Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Email
Answers.com

hate crime

 
Dictionary: hate crime
Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary

n.
A crime motivated by prejudice against a social group: " (Jane Caputi and Diana E.H. Russell).


Search unanswered questions...

Enter a question here...
Search: All sources Community Q&A Reference topics

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: hate crime
Top
Home > Library > Miscellaneous > Britannica Concise Encyclopedia

In law, a crime directed at a person or persons on the basis of characteristics such as race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. The concept emerged in the U.S. in the late 1970s, and since then laws have been passed in many U.S. states mandating additional penalties for violent crimes motivated by bias or bigotry against particular groups. Several other Western countries, including Australia, Britain, and Canada, have adopted laws designed to curb violent crime against racial and religious minorities. For example, German law forbids public incitement and instigation of racial hatred, including the distribution of Nazi propaganda.

For more information on hate crime, visit Britannica.com.

US History Encyclopedia: Hate Crimes
Top
Home > Library > History, Politics & Society > US History Encyclopedia

Hate crimes are crimes committed because of the victim's race, gender, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or other protected status. The federal government, most states, and many localities have enacted laws or regulations to define such acts as separate crimes in themselves or to augment penalties for existing crimes when motivated by hatred or bias. Because definitions vary across jurisdictions, acts as disparate as lynching, assault while calling the victim derogatory names, cross burning, or making intimidating threats on the basis of the victim's race or other protected status might be considered hate crimes. Whatever the definition, statistics show that incidences of hate crime were on the rise in the late twentieth century.

On the federal level there is no hate crime law per se, though legislative efforts to enact such a law came close to succeeding in the late 1990s. Prior to 1994, federal prosecutors combating hate crimes depended primarily on civil rights statutes, including those protecting voting activities, fair housing, and the enjoyment of public accommodations. In 1994 Congress added to federal authority to prosecute hate crimes by providing sentence enhancements for any existing federal offense if the defendant selected the victim "because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation" of the victim. Also in 1994, Congress passed the Violence against Women Act, which provided a civil cause of action for gender-motivated violence. The Supreme Court, however, voted 5 to 4 in United States v. Morrison (2000) to strike down the relevant provisions as being outside Congress's legislative authority under the commerce clause and the Fourteenth Amendment.

During the last two decades of the twentieth century, nearly every state enacted a hate crime law of some kind. Most of these statutes took the form of sentence enhancements for existing crimes. Others defined new substantive criminal offenses or created new private causes of action.

Hate crime statutes raise a number of serious policy and legal questions. Some critics believe that hate crime statutes pose serious First Amendment difficulties by distinguishing among criminals based on their beliefs. Other critics charge that the statutes are unconstitutionally vague or send the inappropriate message that crimes committed for reasons other than bias are not as serious. Supporters of hate crime statutes assert that the constitutional concerns can be surmounted and that the statutes are necessary to make clear society's strong belief that bias-motivated crimes are particularly detrimental to the social fabric.

Some of the constitutional issues raised by hate crime statutes were the focus of two Supreme Court cases in the early 1990s. In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the Court struck down a local ordinance that outlawed placing on public or private property a symbol or object likely to arouse "anger, alarm, or resentment … on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender." The defendant had been charged under the ordinance after burning a cross in the yard of an African American family. Even though the "speech" at issue fell into the analytical category of "fighting words," which the Court had previously maintained was of low constitutional value, the Court held that the ordinance was viewpoint based and thus facially unconstitutional.

In Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993), the Court upheld, against a First Amendment challenge, a state statute that increased a defendant's punishment for battery because he selected his victim on the basis of the victim's race. In a unanimous opinion the Court rejected the defendant's argument, adopted by the lower court, that the penalty enhancement represented punishment for bigoted thought. The state could legitimately punish criminal conduct motivated by bias more than the same criminal conduct without such motivation because of the greater harm likely to flow from the former. After R.A.V. and Mitchell, hate crimes statutes in the form of penalty enhancements became the preferred form at both the federal and the state levels.

Bibliography

Jacobs, James B., and Kimberly Potter. Hate Crimes. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

"Symposium: Federal Bias Crime Law." Boston University Law Review 80 (2000): 1185–1449.

Wang, Lu-in. Hate Crimes Law. St. Paul: West, 1993. Comprehensive reference source on federal and state hate crime law.

Law Encyclopedia: Hate Crime
Top
Home > Library > Law & Legal Issues > Law Encyclopedia
This entry contains information applicable to United States law only.

A crime motivated by racial, religious, gender, sexual orientation, or other prejudice.

A hate crime is based, at least in part, on the defendant's belief regarding the status of the victim. Hate-crime statutes were first passed by legislatures in the late 1980s and early 1990s in response to studies that indicated an increase in crimes motivated by prejudice. Approximately thirty states and the federal government have some form of hate-crime statute. Many localities have also enacted their own hate-crime ordinances.

The precise definition of a hate crime varies from state to state. Some states define a hate crime as any crime based on a belief regarding the victim's race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, or ancestry. Some states exclude crimes based on a belief regarding the victim's sexual orientation. Others limit their definition to certain crimes such as harassment, assault, and damage to property. In all states the victim's actual status is irrelevant. For example, if a victim is attacked by someone who believes that the victim is gay, the attack is a hate crime whether or not the victim is actually gay.

Generally, there are three types of hate-crime statutes. Two provide for punishment; the third type mandates only the collection of hate-crime data.

