There are many different reasons why a person might commit a crime. As I have learned in other classes, the reasons may stem from mental health issues, ignorance, and a sense of necessity, hatred, or just plain stupidity, among other reasons. Recently, crimes that are committed because of one’s bias or hatred towards a person of another race, creed, sex, or people of homosexuality have come under severe attack. So much has law enforcement been trying to eradicate these types of crimes that lawmakers have established new laws setting harsher punishment against criminals that have been deemed to commit these “hate crimes.” Originally I had planned on writing on why these laws should be eradicated, after all they have come under much attack by critics; but after much deliberation and looking at all the statistical data and the people being affected by these types of crimes, I now feel that these anti-hate crime laws are necessary. Obama’s new bill that was signed into law is something that will help guide us along and become a more unified nation.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation defines hate, or bias, crimes 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(“Crime in the,”) .” While hate crimes statistics cover a wide variety of crimes, the majority of hate crimes, and the ones that typically gain the most media attention, are race-based crimes. Generally, racially motivated crimes account for an average of fifty percent of all the hate crimes. In 2004 the UCR, or Uniform Crime Report, reported racially motivated crimes as accounting for 53.8% of all hate crimes (“Crime in the,”), in 2008 they were reported as 51.3% of all hate crimes(“2008 hate crime,” 2008). Due to the high media coverage of racial and gender-identity motivated hate crimes, I will be basing the majority of my ethics issues on those specific crimes.
It is a given fact that some people attack others, or other people’s property simply based on racism or other type of bias. As seen from the statistics, hate crimes are among all states and regions of the country, and while they are committed mostly by white males (of the 7,145 known offenders of hate crimes in 2004, 60.6% of them were white) hate crimes are committed by all races against all races (“Crime in the,”). The bigger question might be what motivates people to attack others due to race, or religion? Where do these feelings of bigotry and hatred come from? There are several factors that may produce hate crimes. These include: “poor or uncertain economic conditions, racial stereotypes in films and on television, hate-filled discourse on talk shows or in political advertisements, the use of racial code language such as “welfare mothers” and “inner-city thugs” (these are some of the nicest racist nicknames I’ve ever heard), an individual’s personal experience with members of particular minority groups, and scapegoating – blaming a minority group for the misfortunes of society as a whole (Siegel, 2006, 345).” Jack Devitt and Jack Levin also identify four different motivations behind hate crimes. Thrill-seeking hate crimes often involve groups of individuals gathering together to have fun. Much like groups gathering for an evening at the bar or to enjoy a sporting event, these individuals destroy property or inflict violence upon others in order go feel enjoyment or thrill. Reactive or defensive hate crimes occur when an individual or group feels they are threatened by an outsider or new individual in the neighborhood. They might feel that the person is a threat to the community or to their way of life. Mission hate crimes occur when a person or individual feels they must destroy a certain ethnic group because it is their duty, they are superior, or the ethnic group is evil. These types of hate crimes derive from the greatest amount of hatred, but are committed the least often (Siegel, 2006, 345). Retaliatory hate crimes occur in response to another hate crime. It does not matter if the initial hate crime was only perceived and did not actually occur; the retaliatory offenders feel they must retaliate (Siegel, 2006, 346).
As a person that grew up in the south, a place well known for high amounts of racial tension, I have seen racial discrimination in all aspects of life, affecting not only black or Hispanic members of the community, but white members too. I also have an understanding that these feelings do not come from out of nowhere, but are often passed down from generation to generation, father to son. Kids from these families are often subjected to feelings of hatred and bigotry from the moment they are born. Not helping is that fact that their feelings of racism may become stronger if they are discriminated against or attacked by a person from another race or ethnic group. Substance abuse may also play a role in the amount of hate crimes committed. Some individuals may not always be committed to acts of hate or bigotry, but may tend to drift in and out, affected by substances such as alcohol and other illegal drugs. While they may not be willing to attack a person of another ethnic group while sober, the substances can hinder their inhibitions and therefore cloud their judgment (“Hate crimes,”).
