Should the Hate Crime Penalty be Harsher?
According to the most recent public reports, hate crimes increased in California in 2015 by more than 10%, and hate crimes involving religious bias increased by almost 50%. This information was written in the article “Intent Shouldn’t Define Hate Crimes.” The definition of a hate crime is a crime motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence. Hate crimes are a serious problem and not choosing to prosecute them appropriately is not effective nor fair. This is a problem for people all over the world because hate crimes are committed very often and not always given the proper approach. On one side of the debate, critics believe that hate crime laws infringe on free
…show more content…
speech rights. However, it is absolutely critical due to the rise in hate crimes, the federal government should make the hate crime laws more strict. The first reason it is absolutely critical that there is a need for a harsher hate crime penalty is that the number of hate crimes is increasing.
Critics often argue that hate crime laws are giving the wrong convictions to people who commit assault crimes. However, some people do get the wrong convictions for there crimes, but usually, the crimes they commit in this situation are hate crimes and need to be taken seriously. For example, Audra Burch wrote in the article “Lawmakers Seek Harsher Hate Crime Penalties,” “The F.B.I.‘s latest report, released in November, showed a 6.7 percent rise in reported hate crimes in 2015” (Burch 3.) This proves that the hate crime reports have risen and we need to do something about it. Another reason by Audra Burch is, “Hate crimes increased to 1,998 from 1,886” (Burch 3.) This shows that hate crimes are going up and the penalties we have now are not affecting people's decisions. Lastly, in the article “More Than a Third of Trans People Suffered Hate Crimes in 2017,” Ryan Butcher stated, “More than a third of all transgender people in the UK have been victims of a hate crime in the past 12 months,” (Butcher 1.) This states that more hate crimes are happening not only in the United States but all over the world. In sum, it is apparent to see that, there is a need for the harsher hate crime penalty because hate crimes are increasing and the punishment we have right now isn’t helping us cut down on hate
crimes. The second reason it is absolutely certain that there is a need for the harsher hate crime penalty is that hate crimes can be very violent sometimes. Critics might oppose that people can be put on assault charges instead of a hate crime charge. Although, this could be an option, having hate crime laws are a necessity to help victims. First, Ryan Katz shares in the article “Hate Crime Law Results in Few Convictions and Lots of Disappointment,” that, “In some very violent cases that carry the most severe sentences--murder or rape, for instance--prosecutors opt to drop the hate element because there is no additional punishment available,” (Katz 3.) This is saying that when the violent crimes are committed the hate crime law doesn’t have a good punishment and needs to be changed. Secondly, Ryan Katz also shares that, “Lance Reyna was assaulted in a school bathroom in 2010. Reyna--who is transgender and gay--was a student at Houston Community College when an attacker held a knife to his throat, called him a ‘queer’ in a falsetto voice, then kicked and beat him and left him on the bathroom floor,” (Katz 1.) Now you would probably say “yeah that sounds like a hate crime,” but this assault was not successfully prosecuted as a hate crime as with other horrifying stories in this article. Finally, another story that was written in the same article by Katz is, “recently, John Gaspari was walking home from a bar in Houston at around 3 a.m. on Valentine’s Day 2015. He was three blocks from home when a car suddenly swerved onto the sidewalk, trying to run him over. Three men jumped out of the car and shouted, “Get the fag!” They tackled, punched and kicked Gaspari. Then one of them pumped two bullets into him and left him unconscious on the side of the road,” (Katz 2.) This beating was never prosecuted as a hate crime either. This just shows why the law is needed and needs to be taken more seriously instead of not doing anything about the situation. As a result, it is clear to see, There is a need for a harsher hate crime penalty and it needs to be more paid attention to. The third and final reason there is a need for a harsher hate crime penalty is that people should feel safe being who they are. Now critics often argue that people can feel safe with an assault charge and be put away for something else. Despite this, people who are victims want to make sure they are going to be protected. For instance, in the article, “Intent Shouldn’t Define Hate Crimes,” Dan McLaughlin states, All violent crimes are bad and the crimes don’t just harm the victims, but they can spread fear to others who can see themselves as a target, (McLaughlin 1.) Basically, this states that not only victims are traumatized by these events, but there families and others who feel threatened by these tragedies. Next, Michael Boren confirms in the article “Tracking Crimes Against LGBT People Is Hard” that, “Transgender people also face a high risk of assault. Nearly half--or more than 