What Is a Hate Crime? | Introduction
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 into 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.
The brutal, anti-gay murders of Gaither and college student Matthew Shepard, who was killed in Wyoming in 1998, provoked a serious reexamination of existing hate crimes law. The current federal hate crimes statute permits federal prosecution of a hate crime only if the crime was motivated by race, color, national origin, or religion. In addition, the offender must have attempted to hinder the victim’s participation in one of six federally protected rights, such as voting or attending a public school. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA) was introduced in 1998, 1999, and again in 2000 in an attempt to enhance the present statute. Under the HCPA, hate crimes in which death or bodily injury occurred or a firearm or explosive device was used would be subject to federal investigation, whether or not the victim was participating in a federally protected activity. More importantly, the bill would allow crimes based on sexual orientation, gender, or disability to be investigated by federal authorities. Former President Bill Clinton strongly supported the bill, claiming that it would “strengthen and expand the ability of the Justice System by removing needless jurisdiction requirements.” Despite winning the favor of the Senate, the 106th Congress disbanded in 2000 without passing the HCPA.
Though the HCPA has failed to pass a number of times, its supporters have not been discouraged. In 2000, over 100 civil rights, human rights, women’s rights, religious, and law enforcement groups launched a web-based campaign promoting the passage of the HCPA called “United Against Hate.” Oregon Senator Gordon Smith states, “It has been more than 26 years since the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, yet countless Americans still encounter discrimination.” He planned to introduce the bill to the 107th Congress in 2001.
What is a hate crime?
Americans originally used the term “hate crime” to describe a violent act committed against a person, property, or organization because of actual or perceived differences in race, color, national origin, or religion. The phrase gained popularity as crimes motivated by prejudice and racism re- ceived national attention in the 1980s. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance, violence against minorities is called “xenophobic” or “right-wing” violence in Germany, where neo-Nazi activity is scrutinized. It is called “racial violence” in nearby Great Britain and France. Hate crimes have also occurred throughout history, from the Romans’ religious persecution of Christians to the Hutus’ genocidal war against the Tutsis in Rwanda in the 1990s.
Today, the term “hate crime” is used to describe violent incidents in which the perpetrators are not only motivated by differences in race, color, or religion, but by characteristics such as sexual orientation, gender, or disability. For example, when nearly 60 women were sexually and physically assaulted in Central Park in the summer of 1999, many Americans considered the attacks gender-based crimes. Also, the state of Oregon has laws that prohibit discrimination stemming from a myriad of characteristics, from political affiliation to marital status.
Although “hate crime” entered the political lexicon recently, enacting hate crime legislation has been a goal for many lawmakers and activists since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In 1968, Congress passed the first law ever to prohibit violence attempting to prevent a person to participate in a federally protected activity because of their race, color, national origin, or religion. In 1981, the Anti-Defamation League released its model of hate crimes legislation, which included the prosecution of hate crimes based on sexual orientation. Forty states and the District of Colombia adopted similar laws thereafter. And in 1990, former President George Bush approved the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, which requires the FBI to compile statistics on all reported hate crimes. The latest enhancement to hate crime legislation was added in 1994, when the Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act was passed. Under this bill, offenders convicted of hate crimes may be given steeper fines and longer sentences than they would if their actions were not motivated by prejudice.
Equal rights or special treatment?
The most controversial feature of the HCPA is that it attempts to “bring uniformity to the categories covered under current federal hate crimes law” by adding offenses motivated by sexual orientation, gender, and disability to the existing statute, which already prohibits crime based on race, color, national origin, and religion. Its supporters contend that crimes motivated by sexual orientation, gender, or disability deserve federal jurisdiction because they are fundamentally similar to other hate crimes. In the words of Mark Bargerter, “It makes no sense that the FBI can investigate, for example, a religious-based crime, but not a hate crime committed because someone is, or seems to be, gay.” Bargerter, a heterosexual man, was brutally beaten and partially blinded by an assailant who presumed he was a homosexual. Advocates of the HCPA also assert that gender should be added to hate crime legislation because victims have been targeted simply because they were women. For example, in 1989, at the University of Montreal, a man wielding a firearm verbally debased feminists and opened fire on female students, killing fourteen of them. Because they are intended to send threatening messages to certain groups, proponents maintain that hate crimes must be swiftly and harshly pun- ished. According to Brian Levin, director of the Center on Hate and Extremism, such crimes “often inspire copycat crimes and a cycle of retaliatory violence by would-be vigilantes.”
Critics of hate crimes laws maintain that the criminal justice system deals with hate crimes fairly enough and that the HCPA is not needed. Criminal law professor William J. Stuntz says he does “not see significant social benefits of the bill. It fills no gap in the criminal law.” Other opponents claim that including sexual orientation, women, and disability in hate crimes law would create a special class of victims. Some argue that homosexuals, who strongly support the HCPA, seek minority status although they are not, like African Americans, historical victims of oppression. Law professor Lawrence Alexander agrees: “Violence against gays and the disabled, for example, is not a badge or incident of slavery.” Detractors also believe that the passage of the HCPA will balkanize the nation by giving select groups special treatment with protective federal laws. “Americans are not equal under the law,” argues columnist Heather Brick, “if crimes against a particular ‘victim’ group are punished more harshly than identical crimes against someone who is not a member of a government- protected group.”
The debate over whether or not violence against gays and lesbians, women, and the disabled deserves federal protection has renewed arguments about a much deeper question—whether civil rights laws and the First Amendment protect all Americans equally. At Issue: What Is a Hate Crime? presents a wide range of views on the definition of crimes motivated by hatred of those who differ from the majority—a topic of special interest in a nation as diverse as the United States.
