Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
MODERN ROLEPLAY NEWS: The world is good. And very quite beautiful.
New Users' Info
Cabinet & OOC News
Map Quick Links
RP Time: OST
Population: XX Nations
Technology: Post/Modern
Starter Guide Map Room MTRP Index
World Stage Ministry of Role Play OOC Discussion Databases
Announcements General Assembly Wolf's Tavern The Media
Caprecia

Founder: Dom | Prime Minister: Vacant| RP Ministers: Vacant

..:: YOUR NEWS : 16 OCT '14 ::..
***Things That Happened, Did***
Galdresia Iryiiad Syntreal
Zaroca Oracia
Specials Epicmaps Sketerra
Welcome to Caprecian Continents. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
I wrote this for AP English?; What do y'all think?
Topic Started: Mar 17 2010, 02:20 PM (428 Views)
Darkle
Member Avatar
Keldarian Monarchy
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jacob -------
Ms. --------
English III AP – 7
15 December 2009

Hate Crime Legislation: A Crime in Itself

Discrimination, in myriad forms, has a long history in the United States. To combat what came to be known as hate crimes, the committing of an act of crime out of a motivation of bias against the intended victims (Federal Bureau of Investigation 2009), laws were formulated and passed that would place harsher punishments upon the heads of those accused, and found guilty, of hate crimes. In fact, in 1994, a law passed on the federal level required that all punishments for hate crimes be raised, to set them specifically apart from traditional crime (United States. Cong. 1994). However, these measures of increasing punishments have amounted to a massive breach of the America’s most prized civil right. Because higher levels of punishment have been established for hate crimes, as opposed to traditional crimes, and because hate crime legislation takes into consideration the individual thoughts and opinions of the accused when deciding upon possible punishments, such legislation constitutes a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech, as it effectively places people on trial for what they think and for what they say, rather than strictly for what they do.

To those of you who do not agree, consider this: a man kidnaps a child, is found and brought to court. He is now on trial for kidnapping. Should he be convicted, and let’s say for the sake of this example that he is, he will face certain punishments. Now, let’s add a new dynamic to this example. Say the man is white and the child is black. A white man has now kidnapped a black child, has been found and brought to court. This man is also on trial for kidnapping, just like the first man, but wait! The prosecution claims that this kidnapping was carried out with a motivation of bias! of hate! The punishments that the man would already have been facing for the simple act of kidnapping have just increased! Continuing this example, let’s say that this was the case, and that the man did indeed kidnap this child because of a hate-driven motivation. And now I pose a question to you, readers: Is it right to give this man a harsher punishment because he acted out of hate? Many ardent supporters of hate crime legislation would contend that, yes, it is right. Their reasoning behind this claim is that hate crimes do more damage to a person and community than a traditional crime would (United States. Cong 2009). I ask, however, in what ways are hate crimes more harmful? Does it really make that much of a difference if the man kidnapped a child because of racist motivations? Or religious ones, or any other kind? I say, no! It does not! The fact that one acts with a motivation of bias would have no bearing on the physical or psychological trauma of the victim. Would you, reader, feel any better about having been kidnapped or beaten because your aggressor wasn’t acting out on some bias they held against you? Having said that, if you still would argue for the cause of laws against hate crimes, consider this question: Is it right to give this man a harsher punishment because he was thinking a certain way while he committed the crime? Because that is what hate crime legislation amounts to: the prosecution of someone for their personal beliefs and convictions, instead of, or rather as well as, for their actions. Another question: Would you want your beliefs held against you if you were ever on trial? Most Americans would vehemently oppose such a bold move against their right to free speech.

However, despite all of this, many still give full support to this legislation, claiming that hate crime is on the rise and that these laws are truly necessary. But according to the FBI statistics on hate crime, comparing the years 1999 and 2004, the levels of hate crime have remained fairly stable. To be more specific, in 2004, a total of 7649 hate crimes were committed (“Hate Crimes: Facts & Figures”). In 1999, there were 7876 committed (Federal Bureau of Investigation 1999). Those two numbers are fairly close, and, in fact, based off of this comparison, the level of hate crimes has actually decreased over time! So what does that say to hate crimes being a growing problem? And in regards to the necessity of such laws, consider the real life case of the murder of James Byrd Jr. in Texas. Byrd Jr., a black man, was accosted by a trio of white males who proceeded to tie him to the back of a truck before driving down a road with Byrd still attached. The state of Texas was without a hate crime law at the time, so the three were tried on a murder charge. Two of them were sentenced to death row and the other was sentenced to life in prison (Taylor). How would a hate crime law have affected those rulings, or made them any more effective? This trial, in a former slave state no less, is ample proof that a hate crime law is not necessary to ensure that criminals are properly punished, even when the issue of bias plays a factor in the crime. Based off of this scenario and the fact that crimes do already have punishments without hate crime laws, the fact that hate crime laws are necessary hardly seems factual anymore.

