Labeling Theory and the Problem of Defining Hate Crime

My Views on Hate Crimes
Although hate crime is often associated with some sort of violent crime motivated by a desire to hurt a group or person based on that group or person’s identity, Green, McFalls and Smith (2001) admit that hate crime is actually difficult “to define, measure and explain” (p. 479). The reason for the difficulty is that hate, in the obvious sense of a person persecuting another because the other person is different, is not always so explicitly manifested or expressed in the crime. In fact, it could be said that at some level hate is the motive behind all crime—hate for the state, hate for society, hate for the law, hate for one’s neighbor, hate for God, or even hate for one’s self. To make it even more complicated, Chakraborti and Garland (2009) argue that “hate crimes are not crimes in which the offender simply hates the victim, and in reality crimes do not need to be motivated by hatred at all in order to be classified as a hate crime” (p. 4). One can commit a hate crime, in other words, without even having any hatred towards the victim. Thus, even among researchers and scholars, there is a great deal of gray area with respect to hate crime.
For that reason I view the label of “hate crime” as somewhat pedantic and further evidence that we live in a legalistic society that wants to label everyone and everything instead of dealing with people and their actions on a case by case basis. I do not see the label of “hate crime” as a positive step in criminal justice—especially since there is so much confusion among scholars themselves over what constitutes a hate crime.
A recent crime that occurred in Detroit this year is a typical example of what could be called a hate crime: a family was targeted by a neighbor in the community after the family put a “Black Lives Matter” sign on their lawn. The neighbor threw rocks at the house, slashed the family’s tires, and fired a gun at the windows of the house (Spruill, 2020). The neighbor was arrested and charged with committing a hate crime, as the neighbor was upset by the sign and acted out of antipathy for the BLM movement. The attack was motivated by a conflict of ideological viewpoints. That is what made the crime a hate crime.
But what actions are not motivated in this way? Recently an Iranian scientist was assassinated in a covert operation that was likely supported by US and Israeli forces. Is the motivation in this action any different from the motivation in the hate crime described above? Yet the kind of action that the state engages in towards a nation like Iran is not considered a hate crime.
Indeed, even what could easily be called hate crimes do occur, the state sometimes looks the other way because the governors and mayors and politicians align themselves with the ideology that the actors promote. For instance, the actions of Antifa in various cities this summer—the looting, the rioting, the violent assaults—all of that was motivated by a conflict of ideologies, but mainly with Antifa hating the views of the Right—and the Left did nothing but support the “peaceful protests” that saw fires break out, people killed, and businesses looted. Even corporate CEOs came out to virtue signal their support for these protests that ended in looting of company stores.
It is clear therefore that what constitutes a hate crime for some is not what constitutes a hate crime for others, and this double standard means using the label of hate crime is dangerous to the concept of fair justice. Justice should be the same for all. Yet hate crime is a label applied to make an act seem all the more heinous. The reality is that any crime against another should be viewed on the basis of what the crime is and not subjectively from the standpoint of some sociopolitical standard that is ideologically infused with partisan political doctrines.
For that reason, hate crimes should not be punished more severely than if they were not labeled hate crimes. The criminal act is what should determine the punishment. If a person drives a car into a group of pedestrians and does so deliberately, what can be said for certain is that he was attempting to hurt or kill other people. That is sufficient for condemning the act and punishing the offender. There is no need to label it in a way that makes the act seem even more heinous by labeling it a hate crime. There is as much potential for bias and prejudice seeping into the affixation of labels as there is for bias an prejudice to seep into the motives of anyone who does anything.
In fact, labeling theory posits precisely that idea. Labeling theory posits that people label others in an effort to marginalize them and prevent them from having power. Labels are dangerous when applied in the justice system because it suggests that actors within the justice system have an interest in marginalizing others. Considering that hate crime is a difficult categorization to define, as scholars themselves admit, it is simply not the same as categorizing a criminal as a pederast, a rapist, a violent offender, an arsonist, a drug trafficker, or a counterfeiter. Those identifications are clearly defined and understandable. Calling someone a hate crime offender, however, raises too many questions. It should be done away with completely because it is indeed an attempt to label an actor in a way that marginalizes the person further and undermines that person’s rights.
For instance, what happens if the individual is charged with a hate crime simply for stating his own personal opinion or religious belief? A conservative might, for example, state that he hates homosexuality because he believes it is a sin. He has not said anything about hating people who identify as homosexual but he has said that he opposes the act of homosexuality. He has said it publicly and the LGBTQIA+ community has taken offense. Some sues in civil court and the person is now accused of a hate crime. If the person has a business or a public reputation, it is now tarnished, even before he has had an opportunity to defend himself in court. It is very similar to the White House’s recent claim that boycotting Israeli businesses in protest for how Israel treats Palestine is akin to Anti-Semitism. And being labeled an Anti-Semite is akin to being labeled a Nazi in today’s world. It is thus not hard to see how labels are applied for ideological purposes even at the level of the federal government, which should be impartial on issues such as this.
The fact that the state is not impartial and that it has adopted the label of hate crime in order to categorized and classify offenses is clear that it is engaging in the labeling of people who hold views or act in a certain manner. The label of hate crime is a way to further sensationalize the act or the thought and it is a way to reinforce the idea of thought crime. It is a way to restrict freedom of thought and freedom of opinion as well. The only opinions that will soon be allowed will be those that conform to what the state wants one to think—about all things. That is the problem with the label hate crime. It is Orwellian at its very core.
Thus, I not only believe that hate crimes should not be punished more severely than if they were not labeled as such, but also I believe that the very label of hate crime should be abolished completely. It should not be used ever. A crime should be assessed on the act committed—not on a subjective interpretation of what that act means.
References
Chakraborti, N., & Garland, J. (2009). Hate crime: Impact, causes and responses. Sage
Publications.
Green, D. P., McFalls, L. H., & Smith, J. K. (2001). Hate crime: An emergent research
agenda. Annual review of sociology, 27(1), 479-504.
Spruill, L. (2020). Warren family returns home few months after hate crime incident.
Retrieved from https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/local/2020/11/27/warren-family-returns-home-few-months-after-hate-crime-incident/