How else will people who have such hate towards these groups be able to learn? That’s the general case for most people who argue that hate crime laws are needed. Just like an ordinary law that protects our rights, many calls for a law to protect those targeted groups. Some would say that hate crimes aren’t any different from normal crimes and that they shouldn’t be treated any differently. Michael Lieberman article “Hate Crime Laws: Punishment to Fit the Crime.” States that hate crimes not only affect the victim, but family members, and communities “By making the victim’s community fearful, angry, and suspicious of other groups-and of the power structure that is supposed to protect them-these incidents can damage the fabric of our society and fragment communities.” Despite the need for hate crimes laws many see it as insufficient because of the lack of data that connects with hate …show more content…
The problem that comes with data is if there isn’t enough data, than how can you prove something is working? And that’s one of the main problems hate crime laws have, insufficient data. Many argue that without enough data how can hate crime laws truly be effective? In Gill’s article under Data Collection, he mentions that every state how their own definition of what a hate crime is “ Such a requirement leads to questions about which crimes are considered hate crime offenses in the statute, as well as by local law enforcement officials.”(Understanding Hate Crime Statutes) Since majority of people each have their own individual opinion of which crime can classify as a hate crime. It makes collecting data nearly impossible. With low data on hate crime laws it’s proving to be insufficient to show if the laws are working or not. True that there is still some data on hate crimes, but they’re too small to actually be of any use. What ties in data collecting as well as finding the motive behind each