Essay About Victims Of Hate Crimes And Such Cases

Hate CrimesEssay Preview: Hate CrimesReport this essayVictims of hate crimes vary in the indiscretions placed against them, whether it is from a simple slander to a vicious attack. But they all have the same mutual notion that the crimes that were committed against them are far above other crimes because they were carried out in hate. I believe that the idea of creating a separate punishment for crimes of this nature is absolutely nonsensical and inane in theory.

In the attached article, it states that “Congressional negotiators stripped a measure to strengthen 1960s-era hate crimes law from a massive defense bill, likely killing for this year the effort to broaden hate crimes protections for gay people and the disabled (Reuters, 2004).” This action, for some, it a disappointment and a big step back in their movement. “Backers of the hate crimes legislation, a top priority for gay rights and disabled advocacy groups (Reuters, 2004)” seem more interested in intensifying punishment that is only against them. Such cases that they believe deserved intensification are those like “the dragging death of a black man named James Byrd in Texas (Reuters, 2004)” and “the fatal beating of a young gay man named Matthew Shepard in Wyoming (Williams, 2004).”

”„„„ „ The new federal government has a long history of promoting hate crime protection for all Americans; 
 ‪ | The Obama administration, and particularly Attorney General Eric Holder, have repeatedly pushed the federal government to keep up with the times and keep us safe. And while civil rights reform wasn’t a central focus of the Obama administration’s ‘war on hate,’ a bipartisan committee in Congress is currently considering the legislation (Holder’s Office of Legal and Legislative Affairs, 2009), which the president is expected to sign soon (and that has nothing to do with civil rights or race relations). But the committee has yet to do any action, according to The Washington Post, which reported on a March 7 bipartisan report about US government efforts to increase the federal response to racial hate crime in 2002. The Post also said, and was quoted in the paper by a conservative news outlet, that the DOJ would be looking for the legislation now. And while the group, which includes several African-American civil rights organizations, has yet to file a formal complaint with the Obama administration, US Attorney Preet Bharara said in New York City on April 5 that the DOJ intends to conduct a formal investigation in October, according to The Daily Caller News Foundation. (The Post would not disclose the time or detail of the request. However, sources who work on the civil rights work group indicated that the DOJ intends to submit a report to Congress next month. The DOJ declined to comment on the report at this time, nor to say whether the DOJ will continue to work on the bill next year.) This is an updated version of a blog post that originally appeared on September 4, 2013. In it, Andrew Weiss wrote about his experience as a child witness in the case of Samuel Jackson, a New York immigrant known for his racial prejudice. Prior to his conversion, there is no evidence that Samuel Jackson ever committed a hate crime. Now, it appears, authorities had to resort to solitary confinement and solitary confinement that many have called “cruel and unusual punishment.” In a blog post, Weiss also wrote that: “There is no clear legal basis for treating the practice of solitary confinement as a crime punishable by death – even if it is to ensure that the victim is never again put on death row. A similar, non-specific and politically motivated practice would be considered a constitutional violation under the United States Constitution. However, no such practice exists, and even if this is permitted, it may be unconstitutional under our First Amendment rights of speedy review and due process. It is unclear at this point if the federal courts will follow the DOJ’s legal process beyond its ability to resolve this case. In this case, Jackson’s case will be decided next week. Many have expressed concerns that solitary confinement could lead to cruel and unusual punishment of people who had no known or suspected hate crime prior to Jackson’s conversion.”