Hate crimes have had a long history in the world. Throughout history people have been killed because of their differences, often having catastrophic results with thousands or millions of people being killed. Christians were killed by the Romans, Muslims killed by the Crusaders, Africans enslaved in the Early United States, and most recently Jews killed by the Nazi war regime. These are just some examples of horrific cases of mission hate crimes. Approximately six million European Jews were killed during the Nazi’s “Final Solution” phase. While the Jews were their main target, they also targeted other minorities such as gypsies, Poles, the disabled, homosexuals, Communists, and others (“The Holocaust,” 2009). The Nazi party and Hitler blamed the Jewish people for their economic hardships and thought that it was necessary to clean the nation of their kind. There is no need to go into great detail about the horrific ways the prisoners were experimented on and how they were treated and killed. Today, mission hate crimes are widespread within many of the countries located in Africa and the Middle East.
Perhaps the largest factor for creating hate crime laws can be found in fear. The stories of Jewish survivors still rain fresh upon our minds, and though there is not much media attention to the African countries, we still feel the threat of religious and racial intolerance from radical Islamic groups. We fear not for our own lives, but fear of another group establishing control, a group such as the Nazi party, that will desire to commit acts of genocide within our own country. While groups such as the Ku Klux Klan have lost power over the years, there are still small groups remaining throughout the country. Europe also still has groups of Neo Nazis and Skinheads lurking in small groups. To ignore them is not a solution. Laws must be established that protect us from harm from someone that hates us only because of our skin color, to keep us from suffering through all of the hatred once again. We must do this, but we must also be careful, if we infringe upon people’s rights to free speech, then we are becoming what we want to fight against.
Some of the biggest critics against hate crime laws don’t argue that hate crimes don’t actually exist; they argue that implementing hate crime laws infringe upon free speech and religious freedom. In the 1992 case of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul a juvenile had been said to have burned a wooden cross in the lawn of a black family. The police charged the youth with violating the city’s Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance. This ordinance states that “anyone who places a burning cross, Nazi swastika, or other symbol on private or public property knowing that that symbol would arouse anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor (Samaha, 2008, 56).” The Minnesota Supreme Court found the ordinance was constitutional due to the fact that the ordinance only banned fighting words (“fighting words” are not protected by the first amendment), however, the U.S. Supreme Court voted that the ordinance was indeed in violation of the first amendment because it would allow those in favor of racial tolerance to use fighting words to argue in their favor, but would prohibit the use of the fighting words by those against racial equality (Samaha, 2008, 56). The ordinance was therefore discriminatory.
Critics also argue that it is not fair to punish criminals that commit crimes motivated by hate more severely than those that commit a similar crime though the motivation is different. It is also dangerous in that some crimes may appear as hate crimes, but the motivation may be something such as monetary gain. One example could be of a person that tries to commit a robbery while under the influence of a controlled substance where-in the robbery goes wrong and he ends up killing a person that is of another race. If only the basic details of the crime are given (i.e. white male brutally murders young black male), then it may be taken as a hate crime. Therefore extreme care and caution must be taken so that those charged with committing a hate crime are truly guilty and deserving of that label.
Those in favor of the hate crime laws say there are many reasons why it is important to have them, and why they should strictly be enforced. Frederick Lawrence argues that hate crimes go beyond the harm done to the victim, but also affect the communities in which they happen, and the families of the victims and perpetrators. Lawrence argues that hate crimes are far worse than crimes of a similar nature but of different motivation because: “bias crimes are more likely to be violent and involve serious physical injury to the victim; bias crimes will have significant emotional and psychological impact on the victim, they result in a “heightened sense of vulnerability,” which causes depression, anxiety, and feelings of helplessness; bias crimes harm not only the victim but also the “target community;” bias crimes violate the shared value of equality among citizens and racial and religious harmony in a heterogeneous society.” Recently in Colorado, Allen Andrade was convicted of first degree murder and of a bias-motivated crime and sentenced to life in jail without parole for killing a trans-gender teen named Angie Zapata (Spellman, 2009). This court decision was considered a first, and was hailed by many people from different groups and backgrounds. Many communities are starting to see the importance of implementing such hate crime laws. Such importance has even gone up to the federal government.
