Hate crime: definitions, legal frameworks, and social impacts

¶ … hate crime" and discuss a research question regarding the term. Hate crimes are crimes against individuals or groups based on hatred or non-acceptance of their race, religious beliefs, or other issues. Are hate crimes protected as "free speech" by the First Amendment?

Hate crimes can be defined differently by each state with laws against hate crimes. These experts, James B. Jacobs and Jessica S. Henry, define hate crimes as "a crime against persons or property motivated in whole or in part by racial, ethnic, religious, gender, sexual orientation and other prejudices" (Jacobs and Henry). Because hate crimes can fall under different definitions, they can also be interpreted differently. One large question regarding hate crimes is their relationship to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees free speech to all Americans. Are hate crimes simply a First Amendment issue, or do they go much farther than free speech in American today?

Research shows hate crimes are on the upswing in America today. Nazi slogans painted on Jewish temples, racial slurs against Muslims, and murder of young homosexuals have all occurred in the United States in the past few years, along with many other crimes that may go unreported. While America is proud of the freedom she offers to everyone, there is still bigotry and hatred in America, and much of it comes out in hate crimes against minorities and religious groups. Many people arrested for hate crimes feel their crimes are against a group rather than a person, and that they have the right to actively voice their opinions according to the guarantee of free speech in the First Amendment of the Constitution. This is why many courts have upheld the right of groups like the Ku Klux Klan to march, and to burn white crosses during their meetings. This is a right of free speech, whether other people agree with it or not. However, many hate crimes take free speech to another level. Some people who commit hate crimes cause physical damage or vandalism, and this goes beyond the realm of free speech. Indeed, the Supreme Court has ruled on this very issue. One law expert writes, "In Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (1978), the [Supreme] Court held that actual evidence of possible societal harm was necessary to justify regulation of expression" (Brooks). Thus, freedom of expression is ruled free speech, but when a hate crime crosses the line, it is still a crime, and not a free speech issue, although there are many who might try to argue that their hate crime was really simply a voicing of their opinion. One legal expert uses the following example, "For example, a defendant facing a penalty enhancer for carrying a gun during a bank robbery could argue, say, that he was expressing his strong opposition to the capitalist system" (Brooks). However, this argument would fail because his actual committing of the crime could cause physical harm to others in the bank, and so, his robbery is more than opposition, it is victimization and physical, rather than just an expression of his beliefs (Brooks). That is what makes defining and judging hate crimes so tricky. They can be seen as self-expression, which is granted by the First Amendment, but if they cross the line to harming others, they are not longer simply a form of self-expression and free speech.

Clearly, there are many forms of hate crimes, and those that include violence or physical harm to another person are handled differently than vandalism and other forms of protest and intimidation. In fact, "Intimidation,' the most frequently reported offense, accounted for one-third of all hate crime offenses against property and accounted for 27.4% of reported hate crimes" (Jacobs and Henry). There are also many problems inherent with the data reporting hate crimes. Some crimes of harassment may go unreported. Three other hate crime researchers note, "[P]ublic interest organizations tend to report any incidence of a hate crime including bias-motivated comments as hate crimes, and accept all reports -- even from anonymous sources" (Anderson, Dyson and Brooks). Thus, some hate crime reports can be questioned because the people reporting them are not experts, or even trustworthy. Some incidents may be considered hate crimes by one person, but not hate crimes by another person, and this can make deciding what reports are true and what reports are false very difficult. However, it is clear that when hate crimes turn violent, and harm property or another person, they become more than a way for people to vent their hatred, and they become full-fledged crimes that can be prosecuted in the courts. In addition, the Supreme Court has ruled that when a person who has committed a crime such as a hate crime, their beliefs and/or prejudices can be used to stiffen the penalty they received at their trial. Legal expert Brooks continues that a court ruling "re-affirmed that a defendant's beliefs may be used in certain circumstances in determining the severity of sentence" (Brooks). Thus, sentencing for a hate crime can become harsher if the prejudice or bigotry that led to the crime is taken into account.