Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
It has also been suggested that, in effect, this equality is relatively meaningless, because non-minorities are so much more rarely the victims of hate crimes, and that, therefore, these laws protect and benefit minorities more than they protect or benefit non- minorities. Ironically, the accurate analysis of this observation is precisely backwards:
the fact that minorities are so much more likely to be targeted by racially motivated crimes is hardly a reason to consider the laws that criminalize such conduct "unfair" to non-minorities. If anything, that reality only reinforces the absolute need for laws that prohibit racially motivated crimes. The fact of the matter is that minorities are much more likely to be the victims of racial hatred than are non-minorities, and that non- minorities are more often the perpetrators of racially motivated crimes than are individuals from minority backgrounds. Certainly, there are instances of racially motivated crimes perpetrated by minorities against non-minorities; wherever they occur, those crimes are addressed exactly the same as the reverse situation, exactly as they should be. In any case, the point is actually moot, because, regardless of how often it occurs or what the identity is of perpetrator or victim, the laws specifically addressing racially motivated crimes protect both minorities and non-minorities equally however those crimes occur, or between whom. As far as the...
Even where criminal charges were brought and proof of guilt established beyond doubt at trial, non-minority juries ignored the evidence anytime the defendant was white and the victim black. Ultimately, anti-hate crime legislation is designed to protect everyone equally, not to accomplish the opposite or divide society at all.
References
Dershowitz, a.M. (2002) Shouting Fire: Civil Liberties in a Turbulent Age. Boston: Little Brown
Friedman, L.M. (2005)
History of American Law. New York: Touchstone
Miller, a.R. (1990) Miller's Court. New York: Plume
C. By Michael Shively (June, 2005), the first hate crime laws were enacted during the sixties, seventies, and eighties. The first states to pass hate crime legislation were Oregon and Washington in 1981. The first federal hate crime legislation, Shively explains, was debated in 1985, and the first federal statute related to hate crimes was the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, passed in 1990. Subsequent to that Act, other pieces of
Levin (1992, cited in Nolan & Akiyama, 1999) notes that police officers tend to identify crimes based on the severity of injury or the magnitude of property damage and not on the basis of motive. There are many thinkers and writers that question the legitimacy of hate or bias crime laws on the basis that they violate a fundamental democratic principle by punishing individuals for their prejudiced thoughts and beliefs
Hate Crime Analysis Select group population target a hate crime ( selection start paper) Write a word analysis: • Provide a description specific factors serve basis victimization;, race, religion, sexual orientation • Identify applicable specific case examples. When considering hate in general, it appears that human beings are vulnerable to being influenced to discriminate others. Even though many have little to no reasons to discriminate against other groups, these people feel
Hate Crime Enhancements -- Two Sides of the Argument This project represents the evolution of opinion as a function of the process of a strictly academic exercise. At the outset of the project, the writer maintained a specific belief: namely, that hate crime enhancement policies are fundamentally unjustified. It was the process of formulating a counterargument to the writer's position that ultimately resulted in a change of opinion. The writer is
Hate Speech Constitutionality of hate-speech laws and legislation College campus hate-speech codes, Fighting words; hate symbols State interest in regulating hate-speech, Arguments for and against such laws and codes, First Amendment protection of unpopular or offensive speech, Sentence enhancement for bias motivated crimes, Supreme Court handling of hate speech and hate crime issues Constitutionality of hate-speech laws and legislation The Constitution of the United States was drafted in 1787, ratified in 1788, and put into operation in 1789. The 10
Matthew Shepard Act FBI (2009). Matthew Shepard/James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Web. This source outlines the practical enforcement mechanisms of the Act from the FBI perspective. It provides guidance for FBI agents in dealing with potential hate crimes. Holder, Eric. (2009). The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. U.S. Department of Justice. Web. This testimony from then-Attorney General Holder