As I'm sitting her with my two lawyer cousins and my very liberal brother, I've come to realize this debate about hate-crime laws can go on for hours.
Today, it does seem like the legal system is pimping a double standard. However, if everyone would stop and think back to how viciously some white Americans acted toward African Americans, they must wonder, how developed would racism be today had it not been for the establishment of hate-crime laws? Would it ever have died down? Would if have remained stable? Maybe at a time, hate-crime laws were the answer. But today, its cause for a question.
As I'm sitting her with my two lawyer cousins and my very liberal brother, I've come to realize this debate about hate-crime laws can go on for hours.
Today, it does seem like the legal system is pimping a double standard. However, if everyone would stop and think back to how viciously some white Americans acted toward African Americans, they must wonder, how developed would racism be today had it not been for the establishment of hate-crime laws? Would it ever have died down? Would if have remained stable? Maybe at a time, hate-crime laws were the answer. But today, its cause for a question.
I think that what they really need to do is change the name. "Hate crime" just seems like it has some conotation that people are not able to deal with. If someone is prejudice or bias, that's their business. But if you decide to hurt someone because of that prejudice or bias you deserve to be punished for it. We mentioned in class that this would seem to be punishing someone for their thoughts but I think its more than that. I think that every murderer has a reason for why they killed and it is not just the killing but the reason behind it that makes their punishment stronger. I think this is the same idea.
This article gives me a good idea of how hate crime laws act against our freedom to be who we want to be. However, I feel that, as much as I love the freedom of speech in this country, there has to be a line drawn somewhere; even if it is drawn at the way far end of the spectrum.
People who commit crimes based upon racism or antisemitism should receive additional jail time because the beliefs which gave them reason to act are considered wrong by most of the people in the United States and after all doesn't democracy operate off of public opinion? or at least it should, anyways.
Nobody knows the exact reasons for people's actions. With the Tyler Clementi case, how can anyone prove that Ravi acted out of hate for homosexuals? It's not like we can peer into his soul and extract his demons for all to see. So how can a judge decide that a criminal was motivated by racism or hate?
If Clementi had not committed suicide, it is doubtful that Ravi would even be in this predicament. But because someone died, everyone is glued to their TV and computer screens looking for justice. Yes, Ravi should be punished for violating Clementi's privacy, but should he be punished for the speculations of why he did it? After all, there could be numerous reasons that explain Ravi's actions, and maybe none of them relate to Clementi's sexual orientation.
The Trayvon Martin case is interesting because the only person alive who knows what went down between Zimmerman and Martin is the shooter himself. Why did Zimmerman shoot Martin? We may never know the true answer. None of the people who called 911 bothered to go outside and help, so all we can do is take Zimmerman's word as the truth or call him a liar. It will be interesting to see if the court decides whether or not Zimmerman acted the way he did because of Martin's race and if Zimmerman had confronted Martin with the premediated thought of killing him. After all, it seems like this information only matters so that extra years can be tacked onto Zimmerman's sentence if he is convicted.
After reading the article I find myself more questioning our legal system than understanding it. Having a strong opinion on an ethnicity or orientation, is that really a hate crime or just morally close-minded? If harming someone because of who they are tacks on more punishment, is that legally fair?
It is cliche, but I don't believe in violence and I'm a strong advocate of individuality and the freedom of being. It is my opinion, that you are born a woman, man, black, gay...if someone disagrees with it, it's really not wrong but looked at as lack of better words, dumb.
In the Clementi case, if Clementi really was openly gay, it would seem to me that it would be hard to put the word Hate Crime soley onto Ravi. What Ravi did was wrong no doubt, but for him to be labeled as the causation of Clementi's death, that's not definite.
The Travon Martin case is also not as simple, what Zimmerman did was terrible but can answers that it was a hate crime really be proven in this case?
I think this will be a debate for years and years to come
When someone commits a crime, it’s agreed upon that he/she should be punished; however behind every crime is a motive and some sort of thought process. When it comes to prosecuting hate crimes, the legal system decided that punishment for the crime isn’t enough of a consequence, yet aren’t we living in a country where we have the ability to think our own thoughts and not be punished for that alone? If it’s decided that hate crimes should be punished more harshly, then I guess it’s only right that the legal system takes the time to decide what things should require more time in jail than others even when the actual crime committed is exactly the same. Honestly, this article made me realize how absolutely ridiculous it is to have a more severe punishment for basically the same act of crime committed. If we start charging hate crimes with a more severe penalty than what’s stopping Americans from being punished for our thoughts alone? I agree that once hateful thinking such as racism and sexism is acted upon then punishment and consequences should be enacted, but the reason behind doing such crimes does not call for a different sentencing than someone who committed the same crime but with different motives.
This article is an absolute eye openeer. I never really gave much of a thought to the different severities of punishment in our leagal system. Why should a "hate crime" get a harsher punsihment then others? Even further, aren't all crimes hate crimes? If you really think about it, any crime, is a hate crime because it is being commited to someone or something. Yes some "hate crimes" are more severy but in the end there all linked. Another comment by someone suggested the arguement that we live in the USA, and therefore have freedom of speech/thought; that through this punsihment we are one step away from being punished for our thoughts alone. I strongly agree with this person, because it holds the utmost legitamacy. I do not understand why the reason behind commiting a crime should have anything to do with the crime itself. More people need to become informed in this topic.
As I'm sitting her with my two lawyer cousins and my very liberal brother, I've come to realize this debate about hate-crime laws can go on for hours.
