Hate Crime Legislation

[Excerpt] On October 28, 2009, President Barack Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law, as Division E of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (P.L. 111-84; H.R. 2647). This law broadens federal jurisdiction over hate crimes by authorizing the Attorney General to provide assistance, when requested by a state, local, or tribal official, for crimes that (1) would constitute a violent crime under federal law or a felony under state or tribal law, and (2) are motivated by the victim\u27s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. In other words, hate crimes are traditional crimes during which the offender is motivated by one or more biases considered to be particularly reprehensible and damaging to society as a whole. Prior to enactment, however, hate crimes were not separate and distinct offenses under federal law. Furthermore, federal jurisdiction over hate crime was limited to certain civil rights offenses. Although there is a consensus that hate crime is deplorable, determining the definitive federal role in addressing hate crime has proved contentious, as reflected in the legislative history and congressional debate. Legislation to widen federal jurisdiction over hate crime was passed by the Senate in the 106th and 108th Congresses, by the House in the 109th Congress, and by both chambers in the 110th Congress. Opponents of hate crime legislation view separate federal offenses for hate crime as redundant and largely symbolic, arguing that separate hate crime offenses would be in addition to the legal prohibitions for traditional crime that already exist under either federal or state law. They also contend that in most cases the federal nexus is tenuous, and that such offenses are best handled at the state and local level. Proponents for creating a separate and distinct federal offense for hate crime maintain that there is a fundamental difference between ordinary crime and hate crime. They believe that hate crimes are often perpetrated to send a message of threat and intimidation to a wider group, and that the effects of hate crime extend beyond the particular victim and reflect more pervasive patterns of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, and other characteristics. In the 111 * Congress, the House Judiciary Committee amended and ordered reported a hate crimes bill (H.R. 1913; H.Rept. 111 -86) on April 23, 2009. The House passed H.R. 1913 on April 29, 2009. Senator Reid, for Senator Kennedy, introduced the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (S. 909) on April 28, 2009. Senator Leahy successfully amended the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1390) with language that is similar to S. 909 on July 16, 2009. The Senate passed S. 1390, amended, on July 23, 2009. The hate crime provisions were included in the conference report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (H.R. 2647; H.Rept. 111-288). The House passed the conference report on H.R. 2647 on October 7, 2009; the Senate passed it on October 22, 2009. In addition, Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee has introduced three hate crime-related bills (H.R. 70, H.R. 256, and H.R. 262), and Representative Maloney has introduced a hate crime statistics act (H.R. 823). At issue for Congress is whether the prevalence and harmfulness of hate crimes warrant greater federal intervention to ensure that such crimes are systematically addressed at all levels of government. Another related issue is the completeness and comprehensiveness of national hate crime data. Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson introduced (H.R. 3419), which would amend the Hate Crime Statistics Act to require data collection on crimes committed against homeless persons. Senator Benjamin Cardin introduced an identical bill (S. 1765). On several occasions, the Senate Judiciary Committee was scheduled to mark up this bill during the 111th Congress, but consideration of this bill was postponed

Hate Source: White Supremacist Hate Groups and Hate Crime

The relationship between hate group activity and hate crime is theoretically ambiguous. Hate groups may incite criminal behavior in support of their beliefs. On the other hand, hate groups may reduce hate crime by serving as a forum for members to verbally vent their frustrations or as protection from future biased violence. I find that the presence of an active white supremacist hate group chapter is associated with an 18.7 percent higher hate crime rate. White supremacist groups are not associated with the level of anti-white hate crimes committed by non-whites, nor do they form in expectation of future hate crimes by non-whites.hate crime, hate groups, white supremacist

A Simple Model of Optimal Hate Crime Legislation

We present a simple model of the effects of hate crime legislation. It shows that even if the direct harm to victims of hate crime is the same as for other crimes, because of other differences in the effects it may still be optimal to exert more law-enforcement effort to deter or prevent hate crime. These differences also have previously unrecognized effects on the optimal level of effort by potential hate crime victims to avoid being victimized, thus affecting the efficiency of government policies that encourage or discourage such effort. We discuss the implications of these results for optimal hate-crime policy, as well as for policy toward other similar crimes, such as terrorism.

The Negative Ramifications of Hate Crime Legislation: It’s Time to Reevaluate Whether Hate Crime Laws are Beneficial to Society

