Reasons of Hate Crimes - Essay Example

Running head: HATE CRIMES. Hate Crimes. Name: Institution: Abstract. Hate Crimes refer to acts of violence and vandalism directed against individuals and the sections of society to which they belong, motivated by race, religion, ethnicity, gender, disabilities or sexual orientation. Hate crimes inflict massive physical and psychological damage on the individual and on society, often leading to community riots and the fragmentation of society itself. To combat this menace, the need of the hour is the passage and enactment of legislation which criminalizes hate crimes. Hate Crimes. In contemporary society, hate crimes constitute one of the most potent threats to the sense of collective belonging and security, which is the very bedrock of communal living. According to Dr. Jack McDevitt, hate crimes are “message crimes,” which tell the victim and the minority group to which he belongs, that they are not welcome in that society (cited in APA Position paper, 1998). As such, hate crimes have the potential to alienate whole sections of society and lead to fragmentation. In the face of such clear-cut danger to society, it is imperative that unambiguous, punitive legislation against hate crimes needs to be enacted and put into execution at the earliest. The entry of the term ‘hate crimes’ into common vocabulary can be traced to the Justice Departments’ ‘hate crime statistics’ in 1985 (Jacobs and Potter, cited in Siasoco, 1999). The official definition of a hate crime or a bias crime is “a criminal offense committed against a person, property or society which is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offenders’ bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or ethnicity/national origin” (Robinson, 2003). The perpetrators of hate crimes are generally young adults and strangers to the victims. While some of them may be members of hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, the vast majority are otherwise law-abiding individuals, whose personal biases stem from the social norms governing their environment. They often feel that they are morally justified and supported by society in their attacks on people perceived to be ‘different.’ The leading basis of hate crimes continues to be racism, with African-Americans bearing the brunt of the attacks, a particularly heinous case being the dragging to death of James Byrd in Texas in June 1998. Ethnic minorities are targeted because of their different lifestyles and their success being perceived as a threat to the employment and financial opportunities of the ‘natives.’ David Ritcheson, a Latino, was sodomized and savagely beaten up in Texas on April 22, 2005 by white teenagers yelling racial slurs (Civilrights. Org web site, 2006). There is an increase in hate crimes against Arab-Americans in the aftermath of the World Trade Centre destruction by Arab terrorists. Religious discrimination, such as anti-Semitism, as seen in the July 2005 shooting attack on a Jewish synagogue in Seattle, usually involves vandalism against property symbolic of that religion, but can also spill over into personal attacks. Hate crimes against homosexuals and lesbians are often most blatant and reflect the perpetrators’ belief that society is against sexual minorities and condones this violence. Mathew Shephard, a gay University of Wyoming student, died in 1998, after he was sodomized, robbed and crucified. Similarly, in hate crimes against people with mental and physical disabilities, the victims are perceived to be dispensable, non-contributing members of society, who deserve no respect. Resistance to social change and a need to protect ones’ traditional mode of life often instigate hate crimes (APA Position paper, 1998). Gender based crimes against women also fall under the ambit of hate crimes. However, the danger inherent in hate crimes is that it is a cancer which does not remain restricted to certain parameters, but continues a rampant growth, targeting more and more segments of society perceived by the perpetrators as different or marginalized. This is illustrated by the growth in the incidence of hate crimes against the homeless. In January 2005, Norris Gaynor, a homeless man, was beaten to death by three teenagers in Fort Lauderdale, Florida (Civilrights.org web site, 2006). The problem has been further aggravated by the internet, which has facilitated the wider communication of messages of hate among groups that are so inclined. Hate crimes have a truly horrendous effect, both on the individual and on society as a whole. Their brutality traumatizes the victim. Even more than the physical injuries, it is the psychological consequences which are serious and longer lasting, as they attack the individuals’ sense of identity. The alienation, vulnerability, fear of repeat attacks and feelings of helplessness and suspicion linger. In the case of society, hate crimes have more far-reaching consequences than other crimes. The crime is directed not just against the victim, but also against the particular group to which he belongs. As such, hate crimes have the potential to exacerbate tensions and set off community riots and retaliatory attacks. Unlike conventional crimes whose effects are confined to the victim and his immediate family, the growing tentacles of hate crimes reach out to victimize the entire community. “These criminal acts are intended to polarize communities and damage the social fabric” (Civilrights.org. web site, 2006). Society itself is in danger of fragmentation. The economic costs of hate crimes may be calculated in terms of the deployment of police, fire and medical personnel, property loss due to vandalism and damage to vehicles and equipment. Costs extend to decline in property value, increased insurance rates, lower tax revenue, and the cost of rebuilding riot-hit areas, which may be abandoned (Ochi, n.d.). But the deeper costs of hate crimes cannot be calculated in dollars and cents. It is the damage inflicted on the very psyche of civilized society that extracts the maximum cost. As long as hate crimes are lumped into a general category of crime, the complete participation of every individual as an equal member of a democratic society will remain impossible. Specific legislation to control and punish hate crimes is essential. A step in the right direction is the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Act of 2005, which is an expanded, more comprehensive version of the preceding laws of the nineties. In addition to violent crimes based on race, color, ethnicity and religion, the act also includes gender, disabilities and sexual orientation and extends federal involvement in its’ prosecution (Civilrights.org. web site, 2006). It has been passed by