Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Hate crime laws

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search
[Digg]
[reddit]
[Delicious]
[Facebook]

Should acts of hate be criminalized?

Background and context

Crimes against minority groups, or between different groups of people, are probably as old as humanity itself. Human history is filled with accounts of genocide, and human rights violations motivated by the race, ethnicity, gender, religion, and sexual orientation of the victim.
However, efforts to enact legislation to impose heavier penalties for crimes motivated by hate are a relatively new phenomenon in a number of countries. One of the key conflicts in enacting such laws is whether or not it is appropriate to penalize someone because of their beliefs and motives. Critics of hate crimes legislation argue that it is perfectly appropriate to criminalize acts of violence, but not appropriate to add additional punishments for a person’s thoughts or speech. Another problem associated with hate crime proposals is the difficulty of determining which groups are to be “protected.” While some countries have laws adding penalties for crimes motivated by acts against ethnic or religious minorities, most countries do not have special penalties for crimes committed against people for their gender or a different sexual orientation. It is also possible to conceive of other identities based on group affiliation, such as political party, occupation, or social status. Acts of violence against the poor, for example, could also be considered a hate crime. As more groups are defined as “protected” the distinctiveness of the penalties becomes lessened. Proponents of hate crimes legislation are quick to point out, however, that the most egregious hate crimes against minority groups are often part of organized social movements or an extension of an ideology of hate that permeates entire segments of a society. Strong penalties are necessary to indicate the intensity of government or societal condemnation of such crimes.[1]

Contents

[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]

Punishment: Do hate crimes deserve a higher level of punishment?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Hate crimes terrorize communities and so deserve greater punishment Hate crimes don't merely victimize the individual upon which violence is inflicted. They also victimize a community or minority group that the hate crime was intended to terrorize. It limits their freedom of expression and group association, thus violating their liberties. For this reason, hate crimes have more victims than other crimes, and subsequently deserver greater punishment.
  • Hate crime is a major problem, requiring a state response As described above, hate crimes can cause serious apprehensions between communities. These fears and the lack of state intervention to mitigate the cause of these fears has the potential to create serious damage to the fabric of society. Hate crimes are, therefore, a societal threat, as much as a threat to individual victims. Such threats to society require state responses that include not only the intent to punish the assailant, but also to correct the root cause of the social problem. One major feature of hate crime enhancements is that they assign an appropriately negative value to hate crimes; a value proportional to how society should view hate crimes. Hate crime laws, therefore, are a tool for a government to guide social values on hate in a direction we can all agree is desirable.



[Add New]

No

  • All violence is hate-driven, so why distinguish? All forms of violent crime, whether they are murders, rapes, or beatings are an expression of hatred toward another human being. To add more punishment to a crime because it represents a particular kind of hate is to unfairly distinguish between different violent acts and trivialize those violent acts that do not appear to be motivated by prejudice hate.
  • Hate crimes cannot be proven to harm communities It is difficult to determine externalities of harm to a community or a minority group from a particular hate crime. How can it be determined that a hate-crime causes a minority group greater fear and subsequently restricts their liberties of expression and so-forth? These psychological effects are far from tangible harm, and would prove highly difficult to statistically confirm.
  • Communities fear senseless violence as much as hate violence. While much of the case for hate crimes is based on the notion that hate crimes cause minority groups and communities to fall victim to the fear that this violence causes, it is not clear that this is any worse than the fear that results from senseless non-hate gang violence. All violence causes fear within communities. It is not clear that hate crimes cause more, and that they thus deserve greater punishment.



[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Free speech: Do hate crime laws conform with principles of free speech?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Hate crime laws don't restrict religious speech on homosexuality Hate crime laws only target hate-driven violence. There is nothing in it that prevents preachers from opposing homosexuality vehemently on the pulpit. As long as a preacher does not directly incite violence against homosexuals, they can oppose homosexuality and vocally and aggressively as they like.
  • Hate crime laws don't violate US first amendment The US Supreme Court ruled in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul4 and Wisconsin v. Mitchell that hate crime laws that target "fighting words" or incitements to violence do not violate the first amendment right to free speech.



