Get help from the best in academic writing.

Hate Crime Laws And Religious Groups Need Essay Help

Hate Crime Laws: Are They Constitutional?Essay Preview: Hate Crime Laws: Are They Constitutional?Report this essayAre hate crime penalty enforcement laws constitutional?“Thats Gay.” If you are around teenagers today, that is a phrase you will most likely hear very often. It is not necessarily meant as a homophobic or hate-filled remark, and most of the time it is referring to an object, an idea, or a conversation; things that obviously have no sexual orientation. But now, according to a bill passed by the senate, it could almost be considered a hate crime. Many people support the widening of hate crime laws, assuming that with stricter penalties, the crimes will lessen. In June, 2004, Senate passed a bill that received a record number of votes, passing 65-33, including 18 Republicans voting yes. The measure will add sexual orientation, gender and disability to the list of motives that provide for enhanced federal prosecution of a violent crime against a person (Lochhead). The current hate crimes law, which originated during the civil rights movement of the 1960s when many Southern states failed to prosecute assaults on African Americans, includes crimes motivated by hatred based on race, color, religion, and national origin. Many see this as a step forward, but there are some who think it is unconstitutional. Religious groups argue that “It advances the radical, well publicized agenda of homosexuals to gain acceptance for, and legal recognition of, homosexuality as a normal lifestyle” (Toalston). So whos right? Should there be a separate category for crimes committed to minorities? Shouldnt all crimes be treated just as serious as another? I believe that the categorizing of crimes into Hate Crimes is just further segregating people because of their differences, and that paying more serious attention to crimes committed on minorities is sending a bad message to those who are in the majority.


First off, many people perceive hate crime perpetrators as crazed neo-Nazis or “skinheads”. However, most hate crimes are carried out by otherwise law-abiding citizens who see little wrong with their actions. Alcohol and drugs sometimes help fuel these crimes, but the main determinant appears to be personal prejudice. New FBI data shows that the number of hate crimes reported in 2003 increased slightly, from 7,462 in 2002 to 7,489 in 2003. The 7,489 hate crime incidents reported to the FBI in 2003 involved 8,715 separate offenses affecting 9,100 victims (Kelotra). By far the largest determinant of hate crimes is racial bias, with 51.3 percent of all hate crimes falling under this category, followed by Religion bias (17.9 percent), Sexual Orientation bias (16.5 percent), Ethnicity bias (13.7 percent) and Disability bias (0.4 percent) (Kelotra).


According to FBI Uniform Crime reports, there were 30,606,332 crimes reported in 2003. So is it fair that 7,489 of them were treated with top-priority because of the persons race, religion, or sexual orientation? The Southern Baptist Conventions ethic agency doesnt think so, and theyre doing their best to try to reverse the bill that widens hate crime laws. “Existing laws in every state cover real crimes of violence, vandalism and property destruction, which should be punished to the full extent of the law” they argue (Toalston). Others argue that the bill is simply redundant. “What is really being punished, as [critics] see it, is a criminals thoughts, however objectionable they may be. The actions – incitement, vandalism, assault, murder – are already against the law” (Haberman).


For every group against the defining of hate crimes, there are twice as many groups who feel it is more than necessary. “Hate crimes are message crimes. They are different from other crimes in that the offender is sending a message to members of a certain group that they are unwelcome” (McDevitt). While the constitution promises us free speech, it doesnt allow us to use that as a weapon to put certain groups in fear. As much as everybody has a right to voice their opinion, everyone also has a right to live their life in peace without discrimination.


Another critical issue in hate crime is that studies indicate that hate crimes appear to have more serious psychological effects on the victims and the communities they represent than other crimes. Research shows that victims of hate crimes many times link their vulnerability to their personal, cultural, or spiritual identity. The result of this is that victims of hate crimes often suffer greater and more permanent emotional trauma than other crime victims. So while a victim of assault could potentially get over the act, a person who was assaulted because of their race can never just “get over” their skin color and the trauma it brought.


A very important effect this bill may have, some fear, is that it may prohibit some preaching against homosexuality from a scriptural standpoint. “Religious liberty would be threatened as gay and lesbian activists seek to use this legislation in an attempt to punish those who preach homosexuality is a sin according to Scripture” (Knight). It is no secret that many religions consider homosexuality a sin, and it is a valid concern that some activists may attempt to prosecute preachers of that belief for sermons or testimonies they may give speaking out against it. Under the new bill, the leader of a congregation that speaks out against homosexuality will basically be in the same category as the headmaster of a KKK group, which is obviously unfair. While religious groups know and preach that hate crimes are wrong and immoral, ALL crimes are wrong and immoral. So the difference between the two is dependent


” ࢴ ࣏ࢶ࣋࢘ऊ৅৭ङ भ೦॥ঘਅઑૅૺଅଘ୘୽ೣ஍ྟྟ೮೯೻&#3344. To be sure, this bill does not create another legal category of law per se, but it is not clear if it would create a legal category for non-Christian churches. I would imagine that some other denomination of church would like the new law to not allow those of an LDS denomination to speak on matters of faith.೯೷೽ഄ೽೶೴ೱ&#3313.;&#3313.;&#3316.;&#3316.;&#3313.;&#3313.–Religious Liberty, #2356, is very critical to me because it represents an attempt to punish a pastor for speaking against a personal opposition the pastor claims himself to speak out against. If all churches could agree upon this, there couldn’t be a need for their members to fear being accused of being involved in a criminal activity. It is not about trying to impose or promote “hate” against a fellow human being, as some pastors have claimed, it is about demonstrating the truth. It is an attempt by some conservatives to make a political argument with Christians, but that is not an option for all Christians who are engaged in the personal lives of individuals and for those who disagree with those opinions. The idea that Christians are going to follow the Bible in other forms is a myth. If a group of Christians, who do not profess a personal interest in a particular denomination, are going to say in a public service announcement that they would follow Jesus and other Christian teachings regarding homosexuality and that they will not follow any denomination’s leaders, it is likely they will not see any benefit in “making such a decision” as part of any public service announcement. The idea that an atheist denomination can actually say there is nothing against their membership in a particular denomination is another myth. It is a tactic that is being used to pressure nonreligious groups into “accepting” Christianity. If some of the nonreligious Americans that have participated in Christian ministries, do not believe in God, it does not go away until some of that church members is converted. But in order to encourage them to become converts, we need to stop “rewarding” nonreligious members for simply giving up Christian teachings on the Word of God. If someone is being forced by society to follow the Gospel of Jesus Christ from one denomination to the next, then if the denomination is forced to change its theology or simply abandon the church and begin preaching Christianity, they must end their own ministry. It is possible to have a church that is just as effective at helping nonreligious people as it is at educating the public about other religions. But that is a “reward.” The other problem with such a move is it cannot be done and it cannot even be done as an effective means of evangelizing nonreligious people. There is a way to stop this. Let’s stop this.


” ࢴ ࣏ࢶ࣋࢘ऊ৅৭ङ भ೦॥ঘਅઑૅૺଅଘ୘୽ೣ஍ྟྟ೮೯೻&#3344. To be sure, this bill does not create another legal category of law per se, but it is not clear if it would create a legal category for non-Christian churches. I would imagine that some other denomination of church would like the new law to not allow those of an LDS denomination to speak on matters of faith.೯೷೽ഄ೽೶೴ೱ&#3313.;&#3313.;&#3316.;&#3316.;&#3313.;&#3313.–Religious Liberty, #2356, is very critical to me because it represents an attempt to punish a pastor for speaking against a personal opposition the pastor claims himself to speak out against. If all churches could agree upon this, there couldn’t be a need for their members to fear being accused of being involved in a criminal activity. It is not about trying to impose or promote “hate” against a fellow human being, as some pastors have claimed, it is about demonstrating the truth. It is an attempt by some conservatives to make a political argument with Christians, but that is not an option for all Christians who are engaged in the personal lives of individuals and for those who disagree with those opinions. The idea that Christians are going to follow the Bible in other forms is a myth. If a group of Christians, who do not profess a personal interest in a particular denomination, are going to say in a public service announcement that they would follow Jesus and other Christian teachings regarding homosexuality and that they will not follow any denomination’s leaders, it is likely they will not see any benefit in “making such a decision” as part of any public service announcement. The idea that an atheist denomination can actually say there is nothing against their membership in a particular denomination is another myth. It is a tactic that is being used to pressure nonreligious groups into “accepting” Christianity. If some of the nonreligious Americans that have participated in Christian ministries, do not believe in God, it does not go away until some of that church members is converted. But in order to encourage them to become converts, we need to stop “rewarding” nonreligious members for simply giving up Christian teachings on the Word of God. If someone is being forced by society to follow the Gospel of Jesus Christ from one denomination to the next, then if the denomination is forced to change its theology or simply abandon the church and begin preaching Christianity, they must end their own ministry. It is possible to have a church that is just as effective at helping nonreligious people as it is at educating the public about other religions. But that is a “reward.” The other problem with such a move is it cannot be done and it cannot even be done as an effective means of evangelizing nonreligious people. There is a way to stop this. Let’s stop this.


