Final English Paper
Have you ever had a crime committed against you? In today’s society we are faced with crime all around us. There are crimes committed out of rage, revenge, jealousy, love, greed, etc; but there is another type of crime, or one could say act of violence, called hate crimes. Have you ever thought maybe that crime was committed against just because of your racial background, or religious beliefs? Throughout this country’s history, hate crimes have taken place, either by known groups who hate and, most commonly, individuals that are inspired by hate. Not until recently have the people of this country ever wanted to pass a law that would punish the guilty to an even higher extent because the crime was committed out of hate. There are two sides to every issue. Whether or not the issue is valid or if it is an unrealistic concept created by the media or by the federal government, then, in my opinion, passing a law of this type is totally unrealistic. 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. Also, I would think that this law would tie up more court time. If you think about it, there would be more cases popping up all over the place and also what ever case is going to be herd the word, hate, would probably be thrown in there as well which would drag the case out even longer. Maybe, not as much in criminal cases, but more so in civil suites. Look at how “sue happy” the public is now. This law would only add to it. For example, people sue their neighbors for their pets going to the bathroom on their lawn. How ridiculous is that? Another example is a lady put here dog in the microwave t...
... middle of paper ...
...t “rape with hate” or “murder with hate.” You should be punished for the actual crime, not your feelings that go along with it.
Now even if this law were passed, would the police and courts enforce it? If they didn’t, what would be the point of passing it to begin with. I guess you could say that about any law but in my eyes I could see our “system” twisting everything around. They would probably convict innocent people of “Hate crimes” and let the guilty people of “Hate” go. I don’t think it is fair to add another category to the crime list that could in the long run, ruin some peoples lives. I just think that it is wrong. I hope you see my point of view and agree with my opinion.
Bibliography
Jacobs, James. Hate Crimes. Challenging Intolerance
14 Nov. 2000 >http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=PA0212H- s57549sl&type=ART&artno=…
Grigera, Elena. Hate Crimes. Corrections Today
14 Nov. 2000 >http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=PA0212H-s57520sl&type=Art&artno=
Walker, Samuel. Hate Speech. The History of an American Controversy
Hate crimes have been a problem even in the past. Maybe worst than it is today. Some examples are the Ku Klux Klan and Holocaust. The Ku Klux Klan was a organization of whites who primarily targeted african americans according to the Tanenbaum organization. Although they had a primary target, they also killed homosexuals, people who helped african americans, and recently catholics. This is a major example of hate groups extremist committing hate crimes. They target a group of people who are different, and treat them as if they were not equal. Hate crimes can vary from leaving a hateful message to kidnapping and murder. The holocaust in Europe is also considered as a hate crime. They targeted the jews due to their hatred of them. According to the human rights campaign, since 1968, federal laws made did not cover much areas of hate crimes. Things like voting improved from a result of these laws, but gay and lesbian hate crimes have not been helped. Another incident of hate crime rising in the U.S. is 9/11. During the bombing of the Twin Towers, it caused the Americans to unite, but the downfall of the incident caused a brewing of hatred for muslims. “The Americans had hatred growing on muslims even if they were believed not to be the attackers”(hrc.org). Hate crimes have been bad since the past 100 years.
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
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
Again, the actual crime should be punished not the reasoning behind it. Murder is murder, robbery is robbery, rape is rape, regardless of motive. For example, Person A and Person B both assault innocent people. But while beating the life out of his victim, Person B calls him a "Nigger." His crime is considered a hate crime. Consequently, his crime will receive harsher punishment. Despite why the crime took place, the point is that a crime took place. No matter why the victim is chosen, he or she was still harmed, the family is still going to grieve, and someone must be punished. Whether a person is killed for money or drugs or out of hate or prejudice, the fact still remains that he or she has been killed. With hate crime laws, the hate is being looked at, more so than the crime itself. Even though hate is a terrible thing to have in your heart, all Americans have the right to hate whatever or who ever they want. Besides, if officials start punishing hate or unholy thoughts, they might as well make a new category of crime— thought crime. If this line of thinking were acted upon, then half of America would be behind bars.