The purpose of hate crime laws is to prevent, or at least attempt to prevent, hate crimes. But they don’t dispel the underlying problem - just as other laws don’t dispel the underlying problems leading to traditional crimes - which is, simply, hateful and discriminatory thought. But it is hardly fair to expect a law to do such a thing, so that can hardly be held against these hate crime laws. What can be held against these laws, and held firmly, is the fact that they actually encourage discrimination. Although this specific function may truly be unintended, it is a truth. What these laws promote, in the end, is the legal and social elevation of one class of people above another. How is this true, is a question I imagine many may respond with to this. To answer, I ask you to think back to the kidnapping example I presented earlier. The white man on trial for a hate crime has been placed on a lower legal and social status than the black child, in that case. The black child is now considered more important, evidenced by the fact that the white man is facing harsher punishments simply because he was thinking badly about the black child when he kidnapped the child. The same principle applies to any other crime that finds itself becoming labeled with hate. Let’s say a homosexual person assaults a heterosexual because he doesn’t like straight people. In court, the heterosexual will be given more importance than his attacker because his attacker happened to feel hate towards straight people. Some supporters of hate crime laws state that hate crimes not only damage the victim, but also the social group the victim belongs to, so hate crime laws are necessary to protect both (Sharpe Reference 817). This only further proves my point. The hate crime laws are in place to protect the status of social groups, and they do so by debasing the people who commit bias-fueled crimes against those groups and stripping them of their importance.

Such action is akin to the American apartheid of the post slavery era. Laws were put in place to degrade the black peoples of America and prevent them from affecting the status of whites. The only differences here are that the social groups are no longer separated by law, and that the issue has expanded beyond race to include sex, religion, sexual orientation, and physical and mental capability as well (Sharpe Reference 815). But laws are still in place to demean the offenders. Laws still exist to elevate social groups above one another, and those laws are the hate crime laws! The very laws that are meant to crack down on crimes of hate, which are born of divisions in the American people, only serve to further divide those people! That alone, forgetting all else that is stacked against them, is reason enough to take action against these laws.

And there are two actions I can see that would remedy the problem of America’s hate crime laws. Either, as Stuart Taylor so satirically suggested in the National Journal, make them so broad that they include all of the crime that happens all the time, and therefore increase the punishments for crime across the board, or abolish them altogether. As the latter is certainly the more practical of two options, it is the option I champion as the solution for the unconstitutional, segregating, superfluous laws that are hate crime laws. These laws are becoming as an albatross about the neck of America, dragging us down into the archaic pits of social protectionism. So, in the name of free speech, and for a freer, more accepting future, tear down these laws!

Works Cited
Federal Bureau of Investigation. “Hate Crime - 1999.” Federal Bureau of Investigation. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1999. Web. 19 Nov. 2009.

- - -. “Hate Crime-Overview.” Federal Bureau of Investigation. Federal Bureau of Investigation, n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2009.

“Hate Crimes: Facts & Figures.” Issues: Understanding Controversy and Society. ABC-CLIO, 2009. Web. 17 Nov. 2009.

Sharpe Reference. “Hate Crimes.” Social Issues in America An Encyclopedia. Ed. James Ciment. Vol. 4. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2006. 815-818. Print. 7 vols.

Talyor, Stuart, Jr. “Let’s Make the Federal Hate Crimes Law Broader--Much Broader.” National Journal (Sept. 2006): n. pag. Gale Group . Web. 12 Nov. 2009.

United States. Cong. Senate. Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Ed. Reid. 111th Cong., 1st sess. S 909. N.p.: GPO, 2009. THOMAS (The Library of Congress) . Web. 17 Nov. 2009.

- - -. - - -. Senate and House. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. By Brooks. 103rd Cong, 2nd sess. Washington: GPO, 1994. THOMAS (The Library of Congress). Web. 19 Nov. 2009.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Epsilon Andromedae
Unregistered

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

I hate hate crime.

Protection = Discrimination.

No Protection = Equality.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Teh Fluffy
Member Avatar
Teh 1 with teh Fluffz
[ *  *  *  * ]
-Outstanding job, and convincing enough, although the idea is a bit controversial in my mind. But I have to agree with you; furthering punishment for hate-biased crimes is in most cases an idea that degrades the idea of a free America. I am saddened to see a most obviously fundamental aspect of the U.S.A. (First Ammendment) being violated. I won't argue my point, though. Rather, I'm simply stating my beliefs on the subject and remain open to hearing anyone else's opinion.

Overall, very wonderful job, if review was what you were looking for! I can provide more praise for your excellent literacy if you would like, but for now, my fingers are tired from typing this post...