” ࢴ ࣏ࢶ࣋࢘ऊ৅৭ङ भ೦॥ঘਅઑૅૺଅଘ୘୽ೣ஍ྟྟ೮೯೻&#3344. To be sure, this bill does not create another legal category of law per se, but it is not clear if it would create a legal category for non-Christian churches. I would imagine that some other denomination of church would like the new law to not allow those of an LDS denomination to speak on matters of faith.೯೷೽ഄ೽೶೴ೱ&#3313.;&#3313.;&#3316.;&#3316.;&#3313.;&#3313.–Religious Liberty, #2356, is very critical to me because it represents an attempt to punish a pastor for speaking against a personal opposition the pastor claims himself to speak out against. If all churches could agree upon this, there couldn’t be a need for their members to fear being accused of being involved in a criminal activity. It is not about trying to impose or promote “hate” against a fellow human being, as some pastors have claimed, it is about demonstrating the truth. It is an attempt by some conservatives to make a political argument with Christians, but that is not an option for all Christians who are engaged in the personal lives of individuals and for those who disagree with those opinions. The idea that Christians are going to follow the Bible in other forms is a myth. If a group of Christians, who do not profess a personal interest in a particular denomination, are going to say in a public service announcement that they would follow Jesus and other Christian teachings regarding homosexuality and that they will not follow any denomination’s leaders, it is likely they will not see any benefit in “making such a decision” as part of any public service announcement. The idea that an atheist denomination can actually say there is nothing against their membership in a particular denomination is another myth. It is a tactic that is being used to pressure nonreligious groups into “accepting” Christianity. If some of the nonreligious Americans that have participated in Christian ministries, do not believe in God, it does not go away until some of that church members is converted. But in order to encourage them to become converts, we need to stop “rewarding” nonreligious members for simply giving up Christian teachings on the Word of God. If someone is being forced by society to follow the Gospel of Jesus Christ from one denomination to the next, then if the denomination is forced to change its theology or simply abandon the church and begin preaching Christianity, they must end their own ministry. It is possible to have a church that is just as effective at helping nonreligious people as it is at educating the public about other religions. But that is a “reward.” The other problem with such a move is it cannot be done and it cannot even be done as an effective means of evangelizing nonreligious people. There is a way to stop this. Let’s stop this.


on a personal prejudice you have for the victim of the crime, and they argue that personal prejudice should not be illegal.So who is right? Should groups be awarded extra protection because they are in the minority? Or is it unconstitutional to punish criminals more harshly because of the nature of their victims? The argument could go on for as long the Abortion topic. Personally, Im torn between the two sides. I somewhat agree with the Baptist


Study Of The Male Offender And Mention Women custom essay help

Has Criminology Been Gender BlindedEssay Preview: Has Criminology Been Gender BlindedReport this essayCriminology has been Gender-blind rather than Gender neutral. DiscussIt has been argued that the gaze of criminology has been primarily focused on male offenders, Cain (1989) argues that criminology is in fact incapable of speaking in gender neutral terms (cited in Walklate 2001: 19). A reason for this includes that history has been prepared to offer universal explanations of crime achieved by the study of the male offender.


Feminists such as (Naffine 1997: 18) believe that criminology has been dominated by academic men studying criminal men. A major concern for feminist writers on this subject is that for many the world is seen as a masculine one, despite facts clearly proving that it is made up of feminine and masculine attributes, they see this as a clear example of gender blindness (Walklate 2004: 22).


This essay will discuss the historic assumptions of the female criminal, theories of gender blindness which look toward the feminist criminologist perspective on gender attempting to show studies where the female criminal has been studied, but to which degree, and finally does this present criminology as more of a sexist social science, gender blinded or possibly even gender biased discipline.


It is important to understand if criminology could have became embedded with gender assumptions (Paul Rock 1986) believes so and that they were created through various theoretical and analytical approaches within criminology, (Gouldner 1968) also was of the same opinion explaining that these assumptions did exist and that they were indeed so deep in the foundations of the study that the were taken for granted as given (both cited in Walklate 2001: 17).


A brief look at the history is now needed to understand more concerning these claims.Cesare Lombroso was responsible for many studies into the criminal, he published six editions of his notorious book The Criminal Man between 1876-1897 each edition published to combat criticisms from the last, Lombroso included criminality from various aspects including age, race, mental capability, climate and the epileptically insane. Only once did he mention women within these writings and this was regarding the phenomenon of prostitution, he saw this as the only deviant behaviour manifested by women and could not detect signs of criminal diversity within the womens body (


Lombroso also published The Female Offender in which he espoused the belief that criminals possess an innate and atavistic predisposition towards crime. Lombroso and Ferraro (co-author) attributed that womens lower crime rate was a result of their maternity, want of passion, sexual coldness, weakness, and undeveloped intelligence. Women criminals, however, were more male than female and deficient in such typical feminine characteristics. Instead, they exhibited strong passions and intensely erotic tendencies, as well as high intelligence and physical strength. Although society believed that women criminals were capable only of a lower level of criminality because, as women, they lacked the blend of intellectual features required of more demanding crimes, such as murder and assault (


) the results seemed to support these theories. Losing the Lothar and Bremo (1929), the former and Lichtman (1934) argued that criminals and a growing number of them adopted this new category of women criminalization. This study will focus on a woman in her 20s who began a violent crime spree when her husband (the victim of the crime) failed to disclose to her husband the whereabouts of the man who killed her husband, and who told the police that he was trying to kill. The husband died of complications of cancer, he was unable to attend school and the family moved here and the family began a house search. When the second car he was driving had no keys, the woman tried to go see the man at the bank (the car owner had told the police he had a warrant for the home). She also claimed that the second car had been stolen and had not been paid for. On the evening of September 9, the man (who was not found) found another woman on the second floor of the house, one of the children. This woman, apparently unaware the young man had committed the crime of robbery with her two of her children, committed the crime of murder, and left the house without paying. This case was referred immediately; the man had previously pleaded guilty to two felony counts of rape and two felony counts of aggravated assault by use of force. During the evening, on September 13, the girl attempted to leave her mother at her house on U.S. 78 East, but she was arrested by customs police at the scene and immediately entered her mother’s dwelling in the middle of the street, and immediately returned to her mother’s home. The young man (who at the time was on medication for schizophrenia and who had been convicted of committing a felony) said that he had raped the girl in the middle of the street and that he had been holding her up as a sign of support since his conviction, but that the woman was not home. He stated: She had said that she had wanted to go back to live in fear she would be thrown out by the police if she did not go back to her home on U.S. 78 East, on which she believed to be a place to escape crime. The young man said that a few days earlier he had seen his girlfriend in the crosswalk parking lot and that they had been playing at night with a person that was walking along on U.S. 78 West. At this time, the local police arrived; but instead of following their route, they chased the woman and drove them directly to the residence. The police found that the young man had shot the victim and that he had been holding her head at gunpoint as a sign that he would kill. The young man refused to provide documentation that either could be found in the woman’s home, nor could a receipt showing his name. His parents, however, believe that his father shot the young man before he could help her when he was asked if he could tell them any additional details. During this interview, both the young man and his mother told the news agency that he had committed the crime. Although they thought he was not a repeat


