Guide To Hate Crimes

U.S.
Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Assistance
A Policymakers Guide to
Hate Crimes
Monograph

D
E
P
A
R
TMENT OF JUST
IC
E

O
F
F
IC
E
O
F
JUSTICE
PR
O
G
R
A
M
S
B
J
A
N
I J
OJJDP
BJS
O
V
C
This document was prepared by the National Criminal Justice Association, under grant
number 96DDBX0013, awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice
Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recom-
mendations expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily
represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
U.S. Department of Justice
810 Seventh Street NW.
Washington, DC 20531
Janet Reno
Attorney General
Raymond C. Fisher
Associate Attorney General
Laurie Robinson
Assistant Attorney General
Nol Brennan
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Nancy E. Gist
Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance
World Wide Web Home Page
www.ojp.usdoj.gov
World Wide Web Home Page
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA
For grant and funding information contact
U.S. Department of Justice Response Center
18004216770
The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also
includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.
A Policymakers Guide to
Hate Crimes
Monograph
March 1997
Reprinted November 1999 NCJ 162304
iii
A Policymakers Guide to Hate Crimes
Foreword
In recent years hate crimes and related legal issues have received a signifi-
cant amount of coverage and commentary in the news media. As a result
of several dramatic incidents of hate crimes and domestic terrorism, public
awareness and concern over bias-motivated crimes have heightened, and
the topic has steadily moved up the political agendas of leaders at every
level of government. These developments have led Attorney General Janet
Reno to seek an assessment of laws and strategies designed to fight, gauge,
and prevent bias-motivated offenses; this monograph both reflects and
helps meet that commitment.
A Policymakers Guide to Hate Crimes is the product of a review of recent lit-
erature on hate crimes, interviews with hate crime experts, and attendance
at congressional hearings and a planning meeting on hate crimes and ter-
rorism. It is meant to explain, in laypersons terms, the scope and nature of
the Nations hate crime problem and to provide a general overview of the
current responses to hate crimes by local, State, and Federal government
agencies; law enforcement authorities; and civil rights groups.
This monograph examines the significant strides made by the Federal
Government in creating a baseline of raw data on hate crimes and the
problems that impede the reporting of hate crime incidents. In addition,
the monograph summarizes current State laws and U.S. Supreme Court
decisions regarding hate crimes. Preventive measures and tactics for deal-
ing with hate crime offenders also are discussed with references to van-
guard programs in specific communities.
We hope that this monograph will educate and guide public officials in
developing policies that address one of the Nations most insidious
problems.
Nancy E. Gist
Director
v
Acknowledgments
The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) would like to acknowledge the
following National Criminal Justice Association staff members for their
contributions as authors of this monograph: Gwen Holden, former Execu-
tive Vice President, Paul E. Lawrence, Director of Administration and In-
formation Systems, Lisa Doyle Moran, Associate Director for Legal Affairs,
Robert Kapler, Senior Staff Associate and Project Leader, and Jennifer A.
Ferrante, former Staff Attorney.
BJA would also like to acknowledge the assistance provided by Michael
Lieberman, Associate Director/Counsel, D.C. Office, the Anti-Defamation
League; Brian Levin, former Counsel, Klanwatch, Southern Poverty Law
Center; Jack McDevitt, Co-Director, Center for Criminal Justice Policy
Research, College of Criminal Justice, Northeastern University (Massachu-
setts); Helen Gonzales, Public Policy Director, National Gay and Lesbian
Task Force and Policy Institute; Daniel Katz, Legislative Counsel, Ameri-
can Civil Liberties Union; Darryl Borgquist, Media Affairs Officer, U.S.
Department of Justices Community Relations Service; the staff of the U.S.
Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigations Uniform Crime
Report Program; and the staff of the U.S. Department of Justices National
Criminal Justice Reference Service.
BJA would like to thank Faith Mitchell, Rosemary Chalk, and Janine
Bilyeu, National Research Council, Commission on Behavioral and Social
Sciences and Education, Committee on Law and Justice, who made it pos-
sible for the authors of this monograph to take part in a seminal planning
meeting on hate crimes and terrorism.
BJA appreciates the assistance of the National Crime Prevention Council
(NCPC), which allowed BJA to use information from the bias crime section
of the NCPC book 350 Tested Strategies To Prevent Crime: A Resource for Mu-
nicipal Agencies and Community Groups (Washington, D.C., 1995). The infor-
mation from that book became an integral part of the monograph chapter
on specific hate-crime-related responses and initiatives.
