{"id":321,"date":"2019-07-30T12:56:07","date_gmt":"2019-07-30T12:56:07","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2019-08-06T14:16:08","modified_gmt":"2019-08-06T14:16:08","slug":"pros-and-cons-of-hate-crime-laws-9362","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/free-law-essays\/criminal-law\/pros-and-cons-of-hate-crime-laws-9362.php","title":{"rendered":"Pros and Cons of Hate Crime Laws: Indiana"},"content":{"rendered":"

Lyndon B Johnson signed a statue in 1968 that made it illegal for anyone to discriminate or cause harm to an individual or group based on their race, color, religion, or national origin. He did this to give more protection to American\u2019s that are highly discriminated against and treated poorly for no reason in this country, and because of this law, it helped to begin a movement for all American people to feel more protected, supported, and equally treated in this country. It did so by allowing people to feel safer and more protected when being involved in public engagements such as: education, federally protected activities, activities, employment, jury service, travel, or public activities, or public help. Yet, where this law was highly needed and provided a great start to bettering this country and its efforts to prevent discrimination and violence; it still wasn\u2019t enough and lacked specification and detail for what warranted someone to be charged with a hate-crime. In 2009, the Obama Administration passed a law that replaced and added to Johnson\u2019s original law allowing states to better protect American people<\/a>. Obama felt that the original law lacked protection for certain groups of people, so he removed the then existing jurisdictional difficulties to prosecutions of certain race- and religion-motivated violence, and further added new federal protections against crimes based on gender, disability, gender identity, or sexual orientation. However, where some states jumped on the opportunity to enforce the new hate-crime law, not every state did. When a state in going to pass a new law, they must first go through the legal steps to pass it, and even if it is passed, they then must jump through many different loop holes to legally charge someone with a hate-crime. In 2016, the Justice Department had charged 258 defendants for hate crimes under multiple statutes over the last seven years (U.S. Department of Justice, 2018.) <\/p>\n

State hate crime
\nlaws impose tougher penalties on criminals who target their victims
\nbecause of the victim’s race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender,
\ngender identity, or disability. For example, if someone assaults a person solely because that person is gay, transgender,
\nblack, Hispanic, etc. the crime
\nwould likely be considered a hate crime.
\nHowever, even though many states have made great efforts to pass this law and
\nenforce it, there are still ongoing debates in some states on whether
\nhate-crime laws should exist. This has been an ongoing debate for states such
\nas Indiana. Indiana is one of the five remaining states that still doesn\u2019t have
\na hate-crime law in place. The states legislators are in a constant
\ndisagreement on whether the state should pass the law and can\u2019t seem to come to
\nan agreement on how the state would implement the law if they did.  Indiana\u2019s governor, Eric Holcomb, is in favor
\nof the law, but the Attorney General-Curtis Hill is not in favor of the law. <\/p>\n

Pro Arguments<\/strong><\/p>\n

There are many pros to having a hate-crime law in place
\nfor when citizens are wrongfully attacked simply because they are bothering
\nsomeone for who they are or what they stand for. Many people feel that hate
\ncrimes should be looked at as being very personal and damaging to the victim.
\nThe emotional and psychological damages that the individuals and even their
\ncommunities often endure should be viewed as being wrong and should be taken
\nseriously. Some like to argue that hate will always be in this world and will
\nalways find its way. Though this statement is a fair argument, we still must
\ntry to make changes in our views and behaviors. One policy advocate acknowledged
\nand explained, \u201cWe recognize we cannot
\noutlaw hate. However, laws shape attitudes. And attitudes influence behavior.
\nStrong enforcement of these laws can have a deterrent impact and limit the
\npotential for a hate crime incident to explode into a cycle of violence and
\nwidespread community disturbances\u201d (Henderson, 2012). When there are laws in place
\nfor these unjustifiable crimes, people will eventually begin to conform to the
\nnew laws and hopefully begin to think to themselves, \u201cIf I attack this person because
\nthey are different from me then I will be breaking the law and will have
\nserious consequences for my actions.\u201d It will help to get people to start
\nthinking before acting and will make them think of the possible consequences
\nthat could follow their actions. Again, we will never live in a world without
\nhate, but having laws against it will help to better protect our people.<\/p>\n

