Justice and fairness are predicated on the concept of natural and equal rights for all men and women, rather than on the characteristics they exhibit. A hate crime does not always refer to criminal behaviors motivated by hatred, but rather violent crimes motivated by sexual, racial, or other forms of prejudice. This paper will discuss several aspects of hate crimes.
A hate crime is any criminal offense that a victim or another individual perceives to be motivated by animosity or prejudice because of a person's race, religion, sexual orientation, handicap, or gender identity, in other words transgender. Regular crime, on the other hand, is an act or an omission in violation of the law (Flint 2013). Perhaps the big difference between regular crime and hate crime is the unmistakable message the two crimes send. That is, a hate crime is motivated and sends a message to a whole community that they are not welcome or safe (Flint 2013).
Hate Crime Statistics
Hate crime statistics are a data representation of victims and victimizers. The data represents a reference point that enables the state to observe the progress on the laws put in place to eradicate hate prejudice. The statistics show the worst forms of hate crimes and the victims as their result.
The above data in the form of a bar graph shows an analysis of data for victims of hate crime incidents. The victims totaling to 59.2 percent are as a result of their ethnicity and ancestry which totaled to about 4216 victims. Regarding religion, the victims with a range of 19.7 percent amounted to 1402. Sexual orientation bias with a range of 17.7 had a result of 1263 victims and lastly the disability gender, and identity bias has the lowest victims of 88, 30 and 122.
The table above shows a distribution of the 2010 statistics of hate crimes. The comparison of the two data over a range of five years shows some significant change in some of the hates crimes and others shows some consistency. The data also lists the ends of some of the hate crimes and also the crop up of some new forms of hate crimes.
Classes Protected under the Hate Crime Delegation
The groups protected under the hate crime commission include groups identified by their sexuality, race, gender, faith and sexual identity being the most current (Meyer 2010). The categories represent victims of hate crimes, who form at large the groups protected by law. Before the law was amended some classes such as the sexual class were limited to certain specific groups, in that the law only focused on protecting heterosexuals and homosexuals only, leaving out the transgender victims.
Common Characteristics in Hate Crime Perpetrators
Understanding the common characteristics among hate crime perpetrators requires an understanding of their classification hence, they categorize into four types namely, thrill seekers, defensive offenders, mission criminals and retaliatory offenders (Meyer 2010). Thrill seekers commit hate crimes as an exercise of power and to gain status and acceptance among peers. The crimes usually involve the destruction of property and vandalism against groups considered as inferior or different.
Defensive offenders commit bias crimes in defense of their territory against outsiders or intruders. These kinds of criminals do not spread hate, but at times they may get help from hate groups so as to send a message that the victims are not welcome(Meyer 2010). Mission offenders are perhaps the worst as they suffer from a psychological and mental illness which allows them to perceive their victims as evil or subhuman. The result is a catastrophe which ends up in a lot of casualties. Finally, the retaliatory offenders are groups that react to hate crimes committed against them.
The interesting fact is that the truth of the original event is usually irrelevant, which results in retaliation on information which is unverified (Grattet & Jenness 2008). The above groups have a goal or an objective in mind. The hate crimes committed have a source be it gaining status or even retaliation.
The similarity in hate crime offenders depends on the various types of hate crimes. For instance, research on disability hate crimes shows that majority of the victims are victimized by individuals they know, from neighbors to community members (Grattet & Jenness 2008). As for the other hate crimes, the similarity comes in the places where the victims are victimized. With sexual orientation hate crimes, the perpetrators target victims in social housings and drug abuse parlors. The offenders share the characteristic of having to feel a void within them by victimizing others in some cases the victimizer happens to be once a victim.
General Victims
The direct victims are classified depending on the form of the hate crime. For instance, gender identity, sex, and sexual preference form one group of casualties termed as LGBT representing lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. The victims of the racial or color hate crimes are by far the largest group, from the indigenous natives to the immigrants. Perhaps the greater victims are the surviving family members and community of the incidents, as they are prone to isolation due to loss of faith and self-blame and fear of what may come next.
Hate crimes fall upon an individual, but the effects have psychological and social repercussions which prove to be very destructive to not only to the victim but also to the victim’s family and community. Hate crimes send individual messages to a community that they are not safe, thus even if one does not know the victim personally; they still feel threatened and vulnerable. The realization that one’s community may be the target because of certain prominent characteristics slowly wears away feelings of safety and security.
Regarding statistics, the general victims categorize into racial or ancestry bias, sexual-orientation bias, disability bias and gender and gender identity bias. Racial and ethnicity victims are; African Americans, Latino Americans, Native Americans, Asian and Arabs and finally native Hawaiian. Regarding sexual orientation, the victims are gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender and heterosexual people. Concerning religion, it is a fact that all are inclusive from Islamic to Protestants it is perhaps the most singular hate crime that many if not all individuals practice without knowing (Grattet & Jenness 2008). As for the disability bias, the victims are either the physically disabled or the mentally disabled. Gender and sex identity are in a way part of sexual-orientation.
Laws Regarding Hate Crimes
The hate-crime prevention act was introduced in 1998, which later saw an upgrade by attempts by the government to expand the court authority of federal officials to investigate and prosecute hate-motivated crimes. The idea was to broaden both the protection and circumstances of security, which was far too limiting and perhaps a slap on the wrist to the offenders. Hence the idea of upgrading the laws was much felt like a step in the right direction. Some of the laws are as follows;
18 U.S.C. 241 civil rights conspiracies law makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree on injuring, threatening and intimidating an individual in any state, who are in free exercise of their rights and freedoms as stated in the constitution.