vii
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ......................................................................................... ix
Introduction Origins and Definition of Hate Crimes........................ 1
Hate Crimes Then and Now ............................................. 1
Defining Hate Crimes......................................................... 2
Chapter 1 Scope of the Hate Crimes Problem................................ 5
Introduction ......................................................................... 5
Hate Crime Statistics Act ................................................... 5
Hate Crime Trends ............................................................. 6
Disparities in Statistics ....................................................... 8
Factors Influencing Reporting .......................................... 9
Chapter 2 Understanding Hate Crimes............................................ 13
Characteristics of Hate Crimes ......................................... 13
African Americans: Most Likely Victims ........................ 14
Arsons at Black Churches .................................................. 15
Role of the Black Church .......................................... 16
Public Responses ........................................................ 16
Federal Responses...................................................... 18
Other Targets of Hate Crimes ........................................... 19
A Climate for Hate Crimes ................................................ 19
Trigger Incidents ........................................................ 20
External Influences .................................................... 20
Scapegoating ............................................................... 20
Who Commits Hate Crimes?............................................. 20
Significance of Hate Crime Statistics ............................... 21
Chapter 3 The Role of Hate Groups ................................................. 23
A New Strategy ................................................................... 23
A New Definition? .............................................................. 25
Chapter 4 Hate Crimes and the Law................................................. 27
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minn. ......................................... 29
Wisconsin v. Mitchell ............................................................ 30
Other Decisions ................................................................... 31
The American Civil Liberties Unions Response ........... 33
viii
Table of Contents (continued)
Chapter 5 Other Responses to Hate Crimes ................................... 35
Government Responses ..................................................... 35
Organizational Responses ................................................. 37
A Closer Look at Responses in the States ....................... 38
Hate Crime Response Networks ............................. 38
Tracking Hate Crimes ............................................... 39
Responding to Reported Incidents ......................... 40
Court Monitoring ....................................................... 41
Diversity and Tolerance Education ........................ 42
Multilingual Reporting and Education Services .. 43
Youth Leadership and Empowerment Programs 44
Police-Minority Partnerships and Associations ... 44
Diversity Awareness Media Campaigns ............... 45
Community-Based Dispute Mediation Services... 46
Support for Victims ................................................... 47
Counseling Offenders ............................................... 47
Other Suggestions ...................................................... 48
Notes ................................................................................................................... 51
Appendix A Bibliography ....................................................................... 59
Appendix B Sources for Further Information .................................... 63
ix
Executive Summary
Despite the best efforts of political and community leaders to foster toler-
ance and understanding, deep-seated racial tensions continue to plague
the Nation. News stories of bias-motivated incidents fill the national pages
of major U.S. newspapers. A rash of arsons at African-American churches
in the South, for example, has spurred the Federal Government to launch a
major investigation that, so far, has led to the arrest of 120 suspects. Of the
298 Federal arson investigations carried out between January 1995 and No-
vember 1996, approximately 43 percent involved fires at black churches,
although white churches far outnumber black churches in the Nation. Po-
litical and religious leaders said that the disproportionate number of black
churches being burned indicated that the Nation was experiencing a seri-
ous wave of hate crimes.
Hate Crime History
While the hate crime problem has moved up the political agendas of
policymakers at every level of government in recent years, the phenom-
enon is hardly new.
From the Romans persecution of Christians and the Nazis final solution
for the Jews to 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 largely 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 this Nation include the
lynchings of African Americans, cross burnings to drive black families
from predominantly white neighborhoods, assaults on homosexuals, and
the painting of swastikas on Jewish synagogues.
What Is a Hate Crime?
For the purposes of this monograph, hate crimes, or bias-motivated crimes,
are defined as offenses motivated by hatred against a victim based on his
or her race, religion, sexual orientation, handicap, ethnicity, or national ori-
gin. While such a definition may make identifying a hate crime seem like a
simple task, criminal acts motivated by bias can easily be confused with
forms of expression protected by the U.S. Constitution.
x
What Makes Hate Crimes
Different From Other Crimes?
The number of hate crimes may seem small when compared with the inci-
dence of other types of crimes in the United States. In 1993, for example, 11
of the 24,526 murders reported in the United States were classified as hate
crimes, as were 13 of the 104,806 reported rapes. But the simple truth about
hate crimes is that each offense victimizes not one victim but many. A hate
crime victimizes not only the immediate target but every member of the
group that the immediate target represents. A bias-motivated offense can
cause a broad ripple of discomfiture among members of a targeted group,
and a violent hate crime can act like a virus, quickly spreading feelings of
terror and loathing across an entire community. Apart from their psycho-
logical impacts, violent hate crimes can create tides of retaliation and
counterretaliation. Therefore, criminal acts motivated by bias may carry far
more weight than other types of criminal acts.
Causes and Characteristics of Hate Crimes
A host of factors may create a climate in which people, motivated by their
biases, take criminal action. Such factors include poor or uncertain eco-
nomic conditions, racial stereotypes in films and on television, hate-filled
discourse on talk shows or in political advertisements, the use of racial
code language such as welfare mothers and inner city thugs, and an
individuals personal experiences with members of particular minority
groups. Once a climate of hate is created, a single incidentsuch as the
videotaped beating of Los Angeles, California, motorist Rodney King
can trigger a wave of hate crimes.
Hate Crime Victims
African Americans, who constitute the single largest minority group in
the Nation, are more likely to be targets of hate crimes than members
of any other group. Of the nearly 8,000 hate crimes reported in 1995,
almost 3,000 of them were motivated by bias against African Americans.
Other typical victims are Jews, homosexuals, Muslims, and, increasingly,
Asian Americans.
Hate Crime Perpetrators
Most hate crimes are committed not by members of an organized hate
group but by individual citizens. Some perpetrators resent the growing
economic power of a particular racial or ethnic group and engage in
scapegoating; others react to a perceived threat to the safety and prop-
erty value of their neighborhood. Still other offenders include thrill
seekersthose who randomly target interchangeable representatives of
minority groups for harassment and violence, and mission offenders
xi
those who believe they are on a mission to rid the world of some perceived
evil. This last group accounts for a tiny percentage of bias-motivated
offenders. The majority of offendersand passive observersare merely
individuals who believe racial and ethnic stereotypes and act on spur-
of-the-moment impulses. Frequently alcohol or drug use is a factor in the
commission of hate crimes.
Are Hate Crimes Increasing?
Data Collection
The Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990 (HCSA) directs the U.S. Attorney
General to collect data from State and local law enforcement agencies
about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based upon race, reli-
gion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. Submission of such data is volun-
tary. The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) Uniform Crime Report
(UCR) Program is the Nations central repository of hate crime statistics.