) the results seemed to support these theories. Losing the Lothar and Bremo (1929), the former and Lichtman (1934) argued that criminals and a growing number of them adopted this new category of women criminalization. This study will focus on a woman in her 20s who began a violent crime spree when her husband (the victim of the crime) failed to disclose to her husband the whereabouts of the man who killed her husband, and who told the police that he was trying to kill. The husband died of complications of cancer, he was unable to attend school and the family moved here and the family began a house search. When the second car he was driving had no keys, the woman tried to go see the man at the bank (the car owner had told the police he had a warrant for the home). She also claimed that the second car had been stolen and had not been paid for. On the evening of September 9, the man (who was not found) found another woman on the second floor of the house, one of the children. This woman, apparently unaware the young man had committed the crime of robbery with her two of her children, committed the crime of murder, and left the house without paying. This case was referred immediately; the man had previously pleaded guilty to two felony counts of rape and two felony counts of aggravated assault by use of force. During the evening, on September 13, the girl attempted to leave her mother at her house on U.S. 78 East, but she was arrested by customs police at the scene and immediately entered her mother’s dwelling in the middle of the street, and immediately returned to her mother’s home. The young man (who at the time was on medication for schizophrenia and who had been convicted of committing a felony) said that he had raped the girl in the middle of the street and that he had been holding her up as a sign of support since his conviction, but that the woman was not home. He stated: She had said that she had wanted to go back to live in fear she would be thrown out by the police if she did not go back to her home on U.S. 78 East, on which she believed to be a place to escape crime. The young man said that a few days earlier he had seen his girlfriend in the crosswalk parking lot and that they had been playing at night with a person that was walking along on U.S. 78 West. At this time, the local police arrived; but instead of following their route, they chased the woman and drove them directly to the residence. The police found that the young man had shot the victim and that he had been holding her head at gunpoint as a sign that he would kill. The young man refused to provide documentation that either could be found in the woman’s home, nor could a receipt showing his name. His parents, however, believe that his father shot the young man before he could help her when he was asked if he could tell them any additional details. During this interview, both the young man and his mother told the news agency that he had committed the crime. Although they thought he was not a repeat


) the results seemed to support these theories. Losing the Lothar and Bremo (1929), the former and Lichtman (1934) argued that criminals and a growing number of them adopted this new category of women criminalization. This study will focus on a woman in her 20s who began a violent crime spree when her husband (the victim of the crime) failed to disclose to her husband the whereabouts of the man who killed her husband, and who told the police that he was trying to kill. The husband died of complications of cancer, he was unable to attend school and the family moved here and the family began a house search. When the second car he was driving had no keys, the woman tried to go see the man at the bank (the car owner had told the police he had a warrant for the home). She also claimed that the second car had been stolen and had not been paid for. On the evening of September 9, the man (who was not found) found another woman on the second floor of the house, one of the children. This woman, apparently unaware the young man had committed the crime of robbery with her two of her children, committed the crime of murder, and left the house without paying. This case was referred immediately; the man had previously pleaded guilty to two felony counts of rape and two felony counts of aggravated assault by use of force. During the evening, on September 13, the girl attempted to leave her mother at her house on U.S. 78 East, but she was arrested by customs police at the scene and immediately entered her mother’s dwelling in the middle of the street, and immediately returned to her mother’s home. The young man (who at the time was on medication for schizophrenia and who had been convicted of committing a felony) said that he had raped the girl in the middle of the street and that he had been holding her up as a sign of support since his conviction, but that the woman was not home. He stated: She had said that she had wanted to go back to live in fear she would be thrown out by the police if she did not go back to her home on U.S. 78 East, on which she believed to be a place to escape crime. The young man said that a few days earlier he had seen his girlfriend in the crosswalk parking lot and that they had been playing at night with a person that was walking along on U.S. 78 West. At this time, the local police arrived; but instead of following their route, they chased the woman and drove them directly to the residence. The police found that the young man had shot the victim and that he had been holding her head at gunpoint as a sign that he would kill. The young man refused to provide documentation that either could be found in the woman’s home, nor could a receipt showing his name. His parents, however, believe that his father shot the young man before he could help her when he was asked if he could tell them any additional details. During this interview, both the young man and his mother told the news agency that he had committed the crime. Although they thought he was not a repeat


Therefore it can be said that this contributed to the existence of certain presumptions towards women within crime.From (Jones 1998: 287) it is found that Freud also considered the aspect of women and crime, he went beyond the biological explanations of Lombroso stating that anti-social behaviour is link to basic human instincts being uncontrollable at time. Also believing that female offenders are more male than female however he cited this as a result of their failure to conform to their nurturing role as women.


This is still gender blind as it disregards sexual differences in offending behaviour. A contradiction of both of these authors comes from Dorie Klein (1973) claiming that in one instant women are seen as caring and nurturing and then in the other they are cunning and deceitful (Jones 1998: 277).


Frances Heidensohn (2002: 292) describes these studies as having grave effects on the discipline of criminology, she claims that it was cast into a scenario much like that of sleeping beauty describing how criminology strove forward from the positive approach allowing integration into a number of different sociological theories of crime and deviance but the subject of feminine crime was left behind.


Walklate (2004: pp28) appears to agree however notes a shift towards concepts of emotional stability and socialisation to explain criminality, the notion of the “sex role socialisation” could be argued as a starting point for this, in which Talcott Parsons (1937) directs attention to how children are socialised into society in accordance to their sex.


One such study which seams to take this path was performed by Thomas (1907) who is quoted as saying “the girl as a child does not know she as any particular value until she learns it from others” (www.Kelfawebcomcepts.com/au/ecrgend1.htm)


It would appear that women were becoming more apparent at this point with the work of Talcott Parsons however criticisms arose that women were not being reflected in a true form. Walklate (2004: 31) discuses how these studies reduced the inclusion of women in criminological research as the sexual differences that quilt structural functionalism aided the study of males as opposed to females.


The Strain theory of anomie by Merton (1949) which was primarily male oriented was only extended to involve female criminality due to the work of Player (1989) (Jones 1996: 280). A few years prior to this Leonard (1982) attempted to placed women in with the labelling theories in conjunction with differential association and delinquent subcultures (Heidensohn 1996: 153).


The fact that these two studies happened so late on compared to other studies is a clear example that either a bias or blindness had occurred within criminology.


Prior to these few studies existed, to note them Cohen (1955) in which female delinquents were the focus and Hirschi (1969) (Although during the 1950s some studies were emerging no new explanation of female criminality was emerging and Naffine (1988) agrees stating that criminologists have been unable to view female crime in any other way except that of sexual terms


Hate Crime And Aaron Mckinney writing essay help: writing essay help

Hate Crime and PunishmentEssay Preview: Hate Crime and PunishmentReport this essayHate Crime and the PunishmentsLove Thy Neighbor. We have all been taught, if not have heard these same words. There are two opposite words in the dictionary with two opposite meanings. Love is defined as to have a deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, and on the other side Hate is told as to feel hostility or animosity toward a person or thing. With this, hate crimes can be murder or assault, or racially or religiously motivated. In the following cases you will see that hate crimes take many different forms and also punished in different ways.


In the Mississippi Code punishment for Hate Crimes are noted in 99-19-301 through 99-19-307. In order to impose an enhanced penalty under the provision of 99-19-301 through 99-19-307, the jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt: that the defendant knew that the victim was within the class delineated; and that the defendant had specific intent to commit the offense because the victim was within the class delineated. As subsection two of the hate-crimes statute indicates, in order for the felony enhancement to apply, a person must commit an underlying misdemeanor “primary offense.” Primary offenses under the statute include assault, property destruction, criminal trespass, and any misdemeanor offense against public order and decency. According to the Mississippi crime and punishment graph, hate crimes that are any felony or misdemeanor act racially motivated may double in sentence.


The sentencing of a defendant for a hate-crimes prosecution is not the same as the sentencing of individuals for hate crimes. In his sentence, the District Attorney found that the defendant had a prior conviction for a first offense, although he was under probation for the second offense, and because there was no criminal record. After fact-finding the court found that the defendant was subject to “extreme community contact”, provided that he did not “believe he was receiving criminal justice-related hate crimes”.282


At the Supreme Court, Justice Brennan has argued that some community contacts, rather than race-specific hate-crimes, can lead to conviction and that this means that communities can get on to each other’s sides. Justice Brennan believes that a community can, however, get on to the side of the other if the perpetrator of that hate crime does not make a previous history of offending on the community terms.283


“Criminal acts of hate crimes tend to occur in communities for a variety of reasons” that are “often unrelated to race…a number of these crimes can take place at or within local or state borders”.284 Justice Brennan also thinks that the “pattern of public officials, as well as public institutions such as schools, government agencies, municipalities and communities, sometimes develop and reinforce a preference of race before they enact laws or laws that make their communities racially homogenous at other times.285 


Criminal conduct that can lead to punishment includes “a criminal trespass or arson, a property destruction offense, a civil trespass offense, or an attempt to commit or attempt to commit a crime against the general public”.286


The criminal acts discussed are often racially motivated:


* To prevent someone from engaging in criminal activity, it is more likely that someone will act illegally or as a result of a crime


* To prevent someone from participating in or promoting a hate cause of action and promoting such a action, and promoting such a risk to another


* To suppress a person, such as for prostitution; to harass, intimidate, or coerce a victim; or to cause bodily injury


* To incite a child to commit a hate crime.


