Hate Crimes and the Mitchell V. Wisconsin DecisionEssay Preview: Hate Crimes and the Mitchell V. Wisconsin DecisionReport this essayHate Crimes and The Mitchell v. Wisconsin DecisionThe American Heritage Dictionary defines hate as intense dislike or animosity. However, defining hate as the basis for a crime is not as easy without possibly jeopardizing constitutional rights in the process. Hate crime laws generally add enhanced punishments to existing statues. A hate crime law seeks to treat a crime, if it can be demonstrated that the offense was a hate crime differently from the way it would be treated under ordinary criminal law. Since the 1980s, the problem of hate crimes has attracted increasing research attention, especially from criminologists and law enforcement personnel who have focused primarily on documenting the prevalence of the problem and formulation criminal justice responses to it. Lawmakers have passed legislation to encourage data collection and attach enhanced penalties to hate crimes at both state and federal levels.
When Americans are assaulted merely because of their real or perceived sexual orientation, gender, or disability, the law should be as tough on their assailants as it currently is tough on criminals who attack based on racial, religious, or ethnic bias. Yet only in rare circumstances can the federal government investigate and prosecute hate violence against gays, lesbians, or bisexuals. Attempts have been made to reach a definition of hate crime, including that it is a crime, most commonly violence, motivated by prejudice, bias or hatred towards a particular group of which the victim is rarely significant to the offender and is most commonly a stranger to him or her. The current law (18 U.S.C. 245) permits federal prosecution of a hate crime only if the crime was motivated by bias based on race, religion, national origin, or color, and the assailant intended to prevent the victim from exercising a “federally protected right” (e.g. voting, attending school, etc.) This dual requirement substantially limits the potential for federal assistance in investigating or prosecuting hate crimes, even when the crime is particularly heinous.
Hate crimes demand a priority response because of their special emotional and psychological impact on the victim and the victims community. The damage done by hate crimes cannot be measured solely in terms of physical injury or dollars and cents. Hate crimes may effectively intimidate other members of the victims community, leaving them feeling isolated, vulnerable and unprotected by the law. By making members of minority communities fearful, angry and suspicious of other groups and the power structure that is supposed to protect them. These incidents can damage the fabric of our society and fragment communities. The following three areas are concerns about hate crimes legislation:
protecting the individuals rights of association and speech;determining the boundaries of the law that will reach and change peoples hearts and minds; anddefining people as member of categories or discrete units that are the target of intentional discrimination.Hate Crimes are becoming more and more common in the United States. In a report released February 13, 2001, the FBI said 7,876 hate crimes were reported in the United State in 1999. The latest figures represent an increase over the 7,755 hate crimes reported in 1998, but the difference may not be significant because more agencies were reporting such crimes to the FBI in 1999. The figures are in the FBIs Hate Crime Statistics, an annual publication. Seventeen people were murdered in incidents classified as hate crimes, compared to 13 in 1998. Of the total the 7,876 incidents, racial bias was associated with 54.5 percent of the cases, followed by religious bias at 17.9 percent, sexual bias at 16.7, percent ethnic bias at 10.5 percent and bias against the disabled at .24 percent. Intimidation was the most frequently reported hate crime, accounting for 35.1 percent of the total. Vandalism accounted for 28.5 percent of the total. Assault and aggravated assault comprised 19 percent and 12 percent, respectively, of all reported hate crimes. The report said that 12,122 law enforcement agencies in 48 states and the District of Columbia reported hate crimes.
Texas had no hate crimes law on the books when James Byrd Jr. was dragged to his death behind a pickup truck. Nor did Wyoming when Matthew Shepard was tied to a fence and beaten to death. And that, Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy and others claim, is why a federal hate crime law should be enacted. Crimes that are motivated by hate really are fundamentally different, Clinton said after meeting with Byrds sister and nephew, and I believe should be treated differently under the law. Some examples of crimes that were outside federal jurisdiction but could have been prosecuted under the proposed hate crime legislation: In December 1995, self-identified neo-Nazi skinheads murdered two African American residents of Fayetteville, N.C. The victims were selected solely because of their skin color. In April 1994, two African-American men murdered a white father of three in Lubbock, Texas; the killers later stated that they set out to find a white victim. In January 1996, two men in Houston stabbed a gay man 35 times, killing him. Evidence showed that the assailant s bragged about hating homosexuals and had traveled to Houston in part to commit violence against gay people.
