The first legislative efforts to address bias-related crimes dated back to the late 19th century, which was a response to the expanding Ku Klux Klan and segregation in the south. Such laws included mandates against wearing masks and hoods. The next wave of legislation relating to hate crimes resulted from the movement for increased protection for civil rights in the face of widespread racial prejudice shown by segregated buildings and restricted access to public and private resources. The most recent legislation has been directed specifically to acts of hate against people of race, religion, gender, sexual o

Under existing federal law, a person or group convicted of crimes against someone who was targeted because of, “the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability or sexual orientation” faces stiffer federal penalties than those provided under state law. The proposed legislation would eliminate the current requirement that the government prove the perpetrator’s intent. Instead, federal prosecutors could go after hate crimes without proving that the perpetrator was motivated by prejudice.

Last year, Congress had the chance to pass strong hate crimes legislation. On June 19, 2000, the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2000 was approved by the senate as an amendment to the defense authorization bill. People who act on hate need to know their punishment will be severe and harsh. Hate crimes threaten the safety of many citizens and in a way disrupts the entire community. Hate crimes can and will not be tolerated.

A huge argument for more hate crime legislation is that it is not necessary. Many say that, “who is to say which crime is worse then another, murder is murder.” So, are they saying someone shooting someone is the same as what happened to, let’s say, Billy Jack Gaither. Gaither was beaten and killed with an ax handle and then thrown onto burning tires. Are these two murders the same? They defiantly are not and they should not be handled the same.

Another argument is that the government should not punish people more harshly based on their feelings that motivated their crime, instead of the crime committed. I think the reason behind a crime is just as important as the crime committed. For example, let’s say, a woman killed her husband by shooting him, lets say, in the heat of passion or out of anger. She would be guilty of Murder 2nd and would hopefully go to jail. Now if she planned and plotted to kill him it becomes Murder 1st and the penalty becomes a lot more hash, as it should. Hate crimes should be the same. If a man was assaulted just because he is black, this should be punished greater than if that same man was assaulted in a common disagreement. Of course the burden of proof becomes a little more difficult.

Hate crimes are a harsh reality in the United States. The reason it is so hard to come

Some topics in this essay:
Enhancement Act, Nathaniel Smith, Hate Crime, Gaither Gaither, President Clinton, Montgomery Alabama, Klux Klan, Student Shepard, Prevention Act, Hate Crimes, hate crimes, hate crime, crime legislation, hate crime legislation, sexual orientation, argument hate crime, race religion, crime committed, gender sexual orientation, gender sexual, argument hate, crime laws, enforcement enhancement act, religion gender, law enforcement enhancement,