Understanding Hate Crimes

Acts, Motives, Offenders, Victims, and Justice

Carolyn Turpin-Petrosino

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781134014248
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psicologia
• Subtopic: Psicologia sociale

Hate crimes and lesser acts of bigotry and intolerance are seen to be constants in today's world. Since 1990, the federal government has published annual reports on hate crime incidents in the United States. While the reported numbers are disturbing, even more devastating is the impact of these crimes on individuals, communities, and society.

This comprehensive textbook can serve as a stand-alone source for instructors and students who study hate crimes and/or other related acts. It invites the reader to consider relevant social mores and practices as well as criminal justice policies as they relate to hate crimes by presenting this subject within a broad context.

1 Introduction

An overview

Crime is a staple of the news. The public is fed a daily diet of assorted illicit acts such as a corrupt official engaging in conspiracy and extortion, a domestic violence incident that leaves the victim in a coma and children in foster care, or a home invasion where criminals suddenly break into a residence, terrorize and then rob the owners, or worse. What of the OxyContin trafficking ring which has successfully eluded police despite breaking into multiple area drug store chains? From incidents of road rage to warring rival gangs, the public is inundated with crime stories.

All crime requires proper attention, clear understanding, and effective responses from the criminal justice system and that is no less true when it comes to hate crime. Over the last twenty-five years, hate incidents and hate crimes have repeatedly come to the attention of the public. Some see these types of crime as no more serious than the next, while others argue that hate crime, unabated, threatens our very democracy. But what exactly is the nature of hate crime? How is hate crime different from other crimes and how is it defined by law? Does geographical location impact the nature or meaning of a hate crime act? Do hate crime laws as a whole differ from civil rights laws or do they basically address the same unlawful behavior? When hate speech transpires, does that mean that a hate crime has occurred? How trustworthy are hate crime statistics? In reality, there are countless questions about the nature and attributes of hate crime. As such, it would take a series of monographs to adequately address these and other questions. This chapter humbly addresses the fundamental aspects of hate crime. The objective here is to inform the reader and to clarify commonly misunderstood perceptions of these crimes.

What is hate crime?

On November 18, 2008, a young woman went to enter a convenience store in Worcester, Massachusetts, to pick up a few items while her boyfriend waited in the car. Normally such mundane tasks occur speedily and without incident; this time would be different. Suddenly, two men violently confronted her, spewing racial epithets, slurs, and began to physically assault her. The ferocity of the attack was such that witnesses inside the convenience store believed the young woman’s life was in danger and with much effort they pulled her inside the store. Then the two men turned to attack the victim’s boyfriend, but he quickly drove off. Even after the police arrived, one of the attackers continued to scream racial epithets and make physical threats against the young woman. This attack came out of nowhere. It was instantaneous, violent, and unprovoked (Eagan, 2008). The police classified this as a hate crime. The attackers, who were two White males, assaulted the victims, who were Black—because of their perceived race. Their motivation was not to randomly harass others, to rob for financial gain, or to assault the next person in sight due to uncontrolled rage. The attack was racially motivated and this incident is representative of the nature or character of hate crime.

Individuals commit crimes for a variety of reasons: frustration and anger, drug or alcohol addiction problems, financial distress, greed, impulsiveness, to satisfy a lust for evil, psychological problems, boredom, or just plain poor judgment. Still another motivation for committing crime is bias or hatred. Bias crime, more commonly referred to as hate crime, refers to those offenses that are committed due to the perpetrator’s prejudiced or hostile attitudes toward a particular social group represented by the victim. Most commonly, the offender’s hostility is triggered by his or her perception of the victim’s ethnicity, race, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or gender. But to hold prejudiced attitudes alone is not a crime. A hate crime is comprised of at least two components, (1) the predicate or base criminal offense, such as harassment or intimidation, aggravated assault, malicious damage, arson, or even murder, and (2) evidence that the perpetrator’s actions are motivated by prejudice or animus against the group represented by the victim. The following incident reflects the two components: on November 24, 2013 in Fulshear, Texas, Conrad Alvin Barrett attacked a 79-year-old man via the infamous “knockout” game (Dinan, 2013). These are random, vicious, and unprovoked attacks that are usually committed by young adults upon unsuspecting victims. The victim in this case sustained a broken jaw and the loss of three teeth. According to reports, what made this a hate crime and not the typical “knockout” assault was the evidence that the perpetrator sought to purposely target a Black person. The perpetrator videotaped the crime as well as stating his bias motivation to commit it. In this case, the perpetrator was a White male and the victim was Black. However, the perpetrator’s race is of little importance relative to the bias motivation which triggers the crime. But the essential components are present: (1) the criminal offense (aggravated battery) and (2) evidence of a bias motivation (perpetrator heard on tape stating his interest in attacking a Black person).