18 U.S.C. 245 bias-motivated interference with federally protected rights; the statute prevents the intentional interference, by force of any individual whose enjoying a federal right or benefit by color, race, nationality and religion.
18 U.S.C. 247 intrusion of people practicing religious beliefs; the statute prohibits anyone from damaging any religious property because of the color or ethnic characteristics. The law also prohibits intentional obstruction by force or threat of force of any person enjoying the free exercise of religious beliefs.
42 U.S.C. 3631 interference with the right to fair housing; the statute states it is unlawful to use force to injure or intimidate with any person's housing rights because of their color, race, religion, disability and sex. The statute also includes individuals or persons assisting people in their exercise of housing rights.
28 U.S.C. 534 hate crime statistics act; the act holds the Justice Department with the mandate of acquiring data on crimes that solicit prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation and ethnicity from law enforcement agencies across the nation and publishes an annual summary of the findings.
28 U.S.C. 994 note hate crime sentencing enhancement act; the statute provides for the increase of the penalties for crime in which the victim is victimized as a result of gender, disability, religion and more.
The signing of the hate crime law titled the Mathew Sheppard, and James Byrd Act by Obama signified a change towards strengthening the protection against crimes based on the color, faith, and sexual orientation. The law expanded the definition of hate crime making sexual orientation all inclusive as part of the protected classes. The act is perhaps the most significant representation of the protection of the protected classes. It removes the prerequisite or conditions of engaging in a general activity that was used as a defense in undermining victims. It also establishes that the federal authority can participate in the hate crimes investigation. Finally, the federal Bureau of inquiry is mandated to track statistics on hate crimes based on genders and transgender.
Public Figure Challenges Hate Crime
A counselor had been working in the local community for a while when he encountered a homophobic abuse from a young man (Lyons 2008). At the time the man had a track record of anti-social behavior. Hence, the registered social landlord asked the counselor to be a witness that required the counselor to give a statement about the individual's behavior. The result was a court order placed on the home of the young man, which was intended to act as a warning as it placed his tenancy at risk if there were any further incidents (Lyons 2008).
The counselor was attacked again by the same young man, and he sustained physical injuries from a head-butt and a chest punch (Lyons 2008). Consequently, the case was arraigned in court, clearly being a hate crime; the counselor chose to drop the charges despite how sad and depressing the whole issue had affected him and his family. He resided on the thought that the young man had a long life ahead and would not like for him to face imprisonment in his mind, he hoped the young man had learned a lesson. Perhaps the lesson did not hit home as the counselor was attacked again by the same young individual, and the law had to take its course. The young man was found guilty, fined and sentenced to community service. Too lenient but at least the counselor could keep his family safe as he was awarded an injection for a year.
Why the particular example?
The specific example is the preferred choice as it shows the struggle of being a better man despite the adversities and challenges that arose. The counselor manages to forgive and consider the young life of the victimizer despite the harm done to him (Lyons 2008). This act of tolerance shows a beacon of hope in humanity as not all is gone. He understands the rights he has, but in light of it, he also appreciates being able to protect his family through a restraining order which is given by the judge for a year (Lyons 2008). The councilor believes in a community in which persecution would be a thing of the past as unlike human rights issues, hate crimes are quite an ambition that touches upon the most personal and intricate details of a person’s life. The hope that remains is the thought that hate crime will be a part of history. Additionally, the above scenario fits as the best choice as it shows how the law at the time was perhaps too lenient regarding the persecution of the offenders, and more so the protection of the victims.
Why the Crime was a Hate Crime
The crime was a hate crime as the counselor was performing his law- full duty before the young man targeted him because of his sexual orientation which is unlawful according to 18 U.S.C. 245. With regards to bias-motivated interference with federally protected rights; the statute prevents the intentional interference, by force of the enjoyment of a federal right or benefit by color, sexual orientation, race, nationality, and religion (Lyons 2008). The young man attacked the counselor as a result of his sexual orientation preference as a gay. The court found the young man guilty and was fined for the damages and placed under community service. Too lenient one may say for a repeat offender.
Conclusion
The paper covers hate crime with some related subheadings in which they express the various results of such a menace. The statistics can show some bit of progress in regards to trying to eradicate hate crimes but to some extent in some of the hate crimes the effort is not quite sufficient. The family hates crimes are perhaps far-reaching of the other hate crimes; the victims are many with a growing number every day. The laws of the creation of the Mathew Sheppard Act were too lenient hence promoting more victimization and conditional limiting the fundamental rights of the protected groups. It is true there is also more to be done as the numbers may be small but there are still victims suffering whose experiences do not reflect in the statistics. As much as the government is trying to eradicate hate crimes, it should also consider educating the people on social injustices like hate crimes as not all offenders pursue victims under clear circumstances.
Reference
Flint, C. (2013). Spaces of Hate: Geographies of Discrimination and Intolerance in the USA. Routledge.
Grattet, R., & Jenness, V. (2008). Transforming symbolic law into organizational action: Hate crime policy and law enforcement practice. Social Forces, 501-527.
Lyons, C. J. (2008). Individual perceptions and the social construction of hate crimes: A factorial survey. The Social Science Journal, 45(1), 107-131.
Meyer, D. (2010). Evaluating the severity of hate-motivated violence: Intersectional differences among LGBT hate crime victims. Sociology, 44(5), 980-995.
United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (November 2016). Hate Crime Statistics, 2015. Retrieved (08/04/2017), from (United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (November 2016). Hate Crime Statistics, 2015. Retrieved (insert date).