Typing is so aerobically challenging... I think I'll go and grab a drink of water, and then rest a bit...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Darkle
Member Avatar
Keldarian Monarchy
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Well, feel free to stroke my ego all you want by praising me. :P But I was also looking for other people's opinions on this matter that may differ from mine (and apparently a few others').

Anyhow, thanks! :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Genuva
Member Avatar
Medium State
[ *  *  * ]
Epsilon Andromedae
Mar 17 2010, 02:29 PM
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

I hate hate crime.

Protection = Discrimination.

No Protection = Equality.

Agree.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Erid'Lor
Member Avatar
The Imperium
Beautiful. Highly convincing, especially your last point (though I've heard the same argument before, and agree with it).

I can't really argue with your points since I'm not great at playing Devil's Advocate, but I would question why much of your evidence seems anecdotal. Of the three (I think?) examples you gave, only 1 was a statistic, while the other 2 were anecdotal.

^ that's all I can come up with xD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Darkle
Member Avatar
Keldarian Monarchy
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The reason for that is that our teacher, after allowing us ample time for research, asked us all to write a draft off the top of our heads, from pure memory. If you were to look at that draft and the final draft, you'd see a fair amount of similarity. :P I also didn't put in sources in the next draft. At the last minute, I hunted for places in my paper that could be backe up by my research, and added some more ideas in that a classmate of mine had inspired me with. So, it all comes down to slacking off.

However, there are 9 references (I just counted them) to the 7 sources I listed. So. *shrug*
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ubiquisque
Member Avatar
Large State
[ *  *  *  * ]
Darkle, you should be justly praised for a really fine piece of work. You deserve to do very well with it in class. But since you wanted a counter argument or two to it, let me put these arguments to you to consider:

1. The commission of any crime requires two elements: a certain set of defined acts and a certain state of mind or criminal intent (what lawyers like to call "mens rea"). If I am on my outdoor cooker preparing some sausages for the family and some sparks blow next door and case a fire that burns down my neighbour's house, that is not arson. I performed the acts of arson but I lack the requisite criminal intent and I could not be convicted of arson.
All the time we REDUCE the severity of crimes based on the state of mind. If I kill another person intending to do so it is murder, but if I lack that intent it is manslaughter. Assault occasioning Grievous Bodily Harm becomes assault. Theft becomes unlawful use of property - and so on.
So why can't we INCREASE the severity of the crime based on what is in the mind too? If the thought is more wicked and dangerous, then it makes sense for the punishment to reflect this.

2. A part of criminal sentencing is deterrence to others and also a sign of how important the wider community views the offence. These so-called hate crimes are qualitatively different to "regular" crimes. Regular crimes are generally targetted to a specific person (I am killing YOU for what YOU did to my family - or I am breaking into YOUR house because I want YOUR new big screen tv) or utterly indiscriminate to the victim (like vehicular homicides or college shootings).
Hate crimes are different - the perpetrator is not selecting victims indiscriminately but actively seeks a certain type of victim (gay, Canadian, Arab, etc). Nor is the perpetrator targetting a specific victim for some reason. The perpetrator seeks out victims not for what they did or possess but simply they belong to some class and the perpetrator hates that class. As such, they are far more likely to reoffend and that in itself justifies a harsher penalty.

3. We need to give some thought to the victims of these crimes too - not merely the actual victim but also the potential victims who now have cause for fear and apprehension. Unlike regular crimes, where there is no way of predicting subsequent victims, in the case of hate crimes a certain class of persons in the community are being targetted - be they smokers or college women or lawyers (!). In the interests of protecting their rights to life and pursuit of happiness, sterner penalties and public evidence of the support of the wider community are both warranted.


Maybe those thoughts can help! Once again - great job on the actual essay! :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Darkle
Member Avatar
Keldarian Monarchy
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Thanks Ubi! In response:

1. I know that punishments for crimes are reduced in severity based upon intnent - for example, if you throw something into the air and it happens to kill somebody on the way down, you can't really be held accountable. But I disagree that sentences should be reduced/increased in severity based upon opinion. In my mind, there should be either criminal intent or not, and that should be the extent to which the perpetrator's thought enters into the matter. Really, beyond that becomes judging and policing the thoughts and opinions of people.

2. While I do agree with you, that punishments are meant to deter others from committing the same crime, I disagree that a harsher penalty should be given because of the reason the crime was committed. If there was criminal intent - which in 'hate' crimes there typically is - then it can be dealt with as a per usual. Not only that, but when people commit multiple crimes - as in they are repeat offenders - the sentences tend to become progressively worse. Some people simply don't learn, and we already have a way for our justice system to handle them. Also, legally acknowledging that different classes of society exist only divides the nation. In order for a nation to function smoothly - which America does not - there needs to be unity among all sections of the population. And - since I disagree with nationalism - how can the world become more unified if the nations it is composed of cannot achieve some kind of bond within their own borders?