One version defines a hate crime as a discrete offense and provides stiff punishment for the offense. Under Ohio's statute, for example, any person who commits aggravated menacing, menacing, criminal damage or criminal endangerment, criminal mischief, or telephone harassment "by reason of the race, color, religion, or national origin of another person or group of persons" is guilty of the hate crime termed ethnic intimidation (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2927.12 [Baldwin 1996]). Ethnic intimidation is always one degree higher than a base offense. For example, menacing is a misdemeanor of the fourth degree, but menacing based on ethnicity is a more serious offense, classified in Ohio as a misdemeanor of the third degree.

Another type of hate-crime law enhances punishment for certain offenses that are motivated by hate. In Wisconsin, for example, defendants who intentionally select their victims based at least in part on the victims' race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, or ancestry are subject to more severe penalties than they would receive in the absence of such hate-based intent (Wis. Stat. § 939.645 [1995]). Thus in Wisconsin, for a class A misdemeanor based on hate, the maximum fine is $10,000 and the maximum period of imprisonment is two years in jail or prison (Wis. Stat. Ann. § 939.645(2)(a)), whereas an ordinary class A misdemeanor is punishable by a maximum fine of $10,000 or up to nine months in jail, or both (§ 939.51(3)(a)). For a class B misdemeanor, a less serious crime, the maximum fine is $1,000 and the maximum imprisonment is 90 days in jail. If the class B misdemeanor is a hate crime, the maximum fine is $10,000 and the maximum sentence is one year in jail.

A third type of hate-crime statute simply requires the collection of statistics. On the federal level, the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990 (Pub. L. No. 101-275, 104 Stat. 140 [28 U.S.C.A. § 534 (1990)]) requires the Department of Justice to collect statistics on crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice. Data must be acquired for crimes based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. The purpose of the act is to provide the data necessary for Congress to develop effective policies against hate-motivated violence, to raise public awareness, and to track hate-crime trends.

Laws against hate crimes may conflict with rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Generally, the First Amendment protects a citizen's right to the free expression of thoughts. However, the courts have ruled that First Amendment rights may give way to the greater public good. For example, there is no First Amendment protection for someone who falsely yells "Fire" in a crowded theater because such speech endangers the safety of others. Such expression may give rise to a disorderly conduct charge or similar charge. In determining the constitutionality of hate-crime legislation, a primary question is whether the prohibited speech deserves First Amendment protection.

In 1992 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a St. Paul, Minnesota, ordinance on the ground that it violated the First Amendment (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 112 S. Ct. 2538, 120 L. Ed. 2d 305 [1992]). In R.A.V. several juvenile defendants were tried and convicted after they allegedly assembled a crude wooden cross and set it on fire in the yard of an African American family in St. Paul. The teenagers were arrested and charged under St. Paul's Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance (Minn. Legis. Code § 292.02). Under the ordinance a person who placed "on public or private property a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika" and who had reason to know that the display would arouse anger or alarm in others based on "race, color, creed, religion or gender" was guilty of a misdemeanor.

The trial court dismissed the charge on the grounds that it was overbroad and unconstitutionally content based. Specifically, the court ruled that the statute criminalized too much behavior and infringed on First Amendment rights of free speech. The city of St. Paul appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which reversed the trial court. The teenagers then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The High Court was unanimous in striking down the St. Paul ordinance. However, it was divided in its legal reasoning. According to the majority opinion, the ordinance violated the First Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, declared the statute unconstitutional because it prohibited "otherwise permitted speech solely on the basis of the subjects the speech addresses." Scalia illustrated this point by noting that a government may proscribe libelous speech, but it may not proscribe only libelous speech that is critical of the government. The St. Paul ordinance violated this constitutional rule by proscribing only hate speech delivered through symbols.

In a separate opinion, the concurring justices argued that the majority opinion weakened previous First Amendment jurisprudence. Specifically, the majority opinion protected fighting words, a form of speech that provokes hostile encounters and is not protected by the First Amendment. By holding that "lawmakers may not regulate some fighting words more strictly than others because of their content," the majority had forced legislatures to criminalize all fighting words to legally prohibit the most dangerous fighting words.

According to the concurring justices, the statute was merely overbroad — that is, it legitimately regulated unprotected speech, but it also impermissibly prohibited speech that can cause only hurt feelings or resentment. With more careful wording, the concurring justices argued, hate-crime laws could pass constitutional muster. However, under the Court's majority opinion, this did not seem possible.

In 1993 the Supreme Court revisited hate-crime legislation and unanimously adopted a coherent approach. In State v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476, 113 S. Ct. 2194, 124 L. Ed. 2d 436 (1993), Todd Mitchell, a young black man from Kenosha, Wisconsin, was convicted of aggravated battery and received an increased sentence under the Wisconsin hate-crime statute. The incident at issue began with Mitchell asking some friends, "Do you all feel hyped up to move on some white people?" Shortly thereafter Mitchell spotted Gregory Reddick, a fourteen-year-old white male, walking on the other side of the street. Mitchell then said to the group, "You all want to fuck somebody up? There goes a white boy; go get him." The group attacked Reddick. Reddick suffered extensive injuries, including brain damage, and was comatose for four days.

Mitchell appealed his conviction to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which held that the hate-crime statute violated the First Amendment. The state of Wisconsin appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The High Court ruled that the Wisconsin statute was constitutional because it was directed at conduct, not expression. The Court distinguished the R.A.V. case by explaining that the St. Paul ordinance was impermissibly aimed at expression. The primary purpose of the St. Paul ordinance was to punish specifically the placement of certain symbols on property. This violated the rule against content-based speech legislation. The Wisconsin law, by contrast, merely allowed increased sentences based on motivation, always a legitimate consideration in determining a criminal sentence.

