Pros And Cons Of Hate Crime Laws

Chief Justice Vinson stated in the Court’s decision that Dennis violated the Smith Act, for advocating the overthrowing of the U.S. government. He further added that it was the Court’s responsibility to decide what constitutes evil to justify the invasion of free speech in order to avoid dangers. Both Justices Black and Douglas wrote dissenting opinions where they clarify that Dennis was not charged

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. Hate speech against minority is discrimination which has no place in our society.

Are Hate Crime Laws useful or Should they be Revoked? The subject of hate crime and the validity of hate crime laws is a sensitive matter to many people. As a result, people tend to be divided into two groups, the first one is supportive of the laws and the second group opposes them. The laws of hate crimes might appear to be the solution; however they are not, therefore they should be revoked. Let’s start first with the legal definition of hate crimes.

It is said that every person is innocent until proven guilty, and not the other way around. It is also said that when officials use profiling, it puts off the wrong message that they are blaming entire communities only because few have committed a crime, like Muslims with terror attacks. These actions go against the constitutional rights given to every American. Racial Profiling“... is inconsistent with America 's core constitutional principles of equality and fairness.” (Nomani and Abbas). Racial profiling is “inconsistent” with

Hate crimes have significantly increased over the past few years and are getting worse each day. Statistics from 2016 show that the ‘frequency of hate crimes in America are increasing as the frequency of regular crimes in America are decreasing’ (FBI 1). In this day and age minority groups are starting to become the target of the people who commit these crimes. Consequently the main minority groups such as (Asians, Hispanics, African Americans, Jewish people, LGBT, and others) have been pushing to have hate crime laws passed in order to protect them and others from violence. These laws that are specifically for this issue are

Mass incarceration is the way that the United States has locked up millions of people over the last forty years using unnecessary and disproportionate policies. Contrary to popular belief, this is racially fueled as most of these policies saw to it that blacks and latinos be locked up for longer than their white peers and for smaller crimes. These racist roots within the system can be traced back to when the first slave ship arrived in the US. But our first major prison boom was seen after the American Civil war. I know that the Civil War was far more than forty years ago.

There are many crimes that are committed in today's society, but one big crime that is committed every single day are hate crimes. Hate crimes are consisted of any criminal offense against a person, property, or society that is motivated by the offenders bias against race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin (Schmalleger, 2014). I've chosen to pick religion and race to write about and how much it can change someone else's life. Religion has always been a controversial topic, because of all the different religions and some people not being religious. The Uniform Crime Reporting Program stated that in 2012, there were 1,340 victims of an anti-religious hate crime.

All of these statements beg the question: should the government more actively oppose hate speech? Firstly, what are the different types of hate crimes?

Nowadays, a strong majority of people are extremely receptive and supportive toward the idea of creating legislations which would prosecute intolerant bigots who target and harm undeserving victims. As a result, these laws would render prejudicial acts as illegal and thus, eliminate hate crimes altogether. Unfortunately, there is still a slight minority who assert that the government should not go through with the development of laws concerning hate crimes. The people who oppose and argue against laws that regulate hate crimes make many disputes that are increasingly unacceptable and unjustifiable in modern society. In actuality, these individuals are just as hurtful and malicious as hate crimes are because they demonstrate irrational fears such as homophobia and xenophobia, as well as, portray a very dogmatic attitude toward people who oppose their antiquated adherences.

According to Voter Institute, Americans are more likely to be struck by lightning than to fall victim to voter fraud. However, states consistently cite this problem to justify strict voter identification laws, a popular form of voter discrimination today. It is for this reason that the Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965 to prevent the disenfranchisement of minority voters. However, in June 2013, the Supreme Court case, Shelby County v. Holder, deemed Section 4(b) of the act, the list of states subjected to preclearance, unconstitutional. Critics argue that the Section 4 states no longer displayed the same amount of blatant discrimination compared to the past rates which had warranted the burdens of preclearance.