Hate-Crime Laws: Argument Of Discussion

1398 Words6 Pages
Hubert Amilcar February 26, 2014 ENC 1102 MWF (8:00) Argumentative Synthesis Essay Hate-Crime Laws: Human Rights or A Hint Of Compassion A hate-crime is defined as “a crime in which the criminal is motivated by bias against the particular group to which his or her victim belongs (Update: Hate-Crime Laws).” Hate-crime laws were implemented during the year 1969, after numerous attacks on certain groups of citizens. Hate-crimes are motivated by a bigoted bias towards one of eight characteristics of a person, race, color, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability. Hate-crime laws give an increased penalty to the perpetrator of a biased crime, against a person and their beliefs. These laws deem crimes towards…show more content…
The United States’ Constitution consists of 7 written articles, one of them in particular being the Bill of Rights. In the Bill of Rights, there are ten amendments that guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public. In the 1st amendment, we see proclamations of freedom granted to the citizens of the United States. Carter Corker, an associate of Hunton and Williams law firm, states in her article Hope-Fulfilling or Effectively Chilling, that “The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law ‘abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble’ individual the right to associate with others who share similar beliefs, and prevents the government from proscribing speech or expressive conduct because of disapproval with the ideas expressed” (279). In comparison to this notion, hate-crime laws prohibit certain speech as a contention that speech can make a situation detrimental to the well being of others. The only thing keeping the United States at a level of equality is the Constitution, if that’s thrown out; the legislation of the government is no longer fair or equal. An adversary to my notion would believe that hate-crime laws remain Constitutional. A…show more content…
Hate-crime laws work to the advantage of prosecutors instead of justice, they restrict the exercise of 1st amendment rights, and the laws lead to “identity politics.” Hate-crime laws are an unnerving addition to our legislative system. Hate-crime laws have no definite penalty, or real requirements. In other words, hate-crime laws are present based on the discretion of the judge or jury. Leaving the fate of someone’s incarceration in the hands of someone based on how they “feel” about a crime, and not how the crime actually transpired is absurd and unconstitutional. Throwing out our Constitution in an attempt to make our society better, is obviously a plot for the people who govern us to take our voice away. Taking our voice away forces us to live as a totalitarian

More about Hate-Crime Laws: Argument Of Discussion

Open Document