Hate-crime laws complicate the work of police officers by requiring them not only to capture criminals and investigate their criminal acts, but also to conduct a broad investigation of their personal life to determine whether a crime was motivated by prejudice. This determination may be difficult to make, and most laws offer little assistance in defining motivation.

The extra investigative work required by hate-crime laws also touches on privacy issues and the boundaries of police investigations. Defendants who have been accused of a hate crime may have their home and workplace searched for information on group memberships, personal and public writings, and reading lists, and for other personal information that may have been inadmissible at trial before the advent of the hate-crime statute.

Advocates of hate-crime laws concede that those laws do not root out all hate crimes, but note that no criminal law is completely effective. They also contend that the difficulty in determining prejudiced motivation is no different from the difficulty that judges and juries face every day in determining whether the evidence presented in a case supports the charge. Supporters dismiss free speech and privacy concerns by reminding detractors that protections for both regularly give way when public safety requires their restriction. According to advocates of hate-crime laws, fighting hatred and prejudice is an important government function, especially when hatred and prejudice motivate victimization.

See: criminal law; freedom of speech; motive.

Wikipedia: Hate crime
Top
Home > Library > Miscellaneous > Wikipedia
"Race Hate" redirects here. For the song by Eddy Grant, see Message Man.
This article is about the crime. For the film by this name, see Hate Crime (film).
Part of a series of articles on
Discrimination
General forms

Ageism · Caste
Classism · Racism
Religious intolerance
Reverse discrimination
Sexism · Homophobia
Speciesism  · Xenophobia
Transphobia
Specific forms
Manifestations

Blood libel · Ethnic cleansing
Ethnocide · Gendercide
Genocide (examples)
Hate crime · Hate speech
Lynching · Pogrom
Racial disappearance · Race war
Religious persecution · Slavery
Movements
Policies

Discriminatory
Racial/Religious/Sex segregation
Apartheid · Group rights · Redlining
Internment · Ethnocracy
Numerus clausus · Ghetto benches Affirmative action

Anti-discriminatory
Emancipation · Civil rights
Desegregation · Integration
Equal opportunity · Gender equality

Counter-discriminatory
All-women shortlists
Affirmative action · Group rights
Racial quota · Reservation (India)
Reparation · Forced busing (US)
Employment equity (Canada)
Black Economic Empowerment (BEE)
Other forms

Adultcentrism · Androcentrism · Anthropocentrism ·
Colorism · Cronyism · Ethnocentrism ·
Economic · Genism · Gynocentrism
Linguicism · Nepotism · Triumphalism
Related topics

Bigotry · Diversity ·
Eugenics · Oppression
Political correctness · Prejudice
Stereotype · Tolerance
Portal.svg Discrimination portal
This box: view • talk • edit


Hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.[1]

"Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts which are seen to have been motivated by hatred of one or more of the listed conditions. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters.[2]

Contents

History

Concern about hate crimes has become increasingly prominent among policymakers in many nations and at all levels of government in recent years, but the phenomenon is not new. Examples from the past include Roman persecution of Christians, the Ottoman genocide of Armenians, and the Nazi "final solution" for the Jews, and more recently, the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and genocide in Rwanda. Hate crimes have shaped and sometimes defined world history.

In the United States, racial and religious biases have inspired most hate crimes. As Europeans began to colonize the New World in the 16th and 17th centuries, Native Americans increasingly became the targets of bias-motivated intimidation and violence. During the past two centuries, some of the more typical examples of hate crimes in the U.S. include lynchings of African Americans, cross burnings to drive black families from predominantly white neighborhoods, assaults on white people travelling predominantly black neighborhoods, assaults on homosexual and transgender people, the painting of swastikas on Jewish synagogues and xenophobic responses to a variety of minority ethnic groups, as well as attacks against European Americans, such as the Murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom and the Wichita Massacre.[3]

Hate crime victims

 This section uses an unsuitable grammatical tense for an encyclopedia. Please consider copy editing to past tense if historic, present tense if not time-based (e.g. fiction), or future tense if upcoming.

In the United States, anti-black bias was the most frequently reported hate crime motivation. (African-Americans constitute the second-largest minority group; Hispanics are the largest).[4] Of the nearly 8,000 hate crimes reported to the FBI in 1995, almost 3,000 of them were motivated by bias against blacks.[5] Other frequently reported bias motivations were anti-white, anti-Jewish, anti-gay, anti-Muslim, anti-Asian, and anti-Hispanic.[5]

Psychological effects

From a psychological standpoint, hate crimes may produce devastating consequences. A manual issued by the Attorney-General of the Province of Ontario in Canada lists the following consequences:[6]

  • effects on people – psychological and affective disturbances; repercussion on the victim's identity and self-esteem; both reinforced by the degree of violence of a hate crime, usually stronger than that of a common one.
  • effect on the targeted group – generalized terror in the group from which the victim belongs, inspiring feelings of vulnerability over the other members, who could be the next victims.
  • effect on other vulnerable groups – ominous effects over minoritarian groups or over groups that identify themselves with the targeted one, especially when the referred hate is based on an ideology or doctrine that preaches simultaneously against several groups.
  • effect on society as a whole – the stimulation of divisions in society, which would be an abomination against concepts like harmony and equality in a multicultural society.

Hate crime laws

Hate crime laws generally fall into one of several categories: (1) laws defining specific bias-motivated acts as distinct crimes; (2) criminal penalty-enhancement laws; (3) laws creating a distinct civil cause of action for hate crimes; and (4) laws requiring administrative agencies to collect hate crime statistics.[7] Sometimes (as in Bosnia and Herzegovina), the laws focus on war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity with the prohibition against discriminatory action limited to public officials.

