Law Enforcement's Role in Combatting Hate Crimes in the U.S.

Introduction

"Hate crimes are a form of domestic terrorism. They send the poisonous message that some Americans deserve to be victimized solely because of who they are. Like other acts of terrorism, hate crimes have an impact far greater than the impact on the individual victims. They are crimes against entire communities, against the whole nation, and against the fundamental ideals on which America was founded. They are a violation of all our country stands for." — Senator Edward Kennedy, Remarks on the Matthew Shepard Act (September 25, 2007)

The epigraph above is a useful description of the monumental impact that hate crimes can have on American society and underscores the importance of the law enforcement community in combatting these crimes. Although there were some high-profile hate crimes committed in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the actual number of hate crimes committed in the United States over the past decade or so — with the exception of sexual orientation-related hate crimes — has actually decreased. To determine the facts, this paper reviews the literature to provide a background and overview of the hate crime problem in the United States, the controlling legislation that has been enacted to address the problem, and the role of the law enforcement community in combatting hate crimes. A summary of the research and important findings concerning recent trends in hate crime law enforcement are provided in the paper's conclusion.

Background and Overview of Hate Crimes

The human condition is frequently characterized by some people harboring negative attitudes concerning specific groups, and these individuals subsequently commit crimes against those they consider members of such groups — crimes that are frequently termed "hate crimes." Hate crimes can be fueled by a wide range of perceived differences between groups. For instance, Isaacs (2007) reports that "individuals have been beaten to death because of their sexual orientation, lynched because of the color of their skin, or shot because of their religious affiliation" (p. 32). The Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990 defines hate crimes as "crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, gender or gender identity, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity." According to Brunker, Alba, and Dedmon (2014), however, "for reporting purposes, it does not matter whether or not the perpetrators of the crime were ever charged with a hate crime" (Hate Crime in America by the Numbers, para. 3).

These so-called "hate crimes" are regarded as more serious than corresponding simple crimes because of the "hate" factor involved. In this regard, Isaacs (2007) notes that "some people believe that when a crime against an individual is motivated by a negative attitude about a particular group — for example, gay men — the crime is aggravated" (p. 32). This view means that an assault on an individual perceived as gay, motivated by a fundamental negative attitude about gay people in general, is considered more serious than a simple assault on an individual for other reasons (Isaacs, 2007).

Not everyone agrees with this perspective, however, and some authorities argue that many hate crimes are motivated by the same factors that cause other types of violent encounters rather than by internalized negative attitudes. In this regard, Jacobs (1999) asked early on, "Should hate be a crime?" and noted that "most of the cases that are labeled hate crimes result from impulsive behavior or situational disputes, often involving juveniles" (p. 4). Other authorities maintain that the current push for even more stringent hate crime laws represents a redundancy fueled by self-interest rather than the best interests of the country. For example, Heriot (2009) suggests that:

"The real reason for hate crime laws is not the defense of human beings from crime. There are already laws against that… The real reason for the invention of hate crimes was a hard-left critique of conventional liberal justice and the emergence of special interest groups which need boutique legislation to raise funds for their large staffs and luxurious buildings." (p. 18)

As recent events across the country have vividly demonstrated, however, race-related hate crimes in particular have become extremely high-profile events that can devastate an otherwise safe community. As Dredge (2009) emphasizes, "even cities with healthy relations among diverse groups can experience tension if hate crimes are not publicly condemned by local leaders, if residents feel local police will not protect them, or if perpetrators are not prosecuted as criminals" (p. 3).

Although not always called such, hate crimes have always been a problem in the United States. Contrary to the expectations of many law enforcement authorities, these crimes did not become more frequent following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. For example, FBI annual data on hate crime prevalence in the United States showed that in 2012, law enforcement agencies reported a total of 5,796 hate crimes, compared to 8,759 incidents in 1995, which was the first year these statistics were published by the FBI (Trout, 2015). These general decreases have been attributed to a corresponding decline in the number of violent crimes overall during the same period (Trout, 2015). The types of hate crime incidents in the United States during the period from 1995 through 2012 were categorized according to race/ethnicity/origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, and multiple-bias.

