Hate crime has become a politically and socially significant term that cuts across communities and across borders. Hate crime is an undisputed problem in the UK. Debate is focused on how the problem should or can be solved. In the UK the criminal law is used as a tool to deal with hate crime. However many discuss if the criminal law the correct response to such a complex issue. There is also debate regarding what characteristics should be protected under hate crime legislation. In the UK there are five recognized categories which are protected. Race, religion, sexual orientation, disability and transgender identity. The first section of this essay will lay some context to my argument that the criminal law is an effective response to the issue. …show more content…
The use of the criminal law is primarily justified through consideration of the harm principle and further supported by the importance of the laws symbolic nature. This presents a clear unstandable statement to society that such behaviour is wrong and that suitable punishment will result from such actions. However, some critics of criticism of such criminalisation demonstrates that the current legislation is not perfect. Therefore, change in the current system is necessary. Including, addressing instructional issues that prevent hate crime from being dealt with properly under the criminal law. In addition, the definition of hate crime and the characteristics found in the legislation must also be adapted for fairer application. There are various changes that could be made across the system to make the criminals response more specific and …show more content…
There is no clear legal definition of a hate crime. Hate crime is generally known as any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated be prejudice or hate. Hate crimes are therefore dependant on the identification of the victim belonging to a particular group. The core of the crime itself is physical or psychological violence, the emotions, such as ‘hate or bias’, heighten the severity of the crime. However, many argue that the true parameters of hate crime are not known. Guidance to member states from the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) described hate crimes as, ‘criminal acts committed with a bias motive’. Significantly, the ODIHR 2010 guidance does not seek to set out a list of characteristics that member states should focus their criminal policy upon. Providing the characteristics are fundamental to a person's sense of self. This is significant because across Europe the problem is of differing magnitudes, hate crimes are not only dealt with differently but the characteristics of targeted victims are also different. In addition to this body, the College of Policing, also produces guidance on this matter, describing hate crime with reference to prejudice and hostility, as well as hate. The college of policing also requires that all instances that involve hate are
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
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
...ce about committing a crime. But lawmakers failed to see that this is the point of any law. Look at how much crime this country has. That is part of the reason why many states reinstated the death penalty—because people were supposed to think twice about committing crimes. Obviously, these laws are not doing their job. The government reported 97 executions this year alone, up from 68 in 1998 and 74 executions in 1997 (Johnson 1). Officials should rethink their strategies. If laws already exist for a certain crime, regardless of whether or not it is a hate crime, then those laws should be used. Laws should not be changed to fit individual situations.
There are several reasons why offenders commit hate crimes, they vary from case to case, however, one key element is fear which is caused by ignorance. The offenders fear the unknown and the competition they feel that exists, them vs. the ‘others’. When fear is accompanied by other factors it could potentially lead to a violent crime. “The
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.
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.
With making the laws more strict the victums of hate crimes will be gaining more security and more protection from having violence and abuse taken out on them.
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.
Lieberman M, Larner J. “Hate crime laws: punishment to fit the crime. Dissent”. 2010;(3):81. Available from: Academic OneFile, Ipswich, MA. Accessed April 1, 2014.
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...
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
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.