Eurasia

Andorra

Discriminatory acts constituting harassment or infringement of a person's dignity on the basis of origin, citizenship, race, religion, or sex (Penal Code Article 313). Courts have cited bias-based motivation in delivering sentences, but there is no explicit penalty enhancement provision in the Criminal Code. The government does not track hate crime statistics, although they are relatively rare.[7]

Armenia

Armenia has a penalty-enhancement statute for crimes with ethnic, racial, or religious motives (Criminal Code Article 63).[7]

Austria

Austria has a penalty-enhancement statute for crimes with racist or xenophobic motivation (Penal Code section 33(5)).[7]

Azerbaijan

Azerbaijan has a penalty-enhancement statute for crimes motivated by racial, national, or religious hatred (Criminal Code Article 61). Murder and infliction of serious bodily injury motivated by racial, religious, national, or ethnic intolerance are distinct crimes (Article 111).[7]

Belarus

Belarus has a penalty-enhancement statute for crimes motivated by racial, national, and religious hatred and discord.[7][8]

Belgium

Belgium's Act of 25 February 2003 (“"aimed at combating discrimination and modifying the Act of 15 February 1993 which establishes the Centre for Equal Opportunities and the Fight against Racism"”) establishes a penalty-enhancement for crimes involving discrimination on the basis of sex, supposed race, color, descent, national or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, civil status, birth, fortune, age, religious or philosophical beliefs, current or future state of health and handicap or physical features. The Act also "provides for a civil remedy to address discrimination."[7] The Act, along with the Act of 20 January 2003 ("on strengthening legislation against racism”"), requires the Centre to collect and publish statistical data on racism and discriminatory crimes.[7]

Bosnia and Herzegovina

The Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina (enacted 2003) "contains provisions prohibiting discrimination by public officials on grounds, inter alia, of race, skin colour, national or ethnic background, religion and language and prohibiting the restriction by public officials of the language rights of the citizens in their relations with the authorities (Article 145/1 and 145/2).”"[9]

Bulgaria

Bulgarian criminal law prohibits certain crimes motivated by racism and xenophobia, but a 1999 report by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance found that it does not appear that those provisions "have ever resulted in convictions before the courts in Bulgaria."[10]

Croatia

Croatian law allows for consideration of any extenuating or aggravating circumstances in sentencing, but no explicit provision is made for bias-based motivations.[7]

Czech Republic

"The Czech Criminal Code defines racist motivation as a specific aggravating circumstance that judges are required to take into account in sentencing, as well as defining specific racist acts as crimes. Section 196 punishes “'violence against a group of inhabitants and against individuals on the basis of race, nationality, political conviction or religion.”'"[7]

Denmark

Although Danish law does not include explicit hate crime provisions, "section 80(1) of the Criminal Code instructs courts to take into account the gravity of the offence and the offender's motive when meting out penalty, and therefore to attach importance to the racist motive of crimes in determining sentence."[11] In recent years judges have used this provision to increase sentences on the basis of racist motives.[7][12]

Since 1992, the Danish Civil Security Service (PET) has released statistics on crimes with apparent racist motivation.[7]

England and Wales

In England and Wales, hate crimes may be physical attack, verbal attack, threats or insults and will be considered a hate crime if they are motivated by the victims race, colour, ethnic origin, nationality or national origins, religion, gender or gender identity, sexual orientation or disability.[2]

Finland

Finnish Penal Code 515/2003 (enacted January 31, 2003) makes "committing a crime against a person, because of his national, racial, ethnical or equivalent group" an aggravating circumstance in sentencing.[7][13] In addition, ethnic agitation (Finnish: kiihotus kansanryhmää vastaan) is criminalized and carries a fine or a prison sentence of not more than two years. The prosecution need not prove that an actual danger to an ethnic group is caused but only that malicious message is emissioned. A more aggravated hate crime, warmongering (Finnish: sotaan yllyttäminen), carries a prison sentence of one to ten years. However, in case of warmongering, the prosecution must prove an overt act that evidently increases the risk that Finland is involved in a war or becomes a target for a military operation. The act in question may consist of

  1. illegal violence directed against foreign country or her citizens,
  2. systematic dissemination of false information on Finnish foreign policy or defence
  3. public influence on the public opinion towards a pro-war viewpoint or
  4. public suggestion that a foreign country or Finland should engage in an aggressive act.[14]

France

In 2003, France enacted penalty-enhancement hate crime laws for crimes motivated by bias against the victim's actual or perceived ethnicity, nation, race, religion, or sexual orientation. The penalties for murder were raised from 30 years (for non-hate crimes) to life imprisonment (for hate crimes), and the penalties for violent attacks leading to permanent disability were raised from 10 years (for non-hate crimes) to 15 years (for hate crimes).[7][15]

Georgia

"There is no general provision in Georgian law for racist motivation to be considered an aggravating circumstance in prosecutions of ordinary offenses. Certain crimes involving racist motivation are, however, defined as specific offenses in the Georgian Criminal Code of 1999, including murder motivated by racial, religious, national or ethnic intolerance (article 109); infliction of serious injuries motivated by racial, religious, national or ethnic intolerance (article 117); and torture motivated by racial, religious, national or ethnic intolerance (article 126). ECRI reported no knowledge of cases in which this law has been enforced. There is no systematic monitoring or data collection on discrimination in Georgia."[7]

