What Is Hate Crime Essay Example

in hate crimes. Judgments made on hate crimes that occur in America ought to consider the outlined factors that expose most of the people to participate in hate crimes while developing a sign of respect for the cultural differences and find a dialogue across racial, ethnic, cultural and religious boundaries.

Several hate crimes have taken place in the United States and different court judgments have been made on the offenders and the victims of the hate crimes. An incident of racial harassment that occurred at San Jose State University is one of the primary hate crimes experienced in the United States. This offense involved an accusation made by four white students that harassed a black roommate over several months. Sources show that the President of the campus remained unaware of the racial harassment that subjected by the white students on their colleague. It took several weeks for the president (Mohammad Qayoumi) to understand the conditions that the black student encountered from their roommates. As a result, he missed several opportunities to communicate with the family of the victim on the same.

Three students among the perpetrators faced charges with misdemeanor hate crimes and battery. Their actions were connected to the underlying publicity, safety concern and the disruptions in the housing and the tuition experiences of the students from this University. The three students faced accusations for taunting the victim with racial epithets, blocking him from moving out of the room and forcing a u-shaped bike lock around the neck of the black students (Kraybill, 2014). The parents of the victim saw a Confederate flag in his residential area of the four-bedroom campus hostel and a racial slur

on an eraser board. The parents of the victim contacted the caretaker of the apartment and made an alert to the campus police.

The report outlined that the victim remained silent about the behavior and requested his colleague to keep the secret of the issues that took place in their house. A jury of six men and six women carried investigations on the issue experienced by the black student in the student. The jury had no African-American member and found Bomgardner not guilty about the incident. An internal investigation was followed by an apology from the president of the university concerning the incident that took place on the students without his knowledge. The black students made more than three percent of the total population in the campus and created a task force on issues of racial discrimination that took place in the University.

Former judge LaDoris Cordell expressed a lot of disappointment with the twelve jurors that failed to agree that calling names to a black male and forcing a lock on his neck as an action that created an environment that promoted racism. The Attorneys of the defendants posed a claim that the clients took part in such activities because of immaturity, insensitivity, and stupidity (Jenness, 2001). However, County District Attorney (Jeff Rosen) disputed this characterization arguing that the decision made by the jurors was disappointing. Rosen explained that Beaschler would have faced charges for displaying the Confederate flag that showed his support for states’ rights.

A black political science student from San Jose State (Gary Daniels) held it wrong for the failure of the jury to convict the three men of a hate crime. Gary explained

that no one knew the next victim of the actions portrayed by the white students. One of the parents of the victim told that the stance of the jury let down the entire community that is yearning for fair treatment on issues related to racial discrimination (Jacobs, 2008). The interim president of the university explained that the college would be working on initiatives that will improve the racial climate on the campus. It created a Black Scholars Community that will be carrying investigations on issues that took place in the student’s residential areas as a way of eliminating a racial climate to accommodate students from different parts of the planet.

Racial harassment that occurred to the black student in this University is termed as a hate crime because it involved people from different racial backgrounds. The case involved white students that exposed a black student into actions that required a competent court ruling to ensure that similar behaviors do not take place on the campus and other parts of the entire society. Beaschler and Warren were the only two participants of the incident that were to be sentenced for the actions. The students were set to a year court jail, and they were more likely to avoid a jail altogether.

However, hate crime laws undertake the role of protecting all the individuals that may be targeted by crimes motivated by bias or the minority group living in a particular country. For example, the hate crime that took place in San Jose State was driven by the bias against African-Americans. Therefore, criminals that participate in hate crimes are punishable by more than one year in prison. The federal

hate crime legislation requires that all the individuals that participate in the bias-motivated violence are indictable by ten years to life in jail. Some of the bias-motivated crimes in the United States are punishable by the death penalty (Carla, 2014). Similarly, the university imposed a penalty to the students that exposed their colleague to issues that showed racial discrimination.

The university set off the campus police and the student conduct probes that moved the harassment suspects away from the victim. In addition, the university enforced interim suspensions to the suspects as additional penalties as investigations were carried on the incident. Other penalties associated with the above conviction involve a maximum fine of $5, 000 and a maximum of four hundred hours of community service. These penalties target at trimming the victim to the most accepted norms of the society and promote fairness in all the human interactions that take place within the society.

Upon the review of the outlined conviction, I propose that hate crimes should be included in legal statutes. Hate crimes should be contained in the legal statutes because the offenses occur from the bias made by a perpetrator against the victim by a perceived racial status or any other aspect of the human identity. The inclusion of the legal statutes on issues related to hate crime will assist law enforcers to set standards and controls that govern the actions of people and groups in various institutions like schools and business organizations. The set standards will eliminate biases made when dealing with cases associated with racial discrimination and other activities that expose individuals into sufferings. In addition, legal statutes will participate in the setting of

societal standards and norms at all levels of the government. They regulate activities, authorize certain actions, implement sanctions and permit certain activities that dictate the behavior of a vast number of the residents living in society.

The inclusion of the hate crimes in the legal statutes provides an easier opportunity for understanding the hate crimes while focusing on the primary motivators of the emergence of hate crimes in the society (Chakraborti, 2009). Legal statutes provide a civil injunction base on the available information to prevent the perpetrators from intimidating a group or any other member of the community. The injunction prevents the offenders from continuing a particular activity and outlines certain court charges to any future activity related to racial discrimination. Fairness is one of the primary characteristics of legal statutes. The inclusion of hate crimes in the legal statutes translates to equality and impartiality in dealing with criminals that participate in hate crimes.

The above criminal incident clearly outlines the challenges faced by the blacks living in the United States. The immigrants and the Africa-Americans have been presented as the primary victims of hate crimes based on their races, disability, sex orientation and other forms of human behavior that make them appear unique from their colleagues. As a result, there is a need for the inclusion of the hate crimes that occur in different places of the legal statutes. The initiative provides transparency and outlines significant considerations that law enforcers should use in making judgments on actions of hate crimes. The legal statutes assist in the standardization of the decisions made by people that expose their colleagues into actions based on gender, sex, race, religion, transgender

identity or religion. Therefore, the judgments made on the hate crime that occurred in San Jose State required consideration of the legal statutes to avoid biases. This initiative will ensure that the decisions were fair to both the victim and the suspects.

References

1. Carla Rivera. (2014). San Jose State followed guidelines in hate crimes case, report says. Cos Angeles Times. California.
2. Chakraborti, N., & Garland, J. (2009). Hate crime: Impact, causes and responses. Los Angeles: Sage.
3. Jacobs, J. B., & Potter, K. (2008). Hate crimes: Criminal law & identity politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
4. Jenness, V., & Grattet, R. (2001). Making hate a crime: From social movement to law enforcement.
5. Kraybill, D. B. (2014). Renegade Amish: Beard cutting, hate crimes, and the trial of the Bergholz barbers.
6. Michael Shively. (2005). Study of Literature and Legislation on Hate Crime in America. U.S. Department of Justice.