In 1969 the federal government put into effect the federal hate crimes acts. The federal hate crimes act protects people of all race, religion, gender, color, ethnicity, and national origin. At the time this law only applied if the victim was engaging in a federally protected activity such as voting or going to school. However, the law did not include hate crimes against gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability status. It was not until 1998 when Matthew Sheppard was brutally attacked and left for death that the act changed. On the evening of October 6, 1998 Matthew Sheppard was at Fireside Lounge a gay friendly bar in Laramie Wyoming where he met Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson to whom he revealed his sexuality. The two men …show more content…
Proponents of the HCPA feel that it is necessary because violent incidents against gay and lesbian occur often by peers, strangers, and even family members. A study done on gay men between the ages of 14-21 found that of the 192 participants one third stated they had been verbally assaulted by at least one family member (Kitts, 2005). They also feel that hate crimes are separate crimes and should be prosecuted in such a way. There were many opponents to the HCPA their main arguments were; existing laws were efficient enough and new laws would only add to the problem of over criminalization, singling out certain groups meant that crimes against other groups were not as important, and many raised concerns that the new law would be unconstitutional (Trout, 2015) The target populations in regard to this act are; victims of hate crimes due to their perceived or actual sexual orientation, gender identity, and or disability, perpetrators, and law enforcement …show more content…
This law intended to protect the people of these minority groups and provide harsher punishments for bias- motivated violence. The law essentially took a crime motivated by hate and separated it into two separate crimes; the hate crime and the original crime. When the bill was signed by President Obama in 2009 there were unintended effects associated as well.
Many perceived the act as being unconstitutional. They claimed that the bill created a “privileged class” and tried to label all crimes as hate crimes. Erba (2014) found opponents thought that the act was vague because there was no definition of disability and sexual orientation. When listing the protected people under the HCPA one is left to guess who exactly those people are. For example, in Illinois under the terms of sexual orientation a person who identifies themselves as bisexual is protected under the act but in Arizona they are not (Erba, 2014). The vagueness of the act suggests that it is more symbolic than it is
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.
In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults which were acting in privacy. The case attracted much of the public attention and quite a large number of briefs were filed in the cases.
There are a number of reasons why people supported Proposition 8. There was indubitably a measure of homophobia which influenced the result, but proponents of the revision focused their arguments on other issues. Those who supported “Prop 8” claimed that it was not hateful or discriminatory, and that it did not in fact take away the legal rights of non-traditional couples. This argument hinged upon California Family Code Section 297.5, which granted the same rights and responsibilities to civil unions and domestic partnerships as to marriages. The flaw in this reasoning is astoundingly obvious. By taking away a couple’s ability to marry, the state would be taking away one o...
Many people claim that the violence happenes not because of sexual orientation, but because it is just an act to be committed. According to the Human Rights Campaign, crimes against homosexual people resulted in four deaths in 1998 alone. James Ward, a thirty-seven year old male from Arkansas, was stabbed to death in his own home by eighteen year old Jeremy Legit. Legit claimed that Ward made two sexual advances toward him. He was sentenced to twenty years. In Honolulu, a man was beaten to death by a group of teenagers in a public shower because they believed he was gay. They were sentenced to five years in custody. In September, a transgender female was stabbed repeatedly with a broken beer bottle and set on fire. Christopher Lopez and Christopher Chavez spent five months in jail before all charges were dropped by the Fresno Police Department. On October 12, 1998 Matthew Shepard, an openly gay student at the University of Wyoming was beaten, tormented, tied to a fence, and left to die in freezing temperatures. The two men were sentenced to life in jail, only after the media had covered the trial and the whole world knew of the att...
According to Petrosino (2003: 10) hate crimes can be defined as "..the victimisation of minorities due to their racial or ethnic identity by members of the majority. " (p. 4) Hate crimes are also known as bias-motivated crimes because the crimes are motivated by a bias towards a person or persons including but not limited to those of a different gender, ethnic background, religion, or sexual orientation. Hate crimes are quite serious and have severe and long lasting-effects for the targeted victims. Due to the severe nature of the crimes many countries have strict laws in place to punish offenders. Hate crime is not widely discussed in Canadian society because it has not been a prominent issue until now. “..The extent of the problem in Canada was limited to a small number of persons, such activity could create a climate of malice and destructiveness to the values of our society (Cohen Report, 1966:24). As a result of the committee’s efforts, Parliament amended the Criminal Code in 1970, thus rendering hate propaganda as a punishable offence (Law Reform Commission of Canada, 1986:7)
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... ...
Right now, there are many active hate groups in the United States such as the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazi, Skinheads, Christian identity, Black Separatists, etc. These hate groups like the Ku Klux Klan, which is one of America’s oldest and more feared, use violence and move above the law to promote their different causes. Another example is a group called Christian Identity, who describes a religion that is fundamentally racist and anti-Semitic; and other are the Black Separatist groups, who are organizations whose ideologies include tenets of racially based hatred. Because of the information gathered by the Intelligence Project from hate groups’ publications, citizen’s reports, law enforcement agencies, field sources and news reports, many people know about these hate groups. Many people know how these groups act and think and most of the American people agree that these hate groups are immoral and should not be allowed to exist neither in the United States nor on the rest of the world.
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
However, hate crimes can be deemed as a form of prejudice. It is a form of prejudice that is fixed upon a group of people built on their culture, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious preference, or any other essential characteristic. We must keep in mind, that anytime when there is diversity amongst groups of individuals who come into the presence of one another, there is a greater risk or the opportunity for tension or a conflict to emerge. Without a doubt, this primes violence. No matter if the alleged misconduct in question is assault, theft, verbal abuse or even murder, the enthusiasm that stems from such, is grounded on the concept of hate for a set of individuals that is declared or considered as appearing different in some sort of way ("History of Hate Crime - Crime Museum", 2017).
Society consists of many different sociological groups. These groups involve people of diverse races, religions, and more. Unfortunately, hate crimes happen when groups become angry or frustrated towards each other. These groups are formed mostly during times of economic struggle or even social change. Hate groups continue to be a problem in our society. A group believes that the reason for a specific problem is only the fault of another racial, religious, or other group. The most common forms of crime in our society are due to hatred. Hate crimes are defined as a crime motivated by hatred, prejudice, or intolerance of somebody’s race, religion, ethnicity, political affiliation, disability, and/or sexual orientation. Plenty of hate crimes happen due to the fact that someone is different from someone else.
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...
...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.
Matthew Sheppard is one of the thousands of victims who have suffered from the form of violence known as hate crimes.
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)