Germany

The German Criminal Code does not know any direct penalty-enhancement laws in connection with hate or bias. In the German legal framework motivation is not taken into account while identifying the element of the offence. However within the sentencing procedure the judge can define certain principles for determining punishment. In section 46 of the German Criminal Code it is stated that "the motives and aims of the perpetrator; the state of mind reflected in the act and the wilfulness involved in its commission."[16] can be taken into consideration when determining the punishment. In the past hate and bias was regarded here.[17]

The only section in the German Criminal Code where hate and/or bias could be taken into consideration (more or less) directly in case of a violent hate crime is 211 (Murder). The qualification for murder (imprisonment for life) instead of manslaughter (imprisonment not less than five years) is stated in paragraph 2 of section 211: "A murderer is, whoever kills a human being out of murderous lust, to satisfy his sexual desires, from greed or otherwise base motives, treacherously or cruelly or with means dangerous to the public or in order to make another crime possible or cover it up."[18] In the past judges confirmed racial hate and xenophobia as being "otherwise base motives" that enhances a manslaughter to murder.[19]

Besides that the German Criminal Code holds sections against hate speech. Sections 86, 86a were introduced to defend against the ideas of National Socialism. The underlying principle is that propaganda material from forbidden organizations and parties (to which the NSDAP but also modern hate groups belong) can affect the public peace and safety as well as the Free Democratic Basic Order of Germany and therefore may lead to violence.

Section 130 states: "(1) Whoever, in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace: 1. incites hatred against segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or 2. assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population, shall be punished with imprisonment from three months to five years. (...) (3) Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or renders harmless an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type indicated in Section 220a subsection (1), in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine."[20]

Again the public peace and safety is protected and not the bodily integrity of an individual. Especially paragraph 3 shows a huge difference between Germany and (for example) the U.S. in defining the freedom of speech. In this case the so called "Auschwitz lie" – denying, approving or rendering harmless the Holocaust – is considered to disrespect the suffering of all victims. The legally protected interest of the human dignity (in Germany section 1 of the Grundgesetz (constitution)) limits the legally protected interest of freedom of speech (section 5 of the German Grundgesetz). In the U.S. this would be vice versa.[17]

Greece

Article Law 927/1979 "Section 1,1 penalises incitement to discrimination, hatred or violence towards individuals or groups because of their racial, national or religious origin, through public written or oral expressions; Section 1,2 prohibits the establishment of, and membership in, organisations which organise propaganda and activities aimed at racial discrimination; Section 2 punishes public expression of offensive ideas; Section 3 penalises the act of refusing, in the exercise of one’s occupation, to sell a commodity or to supply a service on racial grounds."[21] Public prosecutors may press charges even if the victim does not file a complaint. However, as of 2003, no convictions had been attained under the law.[22]

Hungary

Violent action, cruelty, and coercion by threat made on the basis of the victim's actual or perceived national, ethnic, or religious status are punishable under article 174/B of the Hungarian Criminal Code.[7]

Iceland

Section 233 of the Icelandic Penal Code states "Anyone who in a ridiculing, slanderous, insulting, threatening or any other manner publicly assaults a person or a group of people on the basis of their nationality, skin colour, race, religion or sexual orientation, shall be fined or jailed for up to 2 years." (The word "assault" in this context does not refer to physical violence, only to expressions of hatred.)

Icelandic Penal Code (in Icelandic)

Iran

Iranian constitution's article 19 states: All people of Iran, whatever the ethnic group or tribe to which they belong, enjoy equal rights; color, race, language, and the like, do not bestow any privilege.

Iranian constitution's article 20 states: All citizens of the country, both men and women, equally enjoy the protection of the law and enjoy all human, political, economic, social, and cultural rights, in conformity with Islamic criteria.

Iranian constitution's article 14 prohibits the maltreatment of the non-islamic recognized minorities: In accordance with the sacred verse "God does not forbid you to deal kindly and justly with those who have not fought against you because of your religion and who have not expelled you from your homes" [60:8], the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and all Muslims are duty-bound to treat non-Muslims in conformity with ethical norms and the principles of Islamic justice and equity, and to respect their human rights. This principle applies to all who refrain from engaging in conspiracy or activity against Islam and the Islamic Republic of Iran.[23]

In spite of this, it is well known throughout the international community that Iran has and continues to have state-sponsored torture and executions of homosexuals, as sexual orientation is not recognized as a protected class within the state and homosexuality is treated as a violation of Islamic law.[24][25][26][27][28]

Ireland

"The Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989" makes it an offense to incite hatred against any group of persons on account of their race, color, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, or membership of the Traveller community, an indigenous minority group."[7]

Ireland does not systematically collect hate crime data.[7]

Italy

Italian criminal law, at Section 3 of Law No. 205/1993, contains a penalty-enhancement provision for all crimes motived by racial, ethnic, national, or religious bias.[7]

Kazakhstan

In Kazakhstan, there are constitutional provisions prohibiting propaganda promoting racial or ethnic superiority.[7]

Kyrgyzstan

In Kyrgyzstan, "the Constitution of the State party prohibits any kind of discrimination on grounds of origin, sex, race, nationality, language, faith, political or religious convictions or any other personal or social trait or circumstance, and that the prohibition against racial discrimination is also included in other legislation, such as the Civil, Penal and Labour Codes."[29]

Article 299 of the Criminal Code defines incitement to national, racist, or religious hatred as a specific offense. This article has been used in political trials of suspected members of the banned organization Hizb-ut-Tahrir.[7][30]

