Hate crimes are a serious and grotesquely common reality in the world today. The names and faces are as real as our siblings, parents, teachers and friends. For instance, Matthew Shepard, a young man tortured because of his sexual preference, or James Byrd, a man dragged to his death behind a pick-up truck because of his disability and the color of his skin. Previously, hate crimes were prosecuted based upon criminal action, but people like Senator Edward Kennedy thought that the justice system should do something more. In 1999 Senator Kennedy proposed the Hate Crimes Prevention Act; a proposal that would change the prosecution of hate crimes forever. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act, passed by congress, intensifies the punishment for criminals found guilty of committing a crime out of bias or hatred. It defines “hate crime” as any act of maliciousness or violence directed toward another person because of their race religion, sexual preference, gender, disability, etc. Unfortunately, not all individuals feel that this is the proper way to address the issue of hate motivated activity. Critics argue that increased severity in punishment violates the rights granted United States citizens by the First Amendment of the Constitution. This argument is a fallacy in the understanding of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999 should continue to be a regular and sturdy fixture in the prosecution of hate crimes because it addresses the terrifying reality of hate crimes, provides a strong deterrent through intensified punishment, and recognizes more communities as potential targets of such crimes. Furthermore, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act is constitutional and does not violate the First Amendment.
Lindsey Reimer, 01 Highlands Ranch, CO
Sponsor: Craig Allin