Hate crime

From Free net encyclopedia

Image:FrenchCemetery103004-01.jpg Hate crimes are crimes (such as violent crime, hate speech or vandalism) that are motivated by feelings of hostility against any identifiable group of people within a society. If systematic, rather than spontaneous, instigators of such crimes are sometimes organized into hate groups.

1 In the United States
- 1.1 Distinguishing Features of Hate Crime Legislation
- 1.2 Arguments for and against hate crime laws
  - 1.2.1 For
2 External links
3 News reports on recent alleged hate-crimes

[edit]

In the United States

The U.S. Congress defined in 1992 a hate crime as a crime in which "the defendant's conduct was motivated by hatred, bias, or prejudice, based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity of another individual or group of individuals" (HR 4797). In 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act added disabilities to the above list.

In the last decade of the 20th century, legislation in many U.S. states has established harsher penalties for a number of crimes when they are also considered hate crimes; interestingly, however, very few of these statutes make it more likely for a murder to trigger the death penalty when it is found to have also been a hate crime. While some claim that these hate crimes laws exist because women and certain minorities have been victims and require special protection, others say that they exist because crimes motivated by hate deserve a harsher punishment. California Penal Code section 422.6 offers a wider interpretation of hate crime, defining it as those acts "committed because of the victim's actual or perceived race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, gender, or sexual orientation. The actions considered criminal are using force or threat of force to willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of the State or country."

[edit]

Distinguishing Features of Hate Crime Legislation

The Model Penal Code does not yet include a standardized statutory text for hate crime legislation. Despite the lack of any such standard, hate crime laws do not vary significantly between different jurisdictions. Most states have approached hate crime legislation by creating penalty enhancements for pre-existing crimes when those crimes are committed because of the victim’s protected minority status. Thus, commission of a hate crime requires that two elements be proven. First, it must be shown that the defendant committed an enumerated predicate offense, such as assault, robbery, manslaughter, or kidnapping. Second, it must be shown that the defendant was motivated, in whole or in part, by the victim’s minority status.

While the hate crime definition used by the FBI for purposes of crime statistics includes sexual orientation, disability, and gender as protected categories, this is not the case for all hate crime laws. Most jurisdictions include race, religion, ethnicity, and gender as protected classes for purpose of hate crime statutes, while some states also include disability and sexual orientation. As of October 2001, the federal hate crime law 18 USC 245 (b)(2), passed in 1969, protects religion, race and national origin, and applies only if the victim is engaged in one of six protected activities. Seven states have no hate crime laws, 20 states have hate crime laws that do not protect sexual orientation, and 24 states have hate crime laws that include sexual orientation. There have been two attempts in 2001 and in 2004 to amend the current federal hate crime law to include homosexuals. Currently, these attempts have been unsuccessful.

[edit]

Arguments for and against hate crime laws

[edit]

For

When it enacted the Hate Crimes Act of 2000, the New York State Legislature included legislative findings that offer a survey of the various arguments for hate crime legislation. The legislature specifically found that:

"Hate crimes do more than threaten the safety and welfare of all citizens. They inflict on victims incalculable physical and emotional damage and tear at the very fabric of free society. Crimes motivated by invidious hatred toward particular groups not only harm individual victims but send a powerful message of intolerance and discrimination to all members of the group to which the victim belongs. Hate crimes can and do intimidate and disrupt entire communities and vitiate the civility that is essential to healthy democratic processes. In a democratic society, citizens cannot be required to approve of the beliefs and practices of others, but must never commit criminal acts on account of them. Current law does not adequately recognize the harm to public order and individual safety that hate crimes cause. Therefore, our laws must be strengthened to provide clear recognition of the gravity of hate crimes and the compelling importance of preventing their recurrence. Accordingly, the legislature finds and declares that hate crimes should be prosecuted and punished with appropriate severity."

The legislature adopted a retributivist position when it argued that crimes motivated by animosity toward another’s protected status deserve more severe punishment. The basic tenet of a retributivist outlook is that punishment should be commensurate with moral and social culpability. Proponents point out that it is not unusual to make thoughts or states of mind (mens rea) elements of a crime. For example, the distinction between first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and manslaughter depends on the degree to which the killing was deliberate or premeditated. The definition of fraud requires scienter -- that the perpetrator knowingly defraud the victim. Supporters also claim that all laws are subjective, and that if society can determine that one crime deserves more punishment than another (e.g. murder vs. involuntary manslaughter) then it can also determine what motivations deserve harsher punishments.

The legislature applied a utilitarian approach when it argued that hate crimes impede the democratic process and should be prosecuted in order to protect the "public order." The utilitarian perspective tends to view punishment as a means to maintain or enhance a social system that promotes the greatest overall good to the whole public. This can be done through deterrence, rehabilitation, and/or incapacitation. Here, the New York State Legislature employs more severe sentences in an effort to deter future crime and achieve the public policy goals put forth in the legislative findings. Many support hate crime laws, stating that their harsher sentences give individuals greater discouragement from committing hate crimes. Some supporters reason that one who can be moved to violence by hatred of a class of people presents a greater danger to society than one who merely hates an individual. Their position states that if normal punishments are inadequate deterrents, then additional punishments may deter crimes motivated by hate.

[edit]