Are Hate Crime Enhancements Warranted in American Law?

Abstract

Hate crimes are crimes that have an unusual bias upon a certain group due to their specific identity. In the American legal system, it has been a long-time controversy surrounding whether a hate crime enhancement is warranted for those classified as such. This paper first seeks to examine the rationality of hate crime enhancements, using established hate crime legislature to analyze its purpose. Then it will apply such a framework to evaluate whether the legislature abides with legal philosophy and constitutional rights through the lens of moral culpability, past landmark cases, and implementation observances. The paper will explain that legal philosophy deems it impossible to assess motive, a key component of hate crimes. It will also challenge the current supreme court and landmark rulings upon hate crime legislature and points out an unconstitutional logical loophole. Flaws of implementation on demographics and due process are also pointed out as limitations. Through the three-prong analysis, although a justification for current hate crime enhancements is present due to the potential physical and mental damages, it is concluded that they are unconstitutional, unwarranted, and must be limited to ensure the justice of the American legal system.