Hate/Bias Crimes in New Jersey

Hate/Bias Crimes in New Jersey

Cross burning is one of the hate crimes that occur in the state of New Jersey on the regular basis. Cross burning can, in fact be traced back in history right up to the time of the infamous 'Ku Klux Clan', which was a group of people who were dedicated totally to the perpetration of hate and bias related crimes on minorities, mostly African-Americans living peacefully in that state. According to an eyewitness of the cross burning carried out outside an African-American's house in new Jersey, "Few things can chill free expression and association to the bone like night-riders outside the door, and a fiery cross in the yard." (O Say! Can you see: Free expression by the light of fiery Crosses) An African-American couple, Russ and Laura Jones, started to experience trouble with so called 'skinheads', as soon as they had shifted their place of residence to St. Paul, in Minnesota. They were, in fact, the only Blacks living in that all-white neighborhood, and this was indeed a neighborhood that was known for its racist culture and its hatred of blacks.

At first, the tires on their brand new station wagon were slashed, and then the taillights of their car were broken. About three months after they had moved in, the first cross was burned at 2:30 AM, and within a few hours, the skinheads managed to burn three more crosses in the Joneses' yard or in the neighbors' yards. Although the Joneses were not at all in doubt of what exactly the skinheads were trying to communicate, they were very worried about what would happen next, and whether they would be bodily harmed the next time. When they decided to bring in the police, they knew that they were really in trouble, because the police were not at all helpful. In fact, Mr. Jones says that when the police arrived, although they appeared to be shocked, they left quickly, because, according to them, they did not have any suspects because there were no witnesses.

Perhaps the story would have ended there, but for a neighbor's son proudly boasting to his friends that he had taken part in the cross burning incident in the Joneses' backyard recently. This skinhead, 'R.A.V', was charged with violating the bias crime ordinance of St. Paul. The First Amendment challenge to the law came to be known as the "R.A.V vs. City of St. Paul," and when the Supreme Court turned down the First Ordinance of the City of St. Paul, the skinheads celebrated. (O Say! Can you see: Free expression by the light of fiery Crosses) The Director of the Center on hate and Extremism in New Jersey says that hate crimes of this type are far more prevalent than was thought before, in fact, one hate crime occurs in the U.S.A., once in every fifteen minutes. These crimes are unusually severe, and therefore, it is appropriate to develop federal laws to punish the perpetrators of these crimes, and the laws of 45 states and several federal statutes are applicable to hate crimes, and some of the important cases of hate crimes are: United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787, 1966, the Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 1945, etc. (Levin, 1998)

In the Charles C. Apperendi vs. New Jersey, where the petitioner fired several bullets into the home of an African-American family in New Jersey, the Supreme Court gave the ruling that he was charged on several first and second and third and fourth degree offenses. (Supreme Court Collection) A local government can establish an ordinance against the hate crimes that occurred in that state. However, unless there is a broadened Federal Hate Crimes Bill, it would not achieve much. In any case, hate crime laws do nothing to deter the criminal. (Hate Crime Debate) In September 1994, the Congress enacted a Federal Hate Crime Penalty Enhancement Statute, which is also known as "Public Law 103-322, and 28003." This statute was supposedly created to increase the punishments for the federal crimes wherein the victim was a person who had been targeted because of his race or color or religion or sex or ethnicity. (Hate Crime, the violence of Intolerance)

Today, hate crime legislation covers most aspects of those attacks on persons that are based on religion, gender, color, creed, ethnicity, and so on. A Bill that was introduced by Senators Edward Kennedy, Arlen Specter, and Ron Wyden would have the advantage of widening the existing federal law so that it would include the sexual orientation of an individual, or any disability that the person suffers from into the various crimes that can be committed in the name of hate or bias. This Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1998 would also be able to provide certain added resources to facilitate the study of these hate crimes, since, as one Senator says that a hate crime is not just perpetrated against the victim, it is a crime committed against the entire community to which the person belongs. Another pro-is that since eight states do not have hate crime laws, this bill would be beneficial. (Hate Crime Debate: Is there a need for Stronger Federal Hate Crime Laws?)

There are some people who feel that in this way, the states' authority is being undermined; however, this is not true, because of the fact that the Bill would provide research and information on the topic for the states that need them. In reality, the main purpose of passing legislation on hate crimes is so that the government may have the right to punish and prosecute the 'attitudes' of certain sects of people, whose ideas may not match the general population's. The cons of this Bill are that it may have been unnecessary, since states do persecute hate crimes in general. In addition, the bill would end up becoming a burden on the federal courts, and even create different groups of people where there were originally none, based on minorities who have to be protected, and would therefore have more rights than the others. (Hate Crime Debate: Is there a need for Stronger Federal Hate Crime Laws?)

