Views on Hate Crimes

   When most people hear the word hate crime they automatically assume that it is involving something physical, but verbal usage.  This is just one of the many different views that America has on hate crimes.  For instance usage of  the "N" word in our culture.  For African American the "N" word is used frequently among African Americans, because they feel that they are not using it in a derogatory way unlike Whites who ultimately use it in a racial backlash context.  "Since 2002, Randall Kennedy has served as an expert witness about the use of the N-word in approximately a half-dozen court cases" (Jones & Parks, 2008,1312).  This,however, is not enough to charge someone with a hate crime.  This side of hate crimes is still being pursued to see if legal actions should be taken.
     Some people actually believe that people involved in hate crimes should be administrated harder punishments if they already have prejudice for the victim of the crime, because they had two intentions to gain something out of the crime and to exploit the other person.  "I contend that the enhanced punishment of opportunistic

bias crimes is justified because tbe advantages tbat perpetrators obtain by

committing tbem are greater tban the advantages obtained from parallel crimes commited without bias motivation" (Woods,2008,p.491-492).  I found this statement quite interesting, because I never had taken account of how this could be very justifiying to the victim of a violent hate crime.  "In terms of harmful effects, I contend that opportunistic bias crimes warrant additional punishment because such crimes

perpetuate the belief that certain victims are easier crime targets as a result of

disadvantages stemming from their group membership" (Woods,2008,p.492).  This statement could also very much be true, because they may act on a certain individual, because they are more vulnerable.
       Not many people would agree with that reasoning of thinking, but it is definitely being put into perspective.  There has even been questioning on trying to adapt hate crimes, so that they do not violate citizens First Amendment rights.  "First Amendment concerns are implicatedwhenever police and prosecutors seek to use evidence of perpetrators' speech, expressive actions, or membership in organizations to prove the requisite animus" (Coker,2011,p.275).  I can see how this could cause some backlash,because you have to fair to everyone within a trial even the commiters of the crime. However, "Not only are hate crimesmore likely to involve physical assaults and result in serious physical injury to the victim, but their emotional and psychological impact on victims is also more severe, as such crimes attack the "core of
[victims'] identity." (Coker,2011,p.275).  This is a aspect of hate crime that many people feel to leave out is the emotional toll that is put on the victim.  Hopefully this is more looked into as hate crimes prevalence and severity becomes more aware.


































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































References:


Jones, S, & Parks, G. (2008). "nigger" a critical race realist analysis of the n-word within hate crimes. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 98(4), 1312.

Woods, J. (2008). Taking the "hate" out of the hate crimes:applying unfair advantage theory to justify the enhanced punishment of opportunistic bias crimes. UCLA Law Review, 56(2), 491-492

Coker, C. (2011). Hope-fulfilling or effectively chilling? reconciling the hate crimes prevention act with the first amendment. Vanderbilt Law Review, 64(1), 275.