Everybody agrees it was a horrible way to treat a human being and openly gay man beaten senseless on the Wyoming prairie and left alone to die in the frigid night tethered to a fence. But Matthew Shepard death, as disturbing as it is, has only re-ignited a set of questions that have slowed efforts to expand federal hate crimes laws: Just what is a hate crime? Should a crime against gays and lesbians be punished differently from one against other Americans? If hate crimes are punished separately, would it deter such violence or encourage it. Shepard death has given new energy to gay or lesbian activists who say existing laws fail to protect them from random violence. It was clear to most Americans that this was a hate crime. This was a crime committed to send a message.
The ACLU of Northern Iowa has been helping the fight. Its national office is working with the Wyoming Department of Public Safety and the Iowa State Attorney to develop a bill that would allow states to take action against hate crimes, rather than prosecute them. The legislation would make it clear, for instance, that an offense under the Arkansas bill is not considered a hate crime at all, even if it involved a person wearing clothing that shows skin color, but not saying that at all.
There are similar state statutes that make it more difficult for state agencies to take federal hate crimes criminal actions, according to the ACLU’s staff.
“We’re worried about their ability to enforce their hate crimes laws in this country,” said Jennifer Purdy, assistant legal director in the U.S. legal division. “We’re not sure that Wyoming is alone in that way. We are concerned that some jurisdictions have not taken sufficient steps to ensure that the U.S. government does not prosecute the crimes of hate crimes. It looks like, with that in mind, it would very much be a problem at this point for Wyoming.”
Wyoming authorities said in March they had received a report of reports of a young man in his 20s attacking women and children. The man said authorities arrested him and arrested him at gunpoint while in possession of a handgun. He was taken to the Mount Pleasant Health, which police said he was not permitted to enter.
The woman who was assaulted suffered serious head injuries shortly after walking in a group through the front door. Authorities believed that she was the person who attacked the man at the time of the attack. She is to be charged with assault and resisting arrest. Authorities later released a video of the attack that police say appeared to show a 15-year-old male running out of the room and into the front door. The man died from his injuries as a result of a blunt force trauma.
On Jan. 2, Wyoming Attorney General Tom Beyer sent notice to all Wyoming law enforcement and others that he intends to investigate and “take appropriate action if any law enforcement community finds there is merit in issuing arrest warrants,” Arkansas Attorney General Mike DeWine said in a statement. “As we have said for weeks, there is little legal or ethical basis for people to walk into a police officer’s office with guns and guns,” he added.
Attorney General Beyer also wrote to the National Rifle Association, and the Department of Justice. They noted that a local and federal hate crime law allows them to pursue a criminal case against anyone who says an applicant for a permit to carry a firearm violates a person’s right to “individual safety and safety in general.” “We’ve seen this phenomenon before and we expect that we will soon see more examples of this kind,” said Beyer Attorney General Jason Laughlin.
Beyer’s office has been using the Wyoming anti-violence law as something of a deterrent. This past fall it sent out a letter with a note saying that it will take “as many local law enforcement agencies as possible to monitor individuals
The ACLU of Northern Iowa has been helping the fight. Its national office is working with the Wyoming Department of Public Safety and the Iowa State Attorney to develop a bill that would allow states to take action against hate crimes, rather than prosecute them. The legislation would make it clear, for instance, that an offense under the Arkansas bill is not considered a hate crime at all, even if it involved a person wearing clothing that shows skin color, but not saying that at all.
There are similar state statutes that make it more difficult for state agencies to take federal hate crimes criminal actions, according to the ACLU’s staff.
“We’re worried about their ability to enforce their hate crimes laws in this country,” said Jennifer Purdy, assistant legal director in the U.S. legal division. “We’re not sure that Wyoming is alone in that way. We are concerned that some jurisdictions have not taken sufficient steps to ensure that the U.S. government does not prosecute the crimes of hate crimes. It looks like, with that in mind, it would very much be a problem at this point for Wyoming.”
