Ms. Middleton

2,030

To Live Without Fear

There are many influential documents for which the United States of America was founded on; the Declaration of Independence, the Pledge of Allegiance, and the United States Constitution are three well known documents that ensure the rights of the people of the United States. The Pledge of Allegiance states that we are “One Nation” and the Declaration of Independence states that “all men are created equal.” The term “Hate Crime” defined by Public Law #103-322A, a 1994 federal law, defines a hate crime as: “a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person.” Although this is the federal definition, each state has their own legal hate crime statues, which states what constitutes and is punishable as a hate crime in that state. Some states do not recognize hate crimes at all, yet, as it clearly states in the countries founding documents the people of this country are “one nation” and “all men are created equal.” The number of hate crimes being committed is growing in numbers. What is considered a “hate crime” today is no longer restricted to the issue of black and white, but the national standard for these crimes remains unclear. Some individuals feel that hate crime legislation or Hate Crime Laws are not only unconstitutional, but redundant and unnecessary. The writer of “Hate Crime Laws Are Unnecessary” argues that “hate crime laws, whether at the state or federal level, are not necessary” ("Hate Crime Laws Are Unnecessary"). The writer further argues that passing such laws will not prevent crimes motivated by bias or hatred from occurring, nor will it keep future victims alive or unscathed. Multiple related cases are referenced in this article to include the Michael Shepard and James Byrd case. The writer makes examples of cases that occurred in states where hate crime laws were in effect, yet it did not prevent the crime from happening; individuals who are discriminated against will be discriminated against no matter what or how many laws are passed. He goes on to state that “The violent acts that are included in hate crime statues are crimes that are already prosecuted under state criminal codes. Murder is Murder,” and “We all know you can’t kill someone twice or punish him after his death, hate crime laws are, therefore, redundant and unnecessary” ("Hate Crime Laws Are Unnecessary"). Towards the end of the article, the writer shares with the audience that to punish thought would be unconstitutional, this is the argument among many when it comes to hate crime legislation. The issue of unconstitutionality is further argued in another article titled “Penalty Enhancement Laws Are Unconstitutional” ("Penalty Enhancement Laws Are Unconstitutional"). The author argues that seeking harsher punishment for an individual who has committed a hate crime is unconstitutional because it violates the rights of free speech and that the “only way for society to ensure that speech will remain free is allow all speech to remain free.” He also states that “A criminal’s motivation for committing a crime, whether it is prejudice, peer pressure, greed, boredom, or any other reason is irrelevant” and that “Because all crimes are rooted in hatred, it is wrong, illogical, and unconstitutional to punish those that are characterized as “hate crimes” more heavily than others” ("Penalty Enhancement Laws Are Unconstitutional"). The writer of this article also makes the argument that “by imposing enhanced sentences on those convicted of hate crimes, society is arguing that hate crimes are a more serious crime than “ordinary” crimes and that victims of hate crimes suffer more than “regular” victims” ("Penalty Enhancement Laws Are Unconstitutional"). What he fails to comprehend is that it is not the thought that is being punished, people are free to think whatever they please; it is the action taken against another person, based on the thought or belief that is being punished. Furthermore, hate crimes are more serious that regular, committed crimes and the effects of the crime on the victim are more serious; evidence to this effect will be presented later in this paper. The purpose of hate crime legislation is to enforce harsher punishment on those who commit crimes with bias motives, such as targeting a person or property based on race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, disability, etc. Opposing opinions were expressed in “Penalty Enhancement Laws Are Constitutional” ("Penalty Enhancement Laws Are Constitutional"). The writer backs their viewpoint up with cases that have been tried in court and rulings that were made. For example, the Supreme Court in 1984 in the case of Roberts v. United States Jaycees that “acts of invidious discrimination…cause unique evils that government has a compelling interest to prevent---wholly apart from the point of view such conduct may transmit. Accordingly, like violence or other types of potentially expressive activities that produce special harms distinct from their communicative impact, such practices are entitled to no constitutional protection.” Therefore, it is the duty and the obligation of the government to protect the citizens of this country by severely punishing acts of discriminatory violence. In case Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the black defendant, Todd Mitchell, was convicted of encouraging a group of black friends to assault a white individual who was walking past by shouting “Do you all feel hyped up to move on some white people…there goes a white boy; go get him!” ("Penalty Enhancement Laws Are Constitutional"). Upholding the constitutionality of the state’s penalty enhancement law the supreme court ordered the defendant to serve five years on top of the normal two year sentence because he intentionally selected the victim on the basis of his race. The Supreme Court ruled that “additional sentences for hate crimes are appropriate and constitutional because hate crimes are “thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm” ("Penalty Enhancement Laws Are Constitutional"). Hate-crime legislation does not promote unequal protection. Editors of the Atlanta Constitution argue that “Hate-Crime legislation doesn’t create “special” groups or punish mere thoughts. Rather it recognizes reality: Some minorities are consistently singled out for attacks launched with fists, guns, and other weapons. Hate-crime laws don’t limit speech or thought; instead, the curb the violence intended to silence certain groups.” Hate-crime legislation is necessary to raise awareness that there is a problem, and contrary to the belief of some, awareness can have an effect on the prevention and reduction of hate-motivated crime. It was Senator Edward Kennedy that said, “No Americans should feel that they are second-class citizens because Congress refuses to protect them against hate crimes.” Howard P. Berkwitz, national chairman of the Anti-Defamation League said, “The laws protect all Americans, allowing them to walk the streets safe in the knowledge that their community will not