Hate Crimes Are Everywhere

Angela Arner

English 102

Refutation Essay

                April 2, 2013

Hate Crimes Are Everywhere

        While “Hate Crimes” seem to be on the rise lately, there are those who will argue the new enhancement laws are unconstitutional.  According to an article that was sent to the editor of the Greenhaven Press; “Hate crimes are problematic; lack political correctness and go against the 14th Amendment of the Constitution” (Penalty Enhancement Crimes Are Unconstitutional).  According to the article the “theory of such laws are commendable-who, after all is in favor of hate crimes” (Penalty Enhancement Crimes Are Unconstitutional)?  This is true no one wants hate in their lives; surely, there are those who would want peace in life, where there is no bigotry or racism.  Another point in the article talks about “Crime is synonymous with hatred.  Murders are not committed out of love for the victim.  Rapists are not guided by a deep-seated affection.  Assault with a deadly weapon is not an expression of respect and admiration.  Malice and envy lie at the heart of almost every crime.  Why single out one type of malevolence, one particular brand of animosity for an extra measure of punishment” (Penalty Enhancement Crimes Are Unconstitutional)?

         No one’s live is worth more than another’s this is true, while some crimes committed do deserve more attention given the nature of the crime committed.  The arguments of this article are deeper than just the problems address just stating one side of the argument. The remainder of this paper will go on to show that these laws not only are constitutional but also help the communities as well as those involved in the crimes themselves.  

        The first point of argument is that “Hate Crime Laws are Problematic”, says, “The government has no right to punish people for what they say read or believe” (Penalty Enhancement Crimes Are Unconstitutional).  The First Amendment protects free speech.  Although, in the case of Wisconsin vs. Mitchell, “The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the state’s penalty enhancement law ruling that “a physical assault is not by any stretch of the imagination expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment” (Penalty Enhancement Crimes Are Constitutional).  “This was said to be due to the defendants conduct not due to thoughts or belief” (Penalty Enhancement Crimes Are Constitutional).

        A second point brought up by the article states that “if a criminal receives a more severe punishment because of his or her beliefs are politically incorrect, then criminals whose crimes are politically correct receive a lesser punishment” (Penalty Enhancement Crimes Are Unconstitutional).  Another article states the opposite by saying, “the Supreme Court ruled that additional sentences for hate crimes are appropriate and constitutional because hate crimes are “thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm”” (Penalty Enhancement Crimes Are Constitutional).  This same article says that, “a judge may not give a harsher sentence just because a defendant is a white supremacist.  However, if the white supremacist’s desire is to provoke a race war causes him to choose his victim based on race, and then his motive and intent may be considered when handing down a sentence” (Penalty Enhancement Crimes Are Constitutional).