KKK vs. R.A.V.
On June 21, 1990, in the city of St. Paul, Minnesota, a group of teenagers (R.A.V.) built a cross out of broken chair legs. The cross was then placed in a yard owned by a black family and set on fire. R.A.V. was charged under the St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance, which forbids anyone to “arouse anger, alarm, or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed or gender.” R.A.V., however, was not convicted because the court ruled the law was unconstitutional on the basis that the law was “overbroad and dependent on content.” The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the decision, but the case moved on to the Supreme Court of the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court then reversed the decision saying the ordinance violated the rights granted by the First Amendment. However, the actions committed by R.A.V. seem too similar to the actions of the KKK. The symbolism between the KKK burning crosses and R.A.V. burning crosses is obvious. The actions committed by R.A.V. are clearly a hate crime, and therefore he should have been justly punished for it. Free speech ends when it harms another person. The intent of their actions is not mentioned, but it seems clear they acted out of hatred. It does not seem like
The Supreme Court of the United States decided the ordinance was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment. The ordinance may have been a little broad and was in need of some tweaking, but it does not seem to violate the rights granted by the First Amendment. It was written to protect people against hate crimes like R.A.V. committed. A hate crime is an inexcusable act committed out of hatred because of some ones dislike of a person because they are Jewish, black, gay, or any other reason. Hate crimes should have a greater punishment because of the reasons for why the crime was committed. The part of the ordinance saying “arouse” is the only way the Supreme Court could find the law unconstitutional. The intent of the person’s actions is the main deciding factor behind convicting a person of a hate crime or any crime and that intent should be determined if at all possible. Also there is no difference from a person intending to provoke someone to become angry and their effort fails to provoke anyone, and a person intending to provoke someone to become angry and their efforts are successful. It is the same as attempted murder and actually murdering someone. Both of the actions will be punished and attempted actions to provoke someone should be punished just like a person actually making people angry. The punishment should be less maybe, but they should still be punished, therefore the ordinance does not seem unconstitutional. Their actions were not just “fighting words” that might offend someone, but they were a direct threat to the family. The actions were not just a protest or “fighting words”, but they were used to directly target and threaten the fa
Some topics in this essay:
Supreme Court,
Crime Ordinance,
Court United,
American Maybe,
Paul Minnesota,
hate crime,
,
supreme court,
St Paul,
rav punished,
direct threat,
black family,
st paul,
crime ordinance,
Paul Bias-Motivated,
Bias-Motivated Crime,
resentment basis race,
race color,
basis race,
color creed,
direct threat family,
bias-motivated crime ordinance,
court reversed decision,
supreme court reversed,
Join now to see the rest of the essay!
Approximate Word count = 1148
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
Example Essays Home
