OPPapers.com Essay Index >> Social Issues >> Hate Crime Laws: Are They Constitutional?
We have many free term papers and essays on Hate Crime Laws: Are They Constitutional?. We also have a wide variety of research papers and book reports available to you for free. You can browse our collection of term papers or use our search engine.
Hate Crime Laws: Are They Constitutional? Are hate crime penalty enforcement laws constitutional? "That's Gay." If you are around teenagers today, that is a phrase
for a crime is not as easy without possibly jeopardizing constitutional rights in the process. Hate crime laws generally add enhanced punishments to existing statues.
but will also consider the practical implications of the Wisconsin law, as well as a similar law passed under the new federal crime bill (Cacas, 32). The Wisconsin
but will also consider the practical implications of the Wisconsin law, as well as a similar law passed under the new federal crime bill (Cacas, 32). The Wisconsin
but will also consider the practical implications of the Wisconsin law, as well as a similar law passed under the new federal crime bill (Cacas, 32). The Wisconsin
Submitted by Posterboy28 on April 6, 2005
Category: Social Issues
Words: 1561 | Pages: 7
Views: 529
Popularity Rank: 21,377
Average Member Grade: N/A (Add a Comment / Grade this Paper)
Are hate crime penalty enforcement laws constitutional?
"That's Gay." If you are around teenagers today, that is a phrase you will most likely hear very often. It is not necessarily meant as a homophobic or hate-filled remark, and most of the time it is referring to an object, an idea, or a conversation; things that obviously have no sexual orientation. But now, according to a bill passed by the senate, it could almost be considered a hate crime. Many people support the widening of hate crime laws, assuming that with stricter penalties, the crimes will lessen. In June, 2004, Senate passed a bill that received a record number of votes, passing 65-33, including 18 Republicans voting yes. The measure will add sexual orientation, gender and disability to the list of motives that provide for enhanced federal prosecution of a violent crime against a person (Lochhead). The current hate crimes law, which originated during the civil rights movement of the 1960s when many Southern states failed to prosecute assaults on African Americans, includes crimes motivated by hatred based on race, color, religion, and national origin. Many see this as a step forward, but there are some who think it is unconstitutional. Religious groups argue that "It advances the radical, well publicized agenda of homosexuals to gain acceptance for, and legal recognition of, homosexuality as a normal lifestyle" (Toalston). So who's right? Should there be a separate category for crimes committed to minorities? Shouldn't all crimes be treated just as serious as another? I believe that the categorizing of crimes into Hate Crimes is just further segregating people because of their differences, and that paying more serious attention to crimes committed on minorities is sending a bad message to those who are in the majority.
First off, many people perceive hate crime perpetrators as crazed neo-Nazis or "skinheads". However, most hate crimes are carried out by otherwise law-abiding...
You must Login to view the entire paper.
If you are not a member yet, Sign Up for free!