Final paper due 12/13/20
For this paper, you will be required to identify a case and prepare a position paper.
Introduction (of your main element)
o State your thesis (topic and opinion you have chosen)
o Introduce main points of argument
• Body (Support for your position, containing evidence and examples)
o Assignment Help – Summarize the opposing viewpoint
o Address all sides of the issue
o Detail your position on the issue
o Get custom essay samples and course-specific study resources via course hero homework for you service – Include evidence for key points that support your position
• Conclusion (Closing statement)
o Restate your thesis
o Summation of key points
Prompt The purpose of a position paper is to identify an issue, your position, and rationale for that position in order to convince your audience that your opinion is valid.
Your paper should include:
• Objective views for and against your position—not a descriptive or opinion paper! (analysis)
• Statements that define the major issue as well as arguments and counterarguments that support your position (background). Get custom essay samples and course-specific study resources via course hero homework for you service – Include information on the major points of the cases (differences and similarities), who the victims were, which victim state or federal rights were crucial in these cases, victim services that were involved, and any related crime theory and victim typology.
• Premise and thesis. Your paper should have a premise on which you have based your thesis. Personal statement written in third person (per Ace homework tutors – APA) concerning the position and the issue
• Statement of the importance of the issue to society (real-world). What were the implications of these court decisions on society as a whole?
HATE CRIME
Name:
Professor:
Institutional Affiliation:
Hate crime is defined as any type of a criminal offence that is perceived by the involved victims to the motivation of not only the prejudice or hostility on other people’s race, sexual orientation or religion. This is an implication that hate crime encompasses a series of issues, namely, race, religion class and sexual orientation. Ranging from physical assault to verbal abuse to incitement to hatred, hate crime occurs in a series of ways hence making it an important element in the Hate Crime. Contextually, the paper has identified the case of Maine Man that was sentenced at the Federal Court because of hate crime convictions. Maurice Diggins, 36, old a resident of Biddeford, Maine was arraigned in court for the charges of racially motivated assaults against an African-American man in Maine. Citing the Hate crimes committed, Diggins was sentenced ten years in jail in federal prison. This is agreeable and acceptable as far as the understanding of crime prevalence in the US is in question. With the need to position me and side with the judge because of the conviction and sentence, the paper will analyze why the ruling by the judge was of high calibre and understanding when it comes to dealing with hate crimes.
The main points of arguments the agreement to the judgement is grounded on the fact that the plaintiff’s attorney and the ruling. Mr Diggins’ act was not only cowardly done but also racially motivated of which he attacked an un-armed black man who was walking beside the road (Katz, 2017). Based on the highlighted hate crimes above, it touches on the three elements to classify it as a hate crime as it depicts the verbal abuse to the black man, physical assault when he punches the black man and the incitement to hatred because of the racial slur that he put across to satisfy his ego as far racial profiling is concerned.
The Opposing viewpoint as pointed out by the Defendants (Diggins and Dusty Leo) did not understand that the racial slur is a verbal abuse to any human being, but they argued that they did not understand. This is an implication that ignorance did get the better of them to think that it could not be realized or appreciated and thus making the judge take such kind of a bold step to convict them (IACP, (n.d). Secondly, the defendants claim that this was not the physical assault of which it is so much absurd to think about it. This is based on the fact that the by breaking the jaw of an innocent man on the pavement is correctly an assault because the punch on the jaw led to them having broken and also having some kind of injuries which has caused a lot of suffering to the victims and families.
Moreover, the defendants claimed that this was not an “Incitement to hatred” when it comes to the community concern. Arguing before the prosecutors, Mr Diggins and his Nephew pointed out that they did not mean to provoke other public members to hate others and creating divisions. They pressed that by them giving racial slurs were not meant to ignite racial division in Maine but rather to focus on the man alone. This is totally unacceptable in the land of the free and home of the brave (Katz, 2017). This is an implication that they are focused on the race rather than the act. Seeing a black man on the streets rings a bell in Diggins, and his Nephew that the man is armed is not okay when it comes to the expression of thoughts and perception.
Arguably, the 10-year sentence given to Mr Diggins and his Nephew is one of its kind and should be incorporated to many across the globe. As deduced from the prosecutors’, “The attacks” by Mr Diggins to the black man was “Vicious” which is an implication that it has inflicted harm to the victim who has to be repaired through Prosecution and serving sentence. Consequently, the defendant has caused physical damages and trauma to the victim and his family. According to the prosecutors, the victims of the hate crime suffered a lot when it comes to injuries (Human Rights Campaign, (n.d). This is because their jaws were broken, and the victim could not even care for his daughter over several weeks. Thus, like a physical assault, I would propose that the decision to prosecute the person committing the crime deserve that even though they pleaded for a 7-year sentence.
Furthermore, this is a verbal abuse crime which is racially motivated to undermine the existence of another racial group in the United States. The racial slur is not only archaic but also uncivilized kind of gesture that has to be taken into consideration at all times. Asking for the defence when you have abused someone, and there is tangible evidence does not make one innocent but a culprit that has to be reprimanded (IACP. (n.d). This is to be made through the Prosecution and sentencing which the federal court at Maine did and served the defendant with what he deserved. Through Prosecution and sentencing, it does deter other people who have the same intention not to do such kind of a thing in the future.
Based on the evidence provided at the trial, Diggings and Dusty Leo, his nephew di commit a racially motivated assault not only in Biddeford but also in Portland, Oregon which implies that they were used to committing hate crimes and getting away with it (Katz, 2017). Based on the hate crime laws, any racially motivate assault has to be prosecuted because it does not only lead to provocation but also a low-level of thinking and coexistence in the US soil. With little provocation and causing injuries; breaking jaws and igniting hatred among the community members gives the defendants the ticket to conviction.
In summary, Hate crime just like any other federal offence one has to be able to focus on not only the physical assault, verbal abuse and the incitement to hatred, has to be dealt with accordingly. Based on the case of Diggins and his Nephew of racially abuse an armed black man in Maine and also committing another racially motivated crime in Portland, Oregon, has no place in the American Federal Courts. Thus, the 10-year sentence is well-served, and it is the way to go when it comes to hate crimes in America.
References
Maine Man Sentenced for Federal Hate Crime Convictions. (2020, October 27). Retrieved December 08, 2020, from https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/maine-man-sentenced-federal-hate-crime-convictions
Katz, R. (2017, April 10). Hate Crime Law Results in Few Convictions and Lots of Disappointment. Retrieved December 08, 2020, from https://www.propublica.org/article/hate-crime-law-results-in-few-convictions-and-lots-of-disappointment
IACP. (n.d). Hate Crime in America Policy Summit. Retrieved December 08, 2020, from https://www.theiacp.org/resources/hate-crime-in-america-policy-summit
Human Rights Campaign. (n.d). Fax HATE CRIMES. Retrieved December 8, 2020, from http://faculty.uml.edu/jyurcak/44.326/CLASSES/Hate%20crime%20chronology.pdf