[Add New]

No

  • Hate crime laws violate religious free speech This is particularly true in regard to the expression of religious opposition to homosexuality, in which a preacher's public statements against homosexuality might be interpreted as incitements to violence against homosexuals.
  • Hate crime laws violate free speech more than hate crimes themselves. Such legislation essentially penalizes the thoughts, emotions, or motives behind an act. The act itself, if illegal, would already be worthy of punishment. Such policies set a precedent for punishing individuals who hold beliefs the government, or the majority of people do not believe. The potential exists for such precedents to later be used against the very minority interests the government seeks to protect in the present.
[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Fairness: Are hate crime laws fair and judicially sound?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Some groups don't need hate crime legal protections While some argue that it is unfair that white Christian groups are not protected in the same way as certain minority groups, this ignores the fact that white Christian groups are really not threatened categorically, and, therefore, there is simply no need for laws that would protect them.
  • Hate crime laws protect all groups equally The ultimate intent of hate crime laws is to make all citizens equally safe and protected. The end objective is not, as some opponents claim, to provide preferential treatment to certain minority groups.
  • Hate crime laws provide special protections like other laws do Various civil rights movements around the world have extended extra securities and protections to minority groups that have been discriminated against. Hate crime laws do the same thing. Yet, some opponents maintain that "special protections" for certain minority groups is unfair or unequal. This simply flies in the face of history.


[Add New]

No

  • Hate crime laws tie the hands of judges There are often subtleties in a particular case that make it important that judges have the flexibility to reach a balanced and just conclusion. Hate crimes, with certain prescribed degrees of punishment have the potential to restrict such flexibility.
  • Hate crime laws are politically motivated It is very difficult to oppose hate crime laws, as they are intuitively attractive and are highly important to minority group constituents while being more under-the-radar for the general public. Therefore, the tendency is for hate crime laws to pass with little opposing consideration.


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Homosexuals: Do gays and lesbians need hate crime protections?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Gays and lesbians need special protections from hate crimes Studies indicate that gas and lesbians are at exceptional risk of becoming the victims of hate-motivated violence. They are like many other minority groups in this regard, some of which already receive special legal protections from hate crimes, and so they should also attain legal protections against hate crimes.
[Add New]

No

  • Hate crime laws violate religious free speech This is particularly true in regard to the expression of religious opposition to homosexuality, in which a preacher's public statements against homosexuality might be interpreted as incitements to violence against homosexuals. While it is important to consider whether homosexuals need protections, it is also necessary to consider the costs of these laws to religious free speech.


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Social attitudes: Can hate crime laws change social attitudes?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Hate crime laws can help emphasize the importance of tolerance. When a government or society finally commits to a position that says acts of hate are unacceptable, people holding these negative beliefs are urged to reconsider their values. This is particularly the case when a higher negative value is assigned to hate in the law.
  • Hate crime laws target violent acts not thoughts Some opponents of hate crimes argue that you can't outlaw hate, and that this is what hate laws attempt to do. But, rather, hate laws attempt to outlaw and punish violent executions of hateful thoughts.
  • Hate is a learned attribute; no individual is born hating. Hate crime laws can teach society that hatred is highly condemnable and mold society into a streak away from racism, sexism, etc. Government has already taken this turn with the advent of segregation laws, discrimination laws, etc. Government would not be a despot, if so, then all the rulings banning discrimination, segregation, racism, and even slavery are wrong. But if by chance, these previously mentioned stances of government are deemed correct and just, then so is increased hate crime enhancements.
[Add New]

No

  • Hate crime laws won't change hatred. Often people who hold racist views, or are committed to other ideologies of hate, are unwilling or unable to change their views. Moreover, the people who actually commit violent hate crimes may only represent a minority of those with feelings of hatred. Hate crime laws may actually make people who perceive themselves to be in the majority feel threatened, increasing their feelings of hate.
  • Hate Crime laws would only INCREASE racial tension. Since the application of hate crimes involve enhancements, then there is governmental favoritism. This favoritism would only increase, that of which the laws are trying to suppress. In a democratic society, all should be treated equally, and govermental favoritism should be strictly forbidden.




[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Practicality: Are hate crime laws practical, cost-effective?

[Add New]

Yes


[Add New]

No

  • Proving that hatred is a motivation is costly and difficult.


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

International law: Does international law support hate crime laws?

[Add New]

Yes

  • International law, including various conventions related to the protection of human rights, would suggest a need for action by states to better ensure the safety of minority groups.


[Add New]

No

  • Continued disagreement world wide over what constitutes "human rights" makes it difficult to assign punishment to hate crimes. These differences are often culturally connected. Each state should be left to itself to decide what protections are appropriate for its people.



[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section up]

Pro/con resources

[Add New]

Yes


[Add New]

No


See also

External links

Books:


Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.