To the perpetrator, the victim is representative of a social group that he or she dislikes intensely or despises. Discovering why the perpetrator possesses this negative attitude or what germinated his or her bigotry is not relevant to the crime itself. Rather, the fact that the prejudiced attitude drives or motivates the offender’s action — in whole or in part—is essential. The victim is targeted because of his or her apparent membership, for example he or she shares common characteristics or attributes such as religion or sexual orientation with the social group, of which the perpetrator strongly disapproves. It is not always clear to law enforcement which bias is at work in a hate crime. A victim could hold multiple memberships involving two or more groups (or in fact none) that are hated by the perpetrator. For example, the victim could be both Asian and homosexual, or Hispanic and an immigrant, or disabled and Jewish. In such situations, despite the fact that the victim could be legitimately ascribed membership to more than one group, it is the perpetrator’s perception of who the victim is—rightly or wrongly—that determines the hate motive or motives.

Hate crimes are committed throughout the United States with regularity but are not as prevalent as ordinary crimes. The US Justice Department’s 2012 Uniform Crime Report indicated the estimate of 10,189,900 offenses reported to law enforcement. By comparison, the number of reported hate crime offenses for the same year is miniscule, just 5,796. Clearly, hate crimes do not occur to the same extent as conventional crimes. As a result, some believe that such crimes are not a serious problem because they are relatively rare events or that these crimes are a throwback of the past and more of an anomaly today. Some also make the argument that special laws to address hate crimes are not necessary and even counterproductive—a viewpoint that will be discussed in Chapter 3 (Jacobs & Potter, 1998). However, terrorist acts are also rare, but because of the extraordinary ramifications of such acts, they are not only the subject of intense study but also the focus of special legislation and government policy.

Hate-motivated crimes can range from the intentional destruction of property to violent aggravated assaults and even murder. The more typical of these acts is reflected in the following accounts:

Norwalk, CT. Oct. 13, 2009—Robert Wolf, 48, was charged with intimidation based on bigotry and third-degree assault for allegedly spitting in a woman’s face and calling her a derogatory name for Latinos.

(SPLC, 2009a)

Tinley Park, Ill. Nov. 7, 2009—Valerie Kenney, 54, was charged with a hate crime for allegedly yanking the headscarf of a Muslim woman two days after the Fort Hood shootings.

(Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 2010)

Ivaylo Ivanov … spray-painted swastikas and anti-Semitic slogans throughout Brooklyn Heights … while assembling … illegal guns and bombs inside his … home. “Kill All Jews,” “SS + Jew = Soap,” … pamphlets papered parked cars … Ivanov pled guilty … to possession of a weapon … and criminal mischief as a hate crime. He was … sentenced to an 18 year(s) of incarceration.

(Brooklyn Heights Blog, 2010)

The basic fundamentals of hate crime also include the distinctive manner in which it causes harm. A victim is targeted by the perpetrator because of a perceived attribute that is an essential element of their identity and not easily obscured. Therefore, for the victim of a hate crime, there is no real ability to mitigate vulnerability. Whereas, a victim of a house burglary can install alarms and deadbolt locks or purchase a watchdog to reduce the likelihood of future targeting and victimization, hate crime victims cannot simply detach from that which makes them Jewish, Hispanic, Gay or Black. This reality is summarized well by Frederick M. Lawrence (1999, 40), “this heightened sense of vulnerability caused by bias crimes is beyond that normally found in crime victims … It is an attack from which there is no escape.” In addition, because the majority of hate crime acts are aimed at individuals who are from groups that historically have been subjected to institutionalized discriminatory treatment, harm effects are exacerbated and reverberate old fears; evoking a collective memory of past pains and mistreatment.