When the UCR issued its first report on hate crimes in January 1993, fewer
than one in five of the Nations law enforcement agencies were providing
data on these crimes. As of October 1996, nearly 60 percent of the 16,000
law enforcement agencies that participated in the UCR were contributing
hate crime data, and 19 States had enacted statutes that mandated hate
crime data collection. More agencies are expected to provide data on hate
crimes as States convert to the National Incident Based Reporting System
(NIBRS), a new, more comprehensive crime reporting system that collects
a variety of crime information, including whether a crime was motivated
by bias and the demographic characteristics of both the victim and
offender.
Hate Crime Trends
While there has been a concerted effort to establish a statistical baseline of
hate crimes at the national level, uncertainty still exists about whether the
hate crime rate is rising or falling. Nationally, the volume of hate crime
incidents seems to have increased dramatically in 1992, stabilized and
dipped during the following 2 years, then increased again in 1995. Accord-
ing to the FBI, State and local law enforcement agencies in 1991 reported
4,755 bias-motivated crimes, including 12 murders. The number of re-
ported hate crimes rose to 7,466 incidents in 1992 and to 7,587 incidents in
1993. Reported hate crimes dropped nearly 30 percent to 5,852 incidents in
1994, then increased in 1995 to 7,947 incidents, including 20 murders (see
figure A on page 7).
However, because many agencies do not submit hate crime data or have
not recorded hate crime incidents, these statistics are suspect. If the num-
ber of incidents reported each year is compared with the number of agen-
cies reporting, quite a different story emerges. The ratio of the number of
xii
incidents per reporting agency peaked in 1991 and has been on a down-
ward slide ever since, with a slight bump up in 1995 (see figure B on page 7).
As of October 1996, five States still did not collect hate crime data. Yet even
if all States were reporting these incidents it would be difficult to gauge
the level of the hate crime problem in this country because bias-motivated
crimes typically are underreported by both law enforcement agencies and
victims.
Disparities in Statistics
Since the first UCR on hate crimes was released for 1991, hate crime data
from law enforcement agencies have differed significantly from those com-
piled by private organizations. One of the reasons for the disparity is that,
while law enforcement agencies report only actual crimes, advocacy
groups usually report all incidents, even those that may not rise to the
level of a criminal offense. Many police jurisdictions, especially those in
rural areas, simply do not have the manpower, inclination, or technical ex-
pertise to record hate crimes, and other jurisdictions fear that admitting
the existence of hate crimes will cause their communities cultural, political,
and economic repercussions. Some private organizations, on the other
hand, record all hate crime incidents, even unconfirmed reports from
anonymous sources.
Why Some Victims Fail To Report Hate Crimes
Victims have a myriad of reasons for failing to report hate crimes. Homo-
sexual victims may decide not to report hate crimes to police because of
fears of reprisals or a belief that they will be forced out of the closet.
Such an outing may cause repercussions to their career and relationships
with family and friends. Some victims have little confidence that authori-
ties will bring the perpetrators to justice. Immigrant hate crime victims
may not be proficient in English or may be undocumented aliens who fear
that any contact with police will increase their risk of deportation. Other
immigrants come from cultures that mistrust law enforcement agencies,
or they believe that victims of bias-motivated crime are somehow stigma-
tized. Some victims refuse to report such crimes because they want to
avoid the humiliation of recounting the event.
What Has Been Done
To Combat Hate Crimes?
To prevent future tides of hate crimes, political leaders, law enforcement
agencies, State and Federal agencies, and public interest groups have been
working together to identify and track hate crimes and to mitigate the con-
ditions that foster them.
xiii
Hate Crimes and the Law
Forty-seven jurisdictions across the United States have enacted some form
of legislation designed to combat hate crimes. Thirty-nine States have en-
acted laws against bias-motivated violence and intimidation. Nineteen
States have statutes that specifically mandate the collection of hate crime
data. Meanwhile, dozens of law enforcement agencies have promulgated
new policies and procedures to address hate crimes.
In two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, the Court upheld a hate crime
penalty-enhancement statute but struck down an ordinance that
criminalized fighting words uttered to provoke violence against indi-
viduals because of their race, color, creed, religion, or gender.
Hate Crime Initiatives
In the past 4 years, Congress and the Justice Department have approved
several new initiatives designed to combat hate crimes and violence. Sev-
eral of these initiatives were included in the 1992 reauthorization of the Ju-
venile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, as amended. Among the
measures was a requirement that each States juvenile delinquency pre-
vention plan include a component designed to combat hate crimes. An-
other requirement was that the Justice Departments Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) conduct a national assess-
ment of young persons who commit hate crimes.
The Justice Departments Community Relations Service (CRS), the only
Federal agency that exists primarily to assist communities in addressing
intergroup disputes, has played a unique role in helping to identify and
prevent hate crimes. CRS has participated in HCSA training sessions for
hundreds of law enforcement officials from dozens of police agencies
across the Nation and has assisted schools and school districts in address-
ing racial tension and conflict through programs in peer mediation.
The newest and most innovative response to bias-motivated crimes is the
formation of hate crime response networks, which serve as information
clearinghouses on rights and services. Massachusetts, California, and a
few other States are working to set up such networks. The California Asso-
ciation of Official Human Relations Agencies, for example, is developing
regional hate violence response networks in 10 regions in the State. The
network is set up like a wheel with many spokes. At the hub is a human
rights commission or other appropriate public agency or nonprofit organi-
zation that designates staff to coordinate the project or acts as a fiscal
agent. A series of committees make up the spokes, each representing a
different focus area, such as community activities, criminal justice, schools,
the media, and youth.
