Hate Crimes Laws

A hate crime can be defined as a criminal act motivated by bias toward a victim's real or perceived group affiliation. A victim of a hate crime may be targeted based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and/or religion. Hate crime incidents include acts such as physical assault, bullying, harassment, and intentional damage to property. Most hate activities do not involve crimes. Examples of noncriminal hate group activity directed at targeted groups include organizing and attending marches, rallies, speeches, and meetings; distributing leaflets; and maintaining Internet Web sites. These actions, by and large, are considered hate speech, which is very different from a hate crime. Although disturbing, most of the aforementioned hate group activity is within the limits of the law and protected as freedom of speech. Individuals or groups who cross the line into criminal behavior can face prosecution for their offenses.

Transcript

• While 100 yards away the other kidnapper, Jack Holmes, was hanged to another tree. Feeling was so great over the atrocious kidnap and murder that Governor Rolph himself condones the lynching.
• The people of California are peaceable and law abiding citizens. It’s no wonder, after the body of young Brooke Hart was recovered yesterday, that they were so aroused at the kidnapping and the murdering of this young man that they momentarily forgot themselves, and was determined to give notice to the world that kidnapping and the murders which follow it, would not be tolerated in this state.
• The county jail at San Jose, Missouri, also was stormed by a mob, which overpowered sheriff’s forces, and a National Guard tank detachment, despite a heavy gas barrage to get at the negro charged with criminal assault. They wrecked the steel door and the interior of the prison, and the negro was lynched and his body burned. Governor Parker of Missouri is enraged over the mob violence, and says he will bring the lynchers to justice. Oh, what a terrible week America has had.

Enactment of specific hate crime legislation was not without a great deal of debate. Those against specific hate crime laws believed that enactment of such was tantamount to criminalizing thought because it makes thoughts, beliefs, and religious ideologies illegal. Others felt that all crimes could be labeled hate crimes as all violent crimes include a disregard for or bias against the victim. Further, hate crime law detractors believed that these statutes tend to pit one protected group against another, one being the victim and one being the perpetrator.

Those in favor of enacting laws to specifically deal with hate crimes cited various arguments for enacting specific legislation to address hate crimes. First, hate crime law proponents asserted that victims of hate crimes tend to experience an additional degree of suffering that nonhate crime victims do not have to endure. This additional trauma may be emotional or psychological, because the victim's very identity is being attacked. The trauma may also be physical, as some research suggests that violent hate crimes tend to produce greater degrees of injury than similar nonhate crime offenses. In addition, hate crime legislation was touted as a means to prevent retaliation by the victim's group against the perpetrator's group, since retaliation was more likely following a hate crime than a nonhate crime incident. Proponents also noted that the victim's group can be considered a victim as well. Therefore, punishment of hate crimes through distinct legislation provides a sense of justice to the whole group, not only to the specific victim. Specific deterrence by the same perpetrator and general deterrence by the greater society were additionally seen as reasons to support hate crime laws. Finally, it was believed that enactment of hate crime legislation sent a message to the public and to past and present victims that hate crimes of any type would not be tolerated.

...