Introduction 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. Greater Victims/ Secondary Harm When arguing that hate and bias crime should receive more punishment one of the main facts taken into consideration i... ... middle of paper ... ...roups more aware of each other in a battle to become more protected under the criminal code. Conclusion In conclusion, Heidi Hurd did a passable job in explaining both parts of the discussion. Based on her article I have come to the conclusion that this is a topic not easily solved. With every argument that the people in favor of hate crime legislation those against are able to oppose it with their own. It is simple not possible to generalize case because although they may be similar they are never the same. Discrimination, hate, and prejudice has always been and will continue to be a topic discussed for many years. Works Cited Culver, Keith Charles. Readings in the philosophy of law. 1999. Reprint. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview Press, 2008. Print. Hurd, Heidi M. (2001). Why liberals should hate ``hate crime legislation''. Law and Philosophy 20 (2):215 - 232.
"Hate-Crime Laws." Issues & Controversies On File: n. pag. Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News
economic or social success some minorities have attained may result in increased feelings of resentment by members of the larger population. As Levin & McDevitt (1993:48) argue, resentment can be found to some extent in the personality of most hate crime offenders. It may be directed toward a part...
The term hate crime first appeared in the late 1980’s as a way of understanding a racial incident in the Howard Beach section of New York City, in which a black man was killed while attempting to evade a violent mob of white teenagers, shouting racial epithets. Although widely used by the federal government of the United States, the media, and researchers in the field, the term is somewhat misleading because it suggests incorrectly that hatred is invariably a distinguishing characteristic of this type of crime. While it is true that many hate crimes involve intense animosity toward the victim, many others do not. Conversely, many crimes involving hatred between the offender and the victim are not ‘hate crimes’ in the sense intended here. For example an assault that arises out of a dispute between two white, male co-workers who compete for a promotion might involve intense hatred, even though it is not based on any racial or religious differences... ...
At the age of 19, the young Richard Machado was the first individual to be convicted of a federal electronic mail (email) hate crime. The reason for the conviction was a threatening hate message in 1996 to 59 Asian students at University of California at Irvine (UCI). Richard was also a student at UCI at the time. When he was asked about the emails he had sent, he said that he had sent them out in frustration, because Asians were dominating the UCI campus, and he believed that it made it less popular. Less popular due to the raising grade curve the Asians caused. He also managed to mention that he didn’t like his Asian roommate.
(7) H. L., Hart, The Concept of Law, ch. VIII, and D., Lyons, Ethics and the rule of law, Cambridge University Press, 1989, p. 78 ff,
Hobson, Charles F. The Great Chief Justice, John Marshall And the Rule Of Law. University Press Of Kansas: Wison Garey McWilliams & Lance Banning, 1996.
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
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...
Abadinsky, Howard. Law and Justice: An Introduction to the American Legal System. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2008. Print.
Today we have looked at the problem known as hate crimes and the varied causes which keep it in existence. We have also discussed some solutions to this act of hate.
There are many who believe hate crime should be punished more severely since it ‘’has the potential to cause greater harm.’’ (Hate Crime Laws, 2014) Hate crimes, like racial discrimination, have unfortunately been a part of this country for centuries, racial discrimination was rampant in the 19th and 20th century, but mostly in the south; many segregation laws were created at the time ‘’that banned African Americans from voting, attending certain schools, and using public accommodations. ’’ (Hate Crime Laws, 2014)
As defined by the Merrimu Webster dictionary, hate crimes are various crimes such as assault or defacement of property when motivated by hostility to the member of a group such as one based on color, creed, gender, or sexual orientation. In 1968 President Johnson, and Congress put in to place the Hate crime Laws. This law allowed for punishment against anyone who maliciously targeted a specific group based on color, creed, gender, or sexual orientation. With this law, the hope was for protection for many Americans.
"Hate crime is different from other crime,"...."They strike at our sense of self, our sense of belonging. The end result is loss: loss of trust, loss of dignity, and in the worst case, loss of life”- (Comey). All crimes are committed with hate in mind. Because of that, it is hard to count how many crimes are being committed out of hate. Hate crimes have increased by over 5,800 from 2014. Hate crimes have been steadily rising for two years straight.
The relationship between law and morality has been argued over by legal theorists for centuries. The debate is constantly be readdressed with new cases raising important moral and legal questions. This essay will explain the nature of law and morality and how they are linked.
Contemporary Readings in Law & Social Justice, 5(2), 454-460.