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has been involved in a number of
youth intervention and hate crime education programs. In Massachusetts,
xiv
for example, ADL staffers from the organizations Boston regional office
and the A World of Difference Institute worked with the State Attorney
Generals Office to develop the Youth Diversion Project, in which nonvio-
lent youth offenders are diverted into alternative education and commu-
nity service programs.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has a track record of bringing lawsuits
against organizations whose members commit hate crimes on their behalf.
In two recent cases, the center won judgments of $12.5 million and $7 mil-
lion, respectively, against the White Aryan Resistance and the Ku Klux
Klan for the deaths by beating and lynching of two African-American men.
The center recently filed suit against a State Ku Klux Klan organization on
behalf of an African-American church that was torched by a Klan member.
Hate crime response expertsincluding representatives from the ADL
are helping to develop a model curriculum for the Federal Law Enforce-
ment Training Center to be used in the instruction of Federal, State, and
local police officials. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF),
meanwhile, has provided staff support, literature, and technical assistance
to community anti-violence projects as well as local gay and lesbian
groups. The NGLTF also lobbies to have sexual orientation included in the
lists of protected groups in State statutes and local ordinances. Beyond its
routine support activities, the NGLTF intervenes in individual cases, keeps
files on political candidates, and publishes a score card that rates a
candidates support or opposition to gay and lesbian rights issues.
Increasingly, religious groups are recognizing the need to promote racial
and cultural tolerance. One example is the Racial Reconciliation Initiative,
sponsored by the National Black Evangelical Association and the National
Association of Evangelicals. Under the initiative, materials are dissemi-
nated that help Christians understand the source of conflicts between
races.
What More Can Policymakers Do?
When law enforcement officers are trained to identify, respond to, and
record hate crime incidents, more hate crimes actually are reported, re-
sponded to, and prosecuted. The investigation, prosecution, and punish-
ment of especially notorious or high-profile hate crimes tends to promote
even more reporting by victims and witnesses. If potential victims know a
reporting system is in place and see a well-publicized case result in a stiff
sentence for the perpetrators, they will be more likely to report a hate
crime in the future and would-be perpetrators will be discouraged from
acting on their impulses. Thus policymakers may want to focus on devel-
oping initiatives and strategies that promote training for law enforcement
officers, prosecutors, and judges and new laws to ensure that all hate
crimes are recorded and acted upon.
xv
Actions for Policymakers To Consider
Following is a list of focus areas that policymakers might want to consider
to enhance hate crime responses by law enforcement agencies and to help
reduce the number of bias-motivated incidents:
J Despite the problems inherent in collecting hate crime statistics on a
national level, hate crime experts agree that the Federal Government is
headed in the right direction by accumulating and disseminating these
data. Policymakers might want to consider ways to provide a permanent
mandate for the HCSA to ensure that hate crime data remain a fixed part
of the UCR and possibly are reported in the same document as other
crime statistics.
J Recognizing the importance of collecting accurate data on hate crimes,
State policymakers might want to support or introduce legislation that
mandates such data collection by all law enforcement agencies in the
State as part of their regular UCR reporting process. In States without
data collection laws, policymakers might want to support or sponsor
legislation that requires law enforcement agencies to collect hate crime
data.
J Law enforcement personnel must be able to identify, record, and act on
hate crimes in an effective, timely manner. Policymakers at the State
and Federal levels might want to make hate crime training a regular
part of all law enforcement training. The Administration and Congress
may want to take measures to ensure that the FBI continues to offer
hate crime training and education to new and veteran field agents. The
FBI also may want to obtain sufficient funding to continue to respond
to requests for hate crime training from State and local law enforcement
agencies.
J Accurately reporting and properly investigating and prosecuting hate
crimes takes thorough and systematic training. Policymakers at both
the State and Federal levels might want to pass legislation that provides
funding incentives to State and local law enforcement agencies to help
support such training.
J There are widespread disparities between the hate crime data provided
by government agencies and the data provided by public interest
groups. Political leaders might want to bring representatives of law
enforcement agencies and private groups to the table to develop and
agree on a standard definition and reporting protocol for hate crimes.
J The newest and most innovative response to bias-motivated crimes is
the formation of hate crime response networks, which serve as
information clearinghouses. Policymakers at the State and Federal
levels might want to support or sponsor legislation to provide funding
for State and local hate crime response networks.
xvi
J Part of becoming a good citizen means learning to understand other
races and cultures. State and local policymakers may want to ensure
that hate crime awareness or ethnic diversity curriculums are provided
in both elementary and secondary schools. Such a curriculum recently
was developed by Educational Development Center Inc. under a grant
from OJJDP.
1
A Policymakers Guide to Hate Crimes Introduction
Origins and Definition of Hate Crimes
Hate Crimes Then and Now
The problem of hate crimes is hardly a recent phenomenon. Earliest re-
corded history to the present is rife with accounts of individuals commit-
ting acts of intimidation and barbaric violence against others simply
because of their race, religion, physical handicap, sex, or political beliefs.
From the Romans persecution of Christians to the Nazis final solution
for the Jews, from the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia to the genocide in
Rwanda, hate crimes have shaped and sometimes defined the history of
nations.
1
In the United States, hate crimes have been inspired largely by racial and
religious biases. 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 centu-
ries, the Ku Klux Klans lynchings of African Americans, cross burnings to
drive black families from predominantly white neighborhoods, and swasti-
kas painted on Jewish synagogues are some of the more typical examples
of hate crimes in this Nation.