13,000 of 27,715--of those surveyed by the National Center for Transgender Equality in 2015 said they had been sexually assaulted at some point in their lives.” Honestly, in my opinion, I probably wouldn’t feel safe as the person in one of these situations. But with having a harsher hate crime law this could reduce the amounts of assaults because people don’t want to be sent away even longer for doing something like this. Finally, in the article “More Than a Third of Trans People Suffered Hate Crimes in 2017,” Ryan Butcher illustrates, “More than two in five trans people (44 percent) also said they would avoid certain streets because they did not feel safe walking down them as a trans person,” (Butcher 3.) What this means is, innocent people, don’t feel safe in there own towns or cities because they're afraid of what could happen to them. Therefore, it is easy to see, there is an absolute need for the harsher hate crime penalty because innocent people don’t feel safe being themselves. In conclusion, Although, it is often claimed, that the hate crime law is useless and infringes on the free speech rights, it is obvious to see that something needs to change. Due to this issue, it is absolutely critical due to the rise in hate crimes, the federal government should make the hate crime law have a harsher penalty because people should feel secure being themselves, hate crimes can be violent, and the hate crime number is increasing. Then, maybe one day, if the hate crime penalty is changed, everyone can feel safe going out and living there live not in fear.
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
“You are hereby sentenced to life without the possibility of parole”. These are the words that a juvenile in America is likely to hear. Collectively, as a nation, the United States has incarcerated more juveniles with life sentences than any other nation. With this fact the arguments arise that juveniles should not be punished the same was as an adult would be but, is that really how the justice system should work? To allow a juvenile who recently robbed a store only get a slap on the wrist? Not comprehending that there are consequences for their actions and how what they have done affects the victims.
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
...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.
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... ...
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.
To look closely at many of the mechanisms in American society is to observe the contradiction between constitutional equality and equality in practice. Several of these contradictions exist in the realm of racial equality. For example, Black s often get dealt an unfair hand in the criminal justice system. In The Real War on Crime, Steven Donziger explains,
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.
Revel and Riot confirmed that, “In law, [a hate crime is] a crime directed at a person on the basis of characteristics such as race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.” The notion of hate crimes, unfolded in the U.S. around the late 1970s. Ever since then, numerous laws continue to pass simply to maintain these violent crimes, motivated by bias groups of people. Many citizens call for stricter laws, and harsher punishments. Some, debate that hate crimes only benefit certain groups of people, who do not belong to the group that are heavily attacked. Based on a world full of differences, those differences are what makes us a nation.
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
...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.
Someone commits a hate crime every hour. In the most recent data collection, 2014, a reported 17, 876 hate crimes were committed. This is a national crisis that we cannot allow to continue.
Punishing the unlawful, undesirable and deviant members of society is an aspect of criminal justice that has experienced a variety of transformations throughout history. Although the concept of retribution has remained a constant (the idea that the law breaker must somehow pay his/her debt to society), the methods used to enforce and achieve that retribution has changed a great deal. The growth and development of society along with an underlying, perpetual fear of crime are heavily linked to the use of vastly different forms of punishment that have ranged from public executions, forced labor, penal welfarism and popular punitivism over the course of only a few hundred years.
The heaviest punishment towards convicts is death penalty in law. It means to atone for an offense is dead. Of course, it will not execute for every criminal. Death penalty is only for felons. For example, a people who murdered someone would not get the death penalty. The death penalty is for murders who related to the smuggling of aliens or committed during a drug-related drive-by shooting. Sometimes, however, the felons also can avoid the death because some countries (or actually states) don’t allow death penalty. Then, what decision would the convict get? It is a life sentence, which means the prisoner should be in a prison until he or she dies. However, it is not good idea to keep felons. Death penalty should be allowed and get more active because life sentence is costly, unsafe, and insincere for a victim and the family.