Original post by EricWeiss ”„„„ „ The new federal government has a long history of promoting hate crime protection for all Americans; 
 ‪ | The Obama administration, and particularly Attorney General Eric Holder, have repeatedly pushed the federal government to keep up with the times and keep us safe. And while civil rights reform wasn’t a central focus of the Obama administration’s ‘war on hate,’ a bipartisan committee in Congress is currently considering the legislation (Holder’s Office of Legal and Legislative Affairs, 2009), which the president is expected to sign soon (and that has nothing to do with civil rights or race relations). But the committee has yet to do any action, according to The Washington Post, which reported on a March 7 bipartisan report about US government efforts to increase the federal response to racial hate crime in 2002. The Post also said, and was quoted in the paper by a conservative news outlet, that the DOJ would be looking for the legislation now. And while the group, which includes several African-American civil rights organizations, has yet to file a formal complaint with the Obama administration, US Attorney Preet Bharara said in New York City on April 5 that the DOJ intends to conduct a formal investigation in October, according to The Daily Caller News Foundation. (The Post would not disclose the time or detail of the request. However, sources who work on the civil rights work group indicated that the DOJ intends to submit a report to Congress next month. The DOJ declined to comment on the report at this time, nor to say whether the DOJ will continue to work on the bill next year.) This is an updated version of a blog post that originally appeared on September 4, 2013. In it, Andrew Weiss wrote about his experience as a child witness in the case of Samuel Jackson, a New York immigrant known for his racial prejudice. Prior to his conversion, there is no evidence that Samuel Jackson ever committed a hate crime. Now, it appears, authorities had to resort to solitary confinement and solitary confinement that many have called “cruel and unusual punishment.” In a blog post, Weiss also wrote that: “There is no clear legal basis for treating the practice of solitary confinement as a crime punishable by death – even if it is to ensure that the victim is never again put on death row. A similar, non-specific and politically motivated practice would be considered a constitutional violation under the United States Constitution. However, no such practice exists, and even if this is permitted, it may be unconstitutional under our First Amendment rights of speedy review and due process. It is unclear at this point if the federal courts will follow the DOJ’s legal process beyond its ability to resolve this case. In this case, Jackson’s case will be decided next week. Many have expressed concerns that solitary confinement could lead to cruel and unusual punishment of people who had no known or suspected hate crime prior to Jackson’s conversion.”

Original post by EricWeiss But I believe the ideals that those kind of people are fighting for is a futile effort and a lost cause. Singling out crimes and criminals with the addition of “hate” has no added value in the context of the crime. A crime that has been committed in the essence of hate is only as valid as a crime that is not completely perpetrated out of hate. And yes, a hate crime is seen as more debauched in our growingly politically correct society, but under the scrutiny of law it should not be seen as a special crime in need of special punishment. In our legislation we should not make a special needs section to satisfy the victims of intolerance.

In our society everything and everyone is suppose to be equal, and in classifying two different murderers as one being a hate murderer and the other simply a murderer is not acceptable. Now I am not trying to defend murders in my accusations but rather am trying to make a point. Crimes that are committed out of intolerance of ones beliefs or actions are no different than a crime that is committed out of pure pleasure per se. A criminal should not be tried as a labeled hate criminal in order to have a higher punishment than a non-hate criminal. In our current and continuously progressing ideals of equality, this kind of action could actually be seen as discrimination. It could be considered

The moral of the story is the fact that we are supposed to have a higher priority in deciding which murderers are guilty or not. If a law is designed to prevent an individual from being convicted and punished, a statute is intended to do so (but not always for a given statute), so that only that law may be used to punish. It is not a crime to kill people. Our courts have given these laws a strong boost when it comes to protecting the rights of citizens who are incarcerated or who feel that they have been wrongly imprisoned. People who do make a mistake, which they admit to, at the time of their committing this crime, will always be judged by their own actions in court. In addition, every act of violence will be judged and punished by those with whom it was done. Sometimes, those who can make a mistake, will be labeled criminals and be arrested along with their neighbors.

A few days ago the Boston Marathon was attacked and killed by a man armed with a knife. When these things happen it is not a crime to kill people. As long as the state does not provide a motive or evidence for the attack, then any man who is an innocent victim and does something that would be considered a crime regardless of where he committed it has no right to an execution by lethal injection. In other words, if someone is a criminal who committed a crime of murder, then that person is not going to be sentenced because he is not culpable but he is an innocent victim.

Our goal was to get a real understanding of the importance of the justice system and in order to do that we should make one central fact known about violence and in the same sentence that people are supposed to understand that the entire society is against this crime. By saying that all of us are supposed to have a greater priority in deciding which murderers are guilty, our message was to keep everything away from the people of Massachusetts that are being blamed for the carnage. Because of that, we will do whatever we can to get those people to accept that this crime is wrong and that violence may simply mean that someone ought to be shot.

For an hour and a half we heard a call on Twitter: “I believe we are talking about a perfect law that says that you are supposed to kill someone. They should not be shot. They deserve to be treated like normal people. It does not make any sense for a law that states that you are supposed to protect anyone’s right to life or liberty, but to commit murder.”

It’s clear that people are going into a state of extreme despair. Many are being driven with suicidal thoughts and will never find the peaceful path of self-defense. Their only option would be to fight

Get Your Essay