Hate Crimes

Hate Crimes HATE CRIMES 1. I feel that any time a person or group is physically assaulted there is a major problem in existence. That is exactly what a hate crime is, assault towards another person or persons and according to the FBI the number of hate crimes towards authorities increased from 5,852 in 1994 to 8,759 in 1996 (handout). When you start committing crimes against those that are supposed to protect us from these crimes it becomes much more difficult to stop or even contain these crimes. I believe that our society is too focused on the perfect specimen, and that is totally different to everyone.

These different views are what causes people to discriminate against others whether it be about sex, race or religion. The range of the crimes has drastically increased lately, spreading to the discrimination of Jews, Hispanics, Pacifists, abortion doctors, the federal government and many more (handout). As long as our society is focused on finding the perfect specimen I don’ believe we will see an end to hate crimes any time in the near future. 2. The Catholic Church says, hatred of the neighbor is a grave sin when one deliberately desires him grave harm (CCC #2203).

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

What this means in laymen term is that we should love our neighbor even if they wrong us. It is not our place to hold grudges against others. If we are harmed by another it is our job to forgive the person and get on with our lives and we should leave it up to God to punish that person for what they have done. Although it may not be the easiest thing in the world Jesus has told us to turn the other cheek and forgive our enemies if this I done we would truly be following the catechisms teaching. 3.

This question is kind of a rhetorical one because if we followed the Catholic Churches teaching on any issue it would not be an issue. If we treated all of Gods people with the same respect and love Christ did than we would all be best friends and wouldnt have to worry about others harming us in any way. So in response to the question not only would this be less of a problem, but it would not be a problem at all if we followed the Churches teaching on this issue or any other issue. 4. This is a very touchy issue when it comes to laws because we have so many rights that are protected in the constitution such as freedom to assemble and freedom of speech that if there is no physical harm being inflicted than there is really nothing the police can do.

I personally think that it should be outlawed for groups such as the KKK to assemble outside of city halls because everyone knows what their purpose is and by letting them do that it is almost like giving our consent. Another big problem is the Internet. The Internet gives otherwise innocent people access to all sorts of ideas that they never would have been exposed to and when one is weak they will believe almost anything thrown at them. Other than those two laws or regulations I really can not think of anything else that can be fixed or changed in order to help this issue, it would take close to a miracle to be able to even reduce this problem a little bit. 5. One good way to get rid of this problem in society is to try and counter act any hate crime group with one that is equally as strong if not stronger, that goes against the crime in a peaceful non violent manner.

This would show the people committing these crimes that we are not just going to sit back and watch these act be committed. While this may not work in every case it should do a pretty decent job in stopping some people. Another way to get these crimes from happening would be to give a heavy punishment for anything that resembles a hate crime because those who commit these crimes walk away much too easy for what they have done. If we show people by legal physical action that we are not going to be pushed around the amount of crimes will drastically decrease. Granted there is nothing that will completely stop these crimes and these ideas may not even help the issue that much but I feel they will do some amount of good.

Religion Essays.

Hate Crimes

.. s encouraged to participate. The Individualist political culture originated in the Middle-Atlantic states by settlers from England, Germany, France, Belgium, and Ireland. The dominant religions included: Catholic, Episcopal, Methodist, and Lutheran. The IPC is marketplace-oriented.

The bureaucracy is viewed ambivalently and politics are seen as dirty. Professionals are expected to participate and parties act as business organizations. Competition is between parties, not issues as in the MPC. The IPC is oriented toward winning office for tangible rewards. Finally, the Traditionalist political culture originated in the Southern United States by settlers from French Canada. The Baptist faith was prevalent.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

The TPC, contrary to the MPC, viewed government as a means of maintaining the status quo; the primary goal of this culture. Bureaucracy was viewed negatively, politics were seen as privilege reserved for participation by elites and competition occurred between elites within a dominant party (9). more diverse and thus have more issues to address while homogenous states maintain stable views. There is little movement up or down. As Elazar stated, the east and north region of the United States are moralist and consequently more liberal. Prior to researching hate crime policy, we took into consideration the previous research and its correlation to Elazar’s political cultures.

From this, we hypothesized that MPC regions of the United States would be most responsible for initiating anti-hate crime legislation and action and would, in general, be more likely to have hate crime policies than the IPC and TPC regions. We felt that there would a much greater tendency to follow suit in regard to federal initiatives. My reasoning for this was simply the commonwealth idea that influences the politics and way of life in the MPC. The MPC is a liberal area with the people’s interests at heart. The people are encouraged to participate and voice their concerns.

It was the MPC that supported similar ideas during and after the Civil War. The MPC was a staunch supporter of civil rights and rights for women in addition to our actions in the Cold War. We felt that the IPC would, similar to many other policy arenas, come in second in regard to hate crime policy. The IPC would not be as likely as the MPC to have existing policies or to be an initiator of such policy, but still to a much greater extent than the TPC. Our reasoning for the agenda of this political culture, which many times has been considered a “gray area” is due to the use of the political system to further individual interests. This concept can be, at times, hard to apply because the IPC falls somewhere in the middle of the political cultures spectrum.