Since the mid-1980s, the problem of hate crimes in the United States has
received mounting public scrutiny, largely as a result of several sensa-
tional incidents. The shooting death of controversial radio talk show host
Alan Berg in Denver, Colorado, in 1984 focused national attention on the
activities of a heretofore unknown cadre of white supremacists. Two years
later, three African-American men were attackedone fatallyafter their
car broke down in a white New York City neighborhood called Howard
Beach. The news coverage and analysis that followed these incidents
heightened public awareness of hate crimes and moved the problem up
the political agenda at both the State and national levels.
2
As a subject for news stories, hate crimes have gained increasing promi-
nence during the past decade. A check of the Nexis computer database
for selected years illustrates the ascendancy of hate crimes in the publics
consciousness. Searching for stories containing the terms hate crimes,
bias-motivated crimes, or gay-bashing turned up 14 entries for 1986;
88 entries for 1988; 572 entries for 1990; 1,207 entries for 1992; 1,215 entries
for 1994; and 1,021 entries for 1995. The 364 hits for 1996 as of April 10,
1996, include the following incidents:
J In North Carolina three soldiers from Fort Bragg were charged in the
racially motivated killing of an African-American couple in Fayetteville
2
in December 1995. The incident led to an Army investigation in March
1996 into the involvement of U.S. soldiers in extremist and hate groups.
J Three predominantly African-American churches were burned in
Louisiana in February 1996, and four churches had been burned in
Alabama since December 22, 1995.
J Also in February 1996, Virginia State police were asked to help local
police investigate attacks on area houses of worship. The vandalizing
of two Jewish synagogues brought the number of religious facilities that
had been attacked in the State in recent months to four.
J Police in St. Alban, Vermont, arrested two teens in a racially motivated
beating in February 1996 that left a 19-year-old Hispanic man blind in
one eye. A pipe, a tree limb, and a broken hockey stick apparently were
used in the attack, police said.
J In March 1996 in Corvallis, Oregon, racial epithets were scrawled on
several posters depicting African Americans on the campus of Oregon
State University, which is trying to increase minority enrollment. An
African-American student also reported that three students on a
dormitory roof shouted racial slurs at him in March 1996.
J In Mamaroneck, New York, a $15,000 reward was offered for the arrest
of vandals who spray painted hate messages on seven houses in
February 1996; six of the homes belonged to Jewish families.
Defining Hate Crimes
While hate crime would be the term most often used in the United States
to describe an attack by a white supremacist against an African American,
the act would be known in Germany as right-wing violence or xeno-
phobic violence. In Britain and France, it would be referred to simply as
racial violence.
3
The term hate crime entered the lexicon most likely because it is broad
enough to cover offenses perpetrated not only against African Americans,
but also against gays, Muslims, Koreans, and members of various other
groups. The Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990 (see Chapter 1) defines hate
crimes as crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, reli-
gion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including where appropriate the
crimes of murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated
assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and destruction, damage or
vandalism of property.
By 1993, fewer than half the States had adopted the Federal definition of
a hate crime, while other States had added other victim categories. Con-
necticut, for example, adds people with physical disabilities to the list of
possible victims; Illinois definition includes color, creed, ancestry, and
physical and mental disability; and Rhode Islands definition includes
3
disability and gender. On the other hand, Pennsylvania does not recognize
sexual orientation as a victim classification.
4
For the purposes of this report, hate crimesor bias-motivated crimes
are defined as offenses motivated by hatred against a victim based on his
or her race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or national origin.
While such a definition may make identifying a hate crime seem like a
simple task, criminal acts motivated by bias can easily be confused with
forms of expression protected by the U.S. Constitution. A persons biases
may compel him to announce his dislike for the practice of homosexuality,
which would not rise to the level of a hate crime, or may spur him to
smear a swastika on a building or commit homicide, which most certainly
would be identified as hate crimes.
5
A Policymakers Guide to Hate Crimes Chapter 1
Scope of the Hate Crimes Problem
Introduction
In the area of criminal justice, it is a political reality that public policy
sometimes is driven more by emotions and perceptionssometimes
misperceptionsthan hard empirical data. Still, any State or local official
who is attempting to fashion sound public policy relating to hate crimes
must rely on statistics at one time or another. Whether the best evidence
shows that the number of bias-motivated offenses is increasing or waning
in a geographic area will determine, to some extent, the level of resources
that a policymaker will want to expend to solve a hate crime problem.
To that end, various social organizations, Congress, and the U.S. Depart-
ment of Justice have made significant strides in recent years toward estab-
lishing a statistical baseline of hate crimes.
Hate Crime Statistics Act
In response to a perceived increase in hate crimes in the late 1980s, espe-
cially skinhead attacks on racial minorities, Congress in 1990 passed legis-
lation setting up a Federal system for keeping track of bias-motivated
incidents.
5
The legislation, originally sponsored by Rep. John Conyers (DMichigan)
and Sen. Paul Simon (DIllinois), was signed into law in April 1990 as the
Hate Crime Statistics Act (HCSA) (codified at 28 U.S.C. 534). The act di-
rects the U.S. Attorney General to acquire and publish annual data about
crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based upon race, religion,
sexual orientation, or ethnicity. Such data are to be collected from State
and local law enforcement agencies, although submission is voluntary. In
an effort to help law enforcement agencies to identify hate crimes accu-
rately, the act also requires the Attorney General to establish guidelines for
the collection of such data.
The offenses covered by the act are homicide; non-negligent manslaughter;
forcible rape; assault; intimidation; arson; and destruction, damage, or
vandalism of property.
Since passage of the act, the FBI has served as the central repository of
bias-motivated crime statistics. The FBIs Hate Crime Data Collection Pro-
gram, a component of the agencys Uniform Crime Report (UCR) Program,
is managed by the agencys Criminal Justice Information Services Division.
