Hate Crime Laws

Although different variations of a crime may exist, society wonders if the types of victims affected by these crimes have any effect on their court jurisdictions. The 14th amendment to the Constitution clearly states that no person can have unequal protection of the law, but new regulations passed by Congress seem to come into conflict with this idea. As the history of hate crime legislation has progressed, so has the number of people hate crime laws protect. For this matter, many citizens with lawsuits deem these new laws unfair. Interpretations of the law allow a lot of leeway in order to shape legislation to the needs of the plaintiff or victim.

He even recognizes this and says that �young black and Hispanic men will probably be stopped more often than older white Anlgo males or women of any race� (109). Some say that, to cut down on gun violence, it is necessary to target groups, neighborhoods, and races that are more likely to commit these crimes; however it is demeaning and backwards. A good example of how the stop-and-frisk can lead to racial profiling is a case filed... ... middle of paper ... ... but to go about it in the way Wilson suggests will only hurt the nation. Instilling a random frisk would cause more problems than it would solve. First and most important, Americans� privacy would be at risk.

Because they do occur and by the time we focus in on the problem it’s too lat... ... middle of paper ... ...has tried hate crimes are still being commiteed every second around the world not just the United States. Hate crimes are acts of negativity that has ruined so many lives as individuals we can stop them but we can educate others on the downfalls of these things.If these people who do commit hate crimes had someone to talk to about their problems intead of holding in so much hurt they would feel a lot better about life and other peoples lives as well.Drama and violence does not solve every problem that we face but some think it does not knowing that taking the positive routes will make them feel much better about themselves. The punishment for minor hate crimes should be tooken more seriously to avoid bigger problems in the future for everyone.We shouldn’t live in fear everyday but we do because now days in time anything can happen to absolutely anybody at anytime.

Nobody should be attacked for who they are and by having hate crime legislation minorities can be protected. Currently there are forty-nine states that have hate crime laws because they want to protect the rights of minorities. Ninety-five percent of the American states object to hate crimes and show that America takes hates crimes seriously. America does this by addition time to hate crime perpetrator’s sentences because the perpetrator picked their victim because of their physical traits. Picking a victim based on their physical goes against all of the values that America was founded on.

Victims of hate crimes vary in the indiscretions placed against them, whether it is from a simple slander to a vicious attack. But they all have the same mutual notion that the crimes that were committed against them are far above other crimes because they were carried out in hate. I believe that the idea of creating a separate punishment for crimes of this nature is absolutely nonsensical and inane in theory. In the attached article, it states that “Congressional negotiators stripped a measure to strengthen 1960s-era hate crimes law from a massive defense bill, likely killing for this year the effort to broaden hate crimes protections for gay people and the disabled (Reuters, 2004).” This action, for some, it a disappointment and a big step back in their movement. “Backers of the hate crimes legislation, a top priority for gay rights and disabled advocacy groups (Reuters, 2004)” seem more interested in intensifying punishment that is only against them.

Hate crime can also be called a bias crime, which means that someone commits a crime against someone based solely on their particular characteristic that they cannot or do not want to change such as religion or gender (Hate Crimes, n.d.). Sadly, hate crimes occur often and can have a lasting effect on the victim. The definition of what constitutes a hate crime has broadened over the years, as the FBI has changed it to address those who are victimized by disability or gender identity as society has continued to grow more diverse and change substantially (Hate Crimes, n.d.). It is crucial that the United States understands how many people are victims of hate crimes and how often it occurs to better understand the scope of the problem. According to the FBI, the most frequent hate crimes are racially motivated at almost fifty percent (Latest Hate Crime Statistics, 2015).

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.

However, in the society we live in, there are always people that think that having a gun brings and promotes more violence into the communities and also that is a bad influence for the children that grow in that type of environment. The government should make gun control laws more restrictive, although I think that not even if they pass legislations regarding gun violence, there will still exist crimes involving firearms the percentage of this acts of violence may decrease. Gun violence make us question if police officers are they really doing their job? I consider that not all of them are doing their jobs well, there has been a lot of cases of police officers killing innocent people for no reason. Right now, in the United States of America, we have many cases involving police brutality.

According to Issues and Controversies on File some experts that do not support hate crime laws believe that these laws “perpetuate inequality among U.S. citizens”. They say that hate crime laws “single out” or pick the minorities that get the special privileges while other groups don’t get any protection. The way they see it is, “why should it be any more of a crime to attack a gay person, they ask, than a heterosexual person?”(506). Other experts that oppose hate crime laws such as Don Feder, believe that these laws deny another basic concept of democracy (equality before law) by creating different classes of victims”(3). Feder says that “anti-bias laws punish ideas.” He believes that the... ... middle of paper ... ...ated Violence.” Corrections Today August, 1999; 68 3.”Hate Crime Laws.” Issues and Controversies on File.

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.