Race/ethnicity/origin remains the largest category of hate crimes by far, though significant racial differences exist within these prevalence rates. Although the overall number of hate crimes has declined since the mid-1990s, the decline across categories has not been consistent and in some cases there have even been increases. For instance, sexual orientation-related hate crimes increased from 1,016 incidents in 1996 (11.65% of the total) to 1,135 incidents (19.6% of the total) in 2012 (Trout, 2015). According to Trout, "this represents an 8% increase in the proportion of hate crimes based on sexual orientation. Moreover, in absolute terms, the number of hate crimes based on sexual orientation has remained constant even as violent crime more generally has fallen dramatically" (2015, p. 132).

It remains unclear, however, whether this 8% increase is attributable to improved identification and reporting by law enforcement authorities — categorizing crimes as hate-motivated rather than as simple crimes — or to an actual increase in the number of sexual orientation-related crimes (Trout, 2015). Moreover, all crimes are not reported, and among those that are reported, some may be inappropriately categorized by law enforcement, making the precise calculation of the prevalence of any type of hate crime even more difficult (Trout, 2015). Some indication of the prevalence of sexual orientation-related hate crimes can be discerned from a Pew Research Center report from June 2013, which found that approximately 30% of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals had been the target of threats or actual physical assaults due to their sexual orientation or gender identity at least once during their lifetimes (Trout, 2015). As Trout concludes, "thus regardless of whether looking through the lenses of crimes reported or community perceptions, hate crimes remain a concern. Accordingly, difficulties with enforcing hate crime statutes also remain important" (2015, p. 132).

The most recent FBI report on hate crime statistics shows a further increase in sexual orientation-related hate crimes to 20.8%. Hate crimes are categorized as resulting from negative attitudes about sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, gender identity, disability, and religion — in other words, the full spectrum of factors that can distinguish anyone from mainstream society. It is also noteworthy that many disabled people report being the ongoing target of hate crimes (Stevens, 2011).

Some of the key findings from the FBI's most recent report on hate crimes in the United States in 2013 include the following:

Of the 5,928 incidents reported, six were multiple-bias hate crime incidents involving 12 victims. Of the 5,922 single-bias incidents reported, the top three bias categories were race (48.5%), sexual orientation (20.8%), and religion (17.4%). Of the reported 3,407 single-bias hate crime offenses that were racially motivated, 66.4% were motivated by anti-Black or African American bias, and 21.4% stemmed from anti-white bias. Additionally, 60.6% of the reported 1,402 hate crime offenses based on sexual orientation were classified as anti-gay (male) bias. Law enforcement agencies identified 5,814 known offenders in the 5,928 bias-motivated incidents; of these offenders, 52.4% were white and 24.3% were Black or African American. Of the 6,933 hate crime offenses reported in 2013, 63.9% were crimes against persons (such as intimidation, assaults, rapes, and murders), while 35% were property crimes (mostly acts of destruction, damage, or vandalism). The remainder were considered crimes against society, such as drug offenses or prostitution (Latest Hate Crime Statistics Report Released, 2014, para. 2).

Many authorities agree, however, that the actual number of hate crimes committed in the United States each year is far higher than these statistics indicate, because many such crimes go unreported (Dredge, 2009). There are several laws on the books that mandate hate crime-related law enforcement, and these are discussed further below.

Controlling Legislation

The history of hate crime-related legislation in the United States dates to the latter half of the 19th century. More recently, the Matthew Shepard–James Byrd Hate Crime Prevention Act ("HCPA") was signed into law on October 29, 2009 by President Barack Obama (Simmons, 2012). The HCPA expanded the federal government's authority to prosecute hate crimes (also termed "bias-motivated crimes") in two fundamental ways:

First, the HCPA grants broad authority to the federal government to prosecute defendants accused of perpetrating violent acts because of the victim's actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin. Unlike other federal legislation, the HCPA expands this class of victims to also include those victimized because of gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Second, in contrast to pre-existing federal hate crime legislation, the HCPA does not require victims to be engaged in federally protected activities when the crime occurs (Simmons, 2012, p. 1864).

