Hate Crime

Hate crime

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

A "hate crime" can take two forms: "hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts which are seen to have been motivated by hatred of one or more of the listed conditions. The second kind is hate speech, which is speech defined as crime. While hate crimes are rarely debated, the hate speech concept is controversial, as criminalizing speech can be seen as impugning freedom of speech. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters.

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 US include lynchings of African Americans, cross burnings to drive black families from predominantly white neighborhoods, assaults on gay, lesbian and transgender people, and the painting of swastikas on Jewish synagogues, as well as attacks against European Americans, such as the Murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom and the Wichita Massacre.

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). Of the nearly 8,000 hate crimes reported to the FBI in 1995, almost 3,000 of them were motivated by bias against blacks. Other frequently reported bias motivations were anti-white, anti-Jewish, anti-gay, and anti-Hispanic.

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. 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.

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.

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

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

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).

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

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." 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.

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

Although Denmark 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." In recent years judges have used this provision to increase sentences on the basis of racist motives.

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

In England and Wales criminal actions are considered hate crimes if they are perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated by prejudice and hatred. 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.

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).

The German Criminal Code permits the motives and aims of the criminal, including racist motives, to be taken into account in sentencing.

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." 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.

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.

Iranian constitution's article 19 sates: 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 sates: 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" , 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.

Ireland does not systematically collect hate crime data.

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.

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

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.

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. 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 , having been prepared with support from the Scottish Government.

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.

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, religion, or "other circumstance" of the victim.

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

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." The Code also "punishes anyone who “advocates or promotes genocide,” with genocide defined to require that acts be committed “with the intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group.” “Identifiable group,” in turn, is defined to mean “any section of the public distinguished by skin color, racial group, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.” Section 319, adopting the same definition of “identifiable group,” punishes the incitement or expression of hatred against such a group." Civil remedies are also available in Canada for discriminatory acts.

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. Measures to add perceived gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability to the list have been proposed, but failed.

According to the FBI Hate Crime Statistics report for 2006, hate crimes increased nearly 8 percent 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 percent were classified as intimidation and 31.9 percent as simple assaults. 81 percent of the 3,593 crimes against property were acts of vandalism or destruction. 58.6 percent of the 7,330 known offenders were white and 20.6 black. More than half, 52 percent, of the 9,652 victims identified were targeted because of racial group.

Justifications for harsher punishments for hate crimes focus on the notion that hate crimes cause .'" 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.

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.

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 .

Some have argued hate crime laws bring the law into disrepute and further divide society, as groups apply to have their critics silenced. 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. To try to isolate motivation in cases such as rape and murder to fit into one of two categories is ridiculous. The victims in either case suffer the same result. To legislate different penalties based upon a changing definition of what constitutes hate criminalizes thought and not actions. In a free society, one's thoughts and ideas should be protected even if they offend the sensitivities of other groups. It’s when a physical crime is perpetrated, regardless of the motivation, that the same punishment should be enforced.

To the top

2006 Harris County, Texas hate crime assault

The 2006 Harris County, Texas hate crime assault refers to the beating, torture, and sexual assault of a Latino student, by two white youths during the early morning of April 22, 2006 in an unincorporated section of Harris County, Texas, United States. The details of the attack lead to publication of the story in various media outlets in and outside of the United States. The victim of the assault, whose identity was not made public until months after the attack, committed suicide a year after the incident.

The incident occurred at a residence located north of the city of Houston, with a Spring, Texas address, at a party held at the Sons family home. Two Klein Collins High School students, David Henry Tuck, then 18, and Keith Robert Turner, then 17, beat, tortured, and sodomized David Ritcheson, a 17-year old fellow Klein Collins student and former running back for the school American football team.

Tuck and Turner, who were both under the influence of recreational drugs, said they were told that Ritcheson, also under the influence of drugs, tried to kiss a 12-year-old white girl, Danielle Sons. Sons's statement threw Tuck into a rage, and Tuck punched Ritcheson. The first punch was so powerful it broke Ritcheson's cheekbone and knocked him unconscious, stated Dr. Red Duke, the emergency physician who treated him.

Tuck and Turner dragged Ritcheson outside, stripped him naked, burned him with cigarettes, and attempted to engrave a swastika into Ritcheson's chest. Tuck kicked Ritcheson with steel-toed boots and forced the pointed end of a PVC patio umbrella pole up his rectum several inches while yelling racial slurs. After the sodomy ended, the perpetrators poured bleach on the victim's body to conceal the evidence of the crime. The attack lasted for over an hour. Ritcheson was left lying behind the house for more than 10 hours before he was found and an ambulance was called. Ritcheson suffered from extensive injuries including a perforated bladder. The night after the assault, Ritcheson's lungs failed, and the victim was placed on a ventilator. According to Harris County prosecutor Mike Trent, the attackers may have poured bleach inside the pipe as high levels of toxins were found in Ritcheson's organs.

After being contacted by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and agreeing to make his name public, Ritcheson went to Washington, D.C., and on April 17, 2007, testified to the United States House of Representatives Judiciary Subcommittee about passing more stringent hate crime laws.

In December 2006, Tuck and Turner were both convicted of aggravated sexual assault. Tuck, who was described by prosecutors as a white supremacist, was sentenced to life in prison, and Turner was sentenced to 90 years. Turner unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to the 14th Court of Appeals for the State of Texas. On March 20, 2008, the Court of Appeals issued its opinion affirming Turner's conviction. Both Tucker and Turner must serve at least 30 years before becoming eligible for parole.

On the morning of July 1, 2007, Ritcheson committed suicide by jumping from the deck of the MS Ecstasy, a cruise ship bound for the Mexican resort island of Cozumel. The Ritcheson family's attorney, Carlos Leon, confirmed his death.

To the top

Cartman's Silly Hate Crime 2000

The third grade girls, led by Lizzy, challenge the boys to a sled race down Phil Collins Hill. After the boys accept the challenge, Cartman gets into an argument with Token, because he kept calling Cartman a 'fatass'. Cartman says if he Token calls him a fatass once more, he would throw a rock at his face. Kyle then calls Cartman a fatass instead, but Cartman thinks it was Token again, and he ends up throwing the rock at Token, giving him a black eye in the process. Because Token is African-American, the FBI overreacted and Cartman is convicted of a hate crime, and sentenced to juvenile prison until he reaches the age of 21. Cartman escapes the courtroom and enlists Kenny and his Go Go Action Bronco toy car to try and flee to Mexico, but eventually fails.

The boys realize that without Cartman's weight on the back of their sled, they are doomed to lose. Clyde takes over for Cartman, since he is the second fattest in the grade, and everyone immediately starts calling him 'fatass'. Clyde tries to get them to stop, and yells "God dammit," seeing that he is like Cartman. In addition, Token is willing to forgive Cartman, but Token's father, who is himself against hate crime laws, tells the boys they will have to convince the governor in order to free Cartman. The boys then put on a presentation before the governor, complete with visual aids, in which they detail their opposition to hate crime laws. The governor is impressed.

Meanwhile, Cartman adapts to life in prison by smuggling in things for his cellmate, Romper Stomper, who, along with Cartman, escapes the prison. They are caught by the authorities, who take Romper Stomper back to the prison, but who tell Cartman that he has been pardoned by the governor. Cartman returns home, arriving at the sled race just as they are about to begin, and helps the boys beat the girls.

Cartman goes back to jail to pay a visit to Romper, who has always wanted to see Disneyland, and grants his wish by defecating it (off-camera), having smuggled it in his butt.

To the top