The Pros And Cons Of Hate Crime Laws

928 Words2 Pages

Hate Crime Laws are Unnecessary
Since President Obama passed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr., Hate Crime Prevention Act of 2009, disputes about whether the law is compulsory raised by some people. Supporters believe that the enforcement of hate crime laws are vital because it protects minorities and deter further attacks toward them. However, some argue that hate crime laws should be abolished because they are unnecessary since the laws engender hypocrisy. Hate crime laws are hard to define, the laws divide people into categories, and the laws violate the First Amendment. Therefore, hate crime laws should not be established. Hate crime laws are hard to specify due to the fact that motivations behind crimes are hard to tell. As a result, the formation of hate crime laws creates injustice. The characteristics of the victims can distort the cases and cause inequity. For instance, a person attacks an African American because the African American stole his wallet. The motivation of the crime is not because of racial discrimination, but because of personal revenge. However, the case may mislead to a hate crime focusing purely on the victim’s identity. In addition, Bill Dobbs, a gay activist and a civil libertarian, states that “defendants can be tried not only for …show more content…

People have the liberty to believe in whatever they want and do whatever they like if they do not cause any harm to others. Even though some people may hate other groups of people based on their identity, they should not be charged of crime if they do not cause any harm to the society. People should only be punished when they commit a crime that hurts humanity, and all kinds of crimes are already covered in existing laws, so it depicts the un-necessity of hate crime

Open Document