The Pros And Cons Of Hate Crime Laws

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.

Hate crime What distinguishes a hate crime from other crimes is an underlying motivation based on the victim’s group membership. There has been much debate over the constitutionality of hate crime laws and which groups (if any) should be protected by such legislation. Those against hate crime laws argue that it is a violation of First Amendment protections of free, association, and freedom of thought. The Supreme Court confirmed that freedom of thought is implied by the First Amendment in R.A.V. v. St. Paul which those against hate crime laws argue makes such laws unconstitutional.

Introduction Colin Ferguson was convicted of the December 7, 1993 shooting of 25 people aboard the Long Island Rail Road commuter train out of Penn Station at Merillon Avenue station in Garden City, New York, New York. He killed six and wounded nineteen before being stopped by three of the passengers: Kevin Blum, Mark McEntee, and Mike O'Connor. Ferguson's trial was notable for a number of unusual developments, including his firing of his defense counsel and insisting on representing himself and examining himself as a live witness. Before the trial, William Kunstler and Ron Kuby attempted to argue that Ferguson was driven to mental illness through years of living in an oppressive and racist society.

Hate crimes have been a long-lasting reality in the United States beginning in the nation’s history with eradicating Native American populations, slavery, and xenophobia. As a result, forty-five states have adopted hate crime laws to combat organized hate groups from preying upon the most vulnerable groups in society. Hate crime laws provide special protections to the groups that are most frequently targeted by hate crimes including African Americans, LGBT, Jews, and Muslims. Although there has been much debate over what groups should be protected by hate crime laws, evidently there are groups that have been historically targeted at a much higher rate than others. Hence why most states exclude other groups that are not in as much need for protections in hate crime legislation.

-Hate crimes, are not justifiable the reason why is because they’re, ‘bias.’ The definition of a ‘Hate Crime’ on page 604 is defined as “a bias related crime, committed against an individual that is motivated by bias regarding race, color, religion, disability, and sexual orientation.” Committing a crime just because of the color, sexuality, religion, or disability of a person isn’t justifiable. The reason why it’s not justifiable is because, the person committing the hate crime wouldn’t want someone else, to commit such an act towards themself.

Hate Crime is a “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.” If an African American commits the same crime as an Caucasian it is more likely for the black person to be charged and arrested due to the racial issues we have today. There are many pros and cons towards the issue of racial crime, but hate crime is still a very difficult issue for our country to overcome. In order to overcome the issue of hate crime it would require changing legislation, public and police attitudes.

Flames, teargas, riots, city blocks destroyed, in consequence to a statement. In today 's modern society, rude acts of communication known as hate speech, have become a controversial topic in America. Although hate speech is awful, it should be protected by the first amendment. Hate speech should be permitted because omitting such phrases would set a precedent for censorship and repress the minority. Such censorship would lead to a totalitarian rule by the majority . While hate speech should be better understood, bigoted acts should not be included in hate speech or harmful subjective phrases.

The definition of a hate crime is referred to as a “a crime, usually violent, motivated by prejudice or intolerance toward an individual’s national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability”. "Hate Crime. Hate crime has existed all through history and are most likely going to exist for a while. When some people wakes up in the morning and began to start their day they don 't even think “ Will I be the victim of a hate crime today” or “Is someone going to attack me today for who I love”. Statistic that from from the the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs or (NCAVP), say that their data suggests that 20-25% of lesbian and gay people experience hate crimes within their lifetimes this

looks at how it ultimately affects society and targeted groups. There are a myriad of arguments for and against the allowance of hate speech. Some citing Democracy and the first amendment others stem from the fear of eroded freedoms of expression and have valid points, but ultimately, it corrodes society’s human rights and freedoms. The two fold issue being intolerance of the freedom of self-determination and the fact that some are born a color or culture and have no choice. Therefore, hate speech is anti-social and damaging to society as a whole. While politicians can control the masses through society, they can always manipulate their agendas using such tactics against the population.

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

Our hatred and selfishness for one another threatens to destroy our fundamental morals and dignity. For centuries discrimination and abuse due to ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation wrecked our world as dehumanizing crimes, later classified as hate crimes, increased. Although, as our central government solidified and bills were introduced to control such acts our views were further

In today’s world, hate speech can be found with ease; you can witness it over coffee, a celebrity you follow can share hateful tweets, or a public demonstration can get out of hand. With hate seemingly running rampant, we must question what actions to take in order to resolve this issue, and how to do so without undermining the First Amendment. Hate speech, despite some negative effects, does not need further legislation enacted, as it is already addressed by several laws in place. The eradication of hate speech requires a larger social change before we can introduce further legislation. While the First Amendment protects the fundamental right of free speech, there are exceptions to this right that are currently regulated.

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.

I will first discuss how hate speech causes harm. Then, I shall explain how hate speech should be barred in specific spaces in order to protect the majority. Next, I will explain how college campuses should operate as safe spaces where hate speech is regulated and allowed only in cases meant to provide students with a learning opportunity. Following this, I will examine Northeastern University’s policy on hate speech and compare it to my proposition. Finally, I will present the opposing perspective that believes hate speech should be allowed and encouraged on college campuses in order to present students with new viewpoints and help them grow as intellectual

The time in which we live is the age of communication and the speech or talking one of the important ways of communication and expression. There are different types of Speech and communicate, one of them hate speech. Hate speech means attacking a person or group based on different basis such as gander, religion, race, ethnic origin or nationality and disability. In the other hand, some of human rights treaties agree with freedom of speech or freedom of expression it could offend or disturb others so government of Countries placed laws of hate speech to avoid harms, troubles and problems. Over years Hate speech law became one of the most known laws in international law.