Controversial U.S. Laws: Are the Laws Propagating Crime? Every law has its own history, and most of the laws have some or the other positive and negative points. Some laws give too much freedom and some laws restrict every movement, but there should be a constricting line drawn somewhere to define a law in a specific manner. A law should never be misused to hurt human beings, but the “Stand Your Ground Law” has raised some recent controversies because of the Zimmerman vs. Martin case. Sari Horwitz says in her article, “Holder: Justice Dept.
In both of these scenarios, justice was not done. The systems responsibility is to promote justice, equality, fairness, and protection. However, wrongful convictions have broken this trust and confidence between the system and the people. People look up to the criminal justice system but when that trust is broken; the system also crumbles. Wrongful convictions do not just harm the innocent alleged criminal.
It is almost impossible to prove that a crime is committed out of a bias hate. I feel that a law that punishes hate crimes should not be passed. One main question that would be asked is, “Prove it?” Saying just that, in some cases destroys the effectiveness of the law, especially if and when the crime is committed when both parties share the same sexual, ethnic or religious back- ground. Now, I think that the money grubbing lawyers and the media would love this new law because, for one, the prosecuting lawyers would, in many cases, use it against the defendant, especially if it was a white vs. black case, or vice versa. The media would emphasize racial discrimination just because the general public, especially minorities, love controversies that may make them sympathetic.
This dual requirement substantially limits the potential for federal assistance in investigating or prosecuting hate crimes, even when the crime is particularly heinous. Hate crimes demand a priority response because of their special emotional and psychological impact on the victim and the victims’ community. The damage done by hate crimes cannot be measured solely in terms of physical injury or dollars and cents. Hate crimes may effectively intimidate other members of the vi... ... middle of paper ... ... Law."
And yes, a hate crime is seen as more debauched in our growingly politically correct society, but under the scrutiny of law it should not be seen as a special crime in need of special punishment. In our legislation we should not make a special needs section to satisfy the victims of intolerance. In our society everything and everyone is suppose to be equal, and in classifying two different murderers as one being a hate murderer and the other simply a murderer is not acceptable. Now I am not trying to defend murders in my accusations but rather am trying to make a point. Crimes that are committed out of intolerance of one’s beliefs or actions are no different than a crime that is committed out of pure pleasure per se.
The second support claim used by the author is that society has to change how it handles offenders. Average offenders are labeled as serious, violent, and savagelike, but people do not take the time to find out the details of the criminals' pasts and the reasoning behind their acts. Miller writes, "Those are the kinds of things we not only do not want to know but from which we run in fear - because if we were to hear them, we'd all feel a little bit guilty. It's much easier to start talking about people in genetic terms" (567). The author uses this support very wisely.
In his argument Trippett challenges the assumption that not only violent crime breaks the law, in addition small crimes could break the law as much as major. In his view he firmly believes that people who aren’t law breakers should stay the same and keep abiding the law. Ultimately, Trippett asserts that when society breaks laws in can have a detriment upon others. One of the main implications is younger people in a possibility can be influenced to break laws and they can influence more and more people and that can cause a big problem in society. Furthermore Trippett’s argument is agreeable and has strong evidence.fgdfgdsdgfgfdgyrtsdhtrdxhbtrfxnsr One can consider themselves a non-law breaker; however there is a slight possibility that one may have broken a “minor” law themselves without even knowing.
They also maintain that criminal acts such as fraud and identity theft would be drastically reduced and that racial profiling by law enforcement officials would be discouraged. However, opponents of national ID cards are skeptical of these claims, as they should be. There is more than sufficient evidence to show that any progress made by national ID cards would be heavily outweighed by the issues that would arise as a result of their use. History has proven that the government tends to abuse ID systems and databases during times of crises, and this would be no exception. Also, such a systems cost and its proneness to errors should be enough to deter from its use.
Another reason they it as a disadvantage was because according to the dissent “some cases cannot be solved without confessions”. Also they implied the “welfare” of our society was at stake because it would let criminals run free, if the Miranda rights weren’t stated to them correctly. This was a “hazardous” experiment which could have a dismal outcome and prove to be very ineffective in the future. Furthermore, the dissenting opinion on the way the police officers had treated suspects amendment rights were “exaggerated” and that the outcome was only to favor the accused more favorably. Our Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights have changed since the Miranda v. Arizona case got brought to the attention of the Supreme Court.
The laws that are in affect now are only slightly protective of the minorities in hate crimes. The laws that are in state right now say that a hate crime offender can only be prosocuted for their crimes if they are prohibiting the minority or victum of the hate crime from a “federally protected right”. Such as attending school, voting and etc. The victums of hate crimes do not think that these laws are very strict. The victoms are demanding newer stricter laws.