Lesson 10

This one totally sucks. Well… in my opinion it does. J thought it was alright. I’m starting to get down to the wire though for getting this class done… add in the fact that its nearly summer time and all I want to do is sit in the sun and soak it all up… and it equals really crappy lesson answers. :D

This one is on punishment for hate crimes. The other topic was the death penalty, which I tried to avoid at all costs while writing this. Why? Because I really don’t know how I feel about the death penalty. In many cases, I feel it is a cop out in dealing with criminals. At the same time though, I understand the need to have such a harsh punishment in order to deter other would be future murders.

Anyways… here it is in all of its glory. -_-

On another note, though I do not believe in it, Happy Easter!

—-

“Forcing Tolerance”

A hate crime is described as any various crimes that are motivated by hostility to a victim because of their group affiliation. This group is often related to one of color, creed, gender, or sexual orientation. Recently, harsher laws have been created for those crimes that are determined to be hate-based.

Our communities are filled with diversity. As the idiom says, the United States is a stewing pot, or at least in the sense of what is desired to be achieved. In reality, we are a green salad, each of us choosing to intermingle with those that are very different from our own persons, but retaining our individualities. It is then not surprising that an individual would develop personal bias. If we act on our personal bias to commit a crime, we should be punished harsher for the crime committed.

What is a personal bias? In particular, a personal bias, as it relates to hate crimes, can be defined as something we discriminate against based on our personal feelings towards it. We may be silent about these biases, but we may also be vocal depending on how strongly we feel about something. Personal biases cannot be avoided. We all have them. The important thing is whether we choose to let them guide us in our day-to-day activities.

Let us take an individual by the name of Billy Jones. Billy is a country boy from the south. He is white and may be a bit heavy set. He is considered a typical southerner, who has often been referred to as a good old boy. Billy, however, has a racial bias. He hates black people. He just cannot stand them. Whenever he sees one on the street, he walks to the opposite side and may throw a passing glare at them and mumble something under his breath.

This behavior is not surprising when it comes to reacting to a bias. In Billy’s case, he is avoiding it. However, what happens if Billy has a violent nature? That is, he likes to let the other know, he just does not like him. Let us say that Billy decides to walk by this African American and spit on him in passing, rather than just cross to the other side of the street. The fellow walking by him, we will call George. George is an upscale citizen with a good job and he is raising a beautiful family. He pauses and turns to Billy to stop him. George demands an explanation because it truly is inappropriate to spit on other people, whether you like them or not. Billy talks trash and eventually there is a brawl on the open street.

Instead of being tolerant, Billy has acted on his personal hatred towards George or what George represents. Is this appropriate? Especially for a supposedly diverse society? No, of course its not. In order for a society to work in tandem, everyone must respect and tolerate those that are not like them. In the case of racial discrimination, we cannot choose our skin colors before we are born. Thus, its pointless to think a yellow skinned person is lower than one with beige skin.
Let us say, that the brawl escalated so far out of control, that Billy kills George. How should Billy be punished? To further define this southern place, let us say that civil disputes that wind up with a person dead are punishable of up to 40 years imprisonment with parole in 10 years. Is this a harsh enough punishment for Billy without taking into account that the brawl was began because of racial discrimination? Will Billy truly learn his lesson before he gets out on parole?

By having harsher laws for hate crimes, we would encourage tolerance of those different from ourselves. It follows the concept of retribution: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. The fear of punishment is not a new concept and, of course, is looked down upon by some (mostly those of a utilitarian nature). By the utilitarian theory, criminals would undergo a rehabilitation program. While this concept is novel, it often is reported as failing. Not to mention, swift, direct punishment is needed to reinforce to the general populace that certain crimes cannot be tolerated. Truly, if you knew you would go through rehabilitation for killing someone in a civil dispute, would that really scare you into not committing the crime? If I hated someone enough to hurt them, it certainly would not scare me.

With that in perspective, how much harsher should crimes committed because of hate be? Crimes committed from hate should never be tolerated. Examples must be made of those who would commit such crimes to demonstrate that they are wrong. In Billy’s case, I would say at least 40 years imprisonment without parole. Would Billy learn his lesson in that amount of time? Probably not, but others knowing his crime and his punishment would know better.