#1 (permalink)

For my online English class we have to write an argumentative paper. I wrote this in two hours and I still need to write another body paragraph. Any help or ideas or edits would be nice.

One of the most controversial issues throughout history is the debate regarding prejudice. Since the very first civilizations inhabited earth, some form of prejudice or racism has occurred. People have argued all throughout time that prejudice in any form is just plain wrong and unacceptable in society. A rather noteworthy debate regarding the issue erupted during the 1860’s with the beginning of the Civil War. Although the Civil War was not one of the leading factors of the war, it still played a significant role in instigating it. Ever since the end of the Civil War and the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, Civil Rights movements have played a major role in attempting to decrease racial tensions in the United States. To this day America seems to consider racial prejudice one of the most important issues facing the country. In order to better assess racial prejudice at its worse to delve into the topic regarding hate crimes. Considered one of the most vile acts a person can commit, people believe the Hate Crime Laws are necessary to end these tensions, whereas others believe there is no such thing. What do most people even consider a hate crime? What makes people support Hate Crime Laws, and what does not? By instituting these Hate Crime Laws, will the resultant be better or worse than before?

As an American citizen, what does it take for any kind of crime to turn into a hate crime? A hate crime according to the Simi Valley Police Department is a “crime that is meant to cause fear and intimidation in an entire group or class of people.” Following this statement, society has come to the decision that any crime that has any kind of motivation rooted in hate towards ones; sexual preference, race, ethnicity, religious beliefs, origins, age, or disability and many more is considered a hate crime. “Do hate crimes in fact express valuations that are more reprehensible than those expressed by other types of violent crimes” (Kahan, Pg. 2)? If John Smith murders his girlfriend because she cheated, and Bob Long beats some guy because of his racial ethnicity, is Bob’s crime worse than John’s solely because it was racially motivated? Many will answer yes because they do not believe in the belief that one class or group is better than any other and that individuals should not live in fear because they belong to these groups. Others will argue that a crime is a crime, should girlfriends who cheat live in fear because they cheated? Society attempts to portray the fact that they attempt to uphold the law and deliver justice when needed. What decree explicitly states that individuals can call a crime a hate crime compared to any other crime? It all comes down to what each individual person believes is right and wrong. And if this is true, logically following, why is it okay for the majority to decide on an issue just because they have more votes than the minority. Before individuals decide that a Law is necessary to combat all these “hate crimes,” they need to figure out what a hate crime really is.

To even discuss the debate on Hate Crime Laws it is necessary for each individual to have their own stance and beliefs backing their side. “Supporters of hate-crime laws say: Hate-crime laws are important and necessary because hate crimes target and negatively affect entire communities of people” (2facts). By instituting Hate Crime Laws neighborhoods and communities will be able to live a more peaceful life. Individuals won’t have to worry about being physically injured or harassed because of their ethnicity or religion. Schools will be safer for children to grow up and provide a more nurturing environment. “Critics of hate-crime laws say: Laws that treat bias-motivated crimes differently than ordinary crimes create inequality in the justice system by punishing the same crimes in different ways” (2facts). Because there is no clear cut idea of what a hate crime is exactly individuals who commit a crime may be unduly accused of committing a hate crime and end up serving a longer sentence for the portion of the crime they didn’t commit. Jails in the United States are already segregated into different groups and factions, by sending people to jail for a hate crime that they may possibly not have committed, puts them at an inherit risk for physically abuse or even death. In order for courts to prosecute individuals for a hate crime there will be more court fees because it will take longer to prove that a crime really is committed to instill fear and intimidation. Society already complains that taxes are too high and that everyone should be provided health care, but they don’t want taxes to be increased. In order to cover these court costs the government would be required to undergo a long and tedious process of allocating funds to these courts and taking it away from other important causes. Not to mention, if an individual is wrongly imprisoned for a hate crime that they didn’t commit, tax payers will be shelling out even more money to cover the court costs when they sue for wages they have lost. All in all people don’t seem to think what other causes come from their decisions. Only what it would look like on paper.

By instituting Hate Crime Laws, certain things in society may be fixed, whereas, other things will just be made worse. (Note: having a hard time finding more credible sources to back up my arguments for this portion of my essay, will continue to look)

In closing, Hate Crime Laws, will either cause more harm than good, or solve a multitude of problems in the US. Unfortunately, the only way of determining this is to actually institute the laws and see what the outcomes are. There will always be critics and supporters of Hate Crime Laws, the only issue is what side will you be on. By supporting Hate Crime Laws you display the fact that you believe that a murder isn’t just a murder if there are other motives in doing it, you allow yourself to be vulnerable to opponents of these laws. If you are a critic of these laws, you are stating that a murder is just that a murder, if makes no difference who does it or for what reason it is all the same. At the end of the day which side will you take?

In case the stupid website we turn this in on catches it, this is Michael's paper for my English online class.