Around the World we have always had a history of hate crimes based on national origin. In Germany it was the Holocaust and the hate towards Jewish people, here in America we’ve had a history of hate against African American people now it seems that hate towards other races such as Latinos and Middle Eastern races are becoming more apparent. It's also obvious that, while Americans are always in a hurry to close our most unpleasant chapters, unfortunately, anti-Semitism is alive and well in a lot of parts of our society, whether we like it or not.
The fight for women’s rights in America started before the 1920s but big changes weren’t made until the 1960’s and 1970’s. The women's movement emerged as a political force later than the black civil rights movement, but today it is equally well entrenched. Sexism is widely seen as racism's counterpart. It’s only natural to include gender prejudice under the hate crime umbrella, especially in light of the extent to which women as a group are victimized by men. Crimes against women would seem to be the most obvious candidate for recognition as hate crime. However, the intent of the person committing the crime would need to be known before it could be determined if a man commits a sexual crime against a woman. In 1994, women reported approximately 500,000 rapes and sexual assaults, almost 500,000 robberies and 3.8 million assaults. The perpetrator was male in the vast majority of these offenses it is undetermined if any of these were considered hate crimes.
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322, Title XXVIII §280003a) defines a “hate crime” as one in “which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of property crime, the property that is the object of the crime” motivated by prejudice based on the “race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation” of the victim. Current federal law permits prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of the victim’s race, color, religion, or national origin while the victim was engaged in a federally protected activity such as voting or attending school. Sociologists and social psychologists have long wrestled with the concept of prejudice; they have been unable to agree on a single definition. One point of consensus is that there are many kinds of prejudice. An individual can be prejudiced in favor of something such as his or her religion or prejudiced against something such as someone else's religion. We all have prejudices for and against individuals, groups, foods, countries, weather, and so forth. Sometimes these prejudices come from experience, sometimes in fantasy and irrationality, and sometimes they are passed down to us by family, friends, school, religion, or one’s culture. Some prejudices such as anti-Fascist are considered good, but other prejudices provoke strong social and political censure such as, racism, anti-Semitism, misogyny. There is a great deal of confusion about what constitutes an acceptable opinion or preference for example if someone says, "I prefer to attend a historically black college," or "I oppose Zionism and a Jewish state," and what constitutes unacceptable, abhorrent prejudice. Since hate crimes are fueled by prejudices we need to have certain guidelines to follow as to what is considered prejudice. If someone commits a crime against someone just because they don’t like that person then this may not be considered a hate crime. But, if the same crime is committed and the person doing the crime is hurting that person (their body physically or their property) because they dislike that persons race, religion or sexual orientation than this would constitute a hate crime.
Most states have statutes that constitute what a hate crime is and sets guidelines for punishments if one commits a hate crime. Almost all states have some form of penalty-enhancement hate crime statute which increases the sentence if the crime was motivated by the victim’s actual or perceived personal characteristics.
In Nebraska, Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 28-110 (2010) states A person in the State of Nebraska has the right to live free from violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against his or her person or the destruction or vandalism of, or intimidation by threat of destruction or vandalism of, his or her property regardless of his or her race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age, or disability. Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 28-111(2010) Imposes additional penalties on any person who commits one or more of the following criminal offenses against a person or a person's property because of the person's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age, or disability or because of the person's association with a person of a certain race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age, or disability, unless such criminal offense is already punishable as a Class IB felony or higher classification.
The FBI keeps track of crimes across the United States. This is called The Uniform Crime Reporting Program. The Uniform Crime Reporting Program is a nationwide, cooperative statistical effort of more than 18,000 city, university and college, county, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies voluntarily reporting data on crimes. In Nebraska, 185 agencies participated in collecting data. Of those, seven agencies submitted reports of alleged hate crimes. There were 36 cases in a state with a population of 1.47 million Of the 36 reported cases in Nebraska, 24 were based on race, five on sexual orientation, five on ethnicity, and two on religion. Omaha investigated six of the cases that involved race, one on religion, one on ethnicity, and none on sexual orientation. Lincoln investigated 14 of the cases based on race, four on sexual orientation, four on ethnicity, and one on religion.
In my opinion hate crimes do deserve special consideration including enhanced punishment because a hate crime doesn’t just victimize the intended victim but the person committing the hate crime are intending to send a message to a certain group of people whether it be a religious group or gays and lesbians. Therefore, the damage not only affects the victim but an entire group of people.
The motivation of the person committing the crime is a substantial factor in determining the mens rea or, the guilty mind, of the actor. It is unfair to punish one who acts from desperation or the heat of passion the same as one who acts from greed, malice, or other sinister motives. The way the courts determine if the actions were the result of desperation of in the heat of passion by asking “would a reasonable person act in the same way if he or she were in the same situation?” Homicide is a prime example. Murder by definition is the unlawful killing of a human being by another human being with malice. Both hate and revenge are heinous; and it is difficult to imagine that one is less culpable than the other.
Greed, sadism, evil, lust, avarice, envy, and pride are all more heinous motivations than certain types of revenge. While these motivations are already heinous on their own when coupled with hate it makes the crime even more heinous.
On the other hand, I can see where certain types of revenge could be justified. For example, if a crime is committed towards a child, such as molesting or another form of sexual abuse and the parents “go after” the molester and assault him or her, I can see that being justifiable. In my opinion most reasonable people would do the same thing. Where revenge crosses the line is if the parents went as far as killing the molester, while I say if someone does something to my child I will kill them I don’t really mean that. Even though I say this for me revenge only applies if someone hurts one of my children. If someone does something to you the natural reaction is to do something back. I personally think that revenge is morally wrong and I do not advocate it. If you seek revenge you are no better than person who has committed the offence.
While revenge can sometimes seem to be justifiable I think it’s more understandable than justifiable. I believe that revenge is never truly necessary but sometimes is understandable. It is only human to want to protect oneself from harm and to use any means that is necessary to do that, including inflicting harm upon someone who has hurt you or will hurt you. It is not essential that a person do this, but to react in vengeful ways is natural.