Supporters of hate crime legislation suggest that the primary reason for the codification of hate crime laws is “to send a strong message of tolerance and equality, signaling to all members of society that hatred and prejudice on the basis of identity will be punished with extra severity.” However, hate crime laws may actually be accomplishing the opposite effect of tolerance and equality because they encourage U.S. citizens to view themselves, not as members of our society, but as members of a protected group. The enactment of hate crime legislation at the federal and state levels has led to unintended consequences and unfair practices. Today, the controversy regarding the effectiveness of hate crime laws is debated, and people question whether this type of legislation is beneficial to society. This article will candidly reevaluate hate crime legislation. Part II will provide the definition of the term “hate crime” and the theoretical justification for enhanced sentencing involving discrimination-based conduct. Focus will be placed on data that disproves the theory that hate crime laws reduce or deter future hate crimes. It will also explain the underlying reasons for the enactment of hate crime laws, such as the media’s role and political influences, and it will present several of the misconceptions associated with hate crime legislation. Part III will present the unintended consequences associated with the enactment of hate crime statutes, including constitutional violations. It will also explain why hate crimes are rarely prosecuted, and will focus on the inconsistency, redundancy, and arbitrary usage/application of hate crime legislation. Part III will also present an individual’s response to the negative, unintended effects of hate crime legislation. Part IV will determine that hate crime legislation is not cost-effective. Part V sets forth a recommendation on improving community efforts to educate or reeducate citizens on respecting diversity. Finally, the article analyzes hate crime laws from supporting and opposing viewpoints and concludes that there is no need to separate hate crimes from other types of crimes as a means to promote a more tolerant, equal, and stable society

Hate Crimes and Violence against People Experiencing Homelessness Factsheet

This document covers hate crimes and violence committed toward homeless individuals. The National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH) has continuously worked to compile documentation of this hate crime epidemic aimed to hurt homeless people. It includes what a hate crime is, who the people are who commit these egregious acts, and statistical information covering these hate crimes

Hate crime and the legal process: options for law reform

Hate crime is a priority area for the Government and policymakers. Among other initiatives to tackle and respond to hate crime, the Government published hate crime ‘action plans’ in 2012 and 2016, the Law Commission completed a project on hate crime legislation in 2014, and, in 2017, the Crown Prosecution Service published new public statements on how it prosecutes hate crime. Public awareness of hate crime has also grown, particularly since the 2016 EU referendum which led to a huge spike in the number of hate crimes reported to the police. More generally, following the referendum, there have been reports of increased levels of anxiety and fear among minority groups and marginalised communities. But what happens when a hate crime is reported to the police? How effectively does the law (and legal professionals) respond to allegations of hate crime? This Briefing Paper presents findings from a 24-month empirical study on the operation of hate crime legislation. These findings indicate that significant reform is necessary to ensure justice for both victims and defendants in hate crime cases

Taking North American White Supremacist groups seriously: The scope and the challenge of hate speech on the internet

This article aims to address two questions: how does hate speech manifest on North American white supremacist websites; and is there a connection between online hate speech and hate crime? Firstly, hate speech is defined and the research methodology upon which the article is based is explained. The ways that ‘hate’ groups utilise the Internet and their purposes in doing so are then analysed, with the content and the functions of their websites as well as their agenda examined. Finally, the article explores the connection between hate speech and hate crime. I argue that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that speech can and does inspire crime. The article is based in the main on primary sources: a study of many ‘hate’ websites; and interviews and discussions with experts in the field

A tale of two anomies: some observations on the contribution of (sociological) criminological theory to explaining hate crime motivation

This paper argues that hate crime is simply an inherent and normal component of contemporary society. Regardless of a concerted intervention – legislative, situational and social crime prevention – against this significant social problem in the USA and Europe in recent years, there remains a ubiquitous, albeit often latent, continued existence of hate motivation throughout society which remains at a considerable and increasing risk of actualisation as individuals come into contact with other likeminded individuals. This is particularly an issue in the information age which has greatly enhanced the spatial proximity of these hate-minded people to each other. It is shown that an established body of sociologically informed criminological theory – in particular that founded on the European and US anomie traditions – can be adapted to explain and understand the existence and persistence of hate motivation at all levels of the social world. This provides the basis for an extensive educative - and thus preventive - programme to tackle pervasive cultures of hate

Perceptions of police legitimacy and citizen decisions to report hate crime incidents in Australia

This article examines the importance of perceptions of police legitimacy in the decision to report hate crime incidents in Australia. It addresses an identified gap in the literature by analysing the 2011-2012 National Security and Preparedness Survey (NSPS) results to not only explore differences between hate crime and non-hate crime reporting but also how individual characteristics and perceptions of legitimacy influence decisions about reporting crime to police. Using the NSPS survey data, we created three Generalised Linear Latent and Mixed Models (Gllamm), which explore the influence of individual characteristics and potential barriers on the decision to report crime/hate crime incidents to police. Our results suggest that hate crimes are less likely to be reported to police in comparison to non-hate crime incidents, and that more positive perceptions of police legitimacy and police cooperation are associated with the victim’s decision to report hate crime victimisation

A Comparative Analysis of Hate Crime Legislation: A Report to the Hate Crime Legislation Review

In January 2017, the Scottish Government announced a review of hate crime legislation, chaired by Lord Bracadale.1 Lord Bracadale requested that, to assist the Review it its task, we produce a comparative report detailing principles underpinning hate crime legislation and approaches taken to hate crime in a range of jurisdictions. Work on this report commenced in late March 2017 and the final report was submitted to the Review in July 2017