the Senate and waits the approval of the House. The proponents of the Act assert that the government must step in to contain hate crimes which are destroying society. Rabbi David Sapperstein sees hate crimes as “a betrayal of the promise of America …(that) tear at the too often frayed threads of diversity that bind us together and make us strong. They seek to divide and conquer” (cited in Nimmo, 2006). Lack of unequivocal legislation against hate crimes fosters frustration and anger in the victimized communities and undermines their faith in the government. It is an undisputed fact that “when perpetrators of hate crimes are not prosecuted as criminals and their acts not publicly condemned, their crimes can weaken even those communities with the healthiest race relations” (Ochi, n.d.). The efficacy of crime legislation as a deterrent has been repeatedly demonstrated, right from the civil rights struggle. If such legislation is not passed, it is tantamount to acknowledging society’ approval of bigotry and intolerance, and sanctioning violence against anyone who is perceived as ‘different’ from the mainstream. In the present scenario, victims are reluctant to report or participate in the investigation of hate crimes. The reasons range from fear of revictimization and loss of privacy, to shame and immigration problems. But the biggest deterrent is the ambiguity over the response of the agencies of law enforcement and justice (Turner, n.d.). This can be surmounted only by passing the Hate Crimes Act, clearly designating hate crimes as criminal acts. Government reluctance to pass the legislation constitutes “inaction in the fight against discriminatory violence (which) ultimately represents a threat not just to vulnerable minorities, but to the security of society as a whole” (Civilrights.org. web site, 2006). The government must incorporate systems of monitoring and reporting of incidents of hate crimes and strengthen criminal laws and law enforcement procedures to deter and punish hate crimes. In then President Bill Clintons’ words, “All Americans deserve protection from hate” (Robinson, 2003). The opponents of the legislation against hate crimes hold that, since existing laws already deal with crimes per se, the new legislation aims to make thoughts a crime and infringes on freedom of speech. However, the legislation punishes the perpetrator only when thoughts are translated into violent crime and freedom of speech remains protected by the first amendment. The second argument that existing laws already cover all crimes is again not true as hate crimes definitely differ from conventional crimes in being directed, not against an individual, but against a group within the community. Thirdly, the contention that the Act attempts to give homosexuals special status and legitimacy, is false, as equal protection is envisioned for bisexuals and heterosexuals too. Fourthly, the opposition to increased federal participation in law enforcement is not valid in this case, as many hate crimes are not investigated fairly due to local prejudice, starting with the cop on the beat. Federal participation will redress this flaw. The legislation does not endeavor to make an offenders’ abstract beliefs or membership of any organization a prosecutable offence (Robinson, 2003). It is no “draconian, freedom hating piece of legislation” (Watson, 2005), which attempts to restrict freedom of speech, to favor homosexuals, to centralize law enforcement in federal hands, to make sexual orientation studies mandatory for little children, to condemn non-violent expressions of religious or moral disapproval. On the contrary, it is a much needed measure to combat and stem the epidemic of hate crimes that threatens to tear apart society. Of course, legislation against hate crimes is not enough in itself: bigotry, xenophobia, intolerance and the like cannot just be legislated out of society. Legislation needs to be made in conjunction with other measures. Police agencies require special training in responding to hate crimes and establishing a zero-tolerance policy towards discrimination within the force itself. Government members must be circumspect in their speech, so that their political stand on sensitive issues such as immigration, does not fan the fires of ethnic hatred. Specialized anti-discriminatory bodies can be set up at the national level to monitor hate crimes. Educating the public to be aware of hate crimes, facilitating interaction between minority and majority groups, including minorities in local decision-making bodies, controlling violence-inciting rumors by harnessing the power of the media and extending the scope of community organizations such as the Community Relations Service are all measures which can be used in the arsenal to fight the battle against hate crimes (Ochi, n.d.). This holistic approach is best guaranteed to succeed, but the need of the hour is the passage of the Hate Crimes Act into law. These ‘message crimes’ must be deterred by an equally unequivocal message from the government and society “to all who would commit crimes of hate: it is wrong, it is illegal, and we will catch you and punish you to the full force of our laws” (Al Gore, cited in Siasoco, 1999). Only then can hate crimes be rooted out of society. References. Hate Crimes Today: An Age-Old Foe In Modern Dress. Position Paper released in 1998. APA Online. Retrieved December 3, 2006 from http://www.apa.org/releases/hate.html Hate Crimes. December 4, 2006. Civilrights.org web site. Retrieved December 4, 2006 http://www.civilrights.org/issues/hate Nimmo K. November 15, 2006. Another Day In The Empire. Political Blogging as Hate Crime. Retrieved December 3, 2006 from http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=657 Ochi, R. (n.d.) Hate Crime: The Violence of Intolerance. U.S. Department of Justice, Community Relations Service. Retrieved December 3, 2006 from http://www.usdoj.gov/crs/pubs/htecrm.htm Robinson, B.A. September 18, 2003. Hate Crimes in The U.S: Definitions, information, ethics and legislation. Retrieved December 4, 2006 from http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hatl.htm Siasoco, R.V. August 18, 1999. Information Please Database. Defining Hate Crimes. Retrieved December 4, 2006 from http://www.infoplease.com/spot/hatecrimes.html Turner,N. (n.d.) International Association of Chiefs of Police. Publication. Responding to Hate Crimes: A Police Officers’ Guide to Investigation and Prevention. Retrieved December 4, 2006 from http://www.theiacp.org/documents/index.cfm?fuseaction=document&document_id=141 Watson, S. October 31, 2005. Hate Crime Laws: Criminalizing Free Speech. Retrieved December 4, 2006 from http://infowars.net/articles/october2005/311005hatebill.htm Read More