Looking at statistics, compiled for 1999, alone can give quite an indication of the degree that states have prioritized hate crimes on their agendas. As previously mentioned, the first hate crime statute was enacted by California in 1978, so naturally hate crime policies are a product of the previous two decades. According to spastics compiled by the FBI and Anti-Defamation League, it is evident that every state in the union, with the exception of Wyoming, has enacted some type of hate crime provision. Even Wyoming’s, a combination MPC/IPC state, situation will be certain to change due to the recent events dealing with the Matthew Sheppard murder. These statistic provided for a variety of hate crime provisions including: bias-motivated violence and intimidation, civil action, criminal penalty, race religion and ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, institutional vandalism, data collection, and training for law enforcement personnel. California, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Washington were among states that accounted for all of these provisions.

According to Ira Sharkanksy, all of these are considered moralist states except for Illinois, which is a low-end individualist state, and Louisiana, a surprisingly traditionalistic state. States with a minimal number (5 or fewer) of the above listed provisions included: Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Ohio. ON the other end of the spectrum, it is evident that most of these states have a long history of traditionalistic tendencies. Arizona and Ohio sit in the IPC gray area while Montana, a moralist state, is the lone exception. The case of Montana is interesting but we have to understand that Montana has a very low population and consequently is also a very homogenous state.

The lack of diversity and the issues pertaining to it, do not necessitate a demand for hate crime policy. Those states not listed feature between five and nine of the currently existent hate crime provisions. A vast majority of these states are either moralist or individualistic. Nebraska (TPC), South Carolina (TPC), and the District of Columbia have been the most recent states to add hate crime provisions (13). According to Ryken Grattet, Valerie Jenness, and Theodore Curry claim that the importance states give to different types of hate crime policies reflect the history of various post-1960s civil rights movements in the United States.

Race, religion, color, and national origin reflect the early legal contest over minorities’ status and rights, “thus, there is a more developed history of invoking and then deploying the law to protect and enhance the status of blacks, Jews, and immigrants.” This is a very moralist perspective, hence mirroring the very sentiments that invoked change in those areas. The women’s movement, gay/lesbian movement, and disability movement reflect a “second wave” of civil right’s activism and “identity politics” and sexual orientation, gender, and disability have only recently been recognized by law, these statuses remain less embedded in hate crime law. They are also more heavily contested protected statuses. Once again, these statuses are most likely to be protected in MPC states followed by IPC then TPC. Eight states have even taken a comprehensive approach in which all crimes can be upgraded to the status of hate crimes.

Vermont, another highly moralist state, passed such a law in 1989. Ryken, Jenness, and Curry also attribute the form and timing of adoption of state-level hate crime legislation to interstate institutionalization processes. They write that our even history analysis shows that the pressure to adopt a hate crime law builds as more and more states within the system enact laws. Internal characteristics, however, are also relevant to the spread of hate crime laws, as states with more innovative policy cultures pass laws earlier than do those with less innovative policy cultures. “Shaped by local conditions and broad system effects, the correlates of criminalization resemble those in many other diffusion contexts.” (3) This almost exactly mirrors the application of Elazar to explain policy differences among states. Donald Haider-Markel writes that the media has been particularly important in triggering such action (i.e.

Matthew Sheppard and Benjamin Smith), but the approaches the states have taken to deal with hate crimes has been highly indicative of their political culture. The media simply helps to make issues more salient and when salience is high, it is more likely that issues will gain priority on the political agenda. Implementation of social regulatory policy often depends on the voluntary compliance of state and local officials. Federal hate crime policy clearly fits this description. Given the voluntary nature of implementing federal social regulatory policy, therefore, local political conditions should largely determine implementation effort. Furthermore, Haider-Markel claims that social-regulatory policy is thought to arise out of factors in the political environment including the strength of the interest groups, party competition, issue salience, and bureaucratic strength (4).

According to Elazar, the MPC favors a strong bureaucracy and is concerned with the issues that will especially affect the people. Haider-Markel claims that because hate crime policies are considered social regulatory policy, they seek to change behavior that is linked to a “normative debate concerning the morality of the individual actions and the subsequent consequences of those actions on the rest of society. Hate crimes are seen as damaging the “community” as well as the individual. “Social regulatory policies may largely arise out of political demands of citizens and interest groups, the motivations of politicians, and bureaucratic structure and behavior”. Again, this describes the political foundations of the MPC exactly.

On the other hand we have the TPC which views bureaucracy negatively and rarely focuses on issues. These claims further fortify the correlation between Elazar’s political cultures and hate crime policy in the United States. Implementation of hate crime policy was seen much earlier and to a greater extent in moralist regions as opposed to later and less-inclusive implementation efforts that have evolved in traditional areas (4). In evaluating hate crime policies across all 50 states, it has become clearly evident that political culture makes a difference in what individual states choose to prioritize and how they go about taking action on such issues as bias-motivated behavior. In reviewing recent statistics, Daniel Elazar’s work on political culture, in addition to several other authors who have undertaken analyses of hate crime policy in the United States, clear patterns have emerged that, with a few minor exceptions, fall into line with the MPC, IPC, and TPC tendencies as proposed by Elazar. The long-standing political cultures have affected policy-making ever since our country was founded and continue to do so even today.

To conclude, my hypotheses, which were based on the materials with which we have been presented throug0out the course, were proven correct. State adopting hate crime policies the earliest and states most likely to have hate crime policies or to initiate them are considered moralist, followed by individual states who fall somewhere in between MPC and TPC, then traditional, who are least likely to place as much emphasis on adopting such policies. Legal Issues.