Which is not an argument in support of hate crimes legislation?
1.)Hate crimes legislation sends a message that the United States does not support bigotry.
2.) Hate crimes legislation ensures that perpetrators of these crimes receive serious punishment.
My Answer3.)Hate crimes are meant to intimidate an entire population, rather than an individual.
4.)Hate crimes are a personal, rather than symbolic act.
I disagree.
We already have laws against individual attacks.
Okay, so would it be..2?
No. The question asks what arguments do NOT support hate crime legislation.
To determine which option is not an argument in support of hate crimes legislation, let's analyze each option:
1) "Hate crimes legislation sends a message that the United States does not support bigotry."
This argument emphasizes the symbolic value of hate crimes legislation, suggesting that it serves as a statement against bigotry. This suggests support for hate crimes legislation.
2) "Hate crimes legislation ensures that perpetrators of these crimes receive serious punishment."
This argument highlights the need for severe consequences for those who commit hate crimes. It supports hate crimes legislation by emphasizing the importance of holding perpetrators accountable.
3) "Hate crimes are meant to intimidate an entire population, rather than an individual."
This argument addresses the intent behind hate crimes, suggesting that their purpose is to intimidate a broader group of people rather than just an individual. This can be seen as supportive of hate crimes legislation as it recognizes the harmful impact on society.
4) "Hate crimes are a personal, rather than symbolic act."
This argument distinguishes hate crimes as personal acts rather than symbolic actions. Although it highlights the nature of hate crimes, it does not directly support or oppose hate crimes legislation.
Based on this analysis, option 4 is the not an argument in support of hate crimes legislation.