3. This falls in with my dislike of the categorization of people. I know that the different categories and classes exist, but I think it is wrong for the government to give a nod to this and separate these different classes. If the government - and media/society in general - didn't lend credence to the thought that there are different classes of people (whether or not there truly are), when in our Constitution it states we are all created equal, then 'hate' crimes will become a thing of the past and then the consequences for these 'hate' crimes will become unnecessary. I also think that this acknowledgement makes certain minority classes who don't do a single thing to help themselves in life feel entitled to beg the government to give them money/etc., simply because they are targeted by a small portion of the larger population.

Of course, the easy solution would be to increase punishments for crimes across the board, and render hate crime legislation unnecessary because there can be no harsher sentence without becoming cruel. But, like true Americans, people would loudly yell to shoot that down, even though it is exactly what hate crime legislation is doing and many people - in my opinion - stupidly support that! However, if punishment increased everywhere, I bet you'd see less crime! (Although you might see more assassinations *shrug*)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ubiquisque
Member Avatar
Large State
[ *  *  *  * ]
Nice response - well thought out. You have really got a good mastery of this project. Let me make a few comments back.

Re Mens Rea/intent. Even now, in order to establish the commission of a crime we have to enquire what was in the person's mind. Each and every crime has a specific "state of mind" that accompanies it, not just a generic "criminal intent." So for example, if I break into your house one night intending to steal your hard drive in order to get my hands on your fabulous essay - I have a criminal intent sufficient for burglary. But if you unexpectedly come into the room startling me and, to conceal my crime, I kill you that is not full murder because I lack the right mens rea for the offence of murder.
So again I ask, if we already reduce crimes based on what is in a person's mind, if we discover in that mind motivations of blind hatred and cruelty, why should we as a community not have the power to increase the offence as well?

re Classes. I agree we could be better off if we just treated people as people and not broke them into classes. That, however, is little comfort to the people being targeted by some madman who firmly identifies them as a class. To say, "Well yes, we know this mass rapist is only attacking Asian women in the community and savagely assaulting them and that Asian women everywhere in our town are living in terror but we prefer to pretend that no such group as 'Asian Women' exists and just treat them as regular people" - that will be of little comfort to those women and even defies common sense. If they are in need of greater protection through the deterrent of harsher penalties on what grounds should the wider community withhold it from them?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Darkle
Member Avatar
Keldarian Monarchy
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Re Mens Rea/intent: In that case, I would say full charges for breaking and entering and then probably manslaughter 2. Intent would need to be determined as well as thought processes, and I think that the different degrees of crimes we have - ex. Man 1, 2, & 3 - is acceptable and that there doesn't need to be further probing into the thoughts of the criminal. The whole premise of 'hate' crime legislation is that people are being punished, more harshly, not for their intent, but for their opinions. The intention is there, but the focus is being put on the fact that they targetted their victim for racial/etc. reasons. Which I see as policing thoughts.

Re Classes: My proposal is, I know, idealistic and highly unprobable in anything close to the near future, not to mention unpopular among social minorities. However, this would extend benefits into other areas of society. For example, gay marriage would no longer be an issue because the fact that the persons involved were homosexual would be irrelevant in the government's eyes. Equality rules for schools, jobs, etc. would become unnecessary as the classifications of 'race' disappeared. In answer to the question you posed, withholding that support would be, in the long run, more beneficial to society than the further segregation of people. As I see it, these laws foster awkwardness between 'races' and other classifications as people are nervous to act normally around people who are 'different', scared to offend them. A more harmonious culture could arise from seeing people as people, one nationality, with no difference between them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Isles of Orland
Member Avatar
Super Power
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I love that there is an albatross dragging America down - Perhaps there is a different meaning, but isn't an albatross a large sea bird found near the Antarctic?

Otherwise great essay (I don't agree with it) but it is very convincing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Darkle
Member Avatar
Keldarian Monarchy
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Habitat-ish: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Albatros...ibution_map.png

Besides, it's just a metaphorical allusion anyways:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albatross_(metaphor)

Thanks!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Isles of Orland
Member Avatar
Super Power
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Near enough for me!

and I've never heard that metaphor before... so it can't be right :P

(For me that metaphor causes me to imagine an immense sea bird swooping down out of the sky and latching on to a US government officials neck and pecking him to death - like something out of Family Guy or Metalocalypse - it is fantastic)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Darkle
Member Avatar
Keldarian Monarchy
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
You've never heard of that metaphor? o.O *twitch* I've all but had it beatrn into my head through multiple years of English class..
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Wolf's Tavern · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1



edge created by tiptopolive of ifsz