Laws Against Hate Crimes

Words: 1105
Pages: 5

Stiffer penalties for hate crimes are justified. We are able to draw lines according to the definition of a hate crime which includes crimes motivated by biases against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender or gender identity. The laws against hate crimes should apply equally to the minorities and majorities of these groups. Although crimes against minorities may be worse from a social viewpoint, due to a history of institutionalized discrimination, the law should still be universal.
The stiffer penalty should apply to all crimes that are motivated by hate against race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender or gender identity even if the victim is a white heterosexual male. The reason behind
…show more content…
It would be fine to include hate crimes against majority groups in the law because these hate crimes barely exist. There would be no special privileges for the majority by including them in the law, because their privileges already exist. Their privilege is that they are almost never discriminated against. It could be argued that hate crimes against a white heterosexual male is not in fact a hate crime. In instances of white men being targeted the weight and fear for the rest of that group that follows the event is not nearly as real and imminent as that of a black man being targeted. Every time a black man is targeted it re-opens an old wound reminding that community of past hardships endured for equality as well as the level of discrimination that still exists. A white man being bullied because of his whiteness may feel hurt but there is not the same fear of being physically attacked that other groups constantly carry and have carried for centuries. A stiffer penalty for all hate crimes would help balance inequality because it would help balance …show more content…
Even if these feelings cannot be controlled, the actions they may incite can be controlled. A big part of having stiffer penalties for hate crimes is so that people who do have these beliefs know that these beliefs are not okay. People with these beliefs who keep these opinions to themselves should not necessarily be punished for their feelings alone but hopefully stiffer penalties for acting on these feelings might encourage people to reconsider their beliefs and become open to adjusting their views. Enforcing stiffer penalties for hate crimes makes it clear that this prejudice is not socially acceptable. Just because people are entitled to their emotions and beliefs, does not mean their beliefs and actions that result from these beliefs are warranted. It is impossible to control how people feel and punish them for their feelings but once those feelings are outwardly expressed, they can be punished. When a person has prejudiced views that are completely kept to themselves there is no way for them to be punished, however, the minute a person expresses these thoughts, they become harmful and therefore punishable. A stiffer penalty would bring attention to the issue of discrimination and hopefully encourage a change in the way people think. Attitudes that are associated with hate crimes are much more harmful than attitudes associated with other crimes such