In our case here, hate crimes takes place when a culprit aims a victim because he or she belongs to a particular social group. These groups can be categorized as religion, racial group, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, age, nationality, gender, political affiliation or gender identity. Hate crime can be of two types: the hate crime that occurs because of more or one of the above factors, and hate crime caused by biased or hate speech. Before I talk about the measure which a society can use to deal with hate crime, I would wish to show how hate crime can be of harm to a society. If hate crime happens to a particular group, it creates great anxiety to the other groups as they feel that they are the next target of random violence.
Acts which bring sense of polarization of group solidarity are the long lasting threats to the required cohesion in a society. This on return creates antagonistic communities with different radical experiences of identification and the social life. Alternatively, the weaker political groups and the smaller ones experiences violence in disproportionate degree which is exercised against them. As a result of the pernicious and the hate crime elements which are often unacknowledged, it is true that many people will still continue to possess in their minds the idea that some violence acts which are against particular named people are not the same to others. The unrevealed to the persistence hate crime is that the acts of violence swim in legitimacy or popular indifference tide. Therefore as a result of the above situations hate crimes need to be stopped due to its potential to become common and take root, moving from acts of an individual to shaping of the whole groups experience. Below are some ways in which societies can put into practice to ensure that hate crime is stopped (Hamm, 1999, pp. 111).
First, for society to deal with hate crime perfectly, the society should ensure that there are public values which every individual in the society must conform to. The safety of the society members largely relies on the rule of law, and well defined commitment to equality and human rights for all. The rule of law spells out the procedures use to make laws that ensures that the political power has access to the community as a whole. In a political system that is secterianised that requires sharing of power across the divisions of traditions and the will to have specific representation to those people who have no ability to fit into such party politics divisions, there can not be equal citizenship compromised by the majority decision of the exercised human rights. Where it happens that the rights are conflicting, dialogue must be employed to solve such kind of conflict, or the binding arbitration can be used to solve the grievances instead of violence (Walker, 1996, pp. 207).
Second, the society can practice policing. Recently, issues concerning the policing have been raised. Beyond the active prosecution approaches; the following stems a significant and should be ensured by the police. One, the police should review their relationship with the minority groups. The institutional racism accusation is not a deliberate bias accusation, but an indication that exclusions which are unforeseen happen in an organization that takes the assumption that it is normal in the increasing diversity. Whether with gay people, disable, Muslim, the duty of police is to ensure that they learn, meet and change the responsibility of maintaining fairness without losing. Two, the police should put in practice rigorous attitude to hate crime measurement. They should also me involved in safety innovative community measures referred to as hate incidents. To enable responses which are swift where there is emergence of incident patterns local information should be included. Three, the police should ensure zero-tolerance to hate crime graffiti approaches which includes the sectarian graffiti. Therefore for the society to deal with hate crime police should participate actively to ensure that public expression has no elements of violent sentiment made on any group or individual (Kelly, 1998, pp. 85).
Third, there should be institutional commitment towards the elimination of hate crimes in any society. Institutional homophobia, racism, sectarianism go beyond the police. In the long last hatred is not majorly an issue of law and order, but a challenge to political and social system. To ensure that in all public services there is minimum standards equality law must be applied. The central government in this may face several challenges such as: planning, culture policy, housing, community development, and education for key institutions such as the trade unions and employees, and local government. With the fiction that migrants is economic as only our interest it will not do. It is clearly evidenced that social implications will arise as a result of economic migrants, and vise versa is also the case. In the same way, there in no means by which it will work when we have the idea that for people to live in communities of single identity is their right. We possess no single right to put out our neighbors because of their religion, sexuality, color or politics. Social institutions such as the churches should ensure that the wider social atmosphere is inclusive and welcoming (Potter, 2001, pp. 105).
Lastly and not the least, societies should ensure that good relations prevail among all social groups. If the law has limitation in delivering the required relationship, and the police are not in position of dealing with the root causes violence but good relationship exist among the people, hatred among the social groups will be rarely experienced in the society. Antagonism among the different social groups can not be solved by policies alone. There must exist opportunities of human for the growing relationship which has been there for the purpose of: vindication of each individual and search for fairness, realization that what is significant or previously may change depending on our backgrounds. The same human opportunities should also make us to understand that the search in the global world is to offers space in a manner that the other can breath, due to that they are deeply independent. Opportunities where people can work together and meet are mostly the workplaces. Other opportunities can be in community work, in arts and sports, in education, and in voluntary activity. In such places firm and ideal relationship can be created among the people from different social groups and help to deal with the hate crime effectively (Kelly, 1998, pp. 86).
It will be wrong for political correctness to advocate that a certain group of people should not be attacked for being what it is. In cases where churches engage in protest to ensure that moral is installed to people due to sexuality issues, it should not act in a manner that prioritizes those differences in a manner that proves violence against other people is acceptable and legitimate. To have a good relation is not a matter of hiding the real difference, but good relation should be created in a situation where the individuals or the groups are in position to exclude, show real doubts, name violence and ensure that genuine questions or fears to be expressed are serious. Within an environment of threat or intimidation all this will not be found among people. The work of good relation in a society is not to limit the differences, but to develop enough safety in which the real issues can be discussed, and that violence and power does not be the decision maker for the outcome among the conflicting groups. For this vision to be real, then the society is obligated to invest in the development of structures and skills to bring in freedom of expression for all people in the society (Perry, 2001, pp. 230).
To conclude this paper, despite that the hate crime prevention measures are discussed with the legacy of political and religious divisions, sectarianism, and racial and ethnic divisions, the values which are depicted in it have implication to each and every one of us. It will also be important, even without devolution that we get tough on elimination of hate crime and its root causes. With this kind of spirit, societies will be having the ideal measures to deal with the hate crime, and make them to be history on earth (Potter, 2001, pp. 106).
Hamm Marks, 1999. American Skinheads: The Criminology and Control of Hate Crime, Mahwah, NJ. Praeger Publishers, pp. 111
Kelly Robert, 1998. Hate Crime: The Global Politics of Polarization, Carbondale, IL. Southern Illinois Press, pp. 85, 86
Perry Barbara, 2001. In the Name of Hate: Understanding Hate Crimes, London, Routledge, pp. 230
Potter Kimberly, 2001. Hate Crimes: Criminal Law & Identity Politics, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 105, 106
Walker Samuel, 1996. Hate Speeches: The History of an American Controversy, Lincoln, University of Nebraska, pp. 207