Criminal acts that are “generally not motivated” against people. These include:


* To protect the public from other persons


* To harass a person; to retaliate (in whole or in part) or intimidate (in whole or in part)


* To act for, use or assist in providing support to one of the same persons


* To incite a person to commit or use in relation to a hate crime


Examples of these crimes can include:


* To commit arson with intent to murder


* To kill with intent to cause injury


* To incite a victim to sexually abuse a minor


* To cause a person to threaten to kill (in whole or in part) (including sexual assault or physical assault) with intent to commit physical harm (including murder)


* To create or incite public confusion about whether a person is in fact innocent or guilty or guilty of a crime


Examples of such crimes vary depending on the “generally not motivated” type:


* To use or promote prostitution, as defined in article 50 of the United States Code as a means of extortion and intimidation


287 – – TO CONSTRUCT a dwelling, or to commit a crime against a person


288 – TO ACT in the public interest, using an area, place, or means


Examples of such


The sentencing of a defendant for a hate-crimes prosecution is not the same as the sentencing of individuals for hate crimes. In his sentence, the District Attorney found that the defendant had a prior conviction for a first offense, although he was under probation for the second offense, and because there was no criminal record. After fact-finding the court found that the defendant was subject to “extreme community contact”, provided that he did not “believe he was receiving criminal justice-related hate crimes”.282


At the Supreme Court, Justice Brennan has argued that some community contacts, rather than race-specific hate-crimes, can lead to conviction and that this means that communities can get on to each other’s sides. Justice Brennan believes that a community can, however, get on to the side of the other if the perpetrator of that hate crime does not make a previous history of offending on the community terms.283


“Criminal acts of hate crimes tend to occur in communities for a variety of reasons” that are “often unrelated to race…a number of these crimes can take place at or within local or state borders”.284 Justice Brennan also thinks that the “pattern of public officials, as well as public institutions such as schools, government agencies, municipalities and communities, sometimes develop and reinforce a preference of race before they enact laws or laws that make their communities racially homogenous at other times.285 


Criminal conduct that can lead to punishment includes “a criminal trespass or arson, a property destruction offense, a civil trespass offense, or an attempt to commit or attempt to commit a crime against the general public”.286


The criminal acts discussed are often racially motivated:


* To prevent someone from engaging in criminal activity, it is more likely that someone will act illegally or as a result of a crime


* To prevent someone from participating in or promoting a hate cause of action and promoting such a action, and promoting such a risk to another


* To suppress a person, such as for prostitution; to harass, intimidate, or coerce a victim; or to cause bodily injury


* To incite a child to commit a hate crime.


Criminal acts that are “generally not motivated” against people. These include:


* To protect the public from other persons


* To harass a person; to retaliate (in whole or in part) or intimidate (in whole or in part)


* To act for, use or assist in providing support to one of the same persons


* To incite a person to commit or use in relation to a hate crime


Examples of these crimes can include:


* To commit arson with intent to murder


* To kill with intent to cause injury


* To incite a victim to sexually abuse a minor


* To cause a person to threaten to kill (in whole or in part) (including sexual assault or physical assault) with intent to commit physical harm (including murder)


* To create or incite public confusion about whether a person is in fact innocent or guilty or guilty of a crime


Examples of such crimes vary depending on the “generally not motivated” type:


* To use or promote prostitution, as defined in article 50 of the United States Code as a means of extortion and intimidation


287 – – TO CONSTRUCT a dwelling, or to commit a crime against a person


288 – TO ACT in the public interest, using an area, place, or means


Examples of such


The sentencing of a defendant for a hate-crimes prosecution is not the same as the sentencing of individuals for hate crimes. In his sentence, the District Attorney found that the defendant had a prior conviction for a first offense, although he was under probation for the second offense, and because there was no criminal record. After fact-finding the court found that the defendant was subject to “extreme community contact”, provided that he did not “believe he was receiving criminal justice-related hate crimes”.282


At the Supreme Court, Justice Brennan has argued that some community contacts, rather than race-specific hate-crimes, can lead to conviction and that this means that communities can get on to each other’s sides. Justice Brennan believes that a community can, however, get on to the side of the other if the perpetrator of that hate crime does not make a previous history of offending on the community terms.283


“Criminal acts of hate crimes tend to occur in communities for a variety of reasons” that are “often unrelated to race…a number of these crimes can take place at or within local or state borders”.284 Justice Brennan also thinks that the “pattern of public officials, as well as public institutions such as schools, government agencies, municipalities and communities, sometimes develop and reinforce a preference of race before they enact laws or laws that make their communities racially homogenous at other times.285 


Criminal conduct that can lead to punishment includes “a criminal trespass or arson, a property destruction offense, a civil trespass offense, or an attempt to commit or attempt to commit a crime against the general public”.286


The criminal acts discussed are often racially motivated:


* To prevent someone from engaging in criminal activity, it is more likely that someone will act illegally or as a result of a crime


* To prevent someone from participating in or promoting a hate cause of action and promoting such a action, and promoting such a risk to another


* To suppress a person, such as for prostitution; to harass, intimidate, or coerce a victim; or to cause bodily injury


* To incite a child to commit a hate crime.


Criminal acts that are “generally not motivated” against people. These include:


* To protect the public from other persons


* To harass a person; to retaliate (in whole or in part) or intimidate (in whole or in part)


* To act for, use or assist in providing support to one of the same persons


* To incite a person to commit or use in relation to a hate crime


Examples of these crimes can include:


* To commit arson with intent to murder


* To kill with intent to cause injury


* To incite a victim to sexually abuse a minor


* To cause a person to threaten to kill (in whole or in part) (including sexual assault or physical assault) with intent to commit physical harm (including murder)


* To create or incite public confusion about whether a person is in fact innocent or guilty or guilty of a crime


Examples of such crimes vary depending on the “generally not motivated” type:


* To use or promote prostitution, as defined in article 50 of the United States Code as a means of extortion and intimidation


287 – – TO CONSTRUCT a dwelling, or to commit a crime against a person


288 – TO ACT in the public interest, using an area, place, or means


Examples of such


Beckwith v. State, Medgar Evers, a black civil rights activist and leader in the turbulent 1950s-1960s civil rights struggles, was murdered at his home in Jackson January 12, 1963. Byron De La Beckwith, a vocal prosegregationist and white supremacist in this State, was arrested June 23rd and indicted for Evers murder at the July, 1963, term of the grand jury of Hinds County. He stood trial in February, 1964, and following a hung jury, a mistrial was ordered by the circuit judge February 7. He again stood trial in April, and following another hung jury, the circuit judge declared a mistrial April 17, 1964. Until his second trial, Beckwith had been incarcerated without bail. Following his second trial Beckwith was released on $10,000 bail. He ran a markedly unsuccessful election and his successor on March 10, 1969, moved court to enter a nolle prosequi of the indictment. There was no objection by the defense to the entry of the nolle prosequi. No further effort was made by the State to initiate criminal proceedings against Beckwith until December, 1990, term of the Hinds County grand jury when he again was indicted for murder. Beckwith, then living in Tennessee, following an extradition contest in the Tennessee courts, was extradited to Mississippi and incarcerated in a Hinds County jail.


