The Matthew Shepard Act and modernist policy frameworks for hate crimes

Worldview Implications for Policy Analysis on Hate Speech Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 Known by the title ‘Matthew Shepard Act’ (MSA) as well, this 2009 statute constitutes a US Congressional law ratified on 22nd October, 2009 (Shepard & Byrd Jr, 2009), and implemented within the week, on 28th October, 2009 (Zeleny, 2009). Its second section defines the term \\\"hate crime\\\" based on the description provided under the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. Hate crimes are defined as crimes wherein the perpetrator purposely chooses his/ her victim, (or property with respect to property crimes), owing to perceived or real racial/ ethnic background, color, nationality, religious beliefs, disability, sexual orientation or sex. Brief overview of key tenets The MSA deals with the creation of a novel federal crime legislation that criminalizes the act of purposeful infliction of physical harm (or attempted infliction of physical harm) using lethal weapons like guns or fire when: (1) The basis for perpetration of the offense was perceived or real racial/ ethnic origin, color, religious beliefs, nationality of an individual or (2) The basis for perpetration of the offense was perceived or real sex, sexual orientation, nationality, religious views, disability or gender identity of an individual and this offense impacted international or interstate trade, or took place within territorial and special federal jurisdiction (Department of Justice, 2015). Further, the MSA accords the Department of Justice the authority to offer grants to local societies and states for covering extraordinary costs linked to probing into and prosecuting hate crime cases (Boram, 2016).  Additionally, it allows for providing grants to aid local initiatives in fighting juvenile- perpetrated hate crimes; this encompasses initiatives which provide training to local law enforcers to identify, probe into, prosecute and avert such offenses. Lastly, the Act mandates Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) tracking of hate crime statistics on the basis of gender identity and sex (figures in case of other groups have been recorded already).  The MSA necessitates the inclusion of a juvenile -perpetrated and -targeted hate crime report within the yearly summary provided by the Attorney General, on the information collected under HCSA (Hate Crimes Statistics Act) (Boram, 2016). Policy- worldview link analysis The MSA provides for federal- level action on offenses committed on the basis of disability bias, sex, or gender orientation. Owing potentially to out- group intolerance’s lasting, prevalent nature, bias has, for long, remained the focus of the psychological field (Lieberman et al., 2001). On the basis of the MSA’s foundation, one may assert that the legislation ascribes to a modernist worldview. Modernism stresses critical evaluation, scientific assessment, reason and reasonableness. It typically raises doubts with regard to opinions and beliefs imposed by history and religion. Modernists do not agree with doing things simply due to the fact that they have always been done. They generally view science as the decisive, even exclusive, spring of dependable knowledge; they consider it the sole means of ascertaining the truth or reality (Kim, Fisher & McCalman, 2009). Basically, the modernist gives the same position to bisexuality and homosexuality, as it does heterosexuality. Modernists theorize that the superior cognitive skill of symbolic and abstract thinking resulted in mankind’s distinctive capability of understanding the fragile state of one’s existence, in addition to the fact that death is inevitable (Kim et al., 2009). The above understanding, placed alongside the natural tendency of self- preservation, makes existential hate crime possible. Thus, the combination of empirical proofs asserts the strong impact of death- linked concerns on individual response to those even covertly threatening their worldview. The threats are represented via various avenues including breaches of legislation or beliefs, personal value derogation, or another individual’s different religious views or national origin (Lieberman et al., 2001). But, thus far, scholars have failed to look into mortality salience’s impacts when contrasting a couple of facets apparently underlying worldview defense reactions. To be more precise, one can find a couple of likely processes linked to worldview defense reactions which are especially important in hate crime perception research. Firstly, awareness of one’s mortality might elicit concerns regarding abiding by rules – observing justice and fairness. For instance, besides earlier- reviewed researches, Miedema and van den Bos’ (2000) study findings reveal that reminding an individual of his/ her mortal nature gives rise to more positive responses to apparent procedural fairness relating to the ability of conveying their views or facing an unjust vs. just process. Such responses seemingly result from justice- related ideals. Further, related legal standards form a key aspect of the worldview of a majority of persons. Subsequently, this assessment establishes that two distinct predictions exist, which may be made with regard to mortality- related concerns’ impact on hate crime perceptions. Both predictions are right based on the way the issue is studied. Considering justice- related concerns and the fact that individuals normally view hate crime negatively (Lieberman et al., 2001), as they constitute an especially grievous law infringement, mortality salience might likely increase castigatory responses if one seeks abstract international views with regard to such offenses. Thus, these assessments would indicate mortality salience’s likelihood of increasing castigatory rulings against lawbreakers. Then again, analysis of the self- same modernist worldview indicates awareness of one’s mortality might trigger further concerns if a person faces the task of judging a given hate crime’s perpetrator – how far the crime’s victim threatens the criminal’s worldview. In case the latter’s worldview is actually threatened, one may draw out different procedures.