Wyoming authorities said in March they had received a report of reports of a young man in his 20s attacking women and children. The man said authorities arrested him and arrested him at gunpoint while in possession of a handgun. He was taken to the Mount Pleasant Health, which police said he was not permitted to enter.
The woman who was assaulted suffered serious head injuries shortly after walking in a group through the front door. Authorities believed that she was the person who attacked the man at the time of the attack. She is to be charged with assault and resisting arrest. Authorities later released a video of the attack that police say appeared to show a 15-year-old male running out of the room and into the front door. The man died from his injuries as a result of a blunt force trauma.
On Jan. 2, Wyoming Attorney General Tom Beyer sent notice to all Wyoming law enforcement and others that he intends to investigate and “take appropriate action if any law enforcement community finds there is merit in issuing arrest warrants,” Arkansas Attorney General Mike DeWine said in a statement. “As we have said for weeks, there is little legal or ethical basis for people to walk into a police officer’s office with guns and guns,” he added.
Attorney General Beyer also wrote to the National Rifle Association, and the Department of Justice. They noted that a local and federal hate crime law allows them to pursue a criminal case against anyone who says an applicant for a permit to carry a firearm violates a person’s right to “individual safety and safety in general.” “We’ve seen this phenomenon before and we expect that we will soon see more examples of this kind,” said Beyer Attorney General Jason Laughlin.
Beyer’s office has been using the Wyoming anti-violence law as something of a deterrent. This past fall it sent out a letter with a note saying that it will take “as many local law enforcement agencies as possible to monitor individuals
The ACLU of Northern Iowa has been helping the fight. Its national office is working with the Wyoming Department of Public Safety and the Iowa State Attorney to develop a bill that would allow states to take action against hate crimes, rather than prosecute them. The legislation would make it clear, for instance, that an offense under the Arkansas bill is not considered a hate crime at all, even if it involved a person wearing clothing that shows skin color, but not saying that at all.
There are similar state statutes that make it more difficult for state agencies to take federal hate crimes criminal actions, according to the ACLU’s staff.
“We’re worried about their ability to enforce their hate crimes laws in this country,” said Jennifer Purdy, assistant legal director in the U.S. legal division. “We’re not sure that Wyoming is alone in that way. We are concerned that some jurisdictions have not taken sufficient steps to ensure that the U.S. government does not prosecute the crimes of hate crimes. It looks like, with that in mind, it would very much be a problem at this point for Wyoming.”
Wyoming authorities said in March they had received a report of reports of a young man in his 20s attacking women and children. The man said authorities arrested him and arrested him at gunpoint while in possession of a handgun. He was taken to the Mount Pleasant Health, which police said he was not permitted to enter.
The woman who was assaulted suffered serious head injuries shortly after walking in a group through the front door. Authorities believed that she was the person who attacked the man at the time of the attack. She is to be charged with assault and resisting arrest. Authorities later released a video of the attack that police say appeared to show a 15-year-old male running out of the room and into the front door. The man died from his injuries as a result of a blunt force trauma.
On Jan. 2, Wyoming Attorney General Tom Beyer sent notice to all Wyoming law enforcement and others that he intends to investigate and “take appropriate action if any law enforcement community finds there is merit in issuing arrest warrants,” Arkansas Attorney General Mike DeWine said in a statement. “As we have said for weeks, there is little legal or ethical basis for people to walk into a police officer’s office with guns and guns,” he added.
Attorney General Beyer also wrote to the National Rifle Association, and the Department of Justice. They noted that a local and federal hate crime law allows them to pursue a criminal case against anyone who says an applicant for a permit to carry a firearm violates a person’s right to “individual safety and safety in general.” “We’ve seen this phenomenon before and we expect that we will soon see more examples of this kind,” said Beyer Attorney General Jason Laughlin.
Beyer’s office has been using the Wyoming anti-violence law as something of a deterrent. This past fall it sent out a letter with a note saying that it will take “as many local law enforcement agencies as possible to monitor individuals
The Supreme Court has already concluded otherwise. On June 11, 1993, the United State Supreme Court upheld Wisconsins penalty enhancement law, which imposes harsher sentences on criminals who “intentionally select the person against whom the crimeis committed because of the race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry of that person.” Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the unanimous Court. This paper argues against the decision, and will attempt to prove the unconstitutionality of