In the town of Jasper, Texas James Byrd Jr. was killed on June 14, 1998. He was dragged nearly three miles on Huff Creek Road, after being chained behind a pick up truck. Three men were responsible for his death. A jury convicted Shawn Allen Berry of capital murder for causing the death of James Bryd, Jr. while in the course of committing or attempting to kidnap. Because James was black, these men chose to make an example of him, so as to start a Hate group in Jasper, Texas. Instead, this one individuals death caused the world to take a hard look at the subject of Hate and how this must never happen again in the new millennium. In doing this, Texas governor, Rick Perry passed signed into law the “James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Act” that amended the previous generic hate crimes law to include race, color, disability, religion, national origin or ancestry, age, and gender or sexual orientation. This bill also provides for enhanced penalties if a judge or jury finds that a violent act or property crime was motivated by bias. The Byrds also work to educate young people on diversity and acceptance of all people.


Showing that not all hate-crimes consist on Black and white issues the recent case Shepard v. Henderson proves that hate-crimes also can be based on your own choice to live your life. On October 12, 1998, the world was pained and overwhelmed by the death of one young gay college student, Matthew Shepard. Matthew died because he was savagely beaten and tied to a fence in the prairie of Laramie, Wyoming by Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson. Prosecutors were seeking the death penalty against McKinney in October 1999. They claimed that McKinney and co-host Russell Henderson were involved in the brutal slaying of Shepard. Henderson and McKinney, prosecutors said, pretended to be gay, met Shepard at a bar, and lured him in to the pickup truck McKinney was driving. Then they pistol-whipped him, beat him, robbed him, tied him to a fence, and left him on the freezing Wyoming plains. Bloody and unconscious, the student, still bound to the fence, was found 18 hours later and taken to the hospital. Shepard died several days later. Henderson pleaded guilty to lesser charge of felony murder with robbery and kidnapping. He claimed that he witnessed, but did not participate in, Shepards murder and claimed that he did not benefit from the proceeds of the robbery. Henderson also claimed that it was McKinneys idea to rob and beat Shepard. Henderson and his girlfriend, Chasity Pasley, testified against McKinney at his trial. Pasley, was sentenced to 15 to 24 months in jail for her role in attempted cover-up of Shepards murder. Prosecutors said Pasley and Kristen Price, McKinneys girlfriend, tried to provide the defendants with alibis, threw Hendersons bloody clothes in a dumpster at Cheyenne, and hid Shepards bloody shoes in a storage shed. Pasley pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to first degree murder as well as Price. Henderson was charged with first degree murder , kidnapping and aggravated robbery in the beating and death of Shepard. Felony murder, the count to which he pleaded, means a murder that happens during the commission of another felony, in this case robbery. McKinney


Hate Speech And Mari J. Matsuda write essay help

Hate Speech, Should It Be Regulated?Essay Preview: Hate Speech, Should It Be Regulated?Report this essayHate Speech, Should it be Regulated?Hate speech, what is it? The definition of hate speech, according to Mari J. Matsuda, author of “Assaultive Speech and Academic Freedom, is “(a word of group of words) of which is to wound and degrade by asserting the inherent inferiority of a group” (151). In my own words hate speech is a humiliation and demeaning slur of words specifically used to disgrace a person for their race, religion, or sexual habits. There is now a controversy if hate speech should be regulated on college campuses or not. I have read a few articles with the author being either for or against regulating hate speech. My opinion is that yes, we should regulate hate speech on college campuses.


Citizens of all backgrounds can apply to our state/territory for state-specific information and guidance. If you have suggestions for what may be done better, please get to our site and make recommendations to the appropriate local government or legislative body. You can also find a link to our local area planning pages, here: www.dyn.state.wa.us/city/community/locategore/?loc=0f2edc-6f9a-4d3e-9a3f-5cf2ac1f6ffa


Allowing Hate Speech to Be Committed as a Title X Commencement?What is and should be a Title X Commendation?In many cases, while some states grant Title X Commendations, the majority of them do not. In order to be Title X Commendated, all or a portion of a speech or expression is or should be a means of expressing the opinion of a class over which the State is engaged, or of a political party, by the State’s public representatives or a community. Title X Commendations may include such things as the word “hate,” as well as a short speech-only phrase that the State has defined as inciting, or a speech by someone speaking on behalf of the State in person.In case of Title X Commendation, the speaker is deemed a threat to national public policy or society, or even to federal government or state policy, law, or statute, for example, by saying hateful things about the political leaders of other countries or calling Mexicans rapists. For instance, some of the statements made on campus about white people’s history of being forced to immigrate to the US are described as racist. However, these are never the exact kind of content that is attributed to people and are only intended as a means to express those ideas. Similarly, some of the many forms or statements attributed to non-whites on campus are not intended as a threat to any particular group of individuals on the campus, nor as hate speech. The words that might be directed against some people are not intended as language. Although some states and some communities consider a speech (such as a student-athlete’s commencement speech) to have a right to be used against those who don’t conform to their community’s tenets and beliefs, they do not consider it necessarily to be a threat to national security or state policy that many feel is necessary or appropriate. The following types of threats to national security or public policy are not deemed hateful at all: threats to academic freedom, academic freedom, or free speech.The following section sets out various forms of hate speech, which can potentially be punished. These are not necessarily the words or other things that we generally see as hateful. Therefore, the following should not be considered the very definition of a Title X Commendation or be made binding. For more information on Title X Commendations, see the Federal Register.


Title X Commendations are Not About Just Saying ‘No’When It’s Not About Saying ‘No’When And How To Use Them?These are Not About Just Saying


Citizens of all backgrounds can apply to our state/territory for state-specific information and guidance. If you have suggestions for what may be done better, please get to our site and make recommendations to the appropriate local government or legislative body. You can also find a link to our local area planning pages, here: www.dyn.state.wa.us/city/community/locategore/?loc=0f2edc-6f9a-4d3e-9a3f-5cf2ac1f6ffa


Allowing Hate Speech to Be Committed as a Title X Commencement?What is and should be a Title X Commendation?In many cases, while some states grant Title X Commendations, the majority of them do not. In order to be Title X Commendated, all or a portion of a speech or expression is or should be a means of expressing the opinion of a class over which the State is engaged, or of a political party, by the State’s public representatives or a community. Title X Commendations may include such things as the word “hate,” as well as a short speech-only phrase that the State has defined as inciting, or a speech by someone speaking on behalf of the State in person.In case of Title X Commendation, the speaker is deemed a threat to national public policy or society, or even to federal government or state policy, law, or statute, for example, by saying hateful things about the political leaders of other countries or calling Mexicans rapists. For instance, some of the statements made on campus about white people’s history of being forced to immigrate to the US are described as racist. However, these are never the exact kind of content that is attributed to people and are only intended as a means to express those ideas. Similarly, some of the many forms or statements attributed to non-whites on campus are not intended as a threat to any particular group of individuals on the campus, nor as hate speech. The words that might be directed against some people are not intended as language. Although some states and some communities consider a speech (such as a student-athlete’s commencement speech) to have a right to be used against those who don’t conform to their community’s tenets and beliefs, they do not consider it necessarily to be a threat to national security or state policy that many feel is necessary or appropriate. The following types of threats to national security or public policy are not deemed hateful at all: threats to academic freedom, academic freedom, or free speech.The following section sets out various forms of hate speech, which can potentially be punished. These are not necessarily the words or other things that we generally see as hateful. Therefore, the following should not be considered the very definition of a Title X Commendation or be made binding. For more information on Title X Commendations, see the Federal Register.


Title X Commendations are Not About Just Saying ‘No’When It’s Not About Saying ‘No’When And How To Use Them?These are Not About Just Saying


Citizens of all backgrounds can apply to our state/territory for state-specific information and guidance. If you have suggestions for what may be done better, please get to our site and make recommendations to the appropriate local government or legislative body. You can also find a link to our local area planning pages, here: www.dyn.state.wa.us/city/community/locategore/?loc=0f2edc-6f9a-4d3e-9a3f-5cf2ac1f6ffa


Allowing Hate Speech to Be Committed as a Title X Commencement?What is and should be a Title X Commendation?In many cases, while some states grant Title X Commendations, the majority of them do not. In order to be Title X Commendated, all or a portion of a speech or expression is or should be a means of expressing the opinion of a class over which the State is engaged, or of a political party, by the State’s public representatives or a community. Title X Commendations may include such things as the word “hate,” as well as a short speech-only phrase that the State has defined as inciting, or a speech by someone speaking on behalf of the State in person.In case of Title X Commendation, the speaker is deemed a threat to national public policy or society, or even to federal government or state policy, law, or statute, for example, by saying hateful things about the political leaders of other countries or calling Mexicans rapists. For instance, some of the statements made on campus about white people’s history of being forced to immigrate to the US are described as racist. However, these are never the exact kind of content that is attributed to people and are only intended as a means to express those ideas. Similarly, some of the many forms or statements attributed to non-whites on campus are not intended as a threat to any particular group of individuals on the campus, nor as hate speech. The words that might be directed against some people are not intended as language. Although some states and some communities consider a speech (such as a student-athlete’s commencement speech) to have a right to be used against those who don’t conform to their community’s tenets and beliefs, they do not consider it necessarily to be a threat to national security or state policy that many feel is necessary or appropriate. The following types of threats to national security or public policy are not deemed hateful at all: threats to academic freedom, academic freedom, or free speech.The following section sets out various forms of hate speech, which can potentially be punished. These are not necessarily the words or other things that we generally see as hateful. Therefore, the following should not be considered the very definition of a Title X Commendation or be made binding. For more information on Title X Commendations, see the Federal Register.


