ime was motivated by hate, some analysts point out, prosecutors often rely on testimony to the effect that that the defendant expressed bigoted views during or before the crime.” For instance if an “assailant” yells racial slurs at a person while assaulting someone then that incident could probably be prosecuted as a hate crime. Or if someone burns a cross in the yard of another person’s house the case would probably be handled allot differently if they had just burned a sac of dog droppings in the victim‘s yard. “Yet critics of hate crime laws say that although the beating and vandalism in those hypothetical cases should be punished, the sentiment underlying them should not be. No matter how reprehensible a person’s thoughts seem, critics say, that person has a constitutional right to express them verbally”. So when hate crime laws extend the sentence of a criminal “on the basis of his or her biased personal opinions” then they argue that it violates their first amendment rights. So usually the first amendment protects the criminal, not the victim, and in the end the crime is prosecuted, not the feelings of the criminal. In my opinion all of the so-called experts that believe that hate crime laws violate the constitution are totally wrong. Because even if it did violate there rights it shouldn’t matter. The reason I say this is because in this day and age every body knows being prejudice is wrong. So if you commit a crime against a person just because you are prejudice shouldn’t that be wrong too? Now, this is where the Wisconsin v. Mitchell case comes in again. In this case the Supreme Court ruled that hate crime laws are constitutional. Criminals shouldn’t be let off on technicality’s (Hate-Crime 512).Another less noticed, but equally important topic that deals with hate crime laws, are the laws against hate speech. This topic ties in with hate cri...