tolerate violent bigotry” ("Penalty Enhancement Laws Are Constitutional"). Valerie Jenness (Ferber 181-203) wrote about the difference between “Gender and Hate Crime Policy” Hate crimes in the United States did not emerge until the 1970s and has been growing ever since. Jenness states that since the term “hate-crime” came into effect it became more politicized. It was the civil rights movement that started the defining bias-motivated violence as more different than other violent crimes. Although all states do not have separate laws specifically for “Hate Crimes,” more states are joining in to clearly define what a hate crime is, based on the perpetrators motive and type of violence used. For example, California adopted an “Interface with Exercise of Civil Rights Law” (Ferber 189) that was amended twice. First in 1991 and again in 1994, this clearly shows the acknowledgement of gender making a difference. Hate crimes are not like other crimes they are clearly distinct from other criminal offenses. Because the crime is motivated by bias of a person or group’s perceived race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc, the crime is often more brutal than other crimes. The after effects of hate crimes often ripple through communities spreading fear. The victims of these crimes often feel “degraded, frightened, vulnerable, and suspicious” (Turner). Being the victim of a hate crime can be one of the most traumatic experiences of their lives. Hate Propaganda or hate speech is protected in the United States under the Constitution; hate speech is loosely defined as “hostile speech or other behavior.” Unlike Canada, the United States of America does not have a “Hate Propaganda Law” (Turner). Legislation in Canada follows the British tradition, as do laws in Australia, New Zealand and some other former colonies. In particular, with a few exceptions, citizens are not allowed to incite or promote hatred, or advocate or promote genocide against certain specified groups. Today Hate Crimes are still being committed in all forms around the world. An example would be the case of Colin Ferguson; Colin Ferguson is responsible for the Road Island Massacre. In the Ferguson case, it was presented that the defendant’s emotional state led him to commit the crime he did. Psychologically, Ferguson was found sane; it was the “racism he experienced, real or imagined…” (Kelly and Maghan 22) that contributed to his act of indiscriminate violence. Racial slurs and stereotypes are part of “hate speech.” Kelly writes “Ferguson may have been driven to violence because he was somehow molded into hatred through relentless exposure to a xenophobic milieu saturated with negative stereotypes of racial, ethnic, religious, and sexually different “others.” Ultimately Ferguson suffered from racial torment, provoking him into violence; hate bread hate. From the standpoint, of the law Kelly states that “In cases of homicide, motives that derived from bias and fear do not add more harm to the victim---only grief for the family and fear in the community” (Kelly, and Maghan 23). When people commit hate crimes they have a tendency to depersonalize the victims of their crime. Most recently, the attack on the twin towers and the large loss of life was not biased towards one group but the United States in its entirety. Another significant example of depersonalization in a hate crime would be the Timothy McVeigh attack on the Murrah Federal Building. “He called the deaths of these children “collateral damage.” Using this term removed their faces from his mind and made it easier to justify their deaths” (Moffatt 190) in his attack and hate for the United States government. In closing, there are many crimes and unjustified acts that are not covered under either federal or state statues. We are one nation where all men are created equal, yet, depending on the state in which the crime takes place a victim or the victims family may receive justice or not. Is one victim better than the other when both have suffered the same beating because of their race or ultimately death because of their sexual orientation or disability? As one nation, every state should uphold the same hate crime statues. “Gender and disability are included as protected statues in New Jersey’s hate crime laws…” while “Pennsylvania, New Jersey’s close neighbor to the west, does not include either” (Boeckmann, and Turpin-Petrosino 208). Numerous states specify race, religion, and ethnicity as protected statuses, while “New Mexico, South Carolina, and Texas…do not” (Boeckmann, and Turpin-Petrosino 208). Hate crimes are no longer limited to black and white; the targets of these crimes have broadened immensely. Hate crimes and come in many forms in the disguise of offenses that are viewed as less severe, such as bullying our children in our schools, where we are to find comfort that they are safe and that every child receives the same education and care. To fight for the equality and tolerance that the United States of America was founded upon is not unconstitutional. While, legislation is not the solution to hate crimes, it is part of the solution. Hate breeds hate and through awareness, law, and the education and practice of tolerance, through the harsh punishment and intolerance of hate in all forms the number of hate crimes can be lessened. Our differences should be celebrated and accepted, no matter our preferences we are all one of a kind in our own right, and every man, woman, and child should have the freedom to feel safe in their community. Works CitedBoeckmann, Robert J, & Turpin-Petrosino. "Understaning the Harm of Hate Crime." Journal of Social Issues. 58. 2 (2002): 207-25. PrintFerber, Abby L. Home-grown hate: gender and organized racism. Psychology Press, 2004. 181-203. Print “Hate Crime Laws Are Unnecessary.” Hate Groups. Ed. Tamara L. Roleff. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2001. Opposing Viewpoints Digests. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web 16 Nov. 2010. Kelly, Robert J., and Jess Maghan. Hate Crime: The Global Politics of Polarization. Southern Illinois Univ Pr, 1998. 22-35. Print. Moffatt, Gregory K. A Violent Heart: Understanding Aggressive Individuals. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002. 187-201. Print.“Penalty Enhancement Laws Are Constitutional.” Hate Groups. Ed. Tamara L. Roleff. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2001. Opposing Viewpoints Digests. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web 18 Nov. 2010.“Penalty Enhancement Laws Are Unconstitutional.” Hate Groups. Ed. Tamara L. Roleff. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2001. Opposing Viewpoints Digests. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web 18 Nov. 2010.Turner, Nancy. “Hate Crimes Are Not Like Other Crimes.” International Association of Chief of Police (7 Dec. 2001). Rpt. In What Is a Hate Crime? Ed. Rob Winters. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2007. At Issue. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web 16 Nov. 2010. | |