Disscussion On Hate Crimes Law

The Mathew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act signed by Obama into law in 2008. The name of the act is based on the case surrounding the inhuman killing of Mathew Shepard in the year 1998. This crime was viewed as the worst hate crime against the gay society in the history of American crime. This man Mathew was beaten and set into blaze by two assailants Russel Henderson and Aaron McKinney. Despite the fact that a ruling was done on the case and bill formulated based on the base crime with the name “Mathew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act”, there is controversy on the change of the act from its original name maintaining the same context. The people who support the change of the name do not issue with the content of the act but just a change of the name. This essay will offer the justification for changing the name of the act from “Mathew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act” while providing evidence from different sources. Finally the essay will offer a conclusion based on the evidence provided.

To begin with, there is immediate need to change the act from the name “Mathew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act” to take another name that will not reflect on the names of the individuals who led to the formulation of the act (Petersen 122). As revealed by Petersen, (2011), despite the fact that the name of the act is based on the crime that triggered the formulation of the act, it does not amount to this name as an act. This is because, based on the research done by Petersen concerning the killing of Mathew; race may not have been the immediate cause of his killing. There were other factors surrounding the killing of Mathew and the assailants would not have killed him just because he was a gay. The gay society took into protest on the killing citing it as an act to endanger certain groups in the society (Petersen 123). However, Petersen states that Mathew was HIV positive before he met his death and he was also a drug addict and the assailants were after a drug deal. Thus, based on this evidence, this act should not bear the name “Mathew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act” in fact; the act should be changed to take a general name that will reflect on the protection of people from crimes due to religion, sexual orientation, race, and ethnicity hatred (Advocate.com).

As revealed by Peterson, as the act continues to use the same name, the gay society in America will feel more offended as the victim was a gay. Based on this consent, the gay society in America will continuously be reminded on their hatred in the society through the name used in the act (Petersen 151). Thus, the name of the act should be changed to suit the general public without segregation on certain groups like the gays. Additionally, despite the fact that there are many stories which have been told on the act based on the circumstances surrounding the case Jimenez in his book, “THE BOOK OF MATT” offers a detailed explanation on the crime. According to Jimenez, (2014), the circumstances surrounding the death of Mathew do not amount to his name be used in the act (Jimenez 110). Since the act is based on protecting any kind of crime based on hatred of any kind whether racial or of any group, the name should just take a general name that does not reflect the people who led to the formulation of the act. Indeed, based on the research by Jimenez, there was a lot of controversy surrounding the death of Mathew and the intention of the assailants cannot be primarily based on race despite the fact that the entire case was surrounded on the hatred on gays (Jimenez 220). In fact, the victims in the crime reveal to have been in drug conflict since Mathew was proved to be an addict. Consequently, the name of the act is based on a normal criminal case that does not amount for the names of the victims to be used in the act. As divulged by Jimenez, the name should be changed to take another name which is not directed to certain individuals revealing a certain group which is gays.

Furthermore, the myth of Mathew as the basis on the name of the act as “Mathew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act” does not amount for the names of the victims to appear in the act. Since the crime that is protected by the act is sensitive in the American society today, the continued of the name of the act indeed back up the issue of race and ethnicity in United States (The Nation). The issue of racial, religious and ethnicity criticism and segregation in United Sates is still contagious. The continued use of the name of this act indeed reminds the Americans of the criticism and segregation of racial and ethnic groupings (Advocate.com). Therefore, this calls for the change of the name of the act to suit a name that is acceptable in the society and is not related to any groupings.

In conclusion, based on the evidence offered in this essay to change the name of the act from “Mathew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act” it is the high time for the relevant institutions to take measures on changing the name. The name of the act is based on a case that has many stories told on the victims and thus in order to prevent the issue of continued reminding on the race thing it is good the act adopts another name. This will respond to the public demand on the continued push in the change of the name.