Should hate crimes be punished more severely

This implies that the perpetrators of certain crimes are deemed to merit punishments beyond that exist for the lesser offenses. For instance, the penalty of causing someone’s death in an accident is not quite as nefarious as conducting a carefully planned killing hence the distinction between the first-degree murder and vehicular manslaughter (Lieberman, 2010). In this case, the same quantity of death is analogous, but the constitution acknowledges that the intentions and circumstances behind the crime necessarily influence the judgment of what constitutes appropriate retribution. Similarly, hate crimes happen because of the perpetrators’ animus or bias against the prey by alleged or real status such as the target’s religion, race, nativity, gender, sexuality and the disability (Fashola, 2011). This means that hate crimes are carefully planned crimes since victims are circumspectly chosen based on some traits.

Also, the negative consequences of hate crimes are longer lasting as compared to the effects of other crimes (Lieberman, 2010). By making some communities angry, fearful and distrustful of the other organizations and authority organization that is expected to safeguard them, these crimes can destroy the structure of the communities and disintegrate societies. Few peculiar crimes can provoke riots and civil unrest, but bias-provoked violence can. Of all the offenses, hate crimes are most likely to cause or exacerbate tensions which can stimulate the broader community, vast race conflicts, riots and civil disturbances. On 26th April 2017, a group of Christians started verbally abusing two young ladies wearing hijab. The instantaneous costs of hate offenses conflicts and civil riots are fire, police, injury, death residential and business property loss, damage to the equipment and vehicles, and overtime to the medical personnel.

Studies indicate that many individuals experience augmented levels of anxiety of their wellbeing and for the security of their families and properties (Kauppinen, 2015). As an outcome, many of the victim’s society members took actions to defend their families, themselves and their properties particularly the associates of the targeted racial or ethnic identity society (Brax, 2016). According to Sidikat Fashola, targeted identify societies underutilize the comprehensive resources and support networks (Fashola, 2011). These results in problems in the long-term recovery because underutilization of resources results to decline in the value of the property, reduced taxes revenues, increased insurance rates, and inadequate funds to rebuild the economy. Furthermore, they assert that imposing hefty penalties on hate crimes will protect the vulnerable individuals instead of punishing the behaviors of the offenders (Levin, 2002).

The major problem with this act is that even minority communities are supposed to face analogous punishments whenever they commit hate crimes. For instance, an Amish man was convicted of the hate crime for cutting the beards of his fellow Muslim in 2013 (Kauppinen, 2015). The perpetrator received a punishment of fifteen years in prison. Furthermore, in 2012 three women attacked a gay gentleman at the train station while using abusive words (Brax, 2016). Furthermore, the law does not restrict the administration from imposing criminal penalties for the violence discriminatory behaviors. Therefore, the instances, statistics, and arguments presented in this paper support the stance that hate crimes should be punished more severely than other crimes. References Brax, D. Motives, reasons, and responsibility in hate/bias crime legislation.