“Hate crime” laws are defined as a crime based around a prejudice. There are two different types of hate crimes. One type of law gives a specific group protection that other people do not have. The penalty enhancement law is the other, and this law “requires that a defendant receive a stiffer sentence if it can be proved that the victim was chosen due to prejudice” (citation). The people who support these hate crime laws argue that the laws will stop further hate crimes. In reality, these “hate crimes” will not be stopped with a couple laws because criminals will continue to commit crimes no matter what laws are in place. Hate crime laws should not be enacted for the reason stated previously, and they should not be enacted because the punishment for the crimes committed will not change. Laws for “hate crimes” will not put an end to criminal violence with prejudicial intent. Criminals who would want to harm another person based on …show more content…
There are a few factors that contribute to this statement. The first factor is the fact that “murder is murder” (citation). This means that a person who commits murder in a state with a hate crime law would get the same punishment as a person who commits murder in a state without a hate crime law because the crime is the same. The intent does not change that the person committed a crime. Another factor is having to prove the motivation for the crime. A jury, lawyer, or a judge will not be able to know exactly what the person was thinking during the time the criminal committed the crime. Only the criminal will know his intent. This means a lawyer is unable to “prove” the intent of the criminal, which leads to no other form of punishment than a criminal with no intent. If a criminal was found of prejudicial motivation, it is “unconstitutional to punish him for it” because the reason of punishment violates the First Amendment