HATE CRIMES
Introduction
According to Barbara Perry, hate crime is an act of violence, threat of violence, or intimidation directed towards marginalized and stigmatized groups in the society. Marginalized groups are often devalued by the majority society, they are discriminated in other arenas, and have limited access to institutions that guarantee economic, political, and social justice. Hate crimes violate societal values and norms and cultivates inequality between members of the society. Hate crimes also cause psychological injury to the victims and can potentially cause serious security issues in a given community.
Hate crime laws need to be more punitive since those who commit such crimes violate basic human rights. Additional punishment for hate crimes symbolize that the society condemns such crimes based on bias and prejudice towards members of marginalized groups. However, making hate crime laws more punitive conflicts with some constitutional requirements, such as the First Amendment, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Arguments for enhanced punishment for hate crime
Enhanced punishment for hate crimes is a symbolic value of the law and the society’s condemnation of crimes based on prejudice and bias. Hate crimes laws increase punishment for a conduct which is already criminalized by the law. Hate crimes target a victim because of their identity or membership in a particular social group or even race. Individuals may be targeted because of gender identity, nationality, physical appearances, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation (Chalmers, & Leverick 2017). Social acceptance of enhancement of punishment for hate crimes has a strong symbolic value to the targeted groups because they feel that the system recognized their needs. Improved social condemnation of hate crimes also boosts the confidence and sense of belonging of the targeted groups or individuals.
Existence of enhance hate crime laws makes collection of data regarding the extent and scope of hate crimes in a given legislation. When hate crime laws are enacted and legislated, attention is focused on the crime and awareness about the extent of the crimes is raised (Jernow 2009) Data collection is therefore made more effective; therefore, intelligence and policing information is improved. The government and other policy-making bodies are able to allocate resources needed to eradicate such social issue effectively. The criminal justice system is also able to improve responses to hate crimes when the scope of such crimes is identified.
Hate crime laws are meant to penalize the bigger culpability of the perpetrator of hate crimes. The motive of the offender makes hate crime more serious than if the crime was committed with no such motive. Hate crimes are always made up of two elements; a criminal act committed with prejudice or bias motive. Hate crimes are already criminalized by the ordinary criminal law. The bias element means that the offender deliberately targeted the victim of crime due to some protected characteristic. Hate crimes not only violate social norms but the crimes also violate basic human rights (Boeckmann, & Turpin‐Petrosino 2002). Therefore, enhancing punitive hate crime laws promotes both adherence to the constitution and social morality.
Enhancing punishment for hate crimes can also be justified on the basis that hate crimes cause additional harms at three levels; to the primary victim, to the group that the victim belong to, and the wider society. The direct victim of hate crimes may suffer physical, psychological, and behavioral or social harm. Hate crimes are more likely to cause physical injury to the victim than other non-hate crimes. Therefore, it is logical that hate crimes laws should be severely punitive so as to deter perpetrators.
Hate crimes are also more likely to cause psychological injuries to the victims than other crimes. Hate crimes cause more psychological harm than other non-hate crimes because the victims have been targeted because of their identity or their membership to a certain social group (Boeckmann, & Turpin‐Petrosino 2002). Some acts of hate crimes like bullying, verbal abuse, offensive letters or graffiti, harassment or mate crimes can result to severe psychological injury to the victims. Victims of hate crime may also feel like they are to be blamed for their own victimization because of their identity and they may end up feeling a sense shame. Enhancing punitive hate crime laws is therefore, a significant step towards promoting social equality.
The victims of hate crimes are usually marginalized socially, economically, and politically. Marginalized groups are often devalued by the majority society, they are discriminated in other arenas, and have limited access to institutions that guarantee economic, political, and social justice. The victims of such crimes are therefore, unable to air their concerns effectively due to such barriers. Making hate crime laws more punitive airs the concerns of the victimized groups or individuals and boosts their trust and confidence in the system.
Hate crimes present serious security threat and public disorder. Victims of hate crimes may feel isolated and ridiculed by the majority society. As such, hate crimes can cause civil unrest and social division. Hate crimes can also elevate existing social tensions between groups and such tension can cause inter-ethnic war, social unrest, and internal conflicts. In societies where religious, political, or ethnic groups are already sensitive, hate crime can act as a catalyst to inter-group intolerance. Making hate crime laws severely punitive can reduce the number of incidences as people would be deterred by the costs of committing hate crimes.
Hate crimes also result to social and behavioral harm or injury. Victims of hate crimes are more likely to change their behavior to respond to the crime. Victims are often worried that they may be re-victimized due to social vulnerability. A survey by British Crime Survey revealed that victims of hate crimes are more likely to report feeling extremely worried about the likelihood of future victimization. Victims of hate crimes are less attached to their neighbourhoods and have fewer social interactions than other crimes. Victims may adopt various strategies such as leaving their homes, avoiding certain locations, or changing schedules and routines to avoid repeat victimization (Meli 2014). Such additional harms to the victims justifies the additional punishment on hate crimes.
Hate crimes also causes harm to the other members of the targeted groups. Hate crimes act as a warning or message to the members of the targeted groups that they are the target and they are unable to avoid the risk or avoiding the risk could be another harm to the victims. The lives of the targeted groups are threatened by such perceptions. When members of the targeted group witness victimization of their mates, they become afraid that the same incidences may happen to them or the members of their group again. Most of the targeted individuals or groups may experience fear, shock, or feelings of inferiority, isolation, sadness, disgust, and vulnerability (Gerstenfeld 2017). When victims of hate crimes harbor such feelings of fear, sadness, and disgust against the perpetrators, the societal fabric is weakened and the risk of social unrest is elevated.
