Hate crimes form one of the greatest threats to the prosperity of society. It thrives off bigotry, aimed at individuals or groups because of their identities.These identities can be: race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation and disability. As illustrated by statistical figures, many sources assess the major increase in these crimes. As hate crimes are condemned as amoral and unethical, the controversy relates to the definition, legislation, and prosecution surrounding constitutionality and motives of the offenders. Evident hate crimes, current shifts in proposed legislation, and a technological channel for hate speech has sparked caution over the nation, opening the political floor for reformation. The articles
…show more content…
He outlines the history of hate crimes and the progressive legislation from allowing such offenses to prohibiting and prosecuting offenders. He addresses the concept of slavery, as it laid the foundation for hate crimes, encouraging racism ( Levine 228). He relies on argument of fact to establish his central claim that slavery, the initiating factor of hate crimes, in conjunction with other historical events, has shaped federal legislation. He supports his claim by evaluating Supreme court decisions in assessing the constitutionality of hate crimes, unitentionally limiting federal jurisdiction. This supports his main claim by illustrating the revolution of juridical rationale, in relation to the social ideologies of the historic time …show more content…
Lieberman is in favor of penalty- enhancement hate crime statutes, which makes its legal for prosecutors to lengthen the extent of an offender’s punishment, based on the circumstance, as Larner is in clear opposition. They both attempt to define the realm in which mental stances and motives can be judged as biased and unconstitutional. Lieberman termed hate crimes as “ very personal with a special emotional and psychological impact on the victim” ( Lieberman and Larner 81). Contrary, Larner believes that “it is the means of delivery, not the message” (Lieberman and Larner 85), that is
He outlines the history of hate crimes and the progressive legislation from allowing such offenses to prohibiting and prosecuting offenders. He addresses the concept of slavery, as it laid the foundation for hate crimes, encouraging racism ( Levine 228). He relies on argument of fact to establish his central claim that slavery, the initiating factor of hate crimes, in conjunction with other historical events, has shaped federal legislation. He supports his claim by evaluating Supreme court decisions in assessing the constitutionality of hate crimes, unitentionally limiting federal jurisdiction. This supports his main claim by illustrating the revolution of juridical rationale, in relation to the social ideologies of the historic time …show more content…
Lieberman is in favor of penalty- enhancement hate crime statutes, which makes its legal for prosecutors to lengthen the extent of an offender’s punishment, based on the circumstance, as Larner is in clear opposition. They both attempt to define the realm in which mental stances and motives can be judged as biased and unconstitutional. Lieberman termed hate crimes as “ very personal with a special emotional and psychological impact on the victim” ( Lieberman and Larner 81). Contrary, Larner believes that “it is the means of delivery, not the message” (Lieberman and Larner 85), that is