Scotland

In Scottish Common law the courts can take any aggravating factor into account when sentencing someone found guilty of an offence. There is specific legislation dealing with the offences of incitement of racial hatred, racially-aggravated harassment and offences aggravated by religious prejudice. A Scottish Executive working party examined the issue of hate crime and ways of combating crime motivated by social prejudice, reporting in 2004.[31] Its main recommendations were not implemented, but in their manifestos for the Scottish Parliament election, 2007 several political parties included commitments to legislate in this area, including the Scottish National Party who now form the Scottish Government. The Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Bill was introduced on 19 May 2008 by Patrick Harvie MSP,[32] having been prepared with support from the Scottish Government, and passed unanimously by the parliament on 3 June 2009.[33]

Spain

Article 22(4) of the Spanish Penal Code includes a penalty-enhancement provision for crimes motivated by bias against the victim's ideology, beliefs, religion, ethnicity, race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, illness, or disability.[7]

Sweden

Article 29 of the Swedish Penal Code includes a penalty-enhancement provision for crimes motivated by bias against the victim's race, color, nationality, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or "other circumstance" of the victim.[7]

Eurasian countries with no hate crime laws

Albania, Cyprus, Estonia, San Marino, and Slovenia have no hate crime laws.[7]

North America

Canada

Main article: Hate speech laws in Canada

Constitutional scholar Joseph Magnet argues that Canada has more hate crime legislation forbidding certain ideas from being promulgated than any other country in the world.[34] Since 1966 the Canadian Criminal Code has included a penalty-enhancement provision for crimes "motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on racial group, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor."[35][36] In Section 319 the Code punishes anyone who "advocates or promotes genocide" with genocide defined to require that acts be committed "with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group".[36] "Identifiable group" is defined as "any section of the public distinguished by skin color, racial group, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation."[7][36] Civil remedies are also available in Canada for discriminatory acts.[7]

United States

Main article: Hate crime laws in the United States

Defined in the 1999 National Crime Victim Survey, "A hate crime is a criminal offense. In the United States federal prosecution is possible for hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's race, color, religion, or nation origin when engaging in a federally protected activity." In 2009, the Matthew Shepard Act added perceived gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability to the federal definition, and dropped the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally-protected activity.

Forty-five states and the District of Columbia have statutes criminalizing various types of hate crimes. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have statutes creating a civil cause of action in addition to the criminal penalty for similar acts. Twenty-seven states and the District of Columbia have statutes requiring the state to collect hate crime statistics[37]

According to the FBI Hate Crime Statistics report for 2006, hate crimes increased nearly 8% nationwide, with a total of 7,722 incidents and 9,080 offenses reported by participating law enforcement agencies. Of the 5,449 crimes against persons, 46% were classified as intimidation and 31.9% as simple assaults. 81% of the 3,593 crimes against property were acts of vandalism or destruction.[38]

However, according to the FBI Hate Crime Statistics for 2007, the number of hate crimes decreased to 7,624 incidents reported by participating law enforcement agencies.[39] These incidents included 9 murders and 2 rapes(out of the almost 17,000 murders and 90,000 forcible rapes committed in the U.S. in 2007).[40]

Attorney General Eric Holder said in June 2009 that recent killings show the need for a tougher U.S. hate crimes law to stop "violence masquerading as political activism".[41]

Deliberate attacks on the homeless as hate crimes

A 2007 study found that the number of violent crimes against the homeless is increasing.[42][43] The rate of such documented crimes in 2005 was 30% higher than of those in 1999.[44] 75% of all perpetrators are under the age of 25. Studies and surveys indicate that homeless people have a much higher criminal victimization rate than the non-homeless, but that most incidents never get reported to authorities.

In recent years, largely due to the efforts of the National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH) and academic researchers the problem of violence against the homeless has gained national attention. The NCH called deliberate attacks against the homeless hate crimes in their report Hate, Violence, and Death on Mainstreet USA (they retain the definition of the American Congress).

The Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino in conjunction with the NCH found that 155 homeless people were killed by non-homeless people in "hate killings", while 76 people were killed in all the other traditional hate crime homicide categories such as race and religion, combined.[43] The CSHE contends that negative and degrading portrayals of the homeless contribute to a climate where violence takes place.

South America

Brazil

In Brazil, hate crime laws focus on racism, racial injury, and other special bias-motivated crimes such as, for example, murder by death squads[45] and genocide on the grounds of nationality, ethnicity, race or religion.[46] Murder by death squads and genocide are legally classified as "hideous crimes" (crimes hediondos in Portuguese).[47]

The crimes of racism and racial injury, although similar, are enforced slightly differently.[48] Article 140, 3rd paragraph, of the Penal Code establishes a harsher penalty, from a minimum of 1 year to a maximum of 3 years, for injuries motivated by "elements referring to race, color, ethnicity, religion, origin, or the condition of being an aged or disabled person".[49] On the other side, Law 7716/1989 covers "crimes resulting from discrimination or prejudice on the grounds of race, color, ethnicity, religion, or national origin".[50]

In addition, the Brazilian Constitution defines as a "fundamental goal of the Republic" (Article 3rd, clause IV) "to promote the wealth of all, with no prejudice as to origin, race, sex, color, age, and any other forms of discrimination".[51]

Support and opposition
This section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page.
  • It may not present a worldwide view of the subject. Tagged since June 2009.
  • An editor has expressed concern that it is unbalanced. Tagged since June 2009.