When HCSA expired on December 31, 1994, FBI Director Louis Freeh
ordered that hate crime data collection continue.
6
6
As of March 1996, the UCR had conducted 61 training conferences nation-
wide. A total of nearly 3,700 conference attendees came from the 50 States
and the District of Columbia and represented 1,199 separate law enforce-
ment agencies.
7
To assist the FBI in its training efforts, the Justice Departments Office for
Victims of Crime (OVC) funded a project to develop a comprehensive hate
crime training curriculum. The curriculum and training manual, prepared
by the Massachusetts-based Education Development Center Inc. and the
Massachusetts Criminal Justice Training Council, were released as the
National Bias Crimes Training for Law Enforcement and Victim Assis-
tance Professionals.
The FBI intends to study reporting differences among law enforcement
agencies with the Criminal Justice Policy Research Institute at Northeast-
ern University, Boston, Massachusetts. The FBI also intends to begin col-
lecting data on disability bias crime.
8
When the UCR issued its first report on hate crimes statistics for January
1991, 2,771 agencies in 32 States submitted datafewer than 1 in 5 of the
Nations law enforcement agencies. Many localities were unable or unwill-
ing to collect data because of tight budgets and limited manpower.
9
In
1992, 6,181 law enforcement agencies in 41 States and the District of Co-
lumbiaan increase of 3,410 agenciesparticipated in the program. As of
October 1996, nearly 60 percent of the 16,000 law enforcement agencies
that participate in the UCR were contributing hate crime data, and 19
States had enacted statutes that mandated hate crime data collection.
Because hate crimes are not defined as separate, distinct offenses but are
traditional crimes motivated by a particular bias, hate crime reporting is
complicated by the need to determine offender motivation. In 1990 the FBI
consolidated the Hate Crime Data Collection Program within both the ex-
isting UCR summary program and the National Incident Based Reporting
System (NIBRS). NIBRS is a new, more comprehensive crime reporting
system that collects a variety of crime information, including whether a
crime was motivated by bias and the demographic characteristics of both
victim and offender. Bias motivation for a crime is one of the 56 facts col-
lected for each offense record under the new crime reporting format. More
agencies are expected to provide data on hate crimes as States convert to
the NIBRS. As of March 1996, 10 States had converted from summary UCR
reporting to NIBRS.
10
As of March another 21 State agencies and 3 Federal
agencies
11
had submitted test data to the NIBRS, and 12 other State agen-
cies, the District of Columbia, and Guam were in various stages of plan-
ning and development to convert to NIBRS.
Hate Crime Trends
While there has been a concerted effort to establish a statistical baseline of
hate crimes at the national level, uncertainty still exists about whether the
7
hate crime rate is rising or falling. The bottom line is that we dont
know. It looks as if the best data we have is incomplete,
12
said Jack
McDevitt, co-author of Hate Crimes: The Rising Tide of Bigotry and
Bloodshed.
13
Nationally, the volume of hate crime incidents seems to have increased dra-
matically in 1992, stabilized and dipped during the following 2 years, then
increased again in 1995 (see figure A below). However, if the number of
incidents reported each year is compared with the number of agencies re-
porting, quite a different story emerges. The ratio of the number of inci-
dents per reporting agency peaked in 1991 and has been on a downward
slide ever since, with a slight bump up in 1995 (see figure B below).
Figure A. Hate Crimes: Agencies Reporting and Total Incidents
Figure B. Hate Crimes: Average Incidents per Agency
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
Incidents
Agencies
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Hate Crimes
Agencies Reporting and Total Incidents
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
1991
1992 1993 1994 1995
Hate Crimes
Average Incidents per Agency
Average incidents
reported per
reporting agency
8
According to the FBI, State and local law enforcement agencies in 1991 re-
ported 4,755 bias-motivated crimes, including 12 murders. The number of
reported hate crimes rose to 7,466 incidents in 1992 and to 7,587 incidents
in 1993. Reported hate crimes dropped nearly 30 percent to 5,852 incidents
in 1994, then increased in 1995 to 7,947 incidents, including 20 murders.
14
As of October 1996, five States still did not collect hate crime data. Yet even
if all States were reporting these incidents, it would be difficult to gauge
the true extent of the hate crime problem in this country because bias-
motivated crimes typically are underreported by both law enforcement
agencies and victims.
15
Disparities in Statistics
Since the first FBI hate crime report was released, there has continued to
be a wide disparity between figures supplied by law enforcement agencies
and those compiled by various private organizations.
The first FBI report, for instance, showed that 421 hate crimes were com-
mitted nationwide against homosexuals in 1991. Meanwhile, the National
Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) Policy Institute listed 1,822 such in-
cidents in 5 major urban areas alone in 1991: Boston, Chicago, New York,
San Francisco, and Minneapolis/St. Paul.
16
The UCR for 1994 reported 677 antihomosexual incidents in the Nation,
down from the 860 incidents reported the previous year. According to a
report for 1994 released by the New York City Gay and Lesbian Anti-
Violence Project, for each incident classified as antihomosexual by local
law enforcement, 4.67 incidents were classified as antihomosexual by
community agencies.
17
For 1994, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) documented a total of 2,066
incidents of anti-Semitic harassment, violence, and vandalismthe highest
in the ADLs Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents 16-year history. The FBI, how-
ever, reported 908 anti-Semitic incidents for that yearless than half the
ADLs figure.
