Yes: discriminatory crimes

Article Abstract:

Imposing harsher penalties for hate crimes furthers our constitutional values. These laws punish acts, not thought crimes as some opponents claim. The laws thus do not violate the constitutional right to freedom of speech. The defendant in Wisconsin v Mitchell engaged in a near-fatal attack on a black boy, not a thought crime. The difference between protected speech and illegal conduct is central to anti-discrimination and free speech laws. Carefully drafted laws can make this distinction.

---

Yes: a solemn duty

Article Abstract:

Roe v Wade guaranteed the right to privacy, one of the most basic of constitutional rights, and President Clinton would be exercising his duty to uphold the Constitution in using the litmus test of views on Roe in his nominations to the Supreme Court. The judicial power to interpret the Constitution has vast influence over the status of human rights in the US, and only judges dedicated to protecting those rights should be nominated to serve.

Officials and employees, Political aspects, Civil rights, Judicial selection, United States. Supreme Court

---

No: equality among victims

Article Abstract:

Characteristics of the crime victim such as race, age and gender should not influence the punishment for a crime. Allowing such influence would run counter to the principle of equality before the law and sends the message to other crime victims that their injuries are less important. Hate crime laws like the one at issue in Wisconsin v Mitchell punish thought as well as acts.

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: Yes: a prime factor. No: exploding the myths. Still warring over medical malpractice; time for something better
• Abstracts: Employee plans: guidelines for the resolution of qualification violations. Administrative appeals of employee plan cases within the Internal Revenue Service
• Abstracts: Court orders. California court reins in tort; doctrine of peculiar risk. Calif. high court agrees to hear HMO arbitration case; the court will decide if Kaiser's arbitration system violates public policy
• Abstracts: Administrator's arrest in slaying shakes up a California campus
• Abstracts: Securing the future. The three realities. Ethical distinctions

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.