Hate Crimes

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.

Capital Punishment Capital Punishment is regarded by most as a successful deterrent to murder, but that is because these people don’t look at it as it is applied. According to retributivists such as Kant and Van Den Haag the guilty deserves to be punished. On the other hand, people against the death penalty like Bedau think that the death penalty is just as much an effective deterrent as life in prison. The most famous retributivist Kant, states that the guilty ought to get punished because they chose to act wrongly, and by punishing them, we are respecting them as a moral agents. This occurs because humans are given the ability to reason and act morally and thus if we don’t punish them we are not treating them as moral agents.

"Maldistribution inheres no more in capital punishment than in any other punishment." (Haag 274) Fear of the death penalty can be a good deterrent. Many people also try to abolish the death penalty by talking about the suffering a convicted murderer has to go through, but what about what the victim had to go through. Further, if we get rid of the death penalty it will show that we are not willing to impose our punishments on people who brake our laws. Some maldistribution of the death penalty is unavoidable, but that does not mean we should throw out the death penalty.

Hate crimes are an extreme, potential effect due to prejudice and discrimination towards someone based on ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. These crimes are committed against an individual or a group of individuals based solely on the fact that they are part of a group that the offender doesn’t approve of whether it is because they are a different race or following an alternative lifestyle. While the hate crimes are not something that is new in society because prejudice has always been around, the concept of a bias-crime and the legal precedent that it ha... ... middle of paper ... ...on, and Gendering of Federal Hate Crime Law in the U.S., 1985-1998.” University of California Press on behalf of the Society for the Study of Social Problems. 46: 548-571. King, Ryan D., Steven.

So the argument that the criminal could be innocent is becoming invalid but there still is a small chance. Some people may not want to take the chance, however, the majority still votes for it. I believe that the death penalty is a humane form of punishment, reason being is that the people who commit unthinkable crimes are not the people we need to make this world. I believe people that commit murder and people who sexually assault children should definitely be executed. The reason why is because they assault people who are defenseless and abuse people just for the thrill of it.

Interpretations of the law allow a lot of leeway in order to shape legislation to the needs of the plaintiff or victim. General crime legislation serves the purpose of protecting the public, yet only certain motivations of crimes enable the judiciary to assign additional charges to a defendant guilty of a hate crime. The protected rights of citizens are believed to guarantee peace and tranquility. The most recent additions to everyday crime legislation have challenged this peace and created chaos between the supporters and opposers of these changes. Despite the United States developing hate crime legislation that suffices to maintain justice within the judiciary system, numerous legislative experts strongly believe these most recent changes create unnecessary bias.

There are many reasons to both support and oppose the death penalty. Many people can feel very strongly about whether or not they approve of this method of punishment. I feel that the death penalty is wrong, and I believe that there is much support to back this up. I believe that the death penalty is wrong because it is not an effective deterrent, racially and economically bias, unreliable, expensive, and morally wrong of society. One argument from death penalty supporters is that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to prevent other people from committing murders.

Capital punishment is one of the most controversial forms of sanction in the United States. The death penalty is legal in 32 states, including California and is outlawed in 18. This subject causes contentious debate amongst people because it allows someone to judge whether or not a person is worthy to live, which some believe is something all-together too powerful to decide. However, others believe it is a powerful tool which will reprimand all menacing criminals, and discourage any future criminals from continuing these offenses. Author Mary Kate Cary, writer of “The Conservative Case Against the Death Penalty,” believes that capital punishment is unnecessary and dangerous because innocent people die, it is discriminatory against people from certain ethnic groups, and believes it is cost effective to let a criminal live rather than be sentenced to death, while author of “The Death Penalty Deters Crimes and Saves Lives,” David B. Muhlhausen thinks that the death penalty should be implemented when certain types of crimes are committed because according to him, it deters future crime, it is not discriminatory, and it saves lives.

It will be argued that the death penalty is a morally dubious and obsolete practice that is no longer relevant in modern judiciary, as it breaches the inviolable human right to life. Ethics and morality are primary arguments for both supporting and opposing the death penalty, as some individuals believe that the death penalty is a immoral practice and others consider that it can be morally justified when prolific crimes are committed. Punishment is fundamental element to any legal system as a means of justice and ensuing that the offender is unable to commit additional crimes; however, in the case of the death penalty there can be dire consequences if the legal system is wrong. Politics and the economy are also greatly influenced by the death penalty as they determine if the practice is maintained. The death penalty breaches a number of human rights laws and some individuals support that it is immoral; however, others consider it to be justifiable due to the heinous actions of the offender.

There are chances that the system might convict an innocent citizen. There is no way to mend the mistakes we make. “‘We’re only humans, we all make mistakes,”’ (“Capital Punishment”) is a frequently used expression, but is it as true as anything can be. Therefore, the fact that there is a chance of an innocent life to be condemned to death should be enough to abolish the death penalty, but it is not enough for our government. Additionally, according to Amnesty International “‘the death penalty legitimizes an irreversible act of violence by the state and will inevitably claim innocent victims.”’(“Capital Punishment”).