Support for hate crime laws

Justifications for harsher punishments for hate crimes focus on the notion that hate crimes cause greater individual and societal harm. It is said that, when the core of a person’s identity is attacked, the degradation and dehumanization is especially severe, and additional emotional and physiological problems are likely to result. Society then, in turn, can suffer from the disempowerment of a group of people. Furthermore, it is asserted that the chances for retaliatory crimes are greater when a hate crime has been committed. The riots in Los Angeles, California that followed the beating of Rodney King, a Black motorist, by a group of White police officers are cited as support for this argument.[3] The beating of white truck driver Reginald Denny by black rioters during the same riot is also an example that would support this argument.

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that penalty-enhancement hate crime statutes do not conflict with free speech rights because they do not punish an individual for exercising freedom of expression; rather, they allow courts to consider motive when sentencing a criminal for conduct which is not protected by the First Amendment. (However, freedom of religion and expression of one's beliefs are; see below.)[52]

When it enacted the Hate Crimes Act of 2000, the New York State Legislature found that:

Hate crimes do more than threaten the safety and welfare of all citizens. They inflict on victims incalculable physical and emotional damage and tear at the very fabric of free society. Crimes motivated by invidious hatred toward particular groups not only harm individual victims but send a powerful message of intolerance and discrimination to all members of the group to which the victim belongs. Hate crimes can and do intimidate and disrupt entire communities and vitiate the civility that is essential to healthy democratic processes. In a democratic society, citizens cannot be required to approve of the beliefs and practices of others, but must never commit criminal acts on account of them. Current law does not adequately recognize the harm to public order and individual safety that hate crimes cause. Therefore, our laws must be strengthened to provide clear recognition of the gravity of hate crimes and the compelling importance of preventing their recurrence. Accordingly, the legislature finds and declares that hate crimes should be prosecuted and punished with appropriate severity."[53]

Opposition to hate crime laws

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that hate crime statutes which criminalize bias-motivated speech or symbolic speech conflict with free speech rights because they isolated certain words based on their content or viewpoint.[54] Many critics further assert that it conflicts with an even more fundamental right: free thought. The claim is that hate-crime legislation effectively makes certain ideas or beliefs, including religious ones, illegal, in other words, thought crimes.[55][56][57][58][59][60][61]

Question book-new.svg
 This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2009)

In their book Hate Crimes: Criminal Law and Identity Politics, James B. Jacobs and Kimberly Potter criticize hate crime legislation for exacerbating conflicts between groups. They assert that by defining crimes as being committed by one group against another, rather than as being committed by individuals against their society, the labeling of crimes as “hate crimes” causes groups to feel persecuted by one another, and that this impression of persecution can incite a backlash and thus lead to an actual increase in crime.[62] Some have argued hate crime laws bring the law into disrepute and further divide society, as groups apply to have their critics silenced.[63] Some have argued that if it is true that all violent crimes are the result of the perpetrator's contempt for the victim, then all crimes are hate crimes. Thus, if there is no alternate rationale for prosecuting some people more harshly for the same crime based on who the victim is, then different defendants are treated unequally under the law, which violates the United States Constitution.[64]

Critiquing Reliance on the Prison Industrial Complex There are also those who oppose hate crimes laws because of the power such legislation gives to the prison industrial complex. The critiques from such a point of view are extensive and include, "Hate crime law sets up the State as protector, intending to deflect our attention from the violence it perpetrates, deploys, and sanctions. The government, its agents, and their institutions perpetuate systemic violence and set themselves up as the only avenue in which justice can be allocated; they will never be charged with hate crimes." See a compilation of critiques at http://www.blackandpink.org/revolt/a-compilation-of-critiques-on-hate-crimes-legislation/

