Hate Crimes

A 2005 study conducted by National Institute of Justice, found that the Federal Government and all but one state, Wyoming, have laws related to hate crimes. A consistent problem identified by this study is there in no consistency in defining what constitutes a hate crime. (Carrie F. Mulford, Ph.D., & Michael Shively, Ph.D., Hate Crime in America: The Debate Continues, 257, Nat’l Inst Just., (2007). “The Federal Bureau of Investigation defines hate crime—also called bias crime—as “a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin.” ld.

<br>As hate crimes have risen in number during the past five years; many state governments have attempted to prevent such crimes by passing laws called bias laws. These laws make a crime that is motivated by hatred based on the victim's race, religion, ethnic background, or sexual orientation a more serious crime than such an act would ordinarily be. Many people believe that these laws violate the criminal's freedom of speech. Many hate group members say that freedom of speech is the right to say or write or publish one's

The phrase “Hate Crime” rose to prominence in the 1980s, in an attempt to describe crimes against someone based on their race or religion. These crimes were motivated, at least in part and sometimes in entirety, by bias against African Americans and Jews. Since that time, the term has expanded to include illegal acts against a person, organization, and their property based on the criminal’s bias against the victim’s minority class. These minority classes include race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, disability, or gender reassignment. These are specific crimes because not only are they crimes against someone, they are committed based on who someone is (Martin 1996). This paper will discuss the history of hate crimes and the response of law enforcement officers to hate crimes.

The hate crime legislations in the United States need to clearly define and identify hate crimes. Title 18 of the United States Code allows prosecutors to prosecute anyone who intentionally injures, intimidate, interferes with someone else, or attempts to do so, by force because of a person’s race, color, religions, or

Many issues impacted by hate crimes can be informed by psychological research. For example, are hate crimes more harmful than other kinds of crime? Why do people commit hate crimes? What can be done to prevent or lessen the impact of hate and bias-motivated crimes? Social scientific research is beginning to yield information on the nature of crimes committed because of real or perceived differences in race, religion, ethnicity or national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender. Current federal law defines hate crimes as any felony or crime of violence that manifests prejudice based on “race, color, religion, or national origin”. Hate crimes can be understood as criminal conduct motivated in whole or in part by a negative opinion or attitude toward a group of persons. Hate crimes involve a specific aspect of the victim’s identity. Hate crimes are not simply biases, they are dangerous actions motivated by biases.

On June 6, 2013, The Guardian published a story about the National Security Agency's (NSA) secret Internet surveillance program, PRISM (Greenwald and MacAskill 2013). The story was based on documents leaked by one of the most successful whistle-blowers in American history, former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. The documents that Snowden has released up to this time have shown the NSA to be heavily engaged in the collection of personal Internet activity, bulk collection of telephone "metadata," and other forms of surveillance that have brought U.S. intelligence practices into question.

They decide to do this in order to provide the reader with a clear understanding of what they will be focusing on throughout this book. These two experienced scholars divide this book into nine chapters with subheadings in each. Beginning with an overview and summary of what they will be talking about throughout the book and ending with a provocative conclusion that forces the reader to think about the information given, the authors do an exceptional job at securing the reader’s focus and attention. The two scholars commence the first chapter with a history of prejudices in America and state that “concerns regarding race/ethnicity are not new” which further demands that the reader think and contemplate on how many acts of prejudices has occurred in the United States as well as relate it to the present (Gabbidon, Shaun, and Helen Green 315). Gabbidon and Greene continue to discuss various trends in different aspects of crimes. They examine elements such as hate crime trends including what group of people commits the most hate crimes as well as the most prevalent victims. Throughout these chapters, the two scholars provide the reader with numerous tables and graphs as well as plentiful in text citations, further developing trust between them and the reader. Moreover, it conveys that they have done a sufficient amount of research in order to

To declare a crime, constitutionally, as an act of hate, victim compliance is necessary. This is not always an easy task, however. Of all the intricacies surrounding hate crime, this may forever be the most prominent and challenging of them all. This is due to the potential reluctance of victims to comply, and there are many reasons for why they would have such reluctance. For starters, a notable one is their fear of re-victimization.

Enhanced sentencing – courts are obligated to enhance sentences, if proven a crime was motivated by hostility based on race/religious grounds.

In “How the NSA’s Domestic Spying Program Works,” the author reveals that many of “aspects of the (NSA) Program were aimed not just at targeted individuals, but perhaps millions of innocent Americans never suspected of a crime.” The author develops his thesis by detailing a few examples of major telecommunication companies that share customer’s call records to the NSA (AT&T, Sprint) and explaining that programs were implemented to monitor the emails of citizens (“amounted to at least 1.7 billion emails a day”). The author uses examples of how NSA decisions were made without a “warrant or any judicial oversight,” in order to increase citizen awareness of how the NSA functions. The author uses a erudite tone to address the audience of Americans

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 was a result of “congressional investigations into Federal surveillance activities conducted in the name of national security” (Intelligence Surveillance Act, n.d.). FISA allows for judicial and congressional supervision of foreign surveillance, while maintaining the “secrecy necessary to effectively monitor national security threats”, and outlines the procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of foreign intelligence information (Intelligence Surveillance Act, n.d.).

On the heels of the recently concluded presidential election our nation has seen a staggering increase in hate crimes. The re emergence of oppressive practices, emboldened violence, and blatant bias against segments of the population threatens the fundamental constitutional premise that guarantees freedom, liberty, and justice for all.

Hate crimes are extremely relevant in the world that we live in, and it is important that everyone is aware of them and the laws regarding them. A hate crime is a criminal offense against someone because of their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or other characteristics. It can also be referred to as bias crime because these crimes are often motivated by personal hatred (“Hate Crimes”). There have been many laws directed against hate crimes, but in 2009, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act was put in place (“Hate Crimes”). When a person commits a hate crime now, they are subjected to more critical punishments (King). Hate crimes are a major issue because they happen to completely innocent people and they need to be addressed.

Governments have for centuries attempted to restrict the privacy of their citizens. For some time now this has also included efforts to regulate citizens’ communications data by means of collecting and storing information gathered by providers of communication services. These efforts are referred to as data retention measures and would grant law enforcement agencies unlimited access to this data (Clarke, 2014).

Do you ever get that feeling you’re being watched? It is interesting how much power the government actually has over privacy. When a registered sex offender, lets say a “peeping tom” moves into a neighborhood, laws require that they notify people living in that neighborhood. If they peaked through a window, they were required to tell others, but when the government peaks into our most personal information and locations 24/7, they can get away with it. The government should not be able to look at all the data and on your phone without a warrant. Law enforcement agencies have been targeting cell phone users without their knowledge, and most service providers will very easily hand over customers information such as call logs, text messages, GPS locations, and web history without a court order to do so violating the fourth amendment.