Why Mitchell V Wisconsin Sucke
On June 11, 1993, the United State Supreme Court upheld Wisconsin¹s penalty enhancement law, which imposes harsher sentences on criminals who ³intentionally select the person against whom the crime...is committed..because of the race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry of that person.² Chief Justice Rehnquist deliverd the opinion of the unanimous Court. This paper argues against the decision, and will attempt to prove the unconstitutionality of such penalty enhancement laws.
On the evening of October 7, 1989, Mitchell and a group of young black men attacked and severely beat a lone white boy. The group had just finished watching the film ...
Want to read the rest of this paper?
Join Essayworld today to view this entire essay
and over 50,000 other term papers
|
that because Mitchell selected his victim based on race, the penalty enhancement law allowed Mitchell to be sentenced to up to seven years. The jury sentenced Mitchell to four years, twice the maximum for the crime he committed without the penalty enhancement law.
The U.S. Supreme Court¹s ruling was faulty, and defied a number of precedents. The Wisconsin law is unconstitutional, and is essentially unenforceable. This paper primarily focuses on the constitutional arguments against Chief Justice Rehnquist¹s decision and the statute itself, but will also consider the practical implications of the Wisconsin law, as well as a similar law passed under the new federal crime bill (Cacas, 32). The Wisconsin law and the new federal law are based on a model created by the Anti- Defemation League in response to a rising tide of hate-related violent crimes (Cacas, 33). Figures released by the Federal Bureau of Investigation show that 7,684 hate crimes motivated by race, religion, ethnicity, ...
Get instant access to over 50,000 essays.
Write better papers. Get better grades.
Already a member? Login
|
of¹ aspect of the defendant¹s selection, the reason the defendant selected the victim, the motive behind the selection.² The law is in fact a direct violation of the First Amendment, according to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which said ³the Wisconsin legislature cannot criminalize bigoted thought with which it disagrees.²
³If there is a bedrock principal underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable². The Supreme Court was heard to utter such noble phrases as recently as 1989, in Texas v. Johnson. Unfortunately these idealistic principles seem to have been abandoned ...
Succeed in your coursework without stepping into a library.
Get access to a growing library of notes, book reports,
and research papers in 2 minutes or less.
|
CITE THIS PAGE:
Why Mitchell V Wisconsin Sucke. (2005, May 27). Retrieved April 26, 2024, from http://www.essayworld.com/essays/Why-Mitchell-V-Wisconsin-Sucke/27561
"Why Mitchell V Wisconsin Sucke." Essayworld.com. Essayworld.com, 27 May. 2005. Web. 26 Apr. 2024. <http://www.essayworld.com/essays/Why-Mitchell-V-Wisconsin-Sucke/27561>
"Why Mitchell V Wisconsin Sucke." Essayworld.com. May 27, 2005. Accessed April 26, 2024. http://www.essayworld.com/essays/Why-Mitchell-V-Wisconsin-Sucke/27561.
"Why Mitchell V Wisconsin Sucke." Essayworld.com. May 27, 2005. Accessed April 26, 2024. http://www.essayworld.com/essays/Why-Mitchell-V-Wisconsin-Sucke/27561.
|
Save
Report