A criminal offense against a person or property motivated by a prejudice of race, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, gender, gender identity, or disability is defined as a hate crime. Imagine a person being killed in spite of the dislike for the color of the victim’s skin or their ethnicity. Or think about a criminal committing arson by setting a mosque on fire for the reason that they do not agree with the religious affiliations attached to the mosque. Both are clear examples of a hate crime, and hate crimes have been committed for hundreds of years dating back to, as Tom Strissguth (2003) identifies, 1649 (p. 104). Current hate crime laws that are in place have every good intention in mind to keep victims safe, but there are arguments from scholars …show more content…
One is that hate crime laws only protect minorities and certain groups. These scholars feel as though these laws grant minorities an unfair protection and the laws do not protect the superior race, the white race. The other stance is that criminals should not have a longer sentence in prison for their hate motivation, since they will already be doing time for the crime itself. These critics think every minority will claim a crime was committed because of hate and there will be no division between hate crime and the original crime committed. However, these critics focus on the specifics of the hate crime laws. Instead, the focus should be broader and redirected to the lack of education of hate crime laws. Creating more educated students on the hate crime laws, laws in general, and the ethics of life, could reduce criminal activity overall, not just hate …show more content…
Sullivan explains his thoughts that if everyone is considered a minority, or feels as though they can be considered as a minority, then every crime has the possibility of being considered a hate crime. Sullivan states the hate crime laws are “simply another name for crime” (p. 26). In other words, Sullivan does not grasp the importance of hate crime laws and does not believe hate crimes are a serious issue, hence the title of his article “Hate Crimes Are Not a Serious Problem.” To eliminate the hate crime laws sends the message to criminals that it is acceptable to commit a crime based off of bias thoughts and get away with the hate motivation. I am not saying that picking a random individual to commit a crime on is a better alternative and deserves less jail time. However, people with different characteristics, traits, and various minorities are more prone to hate crimes, and all of them deserve to be protected. Victims deserve to be able to obtain justice since they cannot change who they are as a human being. Without these laws, these minorities or different individuals will want to stay in constant protected areas away from other hatred beings against them. With additional education and understanding in our younger citizens, these arguments could be put to
A hate crime is defined as a “ crime committed because
The fact that hate crime is deemed a major problem for a nation makes the Mathew Sheppard and James Byrd act to be implemented at all levels. This act is implemented at the local, state and federal level within a nation. This because the federal. Local, federal and state authorities join forces during investigations and prosecution of these hate crimes to protect the entire nation from violence evolving due to hate among people. Therefore, to mitigate expansion of hate crimes in the nation all authorities are given the power by Mathew Sheppard’s act to prevent hate crimes and prosecuting
A hate crime is a violent act against people, property, or organizations because of the group to which they belong or identify with. Hate crimes are committed against many different groups of people. Many hate crimes are based on racial or religious bias. Racial bias is the largest cause of hate crimes. Hate crimes are a specific type of crime committed against individuals or groups because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, age, or
According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in 1998 there were over 7,755 hate crime incidents reported in America, which stemmed from people’s biased views towards people of different races (46.9%), sexual orientations (20.8%), religions (19.8%), ethnicity and (11.6%), and people with disabilities (0.9%). All 7,755 of the crimes were more than just violence; they were violence driven by hatred. They were hate crimes. The FBI defines a hate crime as a “a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias.” This is certainly the case of the murder of Matthew Shepard in Laramie Wyoming.
The U.S. later legalized it in 2009. This act augmented penalties for crimes perpetrated against one’s ethnicity, nationality, language, religion, age, disability, sexual identity, or sexual preference. Today, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act is “effectively recognizing the importance of prosecuting violence motivated by racism or other bias-related crimes” (2). The act serves as evidence of progress towards equality. The government is saying that all men are created equal and should be treated in the same manner, and if one chooses to oppose this proposition, they will encounter strict
“53.1% percent of the hate speech crimes in the last 5 years have been violent and psychical.” (FBI National Press Office) This shows that more than half of the hate crimes have hurt people and might affect them for the rest of their lives. Hate speech is not okay. It hurts people beyond words and causes an unfair balance of power.
Although some people believe it to reduce the amount of those looking to commit these felonies from the streets, those convicted of federal hate crimes should not be put to death because
A suiting definition for hate crimes is an adaptation from Gerstenfeld chapter 1: The Whys and Hows of Hate Crime Laws: crimes that are committed based on the race, religion, ethnicity, and sexual orientation of the victim. Another definition of hate crimes that was considered was the Massachusetts legal definition of hate crimes that was discussed in Englander’s article Is Bullying a Junior Hate Crime? Which included disability, color, and national origin on top of the protected groups that have been
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right of “freedom of speech” Bill of Rights, n.d., p. 1). It was designed to guarantee a free exchange of ideas, even if the ideas are unpopular. One of the most controversial free speech issues involves hate speech. Hate speech is a public expression of discrimination against a vulnerable group, based on “race, ethnicity, religion,” and sexual orientation (Karman, 2016, p. 3940). Under the First Amendment there is no exception to hate speech; although, hateful ideas are protected just as other ideas.
It also helps those who are afraid to speak out on hate crime or who have no opinionated voice be strong. Legislation allows for certain people to be protected under the law from hate crimes against them regardless of a prejudice. However, the disagreement against this is that if the government focuses too much on those who are afraid and defenseless, than those who wish to banish them have an easier time to criticize them because the government is so focused on making them an example of someone to protect. In effect, this makes them just as vulnerable for the focus being directed
The argument that racial profiling by law enforcement helps apprehend more criminals is challenged in this quote by Jesper Ryberg, a professor in the philosophy of law. “The use of profiling of a minority may lead to a decrease in the offending pattern of this minority but may imply that the majority will offend more now that they are being searched less” (Ryberg). Basically, white people will get away with crime a lot more than minorities. Nobody can deny this because minorities simply have a higher chance of being searched than do whites. In order to protect the well-being of the whole country against the attacks from a terrorist group, a proponent of discrimination would say that profiling these people is nothing to be ashamed about.
Charles Lawrence in his racist speech tries to convince that racist speech needs to be regulated. He argues that hate speech is intolerable in the United States because it represents discrimination which Everyone defines hate speech differently. I define hate speech as anything that incites aggression regarding one person or a group of people. Now a day’s people uses free speech as a defense for saying anything but discriminating someone is not free speech.
In this article, Jacobs successfully makes his argument by remaining objective, appealing more toward the ethos and logos of the reader, and limiting emotional language. Jacobs aims his article toward lawmakers and voters. Motives are subjective and based on many factors; therefore, Jacobs argues that basing hate crime off of motive does not only create hardships but also flaws. He continues his argument by looking at rights given to the people from the First Amendment. According to the First Amendment, people possess many freedoms including the freedom of speech; however, Jacobs argues how hate crimes
In the recent news, everyone’s heard of the rise in hate crime. Most hate crime is “motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence,” (Dictionary.com). Hate crimes have spanned across the country and impact thousands of lives each year. The FBI started investigating hate crimes at the turn of the 20th century. The FBI define hate crime as, “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity,” (FBI).
Racial and ethnic profiling has become a major controversy in the United States. Lately there has been a lot in the news about police officers profiling African Americans and this has brought peoples attention through the news and social media. A few major current stories about police officers profiling African Americans is the Marlon Brown killing which happened in 2013. Marlon Brown was being pulled over for a seat belt violation and then got out of the vehicle and began running from the cops.