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.
The addition of hate crime charges does not potentially harm anyone else other than the criminal themselves, but the oppositions of hate crime legislation could have evolved out of jealousy for this supposed unequal advantages. The intimidation of particular groups has become widely known as a wrongful act, yet people surprisingly do not accept victims seeking justice to find peace within themselves by winning their court case. Adding an extra penalty to criminals as they go through the process in court would seem like a benign action to take, yet the idea of providing this advantage does not settle too comfortably in the heads of other non-minority victims. Ordinary criminal laws would seem to meet requirements for victims, yet targets of crimes never cease to get the most out of the loose interpretations of law.
Therefore, no matter how you look at it the retributivists have two risks while Bedau only has one. It is true that murderers deserve to die, but how do you make sure it’s those people who die and not innocent people like Roy Roberts. Its always arbitrary and discriminatory as it is applied, while it is not even being an effective deterrent to other criminals, and its costs are twice as a life sentence in prison. Thus, if you are a supporter and you can’t come up with an answer to any of these arguments, then you are a false supporter and should re-think your views. The only argument for the death penalty is that in theory it could be agreeable because it seems as though it would deter criminals but in practice there are too many arguments against it.
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.
Despite the reasons individuals might want the death penalty, the pros of removal outweigh the cons. Whether that be because of the history of racial bias in America, or the innocent lives sentenced to death. America should not stand by and let events like these legally occur in our judicial system. A revolution must occur, a revolution to end this broken system.
The predominant school of thought in the American populace lies with the vigorous acceptance for the execution of murderers. While the majority of Americans tend to believe in the inherent right of the state to exact capital punishment on suspected murderers, an increasing opposition to the death penalty can be seen both within the US and globally. The supporters believe that by killing the criminals, the country can be a safer place at the same time as discouraging future criminals. But, as facts continue to prove, enforcing the death row has little to no effect in the deterrence of criminals and instead, can leave innocent people hanging from a noose. The whole system of capital punishment is visibly flawed as its ability to execute the real criminals based upon DNA evidence continues to fail.
Furthermore, Justice Kennedy’s idea of “evolving standards of decency” in Roper v. Simmons (2005) demonstrates that the growing national consensus is against the death penalty and therefore in favor of equal protection for all persons. In order to prove the existence of purposeful discrimination, McCleskey must first demonstrate that he belonged to a group “that is a recognizable, distinct class, singled out for different treatment” (McCleskey v. Kemp 318). Here, McCleskey relied on the Baldus study,... ... middle of paper ... ...cision-making process, McCleskey has clearly been wrongfully punished for his crime. The death sentence imposed on him was decided in a racially bias manner that targeted him for his black background. The fact that his victim was White and not Black increased the likelihood of his receiving the death sentence.
Take into consideration that the Constitution states that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can not be taken away without due process. The offenders committing the brutal, heinous crimes have not applied this right to the victims of their crimes. Why should the government take their rights into consideration when the victims rights meant so little to them? People always put forth the idea that killing is wrong in any sense, yet they don’t want to punish the people that commit the crimes. If a person is so uncompassionate for human life and not care what happens; are sick enough to harm someone else, they should also pay the price with their lives.
On the other hand, opponents argue that we don’t have the power to take another human being’s life; so it encourages a culture of violence that violates our human rights. Opponents also argue that the execution discriminates against minorities and the poor. Through these many viewpoints I believe that the issue of capital punishment will continue to be a controversy. One of the main reasons why I decided to ... ... middle of paper ... ...ica Have Capital Punishment? : The Experts on Both Sides Make Their Best Case.
Who has the right to take away someone’s life? No one really, but the bitter truth is that the government does. The way they see it is an eye for an eye. Protecting the rest of the world from what is considered to be a monstrous human being filled with only hatred and violence, with no chance of changing or improving their horrific behaviors. The death penalty is racially and economically biased, rarely reversed for the wrongly accused, and the government should not have that power.