Hate crime legislation is needed. Crimes are on the upswing, becoming more public, more violent, and more acceptable in certain places of society. Without the proposed laws there is little chance that this shall become any less prevalent. As NGLTF, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, a well-respected agency who fights for equal rights for homosexuals, stated in their December 1997 article, the exclusion or removal of sexual orientation from hate crimes legislation by law makers is morally indefensible at a time when anti-gay violence is widespread. Failure to address this critical problem sends a dangerous message to law enforcement and the public that anti-gay violence does not exist, or worse, is somehow less reprehensible than violence against other minorities.
This law intended to protect the people of these minority groups and provide harsher punishments for bias- motivated violence. The law essentially took a crime motivated by hate and separated it into two separate crimes; the hate crime and the original crime. When the bill was signed by President Obama in 2009 there were unintended effects associated as well.
Laws continue to become protective of victims whether it is for hate crime or not. As time passes, more research will be conducted and laws will be created and modified. An example is, if a boss decides he no longer need your services, so he lets you go, which is no crime at all. But, if he decides to do so because he does not believe your race should being working for the company, it then becomes a hate crime when they verbalize that reason. That boss can be charged with a violation title IV of a Civil Rights
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.
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.
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...
Perhaps in the end all we can really do it to try and come to terms with hate speech on a personal level. I believe 100 percent in the first amendment, and I look at having to tolerate hate speech as a price I have to pay for enjoying such a wonderful freedom. I don’t think it would be effective or warranted to limit the peoples freedom in attempts to try and stop the despicable practice of hate speech.
Hate crimes are not a new concept for society, because hate crimes have always been around. While the study of hate crimes and the laws that have been passed because of hate crimes is relatively new, hate crimes have always been around. Hate crimes were committed as far back as the 1800’s and even back to The Civil War. Hate crimes are prevalent in society today just like they were in the past; because whether the crimes are aimed towards Muslims, the gay community, or any other minority group; they are fueled by something that every person has come into contact with- prejudice. Prejudice is defined as a preconceived thought or opinion about someone. While prejudice can be positive, in the concept of hate crimes they are negative feelings, thoughts, or opinions that are aimed towards a certain religious, ethnic, race, or even sexual orientation group. The typical definition of hate crime is that a crime has been committed by a majority member against a minority member simply because the victim was a minority. However, as of recent the definition has been expanded to allow for any crime committed by bias towards the victim’s social group such as anti-gay or anti-lesbian. 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...
Hate crime is still being committed today and many believe that it would benefit victims and communities if hate crimes were punished more severely. However, hate crimes should not be punished more severely than other crimes that are motivated for other reasons; although the motivation (personal belief) and violence that constitute a hate crime are horrendous, criminals should be prosecuted for their wrongdoing, not for their beliefs. The idea that criminals should be punished more severely than crimes that are motivated by greed, anger, revenge is not acceptable. The potential motivations that were just given can constitute several crimes, like, murder. The issue (which, in my opinion, makes a good argument) is that it ‘’creates complicated moral problems by making it appear as if a murder is "worse" when committed because of the victim's race, religion, or sexual orientation.’’ (Hate crime laws, 2014) Murder is one the worst crimes that can be committed and it can have several motives and reasons behind it. Allowing hate crimes to be punished more severely or stating that hate crime is more ‘’aggressive’’ and ‘’brutal’’ is not fair to other victims and treats them
...ith these differencesAs Barbara McQuade said, “A hate crime is different than a simple assault because it is an attack on not just one individual victim, but an attack on everyone who shares a particular characteristic.”As presented in this paper, hate crime isn’t new but isn’t talked about too much either. These crimes are not taken as serious as they should be. Attention was brought to what hate crime is, who commits them, at what ages they are being committed, how often they occur, which states have the most and which people are targeted the most. Hate crimes are done every day and it isn’t taken seriously. It can happen to anyone in this country at any time. After reading this paper there should be enough information gathered to try and avoid these crimes. It is also shown that participating to try and put an end to these crimes would be very helpful to society.
Someone commits a hate crime every hour. In the most recent data collection, 2014, a reported 17, 876 hate crimes were committed. This is a national crisis that we cannot allow to continue.