1. First summarize the information presented in that box (NOTE: your response should include a discussion of the pros and cons of hate-crime legislation).
2. Discuss where you stand on the issue (i.e., do you support sentencing enhancement penalties for hate crimes, why or why not
3. Lastly, close by giving your personal commentary on the Jussie Smollett case; what was his sentence and do you think it was fair; why or why not; what sentence would you have imposed? (I have included a link to the story for those who are unfamiliar with his crime and his sentence). https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/10/us/jussie-smollett-sentencing-trial/index.htmlLinks to an external site

I have included the article

The Controversy over Hate-Crime Legislation

Hate speech typically involves actual speech or writing that expresses hostility to a group, and it may also include symbolic speech such as burning a cross. In R.A.V. v. St. Paul (507 U.S. 377 [1992]), the Supreme Court decided to invalidate a law making it a crime to display objects such as a burning cross that "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender." In addition to other problems with the ordinance, the majority of the court found it was an impermissible regulation on the content of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. On the other hand, in a subsequent case, Virginia v. Black (538 U.S. 343 [2003]), the court modified its position somewhat by upholding a Virginia law prohibiting the burning of crosses where it was done with an attempt to intimidate.

Sentencing enhancement laws for bias- motivated crimes, by contrast, go much further than merely prohibiting hate speech or symbolism, by adding additional penalties to personal or property crimes because of the bias or hate shown in victim selection. For example, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld sentencing enhancement for bias-motivated assaults in Wisconsin v. Mitchell (508 U.S. 476 [1993]). In that case, Todd Mitchell, a black teenager, had been watching the civil rights film Mississippi Burning with friends. When they were outside later, the group saw a young white boy, and Mitchell asked the group whether they felt "hyped up to move on some white people." He added, "You all want to fuck somebody up? There goes a white boy; go get him" (quoted in State v. Mitchell [485 NW2d 807, 809, 1992]). The court held that the Wisconsin statute was not aimed at punishing protected speech or expression and that motive could be a consideration of the sentencing judge. Likewise, previous speech and utterances by defendants are frequently admitted into evidence in court to establish motive.

Interestingly, those who oppose sentencing enhancement penalties for hate crime do so, among other reasons, because "crimes against some type of victims will incur greater penalties, with this injustice spurring resentment" (Cockburn 2009: 9), the point being that such lawsbased on a victim's actual or perceived race, color, religion, and national originvalue some victims over other victims, creating disparate or unequal treatment of victims. But much current law punishes bias against the majority as well as the minority (antiwhite and antiblack, anti-Christian as well as anti-Muslim). Valuing other victims thus could mean expanding the types of bias that result in punishment. Indeed, the 2009 Matthew Shepard Act, which was signed into law by President Obama, was controversial because it added federal penalties for bias-motivated crimes based on the victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. (Although the FBI collects data on some of the categories based on state law offenses, federal law had no provisions to enhance penalties for these types of bias-motivated crimes before the 2009 act.)

Opponents also argue that these types of laws create thought crimes. The difference between a regular assault and a bias-motivated one is the perpetrator's thoughts about some characteristic of the victim. Instead of creating new categories of crime, opponents maintain that "federal and state hate crime laws are unnecessary and dangerous" because the object of criminal adjudication should be "to apply existing laws in a manner that constitutes justice, no matter who the victim may be" (Cockburn 2009: 9). In contrast, the Supreme Court in Mitchell found that the state provided an adequate basis for singling out bias crimes for enhanced penalties because they are "more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest" (508 U.S. 476 [1993]).