Another pro to having the law is that it punishes
\noffenders to the fullest. When someone chooses to attack someone due to their
\nrace, sexuality, gender, religion, etc. they should then be held accountable
\nfor their actions. By having this law in place, it will work to send a message
\nto the public that such crimes will not be tolerated and there will be
\nconsequences when they happen. One advocate stated, \u201cAnti-discrimination and
\nhate crime laws tell us a story of how anti-trans harassment, discrimination,
\nand violence happen. Perpetrators of violence are bad apples, and their acts
\nare calculated and malevolent\u201d (Florene, 2018). People who commit hate-crimes
\nare aware of what they\u2019re doing and should be held accountable for their
\nactions and prosecuted to the fullest. An example of a hate crime law being
\nbeneficial was when a group of teens from Mississippi were all brought up on
\nhate-crime charges when they intentionally targeted a black man and beat him to
\ndeath because of his race. The lawmakers in this case said that the only reason
\nthey were able to charge all 10 subjects was because of the state having a
\nhate-crime law. They said if the state wouldn\u2019t have had this law, then they
\nwouldn\u2019t have been able to prosecute all the teens. This law made it possible
\nfor them to charge every teen that was involved. <\/p>\n

States having hate-crime laws also helps to better
\nprotect minority groups and other targeted groups. Certain groups often lack societal
\nsupport and tend to be more susceptible to be unfortunate targets of
\nhate-crimes. Studies have found that society is tend to me more accepting of
\nsomeone\u2019s race than what they are of someone belonging to the LGBT
\ncommunity.  In a study completed by
\nLyon\u2019s (2006), he found in a survey that people are more sensitive to an
\nindividual\u2019s racial status than what they are an individual\u2019s sexual identity
\nor orientation. This makes it extremely hard for the LGBT communities overall
\nwell-being and requires them to fight harder than most for equality.  As stated by Mason (2007), \u201cdescriptions of
\ndeep moral failure can preclude an emotional response to a victim\u2019s plight,
\nwhich may clarify why the queer community has had to work to prove to the
\nsociety and the criminal justice system that they are undeserving of prejudice
\nor violence.\u201d When we have the hate-crime laws in place it will work to better
\nprotect our more vulnerable populations. For example, the law would have helped
\nto protect victims like Sharon Kim, a Korean-American who was born in United
\nStates. Sharon was out walking in Brooklyn, NY with her little boy who was secured
\nto her chest when she heard a white man begin yelling racial slurs and commands
\nat her to leave and return to her country where she belongs. Ms. Kim reports
\nthat the encounter terrified her and that she feared for her and her child\u2019s
\nsafety (North, 2017).  If her state would
\nhave had a hate-crime law in place then it would have helped to protect her
\nmore from this happening. <\/p>\n

The laws also help to bring more diversity and
\nencourages tolerance within your state. You don\u2019t have to agree and or like the
\nactions of someone else, however, you do have to be respect it. Advocates say
\nthis law will work to get people to be more tolerant which will then help to
\nbring more peace and a feeling of safety to these groups that feel that society
\nis against them and will have backing by their state. It will also help attract
\nmore diverse individuals and businesses to your community, which is always good
\nfor your community\u2019s growth and prosperity. Unfortunately for Indiana, the
\nstate has possibly lost out on a major business opportunity that could really
\nhelp the state to grow and bring in more jobs. Amazon was considering putting
\none of their main stores in Indianapolis, IN, but the company has yet to do so
\nand legislators believe it is because the state still does not have a hate-crime
\nlaw. They feel confident in their speculation, because Amazon released a
\nstatement expressing that the company finds it highly important to place
\ntheir stores in areas that are welcoming to all walks of life and that strives
\nfor diversity in their state, communities, and workforce. However, Indiana
\nlegislators responded by expressing that they cannot base their state policies
\non whether a major business is going to open their (Cook, 2018).<\/p>\n

Con Arguments<\/strong><\/p>\n

Where there are many pro-hate crime advocates for the
\nimplementation of a hate-crime law in Indiana; there are also many people that
\nare anti-hate crime laws and feel that their concerns are equally as important
\nand relevant. One
\nhighly argued point is that it can be almost impossible to determine someone\u2019s
\nintent to a crime. It has also been found that most states that do have the law
\nrarely are able to charge someone with it, because it is nearly impossible to
\nprove someone\u2019s motive. Algoni (2016) stated, \u201ceven though hate crime
\nlegislation exists in most states, hate crimes are rarely prosecuted, most
\nlikely because it is difficult for prosecutors to prove that a crime has been
\nmotivated by bias; Defendants will rarely provide any insight into their
\nmotivations, and offenders will rarely confess to any type of racial animus.\u201d<\/p>\n

