According to the article “Is Racial Or Religious Profiling Ever Justified?”it states “ When officials use profiling, they are indirectly blaming entire communities because a few among them have committed horrible crimes”(Abbas 1). The quotation is illustrating how stereotypes is part of racial profiling because if few people were to do crimes that were illegal, many would think all people are the same. Police departments would think that all people are alike based on the increasing of violence and would blame communities. In addition, In the article “stanford researchers develop new statistical test that shows racial profiling in police traffic stops” it states, “Specifically, the study found that police decided to search black drivers based on a 7 percent certainty that they might be hiding something illegal. If an African American driver looks nervous, for example, police might interpret the nervousness as a sign of possible guilt and insist on a search” ( Andrews 1).
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.
1 / 2 Steve Augustin Should hate crimes be punished more severely than other crimes? Why or why not? Hate crimes should be punished more severely than other crimes due to the fact that somebody should not have to deal with being discriminated by their race , color , religion or sexual orientation . Hate crimes can occur at school , at places of worship , at work , on the streets , anywhere you go there is some type of hate crime going on.
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.
After slaves were freed in the Civil War, a long period of anti-racial hatred sparked against many African Americans. Major spokespeople for ending segregation included Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr. The first act of the federal government against segregation, a form of discrimination, was taken with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, establishing that "All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or prejudice of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.” The Civil Rights Act desegregated schools and other public facilities, but it did not majorly affect individual crimes (Civil Rights, 1964, Section 201, para. 1).
In addition, the purpose of punishing offenders is to ensure they will not commit any crimes in future. However, putting all kind of criminals in a prison may not accomplish the goal, but boost the possibility that prisoners will come under the negative peer pressure. Furthermore, many offenders find it difficult to rehabilitate into the society because of their prison records. Thus, social training is believed to benefit them better as they will absorb conventions and codes of conduct after the activities.
This research paper will discuss why there is no value to the just deserts approach and why, if supplemented with a re-entry program, just deserts will have a greater significance. The theory and practice of the just deserts approach will be examined as well as why it does not appear to be working for offenders. Additionally, re-entry programs will be analyzed; those operating in Canada and in the United States, to further explain why reintegrating is better for the community and offenders. It is easy to agree with the just deserts approach to crime, however, when a loved one is affected by the harsh punishments and the negative consequences of prison, it makes life afterward extremely
The crime control model believes that punishments for crime should be strict and severe but also be quick. The purpose is to demonstrate to criminals that if they do commit a crime, it won’t be easy for them to get away without being punished. This model isn’t intend to scare people or criminals but it is intended to discourage criminal actions as it shows that the outcome for crimes is a severe punishment. The crime control model also has a goal to put cases through the system quickly rather than having them go to trial because it takes too much time and can also reduce the efficiency. This process also encourages the expansion of court powers if necessary.
Illegal immigrants are more likely not to report any crimes for fear of deportation. Police agencies have enacted policies to reduce the liability placed on them because of incident of discrimination. These polices protect the department and they also help them with the relationships they have with their
Brecheen should be applauded in his endeavors to make a stand against human trafficking. However, more can and should be done to punish those convicted. Taking away a person’s freedom and forcing them to perform acts against their will is the definition of slavery. We as a nation fought a war against one another for this senselessness. There is no difference in the slavery we as a nation witnessed prior to the civil war and the barbarism involved in the human trafficking of today.
In a study, 77.2% of profiling reports provided by the FBI was indeed considered useful in providing an outside perspective on a case and in helping to focus on the investigation. Criminal profiling may be misused by several law enforcement officials but you can not deny that has been a legitimate investigation tool for many years. With the progression of criminal profiling there is going to be misuse and misconceptions however, you can’t discredit the beneficial analysis that profiling brings. It’s efficiency in providing insight to the investigators showcased how a setback like racial misuse won’t interfere with getting the crime solved at the end of the
The government expects us to follow the rules and go by them. Wanting change may lead to unsatisfactory upon some citizens. Change also affects the lives of many and that they may disagree with one’s argument on a certain law. As Martin Luther King Jr. stated in his letter, “ with willingness to accept penalty,” he says how he wouldn’t charge with an act of violence but to deal with the penalty in order to call attention from the people (Martin Luther King Jr. 37-38). He wants the people to notice and realize injustice the law is.
race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sex, gender, disability, class, sexual orientation, and various other creeds. And yet through it all, one outlier seems to connect them all; the protection of the law. From slavery to anti-semitism, every moral boundary that has been universally defined, has been sanctioned from recurrence. Lastly, the only exceptions to this are refutable under the scope of bigotry. Another issue that can be substantially assuaged, is the matter of hate crimes between diverse groups within society.