More handpicked essays just for you.
Is hate crime legislation effective
Essays on hate crime prevention act
Social problems caused by hate crimes
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Hate Crime Laws
Since the United States of America and long with the whole world is filled with diversity there will always be conflicts about believes and feelings towards each other. Many people have their believes and keep them to themselves. Then there are the type of people that feel they have to put their believes into actions and hurt others or destroy things to get their point across. These believes that hurt and destroy others things and lives are called hate crimes. Hate crimes are becoming more and more common everyday. FBI statistics show that the frequency hate crimes in America are increasing as the frequency regular crimes in America have been decreasing.
With the increase in hate crimes in America, minority groups are starting to become the prey of the beasts who commit these awful crimes. So the minority groups (Asians, African Americans, Jewish people, Homosexuals, and others) have been pushing to have hate crime laws passed to protect them from violence and ridicule. 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. The victoms or minorities want these newer stricter laws because basically they have no protection from violence. The old laws basically just state that if you are prohibiting the person from doing something you are at fault. Well the minorities want these stiffened and they want them to be harsher. An example of what the minorities want is any act done against anyone with intent to cause bodily harm or death because the person was part of a minority group will carry the fine of being federally prosecuted and with that there is the chance of the death penalty.
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.
There really is no opposition to making the laws stricter because it seems that most of the hate crimes that are happening are mostly random acts and just young kids creating stupid acts.
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.
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
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
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... ...
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
The fact that hate crimes still occur in America is another signpost that tolerance is still an unheard of notion to a lot of people. In 2007 the Federal Bureau of Investigation released statistics showing that 2,105 law enforcement agencies reported 9,080 offences of hate crime. This includes vandalism, intimidation, simple and aggravated assault, and murder. This also includes not only race statistics, but religious, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and disability motivated crimes. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission released statistics of discrimination charges for the same year with all ...
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.
Scapegoating is when a person irrationally blames their failures on others, therefore not taking responsibility themselves. The “scapegoating theory says that prejudiced people believe they are society’s victims” (Schaefer 38). It is always someone else’s fault that things do not go their way and the person “… transfers the responsibility for failure to some vulnerable group” (Schaefer 38).
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.
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)
A large problem in America has always been racial issues and still continues to be prevalent in our society today. The United States likes to boast its reputation as a “melting-pot” as many cultures, ethnicities, and backgrounds are mixed together, yet the country still continues to isolate individuals based on race. In the constitution, it says that everyone is supposed to have equal rights and liberties, yet after over 200 years, many minorities still struggle to obtain the same respect and equality that their white counterparts have always have. Laws should be created to enforce equality and justice for racial groups.