HATE CRIMES

BY

DEBBIE WRIGHT

December, 2002

 Keywords:  Hate crimes, bias crimes, bigotry

      Two bicyclists were riding down a country road in Wyoming in early October 1998 when they noticed what appeared to be a scarecrow tied spread-eagle to a split-rail fence.  The scarecrow was actually a young man, a gay student from the University of Wyoming.  He was robbed of $20, lashed into a coma, and never regained consciousness.  (Roleff, 2001, p.13)

      On the night of February 19, 1999, in Sylacuaga, Alabama, Steve Mullins asked his friend Charles Butler to help him kill an acquaintance named Billy Jack Gaither.  Butler agreed and watched Mullins beat Gaither with an ax handle and burn his body on top of a pile of tires.  Shortly after the crime, they turned themselves in to the police and admitted to the killing. Both men were convicted of capital murder and received life in prison without the possibility of parole.  Although Mullins, a neo-Nazi skinhead, killed Gaither “cause he was a faggot,” the murder did not make the FBI hate crimes report.  Alabama’s hate crimes law does not apply to crimes motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation.  (Espejo,  2002, p. 6).

 What Are Hate Crimes?

     Hate crimes, violent acts against people, property, or organizations because of the group to which they belong or identify with, are a tragic part of American history.  (American Psychological Association, 2002) However, related case data was not collected until early in this decade.  Psychological studies, too, are also fairly recent.  The result is, research is beginning to piece identifying factors to these crimes.

     Today, hate crimes are described as violent incidents, generally because of differences in race, religion, ethnicity or national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender. Crimes involve robbing, vandalizing, destroying, stealing, or setting fires in 30 percent of the cases.  The other 70 percent involve actual violence against another person.  This can range from a simple assault to rape or murder. (www.apa.org,  2002).  

 

History of Hate Crimes

     History shows us that hate motivated violence is not a new phenomena.  It has been a definite feature of societies around the world, both now and historically.  A line of atrocities have been committed on the grounds of racial or religious prejudice from the beginning of recorded time.  “Bloodshed based on race or creed is interwoven with the fabric of our culture from the first arrival of explorers to the present day.  Our modern spate of ethnic mayhem is by no means new, unprecedented or unique.”  (Jenness, 1997, p. 21)  During the past eight decades, hatred has reached such proportions in Turkey, Germany, Indonesia, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Burundi, Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda, and elsewhere that it has almost become genocidal.  Violence based on hatred has happened so much that it might be considered as an inborn characteristic of our species.  (Jenness, 1997, p. 21)

Many Hate Crimes are Hoaxes

      In 1990, at the University of Washington approximately 150 students had an “anti-racism” rally.  They were carrying banners and marching on the office of the university’s president as they chanted “Hey ho, hey ho, racism has got to go.”  They also demanded that “justice be done” in the case of a racially motivated attack by Whites on an Asian student, Darres Park.

      Park said that he and two of his White friends had been minding their own business, when three Whites carrying tire irons and baseball bats had confronted Park.  He said the White attackers held off Park’s friends while a crowd of White racist gathered and cheered on the attackers.  Park said some were chanting, “Brain the gook” and he also said he might have been killed if it were not for his knowledge of the martial arts.

      Darres Park attracted media attention all around the nation.  He became a national hero in the “anti-racist” crusade.

     Police in the area were so shocked by the “anti-racist” cheering section that they bungled the investigation.  Law enforcement stepped up their investigation of the people that were allegedly involved in the incident.  The friend that was supposed to have been with Park at the time of the attack said he had never given such a report to the police.  They also discovered that Park had never broken his wrist as he had claimed.  According to inquiries of the other students, very few of them believed Park’s story from the very beginning.

      Park may have been trying to create “victim status” for himself and get public sympathy.  Evidence was discovered leading the police to charge Park with three armed bank robberies in the Seattle area.  Also charged in the robberies was on of Park’s “White friends” who supposedly witnessed the racist attack.

      Many hate crimes are hoaxes committed by members of the group that is allegedly being persecuted.  They stage these hoaxes to get money, attention and celebrity status.  They are usually not punished as severely as real perpetrators of hate crimes. (Strom, 1996, p.24)

      Some fake hate crimes may be intended to cover personal embarrassment.  A fifteen year old African American girl falsely reported being raped by six white policemen.  She used this to explain why she had missed her curfew.  An article in the Nation magazine stated it did not matter that the girl was lying because the pattern of whites abusing blacks is true.