There were already a number of federal statutes targeting hate crimes prior to the enactment of the HCPA. These include most notably the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (enacted in response to widespread violence against recently freed African Americans in the South during Reconstruction); the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (intended to "strengthen the capability of the Federal Government to meet the problem of violent interference, for racial or other discriminatory reasons, with a person's free exercise of civil rights"); the Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990 (whose primary purpose is to collect statistics on the prevalence of hate crimes in the United States); and the Hate Crime Sentencing Enhancement Act of 1995 (which provided for enhanced penalties for defendants prosecuted for bias-related crimes). Individually and collectively, however, these laws did not provide the wide range of protections contained in the HCPA (Simmons, 2012, p. 1865). In addition, in 2007 the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act was proposed but remained pending review by the U.S. Congress (Lawrence, 2008).

Most recently, the FBI approved the Criminal Justice Information Services Division's Advisory Policy Board's recommendation to expand the bias types in the religious category of hate crimes to include all religions identified by the Pew Research Center and the U.S. Census Bureau (Latest Hate Crime Statistics Report Released, 2014). In addition, on January 1, 2015, hate crime data collection procedures were changed to include an anti-Arab bias motivation. Data collection for both types of hate crimes also began on January 1, 2015 (Latest Hate Crime Statistics Report Released, 2014).

Conclusion

Hate crimes are crimes directed against members of a group toward which an individual harbors a negative attitude. The research showed that there are a number of different types of hate crimes, including those based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and gender identity, disability, and religious differences. The research also showed that the United States has a lengthy history of legislation specifically designed to target hate crimes, including the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, the Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990, the Hate Crime Sentencing Enhancement Act of 1995, and the Matthew Shepard–James Byrd Hate Crime Prevention Act of 2009.

Although some types of hate crimes have been on the decline since 1996, the research also showed that sexual orientation-related hate crimes have been increasing, while race-related hate crimes still remain the most prevalent type. In the final analysis, it is reasonable to conclude that the rigorous enforcement of existing hate crime legislation will further reduce these types of crimes in the future. It is also reasonable to conclude, however, that people will always find something different about others that leads them to develop and sustain negative attitudes. The extent to which the law enforcement community is able to prevent individuals from acting on those attitudes through violent acts against members of other groups will likely determine the extent to which any further reductions in hate crimes are achieved.

References

Brunker, M., Alba, M., & Dedmon, B. (2014, April 16). Hate crime in America by the numbers. NBCNews. Retrieved from

Dredge, P. (2009, October 19). Justice Department lends a hand to police in fight against hate crimes. Nation's Cities Weekly, 21(42), 3–5.

Heriot, G. (2009, May 15). Double jeopardy; hate-crimes bill invites prosecutorial abuse. The Washington Times, 18.

Isaacs, T. (2007, Summer–Fall). Domestic violence and hate crimes: Acknowledging two levels of responsibility. Criminal Justice Ethics, 20(2), 31–35.

Jacobs, J. B. (1999, Fall). Should hate be a crime. The Public Interest, 113, 3–5.

Latest hate crime statistics report released. (2014). Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/december/latest-hate-crime-statistics-report-released.

Lawrence, F. M. (2008, Spring). The evolving federal role in bias crime law enforcement and the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007. Stanford Law & Policy Review, 19(2), 251–255.

Meade, E. (2010, July–August). Scanning the future of law enforcement: A trend analysis. The Futurist, 44(4), 22–25.

Simmons, K. C. (2012, Fall). Subverting symbolism: The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act and cooperative federalism. American Criminal Law Review, 49(4), 1863–1874.

Stevens, B. (2011, Summer). Disability hate crimes: Does anyone really hate disabled people? Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 39(2), 387–391.

Trout, M. (2015, Winter). Federalizing hate: Constitutional and practical limitations to the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. American Criminal Law Review, 52(1), 131–135.