See also

References

  1. ^ Stotzer, R.: Comparison of Hate Crime Rates Across Protected and Unprotected Groups, Williams Institute, 2007–06. Retrieved on 2007-08-09.
  2. ^ a b Hate crime, Home Office
  3. ^ a b A Policymaker's Guide to Hate Crimes
  4. ^ Table 1 - Hate Crime Statistics 2005
  5. ^ a b FBI - Uniform Crime Reports - Hate Crime Statistics 1995
  6. ^ "MANUEL DES POLITIQUES DE LA COURONNE" (in French) (PDF). 21 mars 2005. http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/french/crim/cpm/2005/HateCrimeDiscrimination.pdf. Retrieved 2009-06-21. 
  7. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z Microsoft Word - Everyday Fears FINAL for web.doc
  8. ^ Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus, § 64 (1), para. 9 (translated from the Russian), June 9, 1999.
  9. ^ Office of the High Representative, Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina, January 2003.
  10. ^ ECRI, “Second Report on Bulgaria,” adopted on June 18, 1999, and made public on March 21, 2000.
  11. ^ ECRI, “Second Report on Denmark,” adopted on June 16, 2000, and made public on April 3, 2001, para. 9.
  12. ^ Chahrokh, Klug, and Bilger, Migrants, Minorities, and Legislation.
  13. ^ EUMC, “Racism and xenophobia in the E.U.,” p. 51.
  14. ^ Penal Code (39/1889) as of 1006/2004. §§ 6:5.1.4 (ethnic hatred as an aggravating factor), 11:8 (ethnic agitation) and 12:2 (warmongering). The points cited remain in force on the day of retrieval, checked from the Finnish version: Rikoslaki. The Government proposal HE 55/2007 will move the § 11:8 to §11:10 without changing the content, if the proposal is passed by the Parliament of Finland. Retrieved 11-23-2007.
  15. ^ Loi n° 2003-88 du 3 février 2003 visant à aggraver les peines punissant les infractions à caractère raciste, antisémite ou xénophobe
  16. ^ http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/StGB.htm#46
  17. ^ a b Marc Coester (2008): Das Konzept der Hate Crimes aus den USA unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Rechtsextremismus in Deutschland. Peter Lang: Frankfurt/Berlin/Bern/Bruxelles/New York/Oxford/Wien
  18. ^ http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/StGB.htm#211
  19. ^ BGH, Decision from 7. September 1993 – 5 StR 455/93
  20. ^ http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/StGB.htm#130
  21. ^ ECRI, “Second Report on Greece,” adopted on 1999-12-10, and made public on 2000-06-27.
  22. ^ Sitaropoulos, N.: “Executive Summary on Race Equality Directive, State of Play in Greece, section 5, 2003-10-12. Retrieved on 2007-08-02.
  23. ^ ICL - Iran - Constitution
  24. ^ Search the Iran Human Rights Memorial, Omid - Boroumand Foundation for Human Rights in Iran
  25. ^ WikiNews: Execution of two gay teens in Iran spurs controversy
  26. ^ SkyNews: Day 58: Obama Backs Global Gay Rights
  27. ^ The Washington Post: Pictures From An Execution Come Into Focus
  28. ^ The Independent: Brutal land where homosexuality is punishable by death
  29. ^ CERD, Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 9 of the Convention; Concluding Observations: Kyrgyzstan, 1999. Retrieved on 2007-08-02.
  30. ^ “Human Rights in the OSCE Region: Europe, Central Asia and North America, Report 2004 (Events of 2003), International Helsinki Federation,” 2004-06-23. Retrieved on 2007-08-02.
  31. ^ [1][dead link]
  32. ^ Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Bill
  33. ^ 8078988.stm MSPs approve new hate crime laws BBC News 3 June 2009
  34. ^ Magnet, Joseph. Free Expression. p. 229 & 244. 
  35. ^ Canadian Criminal Code, Subparagraph 718.2(a)(i)
  36. ^ a b c "CBC News Indepth: Hate Crimes". http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/hatecrimes/. Retrieved 2009-10-19. 
  37. ^ State Hate Crime Laws, Anti-Defamation League, June 2006. Retrieved 2007-05-04.
  38. ^ Statistics, 2006Hate Crime Statistics, 2006, Federal Bureau of Investigation
  39. ^ Statistics, 2007Hate Crime Statistics, 2007, Federal Bureau of Investigation
  40. ^ Statistics, 2007FBI Crime in the United States 2007, Federal Bureau of Investigation
  41. ^ Attorney general urges new hate crimes law - Crime & courts- msnbc.com
  42. ^ Lewan, Todd, "Unprovoked Beatings of Homeless Soaring", Associated Press, April 8, 2007.
  43. ^ a b National Coalition for the Homeless: Hate, Violence, and Death on Main Street USA: A report on Hate Crimes and Violence Against People Experiencing Homelessness, 2006", February 2007.
  44. ^ National Coalition for the Homeless: A Dream Denied.
  45. ^ (Portuguese)http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/Leis/L8072.htm (Law 8072/1990, Article 1st, I)
  46. ^ (Portuguese)http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/Leis/L2889.htm (Law 2889/1956, Article 1st)
  47. ^ Law 8072/1990 (aforementioned link), Article 1st, I and single paragraph.
  48. ^ (Portuguese)http://www.boletimjuridico.com.br/doutrina/texto.asp?id=662
  49. ^ (Portuguese)http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/Decreto-Lei/Del2848compilado.htm
  50. ^ (Portuguese)http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/Leis/L7716.htm
  51. ^ (Portuguese)http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/Constituicao/Constituiçao_Compilado.htm
  52. ^ Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993).
  53. ^ Hate Crimes Act - Ch 107, 2000
  54. ^ R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992).
  55. ^ The Essayist (1998). Hate Crime Premise. 24 Jul. 1998.
  56. ^ Evenson, Brad (2003). Looking for thoughtcrime to crimestop. National Post. February 8, 2003.
  57. ^ Schwartz, L., I.T. Ulit, & D. Morgan (2006). Straight talk about hate crimes bills: Anti-gay, anti-transgender bias stall federal hate crimes legislation. Georgetown Journal of Gender & the Law 7(2): 171–186.
  58. ^ Icke, David (2003). Tales from the Time Loop. Bridge of Love. ISBN 0953881040. [2]
  59. ^ Smith, Peter J. (2007). Democrats refuse religious freedom amendment to hate crimes bill. LifeSite, 26 April 2007.
  60. ^ Kamine, Wendy. The Return of the Thought Police: "Hate crime" legislation is an assault on civil liberties. The Wall Street Journal. October 28, 2007.
  61. ^ Wolski, Chris (1999). Hate Crime Laws Will Spawn Thought Police. Capitalism Magazine Website. Retrieved 2009-06-18.
  62. ^ Jacobs, James B. & Kimberly Potter. (1998). Hate Crimes: Criminal Law and Identity Politics. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 130-144
  63. ^ AEI - Short Publications
  64. ^ Constitutional Challenges to Hate Crimes Statutes

External links


v • d • e
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) topics
LGBT pride flag
 
Rights · Legal issues
LGBT rights topics
 
Social attitudes · Prejudice · Violence
Category:LGBT · LGBT portalNone-100.gif

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)

 
 

 

Copyrights:

Dictionary. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2007, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.  Read more
Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. © 2006 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved.  Read more
US History Encyclopedia. © 2006 through a partnership of Answers Corporation. All rights reserved.  Read more
Law Encyclopedia. West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Copyright © 1998 by The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.  Read more
Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Hate crime".  Read more