Hate crimes statutes have been employed by more and more states in recent years. These statutes mandate that there be an added punishment, or an intensification of an already existing punishment, for crimes committed with a bias towards race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or religion (amongst some other protected groups.) Since these statutes are based on an offender’s intent, naturally, controversy has arisen. That is to say, there are numerous constitutional implications of “double jeopardy”(being tried by the same level of government for the same crime ‘twice’) and 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech violations. Laws such as these are thought to be categorized as “thought crimes”, and so they may have a chilling effect on speech nationwide.
This being said, though, the hate crime statutes may be an indication of the growing trend of trying to ‘level the so-called playing field’ of the law. Crimes committed against women because of the fact that they are women would perhaps be deterred should one know they would face greater punishments. This could be some form of female jurisprudence, in that the desired goal of the laws is to make the subjection of men and women equal to the law.
But while the goal is an equal outcome, or rather, trying to eliminate an already existing bias of crimes against women, is the result not just a new bias, this time against thought? Perhaps not, because the law applies equally to crimes committed against men solely because they are men. Perhaps the bigger question is ‘are these types of laws effective?’
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I do not think hate crime laws are effective simply because they just enforce the ideas that the groups are separate. When someone kills someone else, no matter what the color of their skin or whatever, it is still murdering another human being. That should be enough to punish him, there is no need to argue "They have different skin colors so it's worse."
ReplyDelete