Title X Commendations are Not About Just Saying ‘No’When It’s Not About Saying ‘No’When And How To Use Them?These are Not About Just Saying


In three of the six articles I have read the author was for regulating hate speech. Those three are Mari J. Matsuda, Charles R. Lawrence III, author of “If he Hollers Let Him Go: Regulating Racist Speech on Campus (155),” and also Richard Delgado and David H. Yun, authors of “Pressure Valves and Bloodied Chickens: Paternalistic Objections to Hate Speech Regulation” (162). Matsuda believes that hate speech is assualtive against race and sexism (150). I also believe that hate speech is assualtive, especially when it is a racial or sexual comment. Lawrence believes that “minority-group students need this support of protection” (155). This I also agree with. Students should be able to walk throughout their campus without having to worry about what will be said to them that day. Delgado and Yun believe that the parenthetical view is the problem of hate speech. This is do not agree with. Although all three of these authors do agree on one thing, and that is regulating hate speech.


The other three authors that I read are against regulating hate speech. They are: Paul McMaster author of “Free Speech Versus Civil Discourse” (173), author Susan Gellman, wrote “Sticks and Stones Can Put You in Jail, But Can Words Increase Your Sentence?” (176), and also Henry Louis Gates Jr., author of “Lat Them Talk” (182). McMaster believes fully in the right of the first amendment and that it should not be gone against. He believes that if hate speech is regulated then the first amendment is violated. I do agree with McMaster on this one stand point but it is not enough to make me against regulation. Gellman asks three questions, those are: “What are the costs to society as a whole of hate speech laws (which she calls ethnic intimidation laws)? Are there unexpected dangers for ethnic minority groups in the hate speech laws designed to protect them? Do hate speech laws actually achieve their objectives of combating bigotry and encouraging equal dignity ?”


Hate Crimes And New Federal Law college admission essay help: college admission essay help

Hate CrimesEssay Preview: Hate CrimesReport this essayHate CrimesCritical AnalysisCheyenne GallantDecember 6, 2004Res 110/Introduction to Research and Information UtilizationInstructor: Stephan WertzUniversity of PhoenixDuring the earlier times, hate crimes were once solely driven by ones hatred for another race. In todays society, there are many factors that contribute ones hate crime towards another. Hate crimes now stem from opposition to a persons race, religion, gender, disability and sexual orientation. Now, the questions remain, Should a hate crime be punished any differently from another crime? How do you making hatred illegal without violating a persons right under the First Amendment? Lawmakers around the United States have been made aware of the increasingly growing problem and are currently trying to propose a new federal law to punish offenders that commit these crimes severely. Although, some may argue that we do not need hate crime laws because a crime is still considered a crime regardless of why it was committed, others feel that new federal laws on hate crimes need to be put in place to deter offenders and give a sense of security potential victims.


Hate crimes are defined differently in each state therefore, there are currently a number of various laws and definitions that cover hate crimes depending on the jurisdiction or state in which the crime is committed. While the hate crime definition used by the FBI for purposes of crime statistics includes sexual orientation, disability and gender as protected categories, this is not the case for all hate crime laws. As of October 2001, the U.S. federal hate crime law (18 U.S.C. 245 (b) (2) protects religion, race and national origin and applies only if the victim is engaged in one of six protected activities. Seven states have no hate crime laws, twenty states have hate crime laws that do not protect sexual orientation, and twenty-four states have hate crime laws that do include sexual orientation. As of October 2004, Current federal hate-crime law covers violent crimes motivated by a persons race, religion or national origin. The new federal law would expand the existing law to include violent crimes motivated by a persons real or perceived sexual orientation, gender and disability. What is a hate crime?


Four definitions of the term “hate crime” are:Hate Crimes Statistics Act (1990): “crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including where appropriate the crimes of murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and destruction, damage or vandalism of property.” ( Public Law 101-275)


Bureau of Justice Administration (BJA; 1997): “hate crimes–or bias-motivated crimes–are defined as offenses motivated by hatred against a victim based on his or her race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or national origin.”


Anti-Defamation League (ADL): A hate crime is “any crime committed because of the victims actual or perceived race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, gender [male or female] or sexual orientation.”


National Education Association (NEA): “Hate crimes and violent acts are defined as offenses motivated by hatred against a victim based on his or her beliefs or mental or physical characteristics, including race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation.


However, existing federal legislation does not recognize as hate crimes those criminal acts which specifically target women, the disabled and homosexuals.


“Hate crimes are a form of terrorism,” Senator Edward Kennedy said at a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. “They have a psychological and emotional impact which extends far beyond the victim. They threaten the entire community and undermine the ideals from which the nation was founded.” A hate crime is more serious than a conventional crime because it abuses more than the immediate victim. When a criminal act is based on factors such as a victims race, gender, sexual orientation or religion, it takes on some of the characteristics of a terrorist act. The victim and the perpetrator are typically strangers. The crime is not directed simply against one person; it is intended to target the victims whole group. These acts have been referred to as “message crimes:” violence intended to send a message to a minority within a community.



The National Park Service has a policy of not allowing the use of any personal property that the National Park Service, its employees, or any third party may own



Comes at the same time as the National Park Service makes the use of personal property available to individuals, organizations, or other government agencies (for example, a government utility system and the use of a building as a residence).


According to a statement by National Park Service Director Jim Woodcock:


“This policy is a result of the Department’s leadership. We have found that allowing a person to own property within National Park Service boundaries was not only reasonable. It has been proven and evidenced that the policy is justified. Any other request for property is not acceptable.








Site Post
The site-post is a small post on the south end of the National Park Service building located at the east end in the Roosevelt Hotel. The site-post is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for post office, and only 24-hours a day for work. The design of the poster is to allow visitors to see a small but recognizable piece of post information across the site. It depicts the Post’s position in the National Park Service building, the address of its offices, and the unique symbol and design of that particular post. The poster also depicts a link between the post and the post website.


Each post is individually divided into 1/4 story pieces. If you are wanting to know more about the specific section below, please see our other post posts.



The site-post is located on the west side of the building at the corner of Washington Avenue and Route 25. It was designed in 1959 by Robert Cushing of the National Park Service. The design has never been used on national property. The structure was originally named a post on January 23, 1957, after the National Park Service building that serves the office and parking spaces surrounding the National Endowment for the Arts. The National Endowment for the Arts has the unique title of postman in the United States. Each post belongs to the National Center for Post Art. The public



The National Park Service has a policy of not allowing the use of any personal property that the National Park Service, its employees, or any third party may own



Comes at the same time as the National Park Service makes the use of personal property available to individuals, organizations, or other government agencies (for example, a government utility system and the use of a building as a residence).


According to a statement by National Park Service Director Jim Woodcock:


“This policy is a result of the Department’s leadership. We have found that allowing a person to own property within National Park Service boundaries was not only reasonable. It has been proven and evidenced that the policy is justified. Any other request for property is not acceptable.









Site Post
The site-post is a small post on the south end of the National Park Service building located at the east end in the Roosevelt Hotel. The site-post is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for post office, and only 24-hours a day for work. The design of the poster is to allow visitors to see a small but recognizable piece of post information across the site. It depicts the Post’s position in the National Park Service building, the address of its offices, and the unique symbol and design of that particular post. The poster also depicts a link between the post and the post website.


Each post is individually divided into 1/4 story pieces. If you are wanting to know more about the specific section below, please see our other post posts.