The UCR reported 258 hate crime incidents involving Asian and Pacific
Islander Americans in 1993 and 209 incidents in 1994, a decrease of 18 per-
cent. However, the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium
reported 452 incidents of violent hate crimes against Asian and Pacific
Islander Americans in 1994, a 35-percent increase from the number the
group reported the previous year in its first annual report.
18
A drop of nearly one-third in the number of officially reported incidents in
1994despite the fact that 6 percent more agencies had recorded hate
crimes incidents than the previous yeargenerated a fair amount of skep-
ticism among public interest groups over the reliability of the UCR data.
Some jurisdictions were suspected of trying to ignore or cover up very real
hate crime problems.
9
Theres a disconnect in the FBIs 1994 hate crime statistics, said David H.
Strassler, ADL national chairman, and Abraham H. Foxman, ADL national
director, in a joint statement released by the ADL in February 1996.
Despite the disparities, public interest groups consider the establishment
of a national baseline of statistics essential. The ADL considers a two-
paragraph box in USA Today that shows the numbers are declining a bad
thing, said Michael Leiberman, associate director/counsel of the ADLs
Washington, D.C., office. When the numbers are up, [it] . . . means that at
least the problem is being addressed.
19
Said NGLTFs Helen Gonzales, You can read the statistics in a couple of
ways. More law enforcement agencies reporting means that more officers
are becoming sensitized to the issue of hate crimes. Secondly, even if statis-
tics show a dip in [hate crime incidents], they are a reflection that a prob-
lem still exists out there. Sure, we would love for there to be better
collection by law enforcement agencies in the States. But this is a start.
20
Factors Influencing Reporting
For various reasons many victims do not report hate crimes, and public
service organizations and police agencies report hate crimes differently.
Depending on the jurisdiction, local law enforcement may only record and
report bias-motivated crimesthose incidents that have been reported,
investigated, and categorized as hate crimes. Some advocacy groups, on
the other hand, classify all bias-motivated incidents as hate crimes,
whether or not they rise to the level of criminal offense.
21
The FBI prescribes a two-tiered decisionmaking process to determine
whether a perpetrator was motivated by bias. An officer must follow a
rigorous protocol that involves answering the following questions:
J Is the motive of the perpetrator known to be bias?
J Does the victim perceive a bias?
J Are there any other reasons for the incident?
J Did the incident occur on or near a religious holiday?
J Are there relevant demographic factors that might create resentment or
bias?
J Are there any symbols involved in the incident that are associated with
hate groups (such as Nazi swastikas)?
Once those questions are answered, a second review takes place in the po-
lice department before the crime is classified as a hate crime.
22
Some law enforcement agencies have a looser definition of hate crimes,
while other jurisdictions, especially those in rural areas, simply do not
10
have the manpower, inclination, and technical expertise to record hate
crime incidents separately.
23
Given the incendiary nature of hate crimes, some State and local political
leaders and law enforcement officials discourage police and sheriffs de-
partments from collecting or disseminating raw data. They consider any
evidence of hate crimes a black eye on their community and fear the
possible economic and political repercussions.
24
Its alarming that a number of communities reporting said that no hate
crimes were committed within their jurisdictions, said Stephen Arent,
vice chairman of the ADLs National Civil Rights Committee. Unfortu-
nately there is a great deal of denial. Many communities would say that
hate crimes dont exist.
25
Public interest organizations have developed their own methods and pro-
tocols for reporting hate crime incidents, and as a result their numbers
rarely match Federal statistics. Some organizations diligently record all in-
cidentsincluding bias-motivated commentsas hate crimes and accept
reports from all sources, even anonymous sources.
26
Many victims refuse to report hate crime incidents. Some victims believe
they would be revictimized, especially if they come into periodic contact
with the offender(s). Homosexuals often are reluctant to report an incident
because they might be forced out of the closet and would suffer reper-
cussions to their career and relationships with family and friends from
such an outing.
27
Some victims do report incidents but to no avail. In many cases, victims
of anti-gay violence have reported the incident to the police and either
have not been taken seriously or the incident was not pursued as a hate
crime. Ive been working in my job only 6 months, and the [anti-gay] vio-
lence has predominated everything I do, said Gonzales.
28
While the problem of victim underreporting is particularly significant in
the gay and lesbian community, the stigma of coming out has lessened
in recent years. High-profile declarations by entertainment, sports, and po-
litical figures such as k.d. lang, Elton John, Martina Navratilova, and Rep.
Barney Frank (DMassachusetts), point toward a growing acceptance and
tolerance of the gay lifestyle. The reality, however, still is quite different,
Gonzales said. Recent incidents of violence against gays in Colorado,
Oregon, and Maine, among other States, underscore the assertion that, in
many areas, gays have the appearance of equality but not the fact of
equality.
29
In certain communities, especially urban communities such as Washing-
ton, D.C., and San Francisco, people do feel more comfortable coming out
than they would have felt a few years ago, Gonzales said. As you move to
rural areas and the center of the country, the comfort level with coming
11
out is not as great, and those are the areas where gays and lesbians will be
less likely to report hate crimes.
30
Immigrants who become hate crime victims may have difficulty speaking
English or may be undocumented aliens who fear that any contact with
police will increase their risk of deportation. Others come from cultures
that mistrust and fear law enforcement. People from Southeast Asia or the
Middle East, where law enforcement often is used as a tool of oppression,
are particularly less inclined to report hate crimes.
31
In many cultures, being a victim of a bias-motivated crime carries a stigma.
In fact, in some Asian communities, being a victim of a crime is thought
to bring shame to a family. Some victims refuse to report a bias-motivated
crime because they consider it a degrading personal experience, like a
rape, and feel that filing a report will leave them exposed to further
humiliation.
