Hence why most states exclude other groups that are not in as much need for protections in hate crime legislation. What distinguishes a hate crime from any other crime is motive. In order for a crime to be considered a hate crime, it must be motivated by the group membership of the victim. Critics of hate crime laws have argued that they are unconstitutional and violate First Amendment protections of free speech, association, and freedom of thought. Opponents of hate crime laws refer to the Supreme Court decision in R.A.V.
Pros and Cons of Hate Crime Laws Hate crime laws are defined as a state law that involves threats, harassment, or physical harm and is motivated by prejudice against someone's race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability. The 1968 statute made it a crime to use, or threaten to use, force to willfully interfere with any person because of race, color, religion, or national origin and because the person is participating in a federally protected activity, such as public education, employment, jury service, travel, or the enjoyment of public accommodations, or helping another person to do so. However, in 2009, Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This made it easier to prosecute criminals while also adding in gender, disability, gender identity, or sexual orientation.
In today’s society drugs are seen is bad and un-ethical. However, it is just the perspective on how everyone views society. If we are told something is wrong, and see someone doing it, you are more likely to be the one to “point the finger.” Yes, drug legalization sounds horrible and of course it would be considered un-ethical but this is what we need to change. We need to change our perspective on certain matters and need to focus on the more important issues in our society. Decriminalization is the lessening of criminal penalties in relation to certain acts, perhaps retroactively, though perhaps regulated permits or fines might still apply.
Racial profiling, using someone’s race to suspect they are ar committing an offensive crime. Modern society has come to where we will judge someone for individual protection . People have a habit of having a negative judgment for “foreigners” that come in . Many illegal immigrants have slipped in the U.S in the past few years. The perception one a group then leads to the deception of any individual in that group .
Why We Punish & Different Ways Criminals are Punished Why does the criminal justice system of America punish criminals? The answer lies in the words “justice.” The term justice can be interpreted in many ways. Criminals are punished to: make people abide the laws of their country and state, put an end to illegal activity that could be harmful to themselves or the community, protect the public from evil, prevent crime from rising in certain areas. These are just some of the reasons why criminals are punished. There are also different approaches to punishing criminals such as: sentences that fit the crime, community service, the death penalty, and rehabilitation.
When someone hears the word stereotyping, people might think it only refers to the racial stereotype often found between white and black people. However, stereotyping is much deeper than a human color. Stereotyping is found between nation cultural, religion, age, race, and gender. People have been judgmental against other groups of people without knowing them it is all based on what the learn I school or what they hear from their family or friends or what they see on media which most of is not true we need to understand the true meaning behind stereotyping we need to stop it since stereotyping has become a real problem in our society today and much of our world's history is based upon such judgmental and hatred between people. Mass media play
Social and political injustice: People choose terrorism when they are trying to right what they perceive to be a social or political or historical wrong—when they have been stripped of their land or rights, or denied these. The belief that violence or its threat will be effective, and usher in change. Another way of saying this is: the belief that violent means justify the ends. Many terrorists in history said sincerely that they chose violence after long deliberation, because they felt they had no choice. This explanation of the causes of terrorism may be difficult to swallow.
I think torture is such a serious subject that people would rather not acknowledge it .As it is such an inhumane subject the very discussion let alone act is enough to cause many to ignore the issue or even delegate it to someone below them with less power. As a result of this when it comes to the discussion of torture many not involved in government groups that conduct torture are totally opposed to the idea while those in the groups are usually split on the idea of whether or not torture should be used. As these two are on opposite sides of the spectrum they can rarely see eye to on the matter add that to the media constantly berating the use of torture and the media praising torture and you have a huge two sided debate on the subject of whether torture should be legal or
Any evaluation of whether, how, or how much, hate speech ought to be prohibited. It must therefore account for certain key variables, namely , who and what are involved and where, when and under what circumstances these cases arise. They also make a difference in terms of whether or not it should be prohibited. As it, anywhere may make a difference depending on the country, society or culture involved, which may justify flatly prohibiting all Nazi propaganda in Germany but not in the United States may also matter within the same country or society. Thus, hate speech in an intracommunal setting may in some cases be less dangerous than if uttered in an intercommoned setting.
For example, with the War on Drugs, “many policymakers insist that legalizing drugs is unthinkable” (Best 221). In fact, according to Best, “maintaining a strong commitment to the prohibition of drugs may not have particularly positive instrumental effects”. Yet, “they affirm society’s commitment to sobriety and other moral principles” (Best 221). Similarly, with the War on Terror, people who appear to express criminal activity are prosecuted because policymakers adopt positions associated with values that support structure in the society (Best 221). Furthermore, some crimes may be considered more harmful than others because the values that the crimes break weigh heavier than other values.
The Arizona SB 1070 arguably may be one of the most controversial state immigration laws passed in Arizona. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, Republican Party, signed the bill into a law on April 23, 2010. The bill implemented three key provisions: it permits people to sue their local government, agencies, cities, and counties if they believe that the immigration law is not actively being enforced. Second, it requires that police officers, when practicable, check the immigration status and detain those they deem suspicious as residing illegally in the United States. The final provision require an individual to possess their immigration documentation at all time.
Domestic terrorism refers any forcefulness act exerted on the civilian population or the infrastructure of a particular nation. Mostly domestic terrorism is done by the citizens of the nation with the intention of coercing, intimidating the national policy. A lone wolf terrorist is a situation where a citizen performs a forceful act supporting or basing on ideology and beliefs of certain movements or groups. One person alone without any command or assistances does a lone terrorist from the group. The lone wolf terrorist is hard for detection and defense.
On November 14, 1945, the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials began in Germany. They were to be the definitive judgement of the crimes against humanity by the Nazis. In the midst of the trial, it was determined that the SS, along with its associated organizations such as the Sicherheitsdienst (SD--the security and intelligence organization within the SS) and Geheime Staatspolizei (Gestapo—State Secret Police), was a criminal organization.1 The verdict placed on the SS was as follows: The Tribunal declares to be criminal within the meaning of the Charter the group composed of those persons who had been officially accepted as members of the SS . . ., who became or remained members of the organization declared criminal by Article 6 of the Charter, or who were personally implicated as members of the organization in the commission of such crimes .
Sometimes it is best to understand the law first before obeying it. When one thinks a law is unjust, they will go out of their way to go against it and do something about it. At a certain point, one doesn’t have to act accordingly to what they don’t believe in, but they can’t do whatever pleases them. There has been many controversies involving the act of non violence civil disobedience. Although most feel like breaking an unjust law might be the best solution to what they think is right, in reality, I agree to the fact that people are afraid to face the consequences that are given after their actions.
1. Define and describe ex post facto laws. An “ex post facto law is one that alters the laws regarding a particular act in such a way as to be detrimental to the substantial rights of an accused person” (Chamelin & Thomas, 2012, p. 15). These laws can happen in three ways: the timing and posting of new or changed laws, increasing punishments after a criminal act, and the decreasing of a state’s burden of proof. The first occurrence of an ex post facto is when a person commits an act before it is passed by legislation as a crime.