Conceptualizations and statutory definitions of hate crime

As previously stated there are two necessary components of a hate crime, the predicate criminal offense and the perpetrator’s demonstration of animus toward the victim due to their perceived status. Most hate crime laws articulate these components in statutory language. Nevertheless there are a variety of different conceptualizations and statutory features that are found among hate crime laws.

The US Department of Justice defines hate crime as, “a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin” (US Department of Justice Hate Crime Statistics Act 2004, Appendix A, (b)(1)). In this definition, the base offense is prioritized with the bias element following. This definition also requires that even if a bias motive is only partially at work in a crime, it is still considered a hate crime. The state of California’s hate crime statute mirrors this definition:

California Penal section 422.55 states, ‘a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim: 1) disability, 2) gender, 3) nationality, 4) race or ethnicity, 5) religion, 6) sexual orientation, 7) association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.’

(Office of the Attorney General, July 2008)

However, the California statute includes the category “association” with those who are targeted as a result of their perceived characteristics. This expands California’s ability to use their hate crime statute to prosecute cases where individuals are targeted due to their mere affiliation with members of a group hated by the perpetrator.

Most states include the protected categories of race, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation. But just as California included “association,” other states also include less common protected categories. For example, New York’s Hate Crimes Act of 2000 (485.05) not only includes religion, but also “religious practice,” and “ancestry” as bias categories. Recently disability has been added as a bias category. Alabama includes it among its protected categories, and further delineates it as either physical or mental disability (Section 13A-5-13). This state also adds interesting language to its statute by describing the justification as well as the limits of its hate crime statute. It references incitement by groups like the Ku Klux Klan and others, which have a history of carrying out hate-motivated violence. According to California State University at San Bernardino’s Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism: Alabama 2: The Legislature finds and declares the following:

1 It is the right of every person, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or physical or mental disability, to be secure and protected from threats of reasonable fear, intimidation, harassment, and physical harm caused by activities of groups and individuals.

2 It is not the intent, by enactment of this section, to interfere with the exercise of rights protected by the Constitution of the State of Alabama or the United States.

3 The intentional advocacy of unlawful acts by groups or individuals against other persons or groups and bodily injury or death to persons is not constitutionally protected when violence or civil disorder is imminent, and poses a threat to public order and safety, and such conduct should be subjected to criminal sanctions.

One finds different terminology incorporated in Utah’s hate crime law. The statutory language found in 76-3-203.3 includes a noticeable emphasis on the intimidation of the victim:

2 (a) A person who commits any primary offense with the intent to intimidate or terrorize another person or with reason to believe that his action would intimidate or terrorize that person is subject to Subsection (2)(b).

3 “Intimidate or terrorize” means an act which causes the person to fear for his physical safety or damages the property of that person or another. The act must be accompanied with the intent to cause or has the effect of causing a person to reasonably fear to freely exercise or enjoy any right secured by the Constitution or laws of the state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Utah has apparently determined to eschew the inclusion of specific protected categories, preferring to emphasize the intent of the perpetrator to threaten or terrorize the victim.

This brief review provides a sense of the variation found in hate crime statutes. But these differences are not unexpected. Differences in cultural and social norms and local politics, including the discourse and negotiations that occurs among politicians, policymakers, citizen advocacy groups, other interest groups and the voting public, all play a role in defining crime in general and hate crime in particular (Lawrence, 1999; Petrosino, 1999; Jacobs & Potter, 1998, Jenness & Broad, 1997). These dynamics help forge the differences seen among state hate crime laws. For example, although gender and disability are included as protected categories in New Jersey’s hate crime laws, Delaware, New Jersey’s close neighbor to the south, does not include gender. Ohio, another neighboring state of New Jersey, lists race, color, religion, or national ...