The goals of the criminal justice system are deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and restoration. Those goals are significant in formulating all policies as well as the two predominating hate crime statutes in the country today, the discriminatory selection model and the racial animus model. The fundamental purpose of creating hate crime statutes is to ensure the equal protection and freedom of members of the protected groups. The two statutes are rooted from two theories of punishment. On one hand is the deontologist argument of retribution, a backward looking approach at the culpability of the defendant rather than the harm he or she has done to the victim. On the other hand, the deterrence is the consequentialist argument that
…show more content…
Such action would not only cause harm to the victim, but the overall harmony of the victim’s community; therefore, it is not surprising that the weight of culpability a hate crime defendant is held accountable to has increased. In a landmark case that Lawrence has discussed in the book was the case of Wisconsin v. Mitchell that uphold the discriminatory selection model of bias crimes. The Wisconsin hate crime statute, as Lawrence stated, is the only hate crime penalty enhancement law that is exclusively coincided with the concepts of the discriminatory selection model statute and the consequentialist argument (Lawrence, 2009, p. 33). According to Lawrence, under the discriminatory selection model of the hate crime statute, a hate crime defendant can be prosecuted as long as the prosecutor can demonstrate that he has used the phrase, “because of” in commission of the crime (Lawrence, 2009, p.29). Therefore, under this statute, the motive of the defendant may be unimportant as long as it is demonstrated that he has selected the victim based on his …show more content…
A just sentence would examine the characteristics of a crime to determine the culpability of the offender, and maintain the overall harmony of the harmed group of individuals. In another word, the retributivist argument of a just punishment may sound appealing, but it would destroy the balance of the society as it disregards the Equal Protection of the Fourth Amendment. Meanwhile, the consequentialist approach to hate crime may seen to be against the idea of the tough crime policies, but it somehow protects both the offender and the victim by aiming for the long term effect of deterring future hate crimes. Overall, there are pros and cons in regards to both theories and the statutes they coincided with. However, in my opinion, I would want to see statutes to incorporate the concepts from expressive theory of punishment. The reason being that, it maintain the coercion of the society; and on the other hand, the sanctions given based on this theory reflects the important values uphold by the
Such action would not only cause harm to the victim, but the overall harmony of the victim’s community; therefore, it is not surprising that the weight of culpability a hate crime defendant is held accountable to has increased. In a landmark case that Lawrence has discussed in the book was the case of Wisconsin v. Mitchell that uphold the discriminatory selection model of bias crimes. The Wisconsin hate crime statute, as Lawrence stated, is the only hate crime penalty enhancement law that is exclusively coincided with the concepts of the discriminatory selection model statute and the consequentialist argument (Lawrence, 2009, p. 33). According to Lawrence, under the discriminatory selection model of the hate crime statute, a hate crime defendant can be prosecuted as long as the prosecutor can demonstrate that he has used the phrase, “because of” in commission of the crime (Lawrence, 2009, p.29). Therefore, under this statute, the motive of the defendant may be unimportant as long as it is demonstrated that he has selected the victim based on his …show more content…
A just sentence would examine the characteristics of a crime to determine the culpability of the offender, and maintain the overall harmony of the harmed group of individuals. In another word, the retributivist argument of a just punishment may sound appealing, but it would destroy the balance of the society as it disregards the Equal Protection of the Fourth Amendment. Meanwhile, the consequentialist approach to hate crime may seen to be against the idea of the tough crime policies, but it somehow protects both the offender and the victim by aiming for the long term effect of deterring future hate crimes. Overall, there are pros and cons in regards to both theories and the statutes they coincided with. However, in my opinion, I would want to see statutes to incorporate the concepts from expressive theory of punishment. The reason being that, it maintain the coercion of the society; and on the other hand, the sanctions given based on this theory reflects the important values uphold by the