Another argued point is that it makes a grey area between
\nfree speech and hate speech and can infringe on an individual\u2019s right to
\nfreedom of speech. Opponents have suggested that such laws may contradict our
\nFirst Amendment rights, because they penalize an individual\u2019s right to freedom
\nof speech, thoughts, and beliefs which is in violation of the constitution\u2019s
\nFirst Amendment. It is also believed that what is said during an argument can
\nbe subjective depending on the person and how one interprets the meaning behind
\nand individual\u2019s choice of words (Alongi, 2016).<\/p>\n

Anti-policy advocates also have voiced that all
\ncrimes are committed due to some form of hurt or hate, and many have expressed
\nthat we already have laws in place to properly address and deal with those
\ncrimes (Dunbar & Molina,
\n2004).  Some have even expressed that, \u201chaving a
\nhate-crime law will also then overstep and manipulate the Double Jeopardy
\nClause (Alongi,2016).  This clause is in
\nplace to protect individuals from being tried for the same crime twice. <\/p>\n

Critics like Gerstenfeld (2011) claimed, \u201cthere is
\nno universal agreement regarding which minority groups should be included in
\nthe penalty enhancement statutes, which then increases their fears even more.\u201d  He argued that this would then violate the
\nequal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It has also been pointed
\nout that that
\ncertain groups would then receive more protection than others, which many feels
\nis unfair because it would then be giving more protection to certain groups.<\/p>\n

There are may pros and cons to this debate. I feel
\nthat it is something both sides feel very passionate about and bring solid
\narguments to the table when discussing why the state should or should not have a
\nlaw for hate-crimes. I personally feel that Indiana would benefit from this
\nlaw. I feel that it would help to bring us together more as a state and would
\nhelp our people to find more compassion and tolerance in their hearts. I feel
\nthat it is important for all Americans to feel that they can be free to express
\ntheir true selves and live the life they choose without fear of what could
\nhappen to them. A gay couple should be able to walk down the street holding
\nhands the same way a straight couple walks down the street holding hands. They
\nshould not have to fear being taunted, harassed, or attacked because they are
\nchoosing to love freely and live freely in a country that stands for freedom. I
\nunderstand that we will never live in a world where hate does not exist;
\nhowever, I do believe that laws help to shape behaviors and even though people
\nstill break them daily, they have proven to help prevent people many of our
\ncitizens from committing them. I also feel that such laws will help to better
\nshape our youth and make them more accepting of others. I work with children
\nevery day that have been rejected and bullied relentlessly because they are
\ndifferent from their peers and don\u2019t fit the societal \u201cnorm.\u201d The bullies often
\ndon\u2019t see anything wrong with their actions and lack remorse for what they did.
\nWhere I want to get mad at the bullies, I honestly can\u2019t because these
\nbehaviors and beliefs have been learned. Kids don\u2019t come out with hateful
\nhearts, it is learned. If our society gets better about being more accepting
\nand compassionate towards all individuals and groups, then imagine what that
\nwould do for our youth and their young minds.   <\/p>\n

One area where I will defend the cons is when they
\nspeak about our first amendment. I feel that these laws would have to still
\nprotect other groups of people and their right to believe and practice the way
\nthey want. For example, I would never expect for a Christian to believe that
\nbeing gay is acceptable or that they must agree with it. I feel this way
\nbecause it is their belief system and their right as an American to practice
\nand believe the way they want to. However, I also don\u2019t believe that this gives
\na Christian the right to discriminate or shun someone for being gay. I am a
\nChristian myself and one of my family\u2019s dearest friends is gay and we love and
\naccept him unconditionally. We choose to, because in the bible it says, \u201cYou
\nshall love your neighbor as yourself, because there is no greater commandment
\ngreater than these.\u201d This is something I always keep fresh in my mind, because
\nit is so true. I tell myself all the time \u201cyou are a Christian and you are a
\nsinner and no sin is less than that of a stranger.\u201d Some feel that you have to
\nchoose between being a Christian or loving a homosexual, transgender, someone
\nfrom a different religion, culture or race, etc. but I do not believe that
\nbecause God is love. <\/p>\n

Indiana has expressed hopes that the state can
\ncome to an agreeance on the policy and that they want our state to strive for
\nmore acceptance, compassion, and tolerance. Policy advocates, both for and
\nagainst, have equally expressed their desires to serve their state regardless
\nof an individual\u2019s background and have hopes that they can come to an
\nagreement.    <\/p>\n

Reference<\/p>\n