holliday, not videotaped the altercation. Holliday then released the footage to the media. LAPD Officers Lawrence Powell, Stacey Koon, Timothy Wind and Theodore Brisino were indicted and charged with assaulting King. Superior Court Judge Stanley Weisberg ordered a change of venue to suburban Simi Valley, which is a predominantly white suburb of Los Angeles. All officers were subsequently acquitted by a jury comprised of 10 whites, one Hispanic and one Asian, and the African American community responded in a manner far worse than the Watts Riots of 1965. ?While the King beating was tragic, it was just the trigger that released the rage of a community in economic strife and a police department in serious dec...
On the morning of March 3rd, 1991 an African-American man led police on a high-speed chase through the city of Los Angeles. Approximately eight miles later police swarmed around the car and confronted the driver, who went by the name Rodney King. During the confrontation, officers tortured King until the point he was forced to seek medical care. A case was opened and the police officers were acquitted. This angered many people, specifically Blacks and led to the historical “L.A. Riots’’ , where they felt race had something to do with the case.
economic or social success some minorities have attained may result in increased feelings of resentment by members of the larger population. As Levin & McDevitt (1993:48) argue, resentment can be found to some extent in the personality of most hate crime offenders. It may be directed toward a part...
The fact that hate crimes still occur in America is another signpost that tolerance is still an unheard of notion to a lot of people. In 2007 the Federal Bureau of Investigation released statistics showing that 2,105 law enforcement agencies reported 9,080 offences of hate crime. This includes vandalism, intimidation, simple and aggravated assault, and murder. This also includes not only race statistics, but religious, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and disability motivated crimes. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission released statistics of discrimination charges for the same year with all ...
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... ...
A hate crime is an act of aggression against an individual's actual or perceived race, ethnicity, religions, disability, sexual orientation, or gender. Examples include assault and battery, vandalism, or threats which involve bias indicators - pieces of evidence like bigoted name-calling or graffiti.
This is not to say that neo-Nazis or skinheads do not partake in criminal hate activities. By far the largest determinant of hate crimes is racial bias, with African Americans the group at greatest risk. In 1996, 60%, were promulgated because of race, with close to two-thirds (62%) targeting African Americans. Furthermore, the type of crime committed against this group has not changed much since the 19th century; it still includes bombing and vandalizing churches, burning crosses on home lawns, and murder. Ethnic minorities often become targets of hate crimes because they are perceived to be new to the country even if their families have been here for generations, or simply because they are seen as different from the mainstream population.
During the 20th century, many civil rights acts came into play in hopes of creating more equality, such as the right to vote, attend school with the white children and geographical area to live in for the African Americans. Towards the end of the 20th century, biased motivated crimes increased. President Roosevelt prompted the change and the civil rights Act of 1957. This act prohibited any individual from infringing on their right to vote. During this time, it also brought light to the investigations of hate crime and bias motived crimes. Congress passed the Hate Crime Statistics Act to assist in reporting official statistics of crime in America. The collection of data came from the Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (Lawrence, 2002). Once the data began to demonstrate perceived bias crimes, concern grew and it was recognized as a social problem in the United States. It is difficult to compare the data retrieved during 20th century because prior to this time there was no data collected.
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.
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...
There are many who believe hate crime should be punished more severely since it ‘’has the potential to cause greater harm.’’ (Hate Crime Laws, 2014) Hate crimes, like racial discrimination, have unfortunately been a part of this country for centuries, racial discrimination was rampant in the 19th and 20th century, but mostly in the south; many segregation laws were created at the time ‘’that banned African Americans from voting, attending certain schools, and using public accommodations. ’’ (Hate Crime Laws, 2014)
Therefore, defining hate crime policy must be very carefully and thoughtfully defined. Evidence of the ambiguity inherent in hate crime legislation can be found in chapter two of the book, Hate Crimes – Criminal Law & Identity Politics, by James H. Jacobs and Kimberly Potter. Jacobs and Potter Say who they are. argue that such ambiguity comes from a lack of consensus regarding the variables that make up hate crime ;how does one define prejudice, whose prejudices should be included in hate crime legislation, which crimes should be included, and what should the link between a motivating prejudice and criminal act look like. While defining all of these variables is critical to fair and effective hate crime legislation, I believe it is the last one that presents the greatest challenge. Although I think that lawmakers can eventually develop a good framework for hate crime legislation that addresses the first three variables, it can still be very difficult for authorities to establish a clear link between a criminal’s motivations and his or her
Today we have looked at the problem known as hate crimes and the varied causes which keep it in existence. We have also discussed some solutions to this act of hate.
Whether it’s because of race, sexuality, or even other religion, hate crimes are motivated by how they view people because of their personal belief. Organized religion is the main reason for hate crimes around the world.