Assignment 4

Assignment 3
Due April 9, 2009

Enhanced Sentences for "Hate Crimes"

Consider the following two statements of position:

Proponents of "hate crime" laws say they are needed to protect minorities from acts of violence.

But "hate crime" laws are unnecessary. Criminal acts are already illegal. What's more, "hate crime" laws violate the constitutional right to equal protection, create the un-American offense of "thought crime," and abridge the freedoms of speech, religion and association.

"Hate crime" laws work this way: They add penalties to a criminal sentence if the criminal is also convicted of having a "hateful" intent toward the victim based on the victim's real or perceived group identity. Crime victims who don't fit into certain categories see their assailants face lesser penalties.

Ultimately, "hate crime" laws punish only beliefs or thoughts.

All totalitarian countries employ "thought crime" laws that criminalize the conscience. Now, under "hate crime" laws that include "sexual orientation," even Western nations with long traditions of freedom, such as the United States, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Sweden, are experiencing more and more challenges to basic freedoms.

Concerned Women For America
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=9672&department=CFI&categoryid=papers

All Americans have a stake in an effective response to violent bigotry. Hate crimes demand a priority response because of their special emotional and psychological impact on the victim and the victim's community. The damage done by hate crimes cannot be measured solely in terms of physical injury or dollars and cents. Hate crimes may effectively intimidate other members of the victim's community, leaving them feeling isolated, vulnerable and unprotected by the law. By making members of minority communities fearful, angry and suspicious of other groups -- and of the power structure that is supposed to protect them -- these incidents can damage the fabric of our society and fragment communities.

Anti-Defamation League
http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/intro.asp

Clearly, these two statements illustrate a fundamental disagreement regarding the philosophy and the Constitutionality of “hate crimes” legislation.

Recently there have been a spate of incidents involving nooses, including hanging from trees (Jena, Louisiana), hanging from a professor’s door (Columbia University), and in various other venues. Since 9/11 there have been many anti-Muslim incidents. Anti-gay and lesbian incidents remain a serious problem. Many other crimes that would qualify as “hate crimes” are also occurring. Congress has recently been considering (once again) and has enacted federal "hate crimes" legislation.

Assume a hypothetical case that comes before the United States Supreme Court in which a defendant has been convicted of a crime and has received an increased sentence because the circumstances surrounding the crime made it a “hate crime” under the laws of the state in which it occurred. The defendant appeals to the Court to reduce the sentence, claiming that the increased sentence violates several Constitutional rights.

Your assignment is to write a legal brief of at least seven to eight pages that you would submit to the Supreme Court either supporting or opposing the appellant’s position. You are to choose which side of the case you wish to brief and make that clear in the title of your brief. You should begin your brief with a short summary of the case, so that you can then direct your arguments to the facts as you have defined them. Before you begin writing, you should look at other briefs to get an idea of how you might organize yours, and the nature of the arguments and supporting evidence normally included. Remember that what you are trying to do is to persuade the Justices that your side is Constitutionally correct, while providing them with appropriate material and citations that they might include in their final decision. Be sure that you stick to the issues of Constitutionality and how they relate to the specific facts of the case; do not stray off onto whether or not you personally agree or disagree with the prior actions or decisions.

Your grade will depend on how well you have done your research, and how well-reasoned, justified, and convincing your discussion and analysis of the Constitutionality of the position you choose to brief is. In addition to making the strongest possible case for your side, you should try to address the points that may be made by the opposing side in their brief and may be made in their oral argument, and provide as strong a line of reasoning as possible to contradict their contentions. Be sure to consult the “Helpful Hints” page on the course Web site. Also, be sure that your paper is thoroughly and completely referenced. That is, you must provide authoritative references for every assertion you make. The Court will not simply take your word for something (nor will I). You must provide expert support and precedent cases.

This paper is due to me electronically by the start of class on April 9. It is worth 50 points.