In New Jersey, several thirteen and fourteen-year-old children happened to spray painted swastikas on the Jewish homes in their neighborhood, displaying a deep-rooted hatred and bigoted attitude against Jews. In a similar manner, in Houston, Texas, a young man shot to death another man, because the other man was a gay, and he did not like gays. These are some of the hate crimes that happens everyday in the country and elsewhere in the world, and there is no doubt that strict legislation must be passed in order to curtail these crimes. Over the past few decades, several states have been, therefore, banning certain acts as being hate crimes, like for example, in Minnesota, "Whoever places on public or private property a symbol, object, appellation (name), characterization, or graffiti, including a burning cross or a Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses 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." (Constitutional Rights Foundation: Bill of Rights in Action)

In the same way, a person who "intentionally selects the person against whom the crime... is committed," when he commits a hate crime, can be persecuted by the government. These are some of the other legislation that have been passed to avert hate crimes, and most of them have more 'pros' than 'cons': The Hate Crimes Sentencing Enactment Act of 1994, The Violence against Women Act of 1994, The Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996, and so on. (Constitutional Rights Foundation: Bill of Rights in Action) However, the question remains as to whether or not there are enough of sanctions and legislations to deal with hate and bias crimes, and whether or not there is enough written in books that would help fight against this type of vicious crime. The Webster's Dictionary defines 'hate' as 'prejudiced hostility or animosity', and the legislation created to fight and to avert the occurrence of such crimes is more often helpful in defining terms rather than in actually succeeding in controlling and fighting them.

Therefore, it can be said that the law does not in any way provide any kind of solution for the terrible problem of hate in the society in which we live in, where one person or a group of persons can hate each other or be biased against each other just because he is black, or because he is gay, or for any other reason, and current events and history have taught us that the law is yet to develop a fool-proof method in which to prevent hate form blossoming in the minds of individuals, and this means that legal remedies are the only solutions that are available to an individual who has been persecuted on account of something that is completely beyond his control. Hate is in fact moving the modern society away from freedom and democracy, and it is imperative that remedial measures are taken immediately to combat this. (Shulman, 1997)

Some of the tools, other than legal options, can be education, and the promotion of social interaction between different groups. However, there are frequent criticisms of the law, stating that it is more 'reactive' than 'proactive', meaning that legal remedies are more often than not applied to actions that have already taken place, rather than preventing them, like for example, when a hate crime has already taken place, then the law can be applied. However, the law is far above being just a punitive measure to be taken whenever necessary; law, in the form of legal sanctions, or human rights laws, or laws meant for immigration, or the law made by a judge, also known as 'common law', is primarily meant to convey the important message to society about the inherent values of society, including decency, honesty, integrity, and tolerance.

In addition, the very fact that legal remedies do exist, and that these can be utilized when the need may arise, act as a deterrent against hate and bias activity, and although it is impossible to show through statistics exactly how many people were prevented form carrying out their hate crimes on account of the existing legislation on these crimes, it is indeed possible to quote certain anecdotes that may prove that legislation was a deterrent to the criminal. One of the best examples of this fact is the evidence provided by the 'hate telephone lines' in Toronto, and the activities related to them. For example, the most important provisions in the Criminal Code that addresses hate activities and crimes are the sections 318, 319, and 320. These deals with the imposition of a criminal sanction against promoting genocide, and also against promoting hatred against any particular group of people, and till today, not even one person has been charged with these crimes under this section, in Ontario. (Shulman, 1997)

Therefore, it can be stated that although laws and sanctions cannot 'protect' citizens from hate crimes, their very existence may prove to preventing these crimes form taking place, and there are, indeed, enough of sanctions and legislations to deal with these hate and bias crimes, and there is an option of creating more as and whenever necessary, when the specific need arises. There are certain specific guidelines to be followed while investigating hate crimes and these are specified under the various legislations related to them. The first one is to teach and guide the law enforcement officials who work on such cases, all about the various ethnic and minority groups that are in existence today, both within their organizations and outside, and this is because of the cross cultural and cross racial contacts that these officials would have with people, including suspects, victims, co-workers, and so on. (Cultural Diversity in Criminal Justice)