Hate Crimes
What constitutes a hate crime? What makes a hate crime different from a crime or are they one in the same. If you believe that there is a different between a hate crime and a crime, then how can we legislate hate crimes fairly and without bias on a consist basis? 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.
A hate crime is described as a crime in which the victim is targeted specifically because of their "actual or perceived race, color, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation.” The word hate crime did not exist until the 1980’s but the FBI had been investigating hate crimes as early as the 1930’s. After the passage of the Civil Right Act of 1964 the role of the federal government increased with more violence against African Americans. Hate crime legislation was first introduced in the 1980’s and was pass in the early 1990’s by way of the The Hate Crimes Statistics Act. The Hate Crimes Statistics Act only gave the FBI the power to track and record hate crime statistics. In October of 2009, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act or “The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act” was passed. The new law gave the Department of Justice the power to investigate and prosecute bias-motivated violence (FBI).
Challenges to hate crime laws have been based on the First Amendment of the Constitution the right to free speech. The first major Supreme Court ruling on this issue was R. A. V. v. City...
... middle of paper ...
...rimes have a huge impact on a victims community. They believe that hate crimes affect everyone who shares the victim’s race, religion, or other targeted characteristic they also believe that such crimes can also have an affect society as a whole. They argue that all crimes harm society by removing the sense of safety and security from it, but hate crimes threatens values, like equality and diversity (Macmillan Social Science Library).
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.
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
In October of 1998, Aaron Kreifels, a young man, resident of Laramie, Wyoming discovered Matthew Shepard's limp body bound to a fence. From a distance Kreifels mistook Shepard's slender frame for a “scarecrow”, and was horrified to find otherwise (Kaufman). Matthew Shepard, a twenty-one year old University of Wyoming student, had been beaten until he was no longer recognizable, and while still technically alive he was rushed into urgent care. He died, after slipping into a coma, six days later (Kaufman).
A hate crime is defined as “a crime motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence” (Oxford Dictionaries). Matthew Shepard’s death caused great disorder in Laramie, despite the fact that it was originally an unknown town. In a sense, Laramie itself has changed due to the media attention of this event. Hate was originally “not a Laramie value” (Kaufman 15), but after this hate crime, the public has great sympathy for Matthew Shepard and distrust towards Laramie’s people. Even with all the support as well as the parade for Shepard, it is quite disappointing that there weren’t any regulations or protection offered to homosexuals, bisexuals, or transgender, after this crime.
Not only is violence and hate blatantly expressed in ways that hate crime laws are supposed to prevent and cease, but they are also expressed in these legal settings through physical and abusive mistreatment. This occurs when those incarcerated are denied medical and psychiatric care and resources, however, the system that does the punishing for hate crimes will never be punished for hate crimes, or crimes that it is delegated prevent. It is also extremely troublesome that police and the legal system that continuously and historically commits violent and hateful acts towards marginalized communities such as the trans community, are the ones who are delegated the role of preventing these offenses, and expected to uphold this duty, when history such as the Stonewall riots show that this is a dangerous course of action
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.
Hate speech directs people to commit hateful crimes. The difference between hate crimes and regular crimes is that hate crimes are committed to a person because of his/her differences. Some examples of differences would be their gender, race, hair color, body shape, intelligence, sexual orientation, etc. Hate speech doesn’t have to be direct talking. Hate speech can now be down on the Internet or through magazine; and more people are using the Internet to publicize their vile beliefs. In the last five years, the number of hate crimes that have been reported to the FBI has increased by 3,743 (FBI statistics). That means that 11,690 hate crimes were reported in 2000 in only 48 states and not all police forces released their data. Imagine how many other hate crimes were committed that weren’t even reported to the police. Ethnic and racial violence or tension has decreased in Europe due to newly implemented hate speech laws (ABC News).
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... ...
In conclusion, Heidi Hurd did a passable job in explaining both parts of the discussion. Based on her article I have come to the conclusion that this is a topic not easily solved. With every argument that the people in favor of hate crime legislation those against are able to oppose it with their own. It is simple not possible to generalize case because although they may be similar they are never the same. Discrimination, hate, and prejudice has always been and will continue to be a topic discussed for many years.
A hate crime is a crime, usually involving violence or intimidation committed against others based partially or entirely on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation or membership in another social group.
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...
Hate crimes are not a new concept for society, because hate crimes have always been around. While the study of hate crimes and the laws that have been passed because of hate crimes is relatively new, hate crimes have always been around. Hate crimes were committed as far back as the 1800’s and even back to The Civil War. Hate crimes are prevalent in society today just like they were in the past; because whether the crimes are aimed towards Muslims, the gay community, or any other minority group; they are fueled by something that every person has come into contact with- prejudice. Prejudice is defined as a preconceived thought or opinion about someone. While prejudice can be positive, in the concept of hate crimes they are negative feelings, thoughts, or opinions that are aimed towards a certain religious, ethnic, race, or even sexual orientation group. The typical definition of hate crime is that a crime has been committed by a majority member against a minority member simply because the victim was a minority. However, as of recent the definition has been expanded to allow for any crime committed by bias towards the victim’s social group such as anti-gay or anti-lesbian. Hate crimes are an extreme, potential effect due to prejudice and discrimination towards someone based on ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. These crimes are committed against an individual or a group of individuals based solely on the fact that they are part of a group that the offender doesn’t approve of whether it is because they are a different race or following an alternative lifestyle. While the hate crimes are not something that is new in society because prejudice has always been around, the concept of a bias-crime and the legal precedent that it ha...
Hate crime is still being committed today and many believe that it would benefit victims and communities if hate crimes were punished more severely. However, hate crimes should not be punished more severely than other crimes that are motivated for other reasons; although the motivation (personal belief) and violence that constitute a hate crime are horrendous, criminals should be prosecuted for their wrongdoing, not for their beliefs. The idea that criminals should be punished more severely than crimes that are motivated by greed, anger, revenge is not acceptable. The potential motivations that were just given can constitute several crimes, like, murder. 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 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
Race and crime is a major topic in today’s world because it is a highly debated subject and has a major impact on how society is today. Race and crime go hand in hand. No matter who commits a crime, there is always a race involved. With race and crime there are many stereotypes that come with the subject. Race and crime are both active matters in everyday life. It is everywhere. Social Media involves race and crime in practically anything. If one is active on say for example twitter, the point of twitter is to keep your followers interested by what you are showing them. There is a reason why the news opens up with the most violent crimes and twitter is no different. As a matter of fact any form of media grasps onto it. Another example would
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.
We are all affected by crime, whether we are a direct victim, a family member or a friend of a victim. It can interfere with your daily life, your personal sense of safety and your ability to trust others.