The majority of known hate crime offenders were white. This accounted for 65.5 percent of the offenders. (5) This data conveys a problem, but how does the problem get taken of. .
All individuals know that murder and beating someone is against the law? What will happen if a federal-hate crime law is put into effect? Will it over ride the state law?.
Yes, a federal law to cover hate crimes would be beneficial in states that don't have any laws for hate crimes and to amend the laws of states that do have laws. Hate crimes are thought crimes and they involve mostly people. Here Kidder's ends-based thinking would play a major role, "Do Whatever Good for the Greatest Number of People. (Kidder, 162) If federal laws were invoked, the punishments could fit the crimes, and the punishment would be known.
Many hate crimes aren't even reported, and who cares? Having a federal law would protect the society as a whole by enforcing each state to have something in place. When the terrorists bombed The World Trade Center, the world was angry. President Bush decided to do what he thought best for the people and that was going to war. He had more support than anyone could believe. Why? It was a hate crime against the country and its" people.
Look at the Hate Crime Prevention Act of 2003. (4) It would have been a good law and it was needed. Again, this would be ends-based thinking. It would be something that was constructive and had stature. We need a federal law, because some states have nothing in place. Law officers don't even have the sufficient amount of training to even know what to do when a hate-crime is committed. .
Rule-based thinking could also be used here. If there were rules in place, and every state had to follow a specific set of rules, hate crimes would dwindle. There must be a federal law, because this is a violation of civil rights, mainly freedom. The freedom to enjoy life as one sees fit.
