Essay Example: Crime or Deviant Behavior

In the past decades, there have been several ranging debates whole over the country trying to figure out whether hate crime laws are constitutional or not. These debates have, however, failed to provide convincing explanations on whether hate crimes usually contain the elements of a crime or are just deviant behaviors that we have made a crime. Hate crime is a crime which in this case, the defendant intentionally selects his/her victim because of the perceived or actual race, color or any other element of a person (Meli, 2014). In most cases, hatred is a motive and never an intent. Hate crime usually has got two elements which include, the ability of an individual to perpetrate a crime, like committing arson and secondly, the perpetrator must be motivated to commit a crime because of his/her hatred towards the victim (Meli, 2014).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Even though hatred in and of itself is not a crime, and, consequently not punished by law, hate crime, however, contains the elements of a crime. Hate crime victims can usually be individuals, businesses or even society in general (Meli, 2014). Offenses committed because of the victim's race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability are considered by the federal government to be hate crimes. In this case, since hatred was in this case considered as a motive and not an intent, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling on Mitchell's case found that motive is an element of antidiscrimination laws and sentencing considerations, and that the law punished conduct rather than thought, and that bias-motivated offenses were worse than other crimes (Gerstenfeld, 2013). It should, therefore, be very clear that there is a significant difference between hate crime and hate speech. Hate crime warrants prosecution while hate speech, in this case, cannot be prosecuted.

Crimes can be broken down into several elements as illustrated in the criminal statutes that allow for common law elements. It is, therefore, a must that for a case to be considered a crime in nature, the prosecution must prove beyond any doubt that all these elements of crimes which are mainly three, comes out clearly in a case. If the prosecution cannot prove the existence of these elements, then, he/she cannot obtain a conviction in a court of law. These elements of a crime include actus reus also known as the guilty/criminal act; mens rea, also known as guilty mind or criminal intent; and the concurrence of the two (Gerstenfeld, 2013).

Criminal intent is the intention of the defendant to commit a crime. The primary goal must come out clearly along with the criminal acts for it to be considered a criminal element. On the other hand, a criminal act is the requirement that the defendant acts voluntarily. If the prosecution cannot prove that it was deliberately, then it does not fall under the category of the elements of a crime. Concurrence, however, requires that for an act to be a crime, the action must be as a result of criminal intent. If there is no concurrence between the guilty mind and the criminal act, then it cannot be proven anywhere that an act of crime has occurred.

Deviant behavior is behavior that defies or violates social norms in the society thus; it's a rational, learned response to social, economic and political conditions in the culture (MaCaghy et al., 2016). Such behaviors may include theft, rape, murder, robbery, and assaults. Such actions could be considered criminal because such acts which are crimes against persons specifically murder, aggravated assault, forcible rape and other violence in our society are all subjects to legal procedures (MaCaghy et al., 2016). When subjected to such legal proceedings, the outcome may result in punishment, restoration of the losses to the victims or involuntary hospitalization.

Many differences that can always de derived when comparing criminal act with a deviant act. The differences are crystal clear that even in the court of law, a good judge and a prosecutor cannot miss in identifying this. I comparing the differences, several points have always come out very clear. These include: deviance has ever appeared to be on the side of the violation of norms. Whereas crime is the violation of the laws of the land; deviant can be criminal or non-criminal in while the offense is always criminal: violating the law of the land always makes deviance a crime and finally, deviance is not considered as severe as a crime (MaCaghy et al., 2016). These are just a few of the comparisons that would give a clear view and distinction between the two acts.

In explaining the difference between the above concepts, some of the explanations that come about are in the view of putting a clear boundary between deviant and criminal acts. The first concepts mean that there are some social norms in the society that that are considered vital and therefore, every member of the community ought to stick to them. Consequently, it, therefore, does not mean that every member of the society must follow them. Once can decide to defy such norms. These are the deviant acts. Acts that are considered criminal are denoted in the constitution and the laws of the land. Every member of the society is bound to them. Any act of crime is always illegal while as for deviant acts, not all of them are criminal. Only some but not all deviant acts are punishable by the law.

Any person violating the law of the country through deviant acts contrary to what the law states are committing a criminal act deifying any law of the land makes it unlawful whereas not all deviant acts are criminal at all times. Lastly, a perverted act is not as severe as a criminal act. Therefore, one can be produced in court for committing a deviant act but will not face charges or penalty similar to a crime whose magnitude is comparable to the perverted act.

The differences brought about is these concepts are essential to the intent of Hate Crime Laws as it gives more clarity more so when one is facing prosecution. The ability to understand that not all deviant acts entail the violation of the law means that a person's freedom of self-expression and judgment will not be curtailed due to the fear of being prosecuted. Knowing that deviance can mean only be the violation of social norms that one may disagree with and not indeed the breach of the law of the land also presents a significant advantage to the intent of Hate Crime laws since one can act with limits. The fact that those deviant acts are not as severe as criminal acts also are of great importance in this case. Taking into consideration the number of people who have always shown defiance of has committed deviant acts, it will only be prudent. People can control the extent to which they act and express themselves and feeling while also putting into consideration that sometimes, the penalties resulting from such acts might be severe than previously viewed.

Even though this hate debate has been going on and on for decades, the constitution dilemma that it presents concerning hate crime laws are surely interesting and can still bring more lively discussions. The main practical questions though have mainly been answered by the Supreme Court. The clear answer that exists is that as long as hate crime laws comport with specific procedural and substantive requirements, the rules are constitutional. However, the discussions concerning utility and implementations of such laws are still far from over since many essentials policy concerns remain unresolved.

References

Gerstenfeld, P. B. (2013). Hate crimes: Causes, controls, and controversies. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

Meli, L. (2014). Hate Crime and Punishment: Why Typical Punishment Does Not Fit the Crime. U. Ill. L. Rev., 921.

McCaghy, C. H., Capron, T. A., Jamieson, J. D., & Carey, S. H. H. (2016). Deviant behavior: Crime, conflict, and interest groups. Routledge.