Obama signed a bill into effect on October 28th of this year that expands upon the current federal hate crime laws. With the expansion assaults against a person due to their sexual orientation or gender identity will now be considered a federal offense. The bill was signed into effect with a great amount of applause from the audience. The bill received critique from several religious groups as a way to criminalize conservative speech against things such as abortion and homosexuality (“Obama signs hate,” 2009). Representative Mike Pence stated that “hate crimes legislation is antithetical to the First Amendment, unnecessary and will have a chilling effect on religious freedom (“Obama signs defense,” 2009).” However, an explanation was given saying that federal hate crime laws would only be applied to violent acts that were motivated by bias or hate, but could not be used to prosecute speech based on controversial beliefs.
The facts and statistics have been shown. To say that hate crimes don’t exist or that they don’t have an effect on us or our communities would come only from a person that they themselves are full of hatred, or by a person that is ignorant. Hate crimes are dangerous to us not only as individuals but also as a society, to let them go unpunished and unnoticed is only asking for more trouble. While we cannot force a person to believe something different, or force someone not to have feelings of bigotry and hatred, we can try to keep them from acting upon those feelings. We can try to keep them from spreading their hate and racism by keeping them from affecting others with their violent acts.
Though there are viable arguments against the hate crime laws, these fears may be overcome with the correct use and overseeing of how these laws are enforced. The biggest arguments that have been examined all say that these laws could infringe on one’s rights to free speech. Thus far the laws have only been used in prosecuting those that have actually committed an act, and plans for the laws are also in that same fashion. As with all laws, it is our own responsibility to make sure that they are being enforced correctly. Each citizen must make sure that their own rights and the rights of those around them are being protected. To do so we must have these hate crime laws.
Data has shown that in 2008 hate crimes, especially those against blacks and certain religious groups were on the rise from 2007 (Bello, 2009). This is not a good trend. While this may actually be due in part to economic issues that came about towards the end of 2008, (which is not an excuse), one should remember that Hitler gained power due to his beliefs that a minority was to blame for Germany’s economic hardships. While we may be quite a distance from such things as killing millions of people for our problems, we may be coming to a slippery slide towards a country of blaming others for our own faults and problems. We must also strive to keep racist remarks and dangerous biased statements from being sent to our children and youth as messages of truth. The biggest weapon against crimes of hate may not be these laws, but might actually be education. Learning and understanding and tolerance towards those that are different from us are what this country needs. Though we may not be in total agreement with someone’s beliefs or actions, we must be open to the fact that not everyone looks or acts like us. Maybe when the time comes for open-mindedness there will be no need for hate crime laws, but until then they are important for our protection.Works Cited
Bello, M. (2009). Hate crimes against blacks, religious groups rise. USA Today, Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-11-23-hate-crimes_N.htm
Spellman, J. (2009). Transgender murder, hate crime conviction a first. CNN, Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/22/transgender.slaying.trial/index.html
Obama signs defense policy bill that includes ‘hate crime’ legislation. (2009). Fox News.com, Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/28/obama-signs-defense-policy-includes-hate-crime-legislation/
Obama signs hate crimes bill into law. (2009). CNN.com, Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/28/hate.crimes/index.html
Hate crimes. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://preventionpathways.samhsa.gov/pdfs/fact_hate.pdf
Crime in the United States 2004: Hate Crimes. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/index.html
2008 hate crime statistics: incidents and offenses. (2008). Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2008/incidents.html
The Holocaust. (2009). United StatesHolocaust Memorial Museum. Retrieved (2009, December 12) from http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId;=10005143