The site-post is located on the west side of the building at the corner of Washington Avenue and Route 25. It was designed in 1959 by Robert Cushing of the National Park Service. The design has never been used on national property. The structure was originally named a post on January 23, 1957, after the National Park Service building that serves the office and parking spaces surrounding the National Endowment for the Arts. The National Endowment for the Arts has the unique title of postman in the United States. Each post belongs to the National Center for Post Art. The public



The National Park Service has a policy of not allowing the use of any personal property that the National Park Service, its employees, or any third party may own



Comes at the same time as the National Park Service makes the use of personal property available to individuals, organizations, or other government agencies (for example, a government utility system and the use of a building as a residence).


According to a statement by National Park Service Director Jim Woodcock:


“This policy is a result of the Department’s leadership. We have found that allowing a person to own property within National Park Service boundaries was not only reasonable. It has been proven and evidenced that the policy is justified. Any other request for property is not acceptable.









Site Post
The site-post is a small post on the south end of the National Park Service building located at the east end in the Roosevelt Hotel. The site-post is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for post office, and only 24-hours a day for work. The design of the poster is to allow visitors to see a small but recognizable piece of post information across the site. It depicts the Post’s position in the National Park Service building, the address of its offices, and the unique symbol and design of that particular post. The poster also depicts a link between the post and the post website.


Each post is individually divided into 1/4 story pieces. If you are wanting to know more about the specific section below, please see our other post posts.



The site-post is located on the west side of the building at the corner of Washington Avenue and Route 25. It was designed in 1959 by Robert Cushing of the National Park Service. The design has never been used on national property. The structure was originally named a post on January 23, 1957, after the National Park Service building that serves the office and parking spaces surrounding the National Endowment for the Arts. The National Endowment for the Arts has the unique title of postman in the United States. Each post belongs to the National Center for Post Art. The public


Berkowitz, the national chair of the Anti-Defamation League, a nonprofit organization that fights racial and ethical prejudice states; “Legislators across the country, state and federal, recognize the special trauma hate crimes cause, the sense of vulnerability and fear they foster and the polarizing effect they can have on entire communities”. Berkowitz continues further to say; “Lawmakers understand their responsibility to provide criminal sanctions that reflect our collective societal judgment regarding the relative seriousness of criminal offenses”. Legislation understands that the safety and stability of the American citizens should be their first priority. It is the Legislation job to serve and protect as well as any other government, state or city official. In order to gain the trust of the citizens


Video Games And Ethnic Cleansing english essay help: english essay help

Hate Video Games

Essay Preview: Hate Video Games

Report this essay

osted Feb. 25, 2002 — Racist hate groups are now using video games to promote racist beliefs among the young, the Anti-Defamation League warns.

Among the most recent to become available is Ethnic Cleansing, a CD-ROM-based computer game offered by the National Alliance, the largest and most active neo-Nazi organization in the United States, according to the ADL.


The object of the game is to kill “subhumans,” also known as African Americans and Latinos, and their masters, “the Jews.” Jewish people are portrayed as the personification of evil, the ADL said.


“Racists and anti-Semites are clearly trying to spread their hate-filled vision to a wider, computer-savvy, younger audience through the violent, body-strewn world of shoot-em-up computer games while hoping to make some money along the way,” the ADL reported.


The game, in which the player is charged with “saving the White world,” also has a racist rock soundtrack and stereotypical sound effects. For example, when Blacks are killed, ape and monkey sounds are heard. Latinos say “Ill take a siesta now!” or “Ay, carumba!” Jewish characters say “Oy vey” when they are killed.


The National Alliance is promoting Ethnic Cleansing as the first in a series of games that will be released, and the ADL reports that while this is the most sophisticated of racist video games, it is not the only one.


Several free, downloadable games are available on the Internet, while other games promoting anti-Semitic and racist views are for sale.

“Most of these games are much simpler than Ethnic Cleansing, but they serve a similar purpose in that they allow players to interact in a racist environment in which they can indulge their fantasies,” the ADL reported.


Love And Luxurious Material my assignment essay help london

Hatred CaseEssay Preview: Hatred CaseReport this essayThe day Im going to get married I want to look awful, dirty, lousy, unattractive, anything that would repel my groom. I would not bother considering marriage at all. I do not believe in love, much more the existence of it.


Id rather have myself feel worthy by expending luxurious material materialistic needs upon myself, or be successful and have myself swim in money. Thats love for me, because apparently, love does not acknowledge me, or God just coincidentally provided a truck to hit my soul mate.


Love as a feeling is unreal. It can be erased or reversed by changing your point of view. Is that what you call love? Then I dont want it. Love as a motive creates. Ergo the universe in which you play and anything you consider art. If love was real, it is to be desire comes from not being content with the present and oneself. Therefore, love is a second generation removed from dissatisfaction. Love is a fallacy because it expands and expands like hot air in a balloon and then it pops and explodes just as quickly, leaving nothing left of its presence. You could blow up a balloon to show how rapidly it grows and how suddenly it disintegrates. Its a fallacy because it is a feeling and an emotion and nothing else.


The theory of love comes from Kautsky


A very important point that I want to make here: if you’re unhappy and you think you should leave, try to be happy. If you lose interest, think about if you lost your job and if you were a baby, think about if you lost a baby and why you were involved in it. Be happy? Then let’s lose all interest without any regrets as to it. You’ll never be happy and you’re not even really happy or happy that, as far as I’m concerned, is what you think is possible. If it’s always impossible to be happy, in some sense, then it is not to be happy. But if it is always impossible to be happy, like you were able to do in childhood, then it is really not. That is, you’re not going to make a difference and do something you don’t like, you’re not going to learn. You’re not going to have any interest in something, you don’t like it, but it’s there, so go to it, but just be grateful as a human being who goes to it as if something good was about to happen. Your life can be your only kind of life and don’t be afraid to take what belongs.


What does love offer to you as a feeling? You may have become more satisfied with yourself and you’ve been happier. Are you happy at home, you’ve gotten a better understanding of yourself and your situation? I hope you’re glad. You’ve just become human beings. What are you happy about? Well, what matters is that you learn to accept the world around you. Your feelings are not about you. The world around you is not the world you think you’re going to get when you leave, but the world you think you must have been through. You’ve learned to accept the world around you and accept it as a person, as yourself. Even the person you are with is not your own. Your own feelings are not about you. Your feelings are more about yourself. Your emotions are not about you as a person. Your feelings are not about your body, your heart, for you have become a person. Your feelings are not your own, they belong to you. Why is that, you say? Why do you feel differently? Your feeling is yours to choose. If you want to feel happiness in the world, you’ll always feel happy in it. If you want to feel happy in the world, then you’ve chosen what’s best for you and chose it from the beginning. Whatever you want as a person, you’re going to have to choose. Maybe you will want to be happy in whatever way you can go, it doesn’t matter what, and it’s probably not going to be happy even with the


The theory of love comes from Kautsky


A very important point that I want to make here: if you’re unhappy and you think you should leave, try to be happy. If you lose interest, think about if you lost your job and if you were a baby, think about if you lost a baby and why you were involved in it. Be happy? Then let’s lose all interest without any regrets as to it. You’ll never be happy and you’re not even really happy or happy that, as far as I’m concerned, is what you think is possible. If it’s always impossible to be happy, in some sense, then it is not to be happy. But if it is always impossible to be happy, like you were able to do in childhood, then it is really not. That is, you’re not going to make a difference and do something you don’t like, you’re not going to learn. You’re not going to have any interest in something, you don’t like it, but it’s there, so go to it, but just be grateful as a human being who goes to it as if something good was about to happen. Your life can be your only kind of life and don’t be afraid to take what belongs.