ReplyDeleteToday, it does seem like the legal system is pimping a double standard. However, if everyone would stop and think back to how viciously some white Americans acted toward African Americans, they must wonder, how developed would racism be today had it not been for the establishment of hate-crime laws? Would it ever have died down? Would if have remained stable? Maybe at a time, hate-crime laws were the answer. But today, its cause for a question.
As I'm sitting her with my two lawyer cousins and my very liberal brother, I've come to realize this debate about hate-crime laws can go on for hours.
ReplyDeleteToday, it does seem like the legal system is pimping a double standard. However, if everyone would stop and think back to how viciously some white Americans acted toward African Americans, they must wonder, how developed would racism be today had it not been for the establishment of hate-crime laws? Would it ever have died down? Would if have remained stable? Maybe at a time, hate-crime laws were the answer. But today, its cause for a question.
I think that what they really need to do is change the name. "Hate crime" just seems like it has some conotation that people are not able to deal with. If someone is prejudice or bias, that's their business. But if you decide to hurt someone because of that prejudice or bias you deserve to be punished for it. We mentioned in class that this would seem to be punishing someone for their thoughts but I think its more than that. I think that every murderer has a reason for why they killed and it is not just the killing but the reason behind it that makes their punishment stronger. I think this is the same idea.
ReplyDeleteThis article gives me a good idea of how hate crime laws act against our freedom to be who we want to be. However, I feel that, as much as I love the freedom of speech in this country, there has to be a line drawn somewhere; even if it is drawn at the way far end of the spectrum.
ReplyDeletePeople who commit crimes based upon racism or antisemitism should receive additional jail time because the beliefs which gave them reason to act are considered wrong by most of the people in the United States and after all doesn't democracy operate off of public opinion? or at least it should, anyways.
Nobody knows the exact reasons for people's actions. With the Tyler Clementi case, how can anyone prove that Ravi acted out of hate for homosexuals? It's not like we can peer into his soul and extract his demons for all to see. So how can a judge decide that a criminal was motivated by racism or hate?
ReplyDeleteIf Clementi had not committed suicide, it is doubtful that Ravi would even be in this predicament. But because someone died, everyone is glued to their TV and computer screens looking for justice. Yes, Ravi should be punished for violating Clementi's privacy, but should he be punished for the speculations of why he did it? After all, there could be numerous reasons that explain Ravi's actions, and maybe none of them relate to Clementi's sexual orientation.
The Trayvon Martin case is interesting because the only person alive who knows what went down between Zimmerman and Martin is the shooter himself. Why did Zimmerman shoot Martin? We may never know the true answer. None of the people who called 911 bothered to go outside and help, so all we can do is take Zimmerman's word as the truth or call him a liar. It will be interesting to see if the court decides whether or not Zimmerman acted the way he did because of Martin's race and if Zimmerman had confronted Martin with the premediated thought of killing him. After all, it seems like this information only matters so that extra years can be tacked onto Zimmerman's sentence if he is convicted.
After reading the article I find myself more questioning our legal system than understanding it. Having a strong opinion on an ethnicity or orientation, is that really a hate crime or just morally close-minded? If harming someone because of who they are tacks on more punishment, is that legally fair?
ReplyDeleteIt is cliche, but I don't believe in violence and I'm a strong advocate of individuality and the freedom of being. It is my opinion, that you are born a woman, man, black, gay...if someone disagrees with it, it's really not wrong but looked at as lack of better words, dumb.
In the Clementi case, if Clementi really was openly gay, it would seem to me that it would be hard to put the word Hate Crime soley onto Ravi. What Ravi did was wrong no doubt, but for him to be labeled as the causation of Clementi's death, that's not
definite.
The Travon Martin case is also not as simple, what Zimmerman did was terrible but can answers that it was a hate crime really be proven in this case?
I think this will be a debate for years and years to come
When someone commits a crime, it’s agreed upon that he/she should be punished; however behind every crime is a motive and some sort of thought process. When it comes to prosecuting hate crimes, the legal system decided that punishment for the crime isn’t enough of a consequence, yet aren’t we living in a country where we have the ability to think our own thoughts and not be punished for that alone?
ReplyDeleteIf it’s decided that hate crimes should be punished more harshly, then I guess it’s only right that the legal system takes the time to decide what things should require more time in jail than others even when the actual crime committed is exactly the same.
Honestly, this article made me realize how absolutely ridiculous it is to have a more severe punishment for basically the same act of crime committed. If we start charging hate crimes with a more severe penalty than what’s stopping Americans from being punished for our thoughts alone?
I agree that once hateful thinking such as racism and sexism is acted upon then punishment and consequences should be enacted, but the reason behind doing such crimes does not call for a different sentencing than someone who committed the same crime but with different motives.
This article is an absolute eye openeer. I never really gave much of a thought to the different severities of punishment in our leagal system. Why should a "hate crime" get a harsher punsihment then others? Even further, aren't all crimes hate crimes? If you really think about it, any crime, is a hate crime because it is being commited to someone or something. Yes some "hate crimes" are more severy but in the end there all linked. Another comment by someone suggested the arguement that we live in the USA, and therefore have freedom of speech/thought; that through this punsihment we are one step away from being punished for our thoughts alone. I strongly agree with this person, because it holds the utmost legitamacy. I do not understand why the reason behind commiting a crime should have anything to do with the crime itself. More people need to become informed in this topic.
ReplyDelete