Thinking about it more, I k promptly that hate-crimes legislation doesnt aim to punish the actual crime, but earlier the motive (or thoughts) behind it. Thats smacks of beingness more than a elf care Orwellian to me, besides being something thats very difficult to prove. If somebody is continually spouting hateful speech, theres a pretty good chance you can figure out that their motive for a crime might be related to that hate. But what about someone who doesnt give any indication as to wherefore they commit a crime?
Or what if you have a random crime that happens to be committed against a protect individual? Do you prosecute that as a hate-crime, scantily because it might be? One group of people is now getting special treatment under the law.
That sounds lot like discrimination to me, which isnt how this country is supposed to work. Whatever happened to equal shield under the law?
Further, because most hate-crime legislation puts added lather into prosecuting crimes against indisputable individuals or groups, what about the same crimes committed against someone who doesnt jeer into one of those groups? Will the crime be prosecuted to the same close? If not, youre making things worse for the majority, who are likely to feel underprotected. If the conundrum is that too many people (of any group) are being mugged, or assaulted, or their belongings vandalized, you should put more effort into prosecuting muggings, assaults, or vandalism. Not to protect any...If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: Orderessay
If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my essay .
No comments:
Post a Comment