Victims of hate crimes vary in the indiscretions placed against them, whether it is from a simple slander to a vicious attack. But they all have the same mutual notion that the crimes that were committed against them are far above other crimes because they were carried out in hate. I believe that the idea of creating a separate punishment for crimes of this nature is absolutely nonsensical and inane in theory. In the attached article, it states that “Congressional negotiators stripped a measure to strengthen 1960 s-era hate crimes law from a massive defense bill, likely killing for this year the effort to broaden hate crimes protections for gay people and the disabled (Reuters, 2004).” This action, for some, it a disappointment and a big step back in their movement. “Backers of the hate crimes legislation, a top priority for gay rights and disabled advocacy groups (Reuters, 2004) ” seem more interested in intensifying punishment that is only against them.
Such cases that they believe deserved intensification are those like “the dragging death of a black man named James Byrd in Texas (Reuters, 2004) ” and “the fatal beating of a young gay man named Matthew Shepard in Wyoming (Williams, 2004).” But I believe the ideals that those kind of people are fighting for is a futile effort and a lost cause. Singling out crimes and criminals with the addition of “hate” has no added value in the context of the crime. A crime that has been committed in the essence of hate is only as valid as a crime that is not completely perpetrated out of hate. And yes, a hate crime is seen as more debauched in our glowingly politically correct society, but under the scrutiny of law it should not be seen as a special crime in need of special punishment. In our legislation we should not make a special needs section to satisfy the victims of intolerance. In our society everything and everyone is suppose to be equal, and in classifying two different murderers as one being a hate murderer and the other simply a murderer is not acceptable.
The Essay on Capital Punishment 40
Capital punishment is the execution of criminals by the state for committing crimes so wicked that it is the only acceptable punishment. The debate over the death penalty has endured for years and has become increasingly controversial. According to an article written by Richard Worsnop, entitled 'Death Penalty Debate Centers on Retribution,' in 1966, 42% of Americans were in favor of capital ...
Now I am not trying to defend murders in my accusations but rather am trying to make a point. Crimes that are committed out of intolerance of one’s beliefs or actions are no different than a crime that is committed out of pure pleasure per se. A criminal should not be tried as a labeled hate criminal in order to have a higher punishment than a non-hate criminal. In our current and continuously progressing ideals of equality, this kind of action could actually be seen as discrimination. It could be considered intolerance to the criminal’s beliefs that drive him to his actions. Now in our society we should not base punishment on intolerance to the victim but solely on the crime itself.
A self proclaimed Klan member who murdered a black man should not be given a different label and sentence than that of a black rights activist who murdered a black man; the crimes are the equal and punishment should be as well. Also I believe that including hate crimes as part of our legislation is a way of inducing values on our society and government should not be involved in such affairs. As with the principle of separation of church and state, the addition of hate crimes in legislation should not take place. There is a separation of church and state in our government to insure that religious values are not instilled upon the constituency of the United States. This should ring true by separating tolerance values instilled by said hate crime laws.
The Essay on Strong National Government vs. Strong State Government
Does a strong federal government really benefit us, the people, as much as people say it does? A strong federal government compared to a strong local or state government is one of the major topics out there. Are you for a strong central government? A government where one man has the authority to wage wars? In reality studies show that a strong local government benefits the people more than ...
Intolerance is not an issue to be dealt with by the United States government. It is an issue to be addressed by the surroundings of individuals whether it is parents, organizations, or churches. As immoral as it may seem, people can be racist or intolerant if they want to be. It is their choice for what ever reason to be so and the government should not be involved in changing their ideals.
It should only be the matter of the government when the ideals of intolerant persons are taken outside of their own boundaries and violate the laws of an institution. And then and only then should government take part in prosecuting such criminals; and in a manner that does not single them out as a said hate-monger, but rather as a criminal in need a just prosecution.