      John Leo, a columnist for the U.S. News and World Report, believes that sometimes even dubious reports of race and gender offenses pay off, leading to an institutional payoff in the form of more minority jobs or titles.  The president of the student senate at North Carolina’s Guilford College said she had been assaulted, with the words “nigger lover” scrawled on her chest.  She was a white person who had endorsed a proposal to create a full-time director of African-American affairs on campus.  The case was dropped and she later dropped out of Guilford.  Many think that the attack never took place but she had achieved her goal because Guilford installed a director of African-American affairs. (Leo, 2002, p. 36)

 

Research and Statistics

 

            In the year 2000, of the 8,055 single-bias incidents, 53.8 percent were motivated by racial bias, 18.3 percent by religious bias, 16.1 percent by sexual orientation bias, 11.3 percent by ethnicity and national origin bias and 0.5 percent by disability and multiple biases.   (www.jcjrs.org, 2000)

      Case studies have not gone without prejudice.  They do introduce evidence and provide data.  However, careful research must be done to provide accuracy for reliable research.  One case, alone, does not indicate a definite pattern.  Over the last decade, various approaches to hate-motivated violence have developed, resulting in crime patterns.

      Initially, researchers identified hate crimes as social problems, with a specific cause.  Bigotry was one heavily researched area in the early 1990’s.  In Raleigh, North Carolina, two white men beat to death a twenty-four-year-old Chinese-American man, Jim Loo, with the butt of a gun and a broken bottle in 1991.  Two teenagers desecrated a synagogue in Brooklyn, New York, in 1992, in an effort to oppose the Jewish new year.  In Concord, California, an AIDS activist received threatening phone calls and a bomb threat during 1992. (Jenness, 1997, p. 3)

      These instances resulted in the need for legal reform and public awareness.  Valerie Jenness, an assistant professor in the Department of Criminology at the University of California and Kendal Broad, a graduate student at Washington State University initiated studies focusing on the links between deviance and social control.  Their analysis was motivated by a series of questions about why these new criminal categories have emerged and what determines who gets categorized as a victim of hate violence.  Social movements were linked to hate factors, including the emergence of gay and lesbian activities, women’s rights, political cultures, and religious beliefs.

      Consistent with these movements’ three kinds of antiviolence groups resulted.  The citizen-action model of communities mobilizing in mount patrols, run neighborhood watch programs, and try to make the areas safe; the victim’s services movement, which staffs hotlines, centers, and support groups; and the racial justice movement that has organized against police brutality, state-sanctioned violence, and violence against people of color and other minority constituencies.  (Jenness, 1997, p. 28) These groups remain in existence today, work for legislative reform, and promote educational programs.

 

Who Commits Such Crimes? 

      Most hate crimes are committed by otherwise law-abiding young people who see little wrong with their actions.  Alcohol and drugs sometimes help promote the violence, but the main determinant is personal prejudice.

 

            Such prejudice is most likely rooted in an environment that disdains someone who is “different” or sees that difference as threatening.  There is a perception that society sanctions attacks on certain groups.  For example, Dr. Karen Franklin, a forensic psychology fellow at the Washington Institutes for Mental Illness Research and Training, has found that offenders perceive that they have society’s permission to engage in violence against homosexuals. (www.apa.org, 1998)

             Law enforcement agencies in 2000 reported a total of 7,530 known offenders who were associated with over 8,000 incidents.  By known offender’s race, 64.4 percent were white, 18.7 percent were black, 1.4 percent was Asian and Pacific Islanders, and 0.6 percent were American Indian and Alaskan Native. (www.ncjrs.org, 2002)

             Extreme hate crimes tend to be committed by people with a history of antisocial behavior.  One of the most heinous examples took place in June 1998 in Jasper, Texas.  Three men with jail records offered a ride to a black man who walked with a limp.  After beating the victim to death, they dragged him behind their truck until his body was partially dismembered.  (www.apa.org, 1998)

 

Where Are Hate Crimes Committed?

     During 2000, the highest percent of reported hate crime incidents occurred in or on residential properties.  Incidents committed on highways, roads, alleys, and streets accounted for 17.9 percent.  11.4 percent took place in schools and colleges, and 10.4 percent occurred at other or unknown locations.  The remaining 28.2 percent of incidents were widely distributed among various locations.  (www.ncjrs.org, 2002)

 

How Much Hate Crime is in Existence? 

     State to state reports varies, depending upon documentation.  As with most offenses, reporting is voluntary on the part of local authorities, therefore the accuracy of statistic is hampered. (www.civilrights.org, 1998)  Research, though, has indicated that hate crimes are not necessarily random, uncontrollable, or inevitable.  (www.apa.org, 1998)

Is There Anything the Public Can Do? 