The perpetrators of hate crimes act deliberately to cause additional psychological, physical, and social harm to victims. Such offenders should be more culpable than perpetrators of other non-hate crimes who do not act with such motives. The fact that the perpetrators act deliberately to cause more harm to the victim justifies additional punishment on hate crimes (Walters 2016). For such crimes to be eradicated, the punishment must be proportional to the harm and injury caused on the victims.
As mentioned earlier, hate crimes violates the law as well as social norms. Punishing hate crimes severely sends a denunciatory message that both the law and the entire society condemn the wrongfulness on the act. More punitive hate crime laws convey the message that hate crime should be regarded as a more serious offence because of the additional harms imposed on the victims (Chalmers, & Leverick 2017). By severely punishing hate crimes, future hate crimes are potentially deterred. Severe penalties continuously remind potential offenders that bias-motivated crimes are socially and legally unacceptable.
Punishing hate crimes more severely conveys a message to the members of the targeted groups that the government and the society values them and treats them as equal members of the society. The members of the targeted group are more likely to cooperate with the police and investigators to provide intelligence and information about hate crimes as well as other crimes in the society (Gerstenfeld 2017). Cooperation with the police lead to resolving of investigations regarding hate crimes and further improves community policing.
The constitution and other statutes require that all members of society should be treated equally. Social equality seeks to provide people with an opportunity to realize their potential and achieve full human dignity. Social equality is emphasized on the United Nations human rights instruments and constitutions of almost every democratic state. As mentioned earlier, hate crimes create social inequalities because the targeted groups are devalued by the perpetrators and they feel isolated from the majority society (Woods 2014). The government should therefore do everything within its power to root out inequality including legislating more punitive laws against hate crimes.
Arguments against enhanced punishment for hate crimes
Making hate crime laws more punitive conflicts with some constitutional requirements, particularly, the First Amendment. Under the First Amendment, the constitution guarantees the right and freedom of association and joining groups. The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibits states from engaging in all forms of racial or ethnic discrimination. Hate crimes violate not only the laws of a given state but they also violate international statutes and agreements and social norms. The tendency of hate crimes to violate multiple laws and norms guarantees additional punishment on the crime.
Although legislating severely punitive hate crime laws is said to deter potential offenders from committing such acts in future, there is no evidence to suggest that offenders can be deterred by the severity of the punishment. Attaching severe punishments to hate crime can result to an opposite impact. Offenders may feel more motivated to commit the crime so as to achieve “hero status” among peers. Rather than embracing retributive approach, the government and the entire society should raise awareness and cultivate restorative justice approach (Iganski, & Lagou 2015) which is much more effective as compared to retributive justice.
Additional punishment on hate crimes involves unfair punishment of people simply because of their beliefs or bad characters. Again, the motives of hate crimes are hard to determine. Legislating more punitive hate crime laws raises constitutional issues as to whether the laws penalize group affiliation and speech. The American jurisprudence holds a basic principle that thoughts alone cannot be punished no matter how abhorrent they seem to be (Schweppe, & Walters 2015). The First Amendment provides that every individual should be free to think and believe as he wills.
Conclusion
In conclusion, hate crimes are acts of violence, threat of violence, or intimidation directed towards marginalized and stigmatized groups in the society. Hate crimes violate societal values and norms and cultivates inequality, and social tension between members of the society. Increasing the penalties for hate crimes is a symbolic value of the law and the society’s condemnation of crimes based on prejudice and bias. Enhancing the punishment for hate crimes conveys a message to the members of the targeted groups that the government and the entire society recognizes them and treats them as equal members of the society.
However, increasing the severity of hate crime laws conflicts with some constitutional requirements, such as the First Amendment, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Legislating more punitive hate crime laws also raises constitutional issues as to whether the laws punish group affiliation and speech. However, this does not mean that hate crime laws should not be made more severe. The crime violates basic human rights, the constitution, as well as international statutes. Additional punishment for hate crimes is therefore justifiable.
References
Boeckmann, R.J. and Turpin‐Petrosino, C., 2002. Understanding the harm of hate crime. Journal of social issues, 58(2), pp.207-225.
Chalmers, J. and Leverick, F., 2017. A Comparative Analysis of Hate Crime Legislation: A Report to the Hate Crime Legislation Review.
Gerstenfeld, P.B., 2017. Hate Crime. The Wiley Handbook of Violence and Aggression, pp.1-13.
Iganski, P. and Lagou, S., 2015. Hate crimes hurt some more than others: Implications for the just sentencing of offenders. Journal of interpersonal violence, 30(10), pp.1696-1718.
Jernow, A.L. and Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, 2009. Hate crime laws: A practical guide. OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR).
Meli, L., 2014. Hate Crime and Punishment: Why Typical Punishment Does Not Fit the Crime. U. Ill. L. Rev., p.921.
Schweppe, J. and Walters, M., 2015. Hate crimes: Legislating to enhance punishment.
Walters, M., 2016. Readdressing hate crime: synthesizing law, punishment and restorative justice. Hate, politics, law, Oxford University Press, Forthcoming.
Woods, J.B., 2014. Hate crime in the United States. The Routledge International Handbook of Hate Crime. London: Routledge, pp.153-62.