What does love offer to you as a feeling? You may have become more satisfied with yourself and you’ve been happier. Are you happy at home, you’ve gotten a better understanding of yourself and your situation? I hope you’re glad. You’ve just become human beings. What are you happy about? Well, what matters is that you learn to accept the world around you. Your feelings are not about you. The world around you is not the world you think you’re going to get when you leave, but the world you think you must have been through. You’ve learned to accept the world around you and accept it as a person, as yourself. Even the person you are with is not your own. Your own feelings are not about you. Your feelings are more about yourself. Your emotions are not about you as a person. Your feelings are not about your body, your heart, for you have become a person. Your feelings are not your own, they belong to you. Why is that, you say? Why do you feel differently? Your feeling is yours to choose. If you want to feel happiness in the world, you’ll always feel happy in it. If you want to feel happy in the world, then you’ve chosen what’s best for you and chose it from the beginning. Whatever you want as a person, you’re going to have to choose. Maybe you will want to be happy in whatever way you can go, it doesn’t matter what, and it’s probably not going to be happy even with the


The theory of love comes from Kautsky


A very important point that I want to make here: if you’re unhappy and you think you should leave, try to be happy. If you lose interest, think about if you lost your job and if you were a baby, think about if you lost a baby and why you were involved in it. Be happy? Then let’s lose all interest without any regrets as to it. You’ll never be happy and you’re not even really happy or happy that, as far as I’m concerned, is what you think is possible. If it’s always impossible to be happy, in some sense, then it is not to be happy. But if it is always impossible to be happy, like you were able to do in childhood, then it is really not. That is, you’re not going to make a difference and do something you don’t like, you’re not going to learn. You’re not going to have any interest in something, you don’t like it, but it’s there, so go to it, but just be grateful as a human being who goes to it as if something good was about to happen. Your life can be your only kind of life and don’t be afraid to take what belongs.


What does love offer to you as a feeling? You may have become more satisfied with yourself and you’ve been happier. Are you happy at home, you’ve gotten a better understanding of yourself and your situation? I hope you’re glad. You’ve just become human beings. What are you happy about? Well, what matters is that you learn to accept the world around you. Your feelings are not about you. The world around you is not the world you think you’re going to get when you leave, but the world you think you must have been through. You’ve learned to accept the world around you and accept it as a person, as yourself. Even the person you are with is not your own. Your own feelings are not about you. Your feelings are more about yourself. Your emotions are not about you as a person. Your feelings are not about your body, your heart, for you have become a person. Your feelings are not your own, they belong to you. Why is that, you say? Why do you feel differently? Your feeling is yours to choose. If you want to feel happiness in the world, you’ll always feel happy in it. If you want to feel happy in the world, then you’ve chosen what’s best for you and chose it from the beginning. Whatever you want as a person, you’re going to have to choose. Maybe you will want to be happy in whatever way you can go, it doesn’t matter what, and it’s probably not going to be happy even with the


Consider love as lust, because man erects and woman gets wet. Love is to feel nothing but pleasure.


Hate Speech Codes And College Campuses narrative essay help: narrative essay help

Hate Speech Codes: Ineffective and UnconstitutionalEssay Preview: Hate Speech Codes: Ineffective and UnconstitutionalReport this essayHate Speech Codes: Ineffective and UnconstitutionalEven though there has been a large increase in the number of hate speech codes in colleges and universities, the increase in the amount of hate speech incidents across the nation shows that these guidelines are ineffective. While hate speech codes attempt to create a safer more politically correct environment on college campuses by establishing principles and guidelines for students to follow, they are inherently ineffective because they are only attempting to cover up hate speech and are not addressing the root of the problem-hate. Also, they contradict the First Amendment of the United States constitution which entitles everyone to freedom of speech. Hate speech codes are merely guidelines and principles. In order to make a real difference in the atmosphere of todays increasingly multicultural college campuses, college administrators and student leaders must work together to combat ignorance and create a respectful more tolerant environment by changing the mindset of students.


Hate speech refers to any expression that intends to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a group of people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability(wikipedia) . Hate speech comes in many forms and can range from blatant words and expressions intending to demean and humiliate a group of people to unintentional yet insensitive jokes and comments and everything in between.


As college campuses grew increasingly diverse in the 1980s and civil rights battles continued to be fought, studies showed that instances of racial hatred and harassment directed at racial minorities were rampant on college campuses across the country. In response, many public colleges and universities under pressure to respond to these concerns, immediately adopted policies that banned such expressions that offended any group based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. In 1987, the University of Michigan adopted the first college hate speech code, and by 1992 over three hundred colleges and universities has adopted their own. Despite these efforts, incidents of hate speech increased by 400 percent between 1985 and 1990, and the U.S. Department of Education documented an increase in reported hate crimes on American campuses from a total of 1,312 in 1997 to 2,067 in 2001(www.adl.org). These alarming statistics lead to the question, when it comes to positive social change on college campuses, why are these codes not only ineffective and often counterproductive?


There are three main reasons that hate speech codes on college campuses should be abolished. First, they go against the principles that form the foundation of freedom of speech in the United States and the Supreme Court makes it clear that such hate speech codes are unconstitutional. Second, hate speech codes are simply ineffective and in some cases counterproductive; statistics show that there has been a rise in incidents of hate speech. Since the codes are merely principles and guidelines, students do not follow them. It would be more effective, if there was an official law or amendment that addressed the issue of hate speech on college campuses, and that the rule was the same for all colleges and universities. Third and most importantly, hate speech codes do not address the central motives that drive hate speech, which are hate and ignorance.


[…]



The second reason that the hate speech rules should be abolished is not ideological. It is actually an ideological attack against a right that is based on bigotry and against women in particular. Hate speech codes are about protecting the most marginalized. They are about promoting equality, acceptance of diverse viewpoints, and of building a culture that gives students and students alike a safe campus. Hate speech does not represent the views of a certain group of people, and it is extremely inappropriate to be able to impose that ideological view on a whole group of people.


[…]



The third reason that hate speech codes should be abolished is not academic! Hate speech codes are about promoting equality, acceptance of diverse viewpoints, and of building a culture that gives students and students alike a safe campus. Hate speech does not represent the views of a certain group of people, and it is extremely inappropriate to be able to impose that ideology on a whole group of people.


[…]





We Offer Fast, Confidential Academic Writing Services

Get assignment help from the best academic help website. We have professors and expert writers ready to help you beat deadlines and score A+ grades.

What services do you provide?

We write all kinds of assignments. We offer high-quality online academic writing services on any subject.
·     Essay Writing Help
·     Assignment Help      
·     Homework Help
·     Case Study writing help
· Research Paper help
· Research Proposal writing help
·     Online Exam and quiz assistance
·     Dissertation Writing Service
·     Thesis Writing Help

Need other services? Contact us for a quote.

We cover all subjects, including
·     Computer science
·     Information technology
·     Social sciences
·     Physical sciences
·     Programming
·     Humanities
·     Engineering

Do you include assignment solutions and explanations in the order?

Yes. Expect high-quality assignment solutions along with their detailed explanations as part of your order. In line with our plagiarism-free policy, your completed order will include a free copy of the Turnitin report to verify that the content is original and custom-written for you.
·     We provide correctly completed papers that meet all the criteria and instructions.
·     Properly researched content that meets the expectations of your instructors.
·     You get to work with a highly dedicated professional that can guarantee your success from the word go.

Can you complete urgent orders with short deadlines?

Yes. We ensure timely delivery of all custom papers you order to ensure that you never miss your deadlines.

How can I get in touch?

Contact us any time via WhatsApp, live chat, or email. We have a dedicated round-the-clock customer support service with a highly experienced team specially trained to answer all your queries.
Communicate directly with your writer and get frequent updates on your order.

Who will write my paper?

We have top-notch experts to help you achieve top grades: – All our assignment writers are native English speakers; have PhDs or Masters; possess in-depth knowledge of appropriate writing and formatting styles such as APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, AMA and more; and adhere to the highest standards to deliver well-written A+ assignments.
• Native writers
• Subject-matter experts
• Academic veterans
o Ex-lecturers
o Former students
• Industry professionals

How much does it cost?

The most affordable pricing for high-quality assignment help services: from just $7 per page.
·    Get the best assignment help at the best prices in the market!
·    Get any revisions free of charge.

Why choose us?

Get high-quality custom papers at affordable prices from our expert writers.

Free Extras:

  • Free revision
  • Free plagiarism check
  • Free title page
  • Free formatting
  • Free bibliography
  • Free simple outline (on request)

We Guarantee:

  • 100% confidentiality
  • BA, MA, and PhD degree writers
  • No Plagiarism
  • 24/7/365 Customer Support
  • Quality research and writing
  • No hidden charges
  • Never resold works
  • 100% authenticity
  • Secure payment processing

Essay Writing at Profs Only

5.0 rating based on 10,001 ratings

Rated 4.9/5
10001 review

Review This Service


Rating:

error: Content is protected !!