Q Assignmnet focuses on need for paying special attention on same so that weak areas of existing penalties be assessed Home, - Economic Rationale ECONOMIC RATIONALE FOR ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR “HATE CRIMES”: There should be enhanced penalties for the hate crimes because of the fact that the standard penalties for the same are not so strong and therefore there is aneed for paying special attention on the same so that the weak areas of the existing penalties can be assessed again and an enhanced provisions can be implemented (Kahneman, Daniel, 2000). Many of the people have opposed the existing laws on hate crimes and have voted for the enhancement of penalties. This enhanced penalty is also required so that the people who are committing the same by violation of a special moral which is an obligation required to be fulfilled practically (DhammikaDharmapala,2007). Another reason for the same is the fact that who have harmed others intentionally and purposefully should get penalised more strictly than as per the current laws and regulations. A hate crime is among a legal category wherein the penalty for the same is now being looked upon for highly detailed codes so as to stringent the penalties existing for the same. The most important rationale that can be provided economically for the enhanced penalties for hate crime different from other crimes as because it is an act which is a crime since its inception and so it should have punishment which is more harsh. The effect of the same would be the lowering of this crime because of the punishment resulting out of the same. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TORT LAW & CRIME AS WAYS OF INTERNALIZING EXTERNAL HARMS; REASONS OF SOME ACTS BEING BOTH CRIMES AND TORTS: Torts and Crimes practically are two different acts which have different penalties associated with them. However, in some cases certain acts are classified as both crimes and torts because of the extreme bad intention of harming other associated with it. Tort is basically an act which is wrongful in nature wherein there is injury or interference of somebody’s property (Kakalik, J. S., 1996). Crime is an act wherein the act is wrongful being identified by the state or the government of federal. Since the extent of harm is much more in case of Crime then Torts because of the after effects of the same therefore there are strict penalties associated with crime. The major difference among Tort and Crime is the fact that in case of tort a civil court proceeding takes place whereas in case of crime a criminal proceeding takes place (Kaplow, 1996). In case of Tort the victim is called plaintiff and the accused is defendant and in case of crime, the accused is defendant and the victim is the person being hurt. The penalties for both is different as because in case of tort, the defendant pays damages to the plaintiff and in case of crime, the defendant pays a fine and must serve a sentence. An act can be both a crime and a tort (Ellen Shustorovich. 2003). This is because in cases where the property of a person is damaged along with harming the person then that comprises both the crime and tort. ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST BASING CRIMINAL FINES FOR A GIVEN CRIME ON THE OFFENDER’S WEALTH: In case of crime a defendant has to pay fine along with the sentence of imprisonment. This is because punishment is the element which is central for making criminal justice. The punishment by way of just imprisonment is not sufficient always as because the monetary loss that is being caused to the victim by the defendant cannot be met. However, in cases where the accused does not have sufficient wealth to pay the losses then ordering criminal fines becomes unjustified as because the fine ultimately will have to be borne by others (David Owen, 1984). Therefore, in this area having a uniform law is not helpful as because certain defendant are wealthy whereas others do not sufficient wealth(West. Kelly, Daniel. 2006). Therefore, the regulators should try and find midway for the same by levying penalties to the extent that will offset the benefits of crime.