Commentary 4 Chelsea

For the proposal essay I peer reviewed Chelsea Goossens paper. She wrote her proposal on finding a solution to end hate crimes. I thought she did a great job with the introduction, it was engaging and clearly stated the problem. When she provided a fact on how hate crimes are a “symbolic law,” it was a perfect way to lead into her solution. The thesis gave a direct solution; “To break the barrier between consequential meaning and true enforcement the United States should develop a task force with the focus of identification and prosecution of hate crimes.”

Chelsea’s first reason to support her proposal in solving the problem of hate crimes is to get stronger support from law enforcements. I agree with her reason and believe she did a good job directing the readers towards her belief. There was great information on how hate crimes fall through the law and how she gave a resolution to help improve law enforcements focuses on the crimes. The only thing I would fix is to present a clearer reason.

I thought it was a smart idea to show the difference between America and England hate crime laws. Although, she did not present a reason to try and solve hate crimes. Comparing the two could be a perfect way to lead into a strong reason. She could go into something about America not being as effective as England.

Next, Chelsea provided another reason to fund money to the biased-based crimes task force. She explained why the Government should fund, yet I think she should go in a little more depth of what the task force is and how it would help.

She had an overall strong proposal in trying to solve hate crime laws. Her paper had great facts from a few different sources, so all you need is a peer-reviewed source and one other source. Also, she need to look over some grammar. Other then that I think everything was good! GOODLUCK with the rest!