Apportioning Greater Emphasis on the Criminal Motive in Hate Crimes

HATE CRIMES

Hate Crimes: The Need to Apportion Greater Emphasis on the Criminal Motive

From the onset, it would be prudent to note that there is no universal definition for ‘hate crimes.’ This essentially means that in the past, various definitions have been floated by multiple authors in an attempt to assign meaning to ‘hate crimes.’ In this text, the definition that the Hate Crime Statistics Act establishes will be embraced. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics – BJS (2021), hate crime has been defined by this particular Act as “crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, gender or gender identity, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.” This is to say that on this front, it is what the victim is (or is perceived to be) that prompts, inspires, or motivates hate crime. Hate crime could take a wide range of forms including, but not limited to, humiliation, harassment, and degradation. It could also manifest as actual physical violence that may result in serious injury or death. Available data indicates that reported incidences of hate crime have been on the increase in the recent past. For instance, according to the Department of Justice – DOJ (2023), “nationally, reported hate crime incidents increased 11.6% — from 8,210 in 2020 to 9,065 in 2021.”

In as far as consequences are concerned, Mellgren, Anderson, and Ivert (2017) are categorical that in comparison to other regular or parallel crimes, hate crimes tend to have repercussions that are more severe. More specifically, as the authors indicate, “hate crimes have been found to have more severe consequences than other parallel crimes that were not motivated by the offenders' hostility toward someone because of their real or perceived difference” (Mellgren, Anderson, and Ivert, 2017). To a large extent, hate crimes have the unique capability or potential to influence or shape attitudes and behaviors at present and in the future. Thus, their impact could be felt for generations to come. It should further be noted that unlike other kinds of crime, hate crime has an additional element of prejudice against a larger constituency, and not only the targeted individual. Indeed, as Dalton, Lint and Palmer (2010) point out, perpetrators of hate crimes are motivated by the intolerance, hostility, as well as hatred that they harbor against certain categories or groups of people. Thus, in comparison to ordinary crimes, a larger constituency is often hurt by hate crime. It is for this very reason that the criminal motive should carry greater weight than the criminal act on this front. Further, it is also important to note that Lieberman (2010) makes an observation to the effect that very few individual crimes can trigger widespread disturbances that threaten social order and stability. For instance, according to the author, crimes that are motivated by bias have the potential to spark riots and, as a consequence, there is need to ensure that there is a strong deterrent against hate crime.

The fact that hate crimes have a negative impact on not only the wellbeing of individuals, but also the welfare of entire communities also underlies the need to apportion greater emphasis on the criminal motive over and above the criminal act. At the individual level, studies conducted in the past indicate that the effects of hate crime could last for a long time and negatively affect the psychological health and wellbeing of the victim. For instance, according to Novotney (2023), hate crimes have been associated with various mental health conditions including, but not limited to, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, depression, etc. Indeed, as the author further indicates, young adults who have experienced hate crime multiple times have a significantly higher likelihood of being diagnosed with a mental health condition (Novotney, 2023). This is in comparison to their counterparts who have not frequently faced hate crime. This psychological impact is not limited to individuals. In the words of Novotney (2023), “entire communities can feel the impacts of victimization... members of the targeted community may experience vicarious trauma symptoms resulting from witnessing others being victimized.” Thus, unlike most ordinary crimes, hate crime has effects that spread beyond the victim and could impact entire communities.

According to Dalton, Lint and Palmer (2010), “violation of the principle of equality and non-discrimination, as well as disruption of social cohesion, are harmful consequences that inflict great evil on the society” (173). It is for this very reason that we as the citizens of this great nation have over time put in place measures to rein in bigoted conduct across multiple facets of life, i.e. via the embrace of laws and regulations that specifically discourage and prohibit discrimination on the basis of various demographic characteristics. A variety of laws exist for this particular purpose across diverse realms including, but not limited to, the workplace, the housing market, etc. Based on the fact that hate crime threatens the gains that have been made on this front, it could be deemed more detrimental to societal good. This is more so the case given that it does pose serious threat to social cohesion, and grossly violates the basic principles of non-discrimination and equality.

There are those who are, however, convinced that crimes should be punished equally – regardless of whether the victim was selected on the basis of their race, sexual orientation, political affiliation, disability, religion, etc. For instance, according to Spakovsky and Perry (2021), victims of crime should be advanced equal protections without special regard to their identity. The authors argue that for instance, if someone is subjected to sexual assault, the motivation of the perpetrator should not be the overriding consideration. Instead, they indicate that the only consideration should be that a horrible crime has been committed because the harm that all victims suffer is similar. It should however be noted that this viewpoint fails to account for the other consequences of a hate crime beyond the harm suffered by the victim. It is the intentional selection of victims, the potential for hate crime to shape future attitudes and behaviors, and its potential to trigger social disturbances that make hate crime particularly dangerous. Dalton, Lint and Palmer (2010) capture this perspective best with their assertion to the effect that “hate crimes are themselves worse because the perpetrator chooses the victim because of the immutable characteristics that in the past were the basis for major enemy wars” (179).

In the final analysis, it would be prudent to note that as this discussion indicates, punishing hate crimes more severely does indeed serve the greater societal good. There is, thus, basis for greater emphasis being placed on the criminal motive – as opposed to the criminal act. Lieberman (2010) quotes Sir William Blackstone as having pointed out that “it is but reasonable that among crimes of different natures those should be most severely punished, which are the most destructive of the public safety and happiness.” As has been demonstrated in this write-up, crimes in which victims are selected based on what they are (or are perceived to be) are particularly odious. This is more so the case if we are consider their real and potential negative impact on not only the victim, but also the society at large. For this reason, there exists a valid reason for hate crimes to be deemed both morally and legally worse than other crimes.