Subjects:
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 ³Mississippi Burning², in which a
young black boy was, while praying, beaten by a white man. After the
film, the group moved outside and Mitchell asked if they felt ³hyped
up to move on some white people². When the white boy approached
Mitchell said, ³You all want to *censored* somebody up? There goes a white
boy, Go get him.² The boy was left unconscious, and remained in a
coma for four days. Mitchell was convicted of aggravated battery,
. . .
or innocence, and is not in itself a crime. The ordinance is therefore
fatally overbroad and invalid on its face. However,
many of these rulings are of questionable constitutionality
themselves.
There are probably more Supreme Court cases that favor Wisconsinıs
position than there are that support Mitchellıs argument. The stateıs flag desecration statute was
ruled unconstitutional by the Court. ² Second, the
Mitchell ruling not only affects eveyoneıs free speech rights with a
general constriction of the interpretation of the First Amendment, but
the ruling makes way for further constrictions. Paul, ³If a hate speech law that enumerated
some categories is invalid because, in Justice Antonin Scaliaıs
opinion in St.
Essay's Topics
All research is for reference purposes only.