      Research has indicated that support of antidiscrimination laws, increased support of community groups, training opportunities for authorities, and continued educational opportunities will make the public more aware.  Public knowledge of such crimes, as well as knowledge of the punishment will possibly keep others from committing such crimes. (www.apa.org, 1998)

 Are Federal Hate Crime Laws Necessary?

     Some say yes federal hate crime laws are necessary.  Eric Holder believes that hate crime laws are necessary and that enforcement of such laws is crucial to wiping out hate crimes.  Laws as they are now allow some hate crimes to go unpunished. (Holder, 2001, p.97)  According to Howard P. Berkowitz, hate crime legislation punishes only actions, not words, and therefore does not threaten an individual’s right to free speech.  (Berkowitz, 2001, p.102)  Patrick Jordan says that federal hate crime laws will send a message that society will not tolerate such attitudes and behavior.  (Jordan, 2001.p.106)

     Others say no, federal hate crime laws are not necessary.  Nat Hentoff says that hate crime laws allow the perpetrator to be tried in state and federal courts, an action that is prohibited by the double jeopardy clause of the Constitution. (Hentoff, 2001, p. 107)  Melissa Suarez says the motive behind a person’s speech or actions can not be known for certain, so the laws that punish the thought behind hate crimes are dangerous and inappropriate in a free society.  (Suarez, 2001, p.112)  First Things, a monthly journal published by Religion and Public Life, an interreligious research and education institute, says that “Hate is a sin for which people may go to Hell.  It is quite another thing to make it a crime for which people should go to jail.”  Hatred is not illegal.  (First Things, 2001, p.115)   

    

Are Hate Crime Laws Constitutional?

     There is a tremendous conflict between First Amendment rights and civil rights.  Bias crime punishment and the regulation of racist speech have caused us to look more closely at this conflict.  It is difficult to determine where we draw the line on punishing the perpetrators of racially motivated violence and being committed to protecting the bigot’s rights to express his beliefs.  Frederick M. Lawrence calls this the bias crimes-hate speech paradox.  For example in the case of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, the question is posed “whether a state may constitutionally make an assault a special crime, carrying a larger sentence, because it is intended to express a conviction the community disapproves of.”  (Lawrence, 1999, p.80)

     “There is a sickness eating away at the strength of humankind and that sickness is Hate.”  (www.stopthehate.net, 1998)  Clearly, hate crimes are in existence anywhere.  The public must become more involved to help prevent such future attacks, which can occur to anyone, anywhere, anytime.

References

Berkowitz, Howard P. (2001), Roleff, Tamara L., ed., Hate Crimes, San Diego, California: Greenhaven Press, Incorporated

 Espejo, Roman, (2002). What is a hate crime?, San Diego, California:  Greenhaven Press, Inc.

 First Things, (2002), Roleff, Tamara L., ed., Hate Crimes, San Diego, California:  Greenhaven Press, Incorporated

 Hentoff, Nat (2001), Roleff, Tamara L., ed.,  Hate Crimes, San Diego, California:  Greenhaven Press, Incorporated

 Holder, Eric, (2001),  Roleff, Tamara L., ed.,   Hate Crimes, San Diego, California:  Greenhaven Press, Incorporated

 Jenness, Valerie & Broad, Kendal, (1997). Hate Crimes New Social Movements and the Politics of Violence. New York:  Walter de Gruyter.

 Jordan, Patrick, (2001), Roleff, Tamara L., ed., Hate Crimes, San Diego, California:  Greenhaven Press, Incorporated

 Lawrence, Frederick M., (1999). Punishing Hate Bias Crimes under American Law.  Cambridge,      Massachusetts, and London, England:  Harvard University Press.

 Roleff, Tamara L.,  (2001). Hate Crimes, San Diego, California:  Greenhaven Press, Incorporated

 Strom, Kevin Alfred. (1999). Hate Groups Opposing Viewpoints.  San Diego, California: Greenhaven Press, Inc.

 Suarez, Melissa (2001), Roleff, Tamara L., ed., Hate Crimes, San Diego, California: Greenhaven Press, Incorporated

 American Psychological Association,  (1998). Hate Crimes Today:  An Age-Old Foe in Modern Dress.  Available:  http://www.apa.org

 (1998) Stop the Hate.  Available:  http://www.stopthehate.net

 (2000) Hate Crime Resources – Facts & Figures.  Available:  http://www.ncjrs.org

 (2001) Hate Crime Statistics, 1999.    Available:  http://www.fbi.gov

 (2002)Hate Crimes Legislation Must Pass.  Available:  http://www.civilrights.org