32
13
Understanding Hate Crimes
Characteristics of Hate Crimes
Like other crimes, bias-motivated criminal acts have specific characteris-
tics. The UCR for 1994 illustrates that the majority of hate crimes are com-
mitted by young white males against persons of other races, and the most
common crimes involve simple assault or intimidation. Of the 7,144 bias-
motivated offenses reported for that year, 5,115, or 72 percent, were crimes
against persons, including 2,792 incidents of intimidation and 1,305 simple
assaults. Thirteen persons were murdered in 1991 in bias-motivated at-
tacks. Another 2,023 offenses were committed against property, with de-
struction, damage, or vandalism accounting for 1,734 incidents, or about
86 percent of the property incidents.
According to the UCR, approximately 60 percent of the hate crime inci-
dents were motivated by racial bias; 18 percent by religious bias; 12 per-
cent by a bias against sexual orientation; and 10 percent by a bias against
ethnicity or national origin.
Most crimes against persons typically are committed by a family member
or acquaintance. But when it comes to hate crimes, an attack is more likely
to be committed by a stranger. In a study of 452 hate crimes reported to the
Boston, Massachusetts, police, 85 percent involved offenders whose iden-
tity was not known to the victims; in contrast, one national study showed
that about two-thirds of all violent crimes are committed by strangers.
33
Among hate crime offenders, juveniles and young people are dispropor-
tionately represented. Nationally, slightly more than one-quarter of all
crimes are committed by people younger than 20 years old, but about half
of all hate crimes are estimated to be committed by people younger than
20.
34
According to a study funded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and De-
linquency Prevention, an estimated 17 to 26 percent of all hate crime inci-
dents recorded by law enforcement agencies are committed by juveniles.
35
Perhaps the most salient characteristic of bias crimes is that they are more
likely to involve a physical assault. While historically about 11 percent of
all crimes are assaults against persons, for bias crimes assaults account for
nearly one-third of total cases reported.
36
Because they are more likely to involve assaults, hate crimes also are more
likely to involve physical injuries. Offenders often use what hate crime ex-
perts call imprecise weapons of opportunity, such as bricks, bats, clubs,
tree limbs, and box cutters. As a result, hate crimes tend to be excessively
brutal and result in more serious injuries than common criminal attacks.
37
14
African Americans: Most Likely Victims
Historically, African Americans have endured the greatest brunt of hate
crime incidents. Nearly 4 out of every 10 hate crime incidents in 1994 were
classified as anti-black. In more than half of all criminal incidents of ra-
cial bias that year, an African American was the victim. During the same
year, 15 percent of all hate crimes were directed at Jews, and 11 percent
were directed at gays.
38
According to the UCR, the 2,988 anti-black hate crime incidents in 1995
represented a 4-year high. Part of the statistical increase in hate crimes
against African Americans is a reflection of better reporting by both police
and citizens. Yet better reporting does not account for all of the increase.
Concluded one civil rights leader, This Nation has not yet come to grips
with race relations.
39
As members of the largest minority group in the Nation, African Ameri-
cans are mathematically more likely than members of other target groups
to be victims of hate crimes. As of April 1995, there were 193.3 million non-
Hispanic whites living in the Nation, accounting for 74 percent of the total
U.S. population. African Americans numbered approximately 33 million,
or 13 percent of the population, followed by Hispanics, with 26.8 million;
Asian Americans or Pacific Islanders, 9.2 million; and American Indians/
Eskimos/Aleutians, 2.2 million.
40
African Americans also are burdened by a history of racial tension and vio-
lence that has its roots in the institution of slavery, the residual effects of
which are being felt even today, 132 years after the Civil War. As a result
of State and local laws and other sanctions that sprang up during and after
Reconstruction, blacks continued to be discriminated against and segre-
gated. Called Jim Crowafter a black character from a 19th-century
song-and-dance actthis official and unofficial policy created a climate
that encouraged organized racist groups to commit acts of terror and vio-
lence against blacks and reinforced false yet persistent stereotypes.
Despite the best efforts of governmental and private interests to foster a
climate of tolerance and compassion in the Nation, racial stereotypes per-
sist. A 1990 study by the National Opinion Research Center called Ethnic
Images found that a majority of white respondents felt that blacks were
lazier, less intelligent, more violent, and less patriotic than whites.
41
While hate crimes traditionally had been directed at African Americans,
hate violence committed by African Americans has been escalating at an
alarming rate, according to Klanwatch, a Project of the Southern Poverty
Law Center. From 1991 to the end of 1993, 46 percent of all racially moti-
vated homicides tracked by Klanwatch were committed by African Americans
on white, Asian, or Hispanic victims. In 1990, by comparison, Klanwatch
documented one racially motivated murder committed by an African
American; the group documented no cases in 1989.
42
15
Arsons at Black Churches
A rash of arsons at African-American churches in the South spurred the
Federal Government to launch a major investigation that, by November
1996, had led to the arrest of 120 suspects. Of the 298 arson cases probed
between January 1995 and November 1996, approximately 43 percent in-
volved fires at black churches. Political and religious leaders say that, be-
cause white churches far outnumber black churches, the concentration of
black church burnings indicates that the Nation is experiencing a serious
wave of hate crimes.
43
One religious leader called the arsons the greatest
outbreak of violence against the black church since the height of the civil
rights movement.
44
Some 94 black churches burned in the South between January 1, 1995, and
mid-November 1996, with Texas leading the Nation for the most attacks,
followed by Tennessee, South Carolina, and Florida. Eighty-six Southern
churches designated as non-black were torched in the same period, al-
though that figure could be lower: several houses of worship that were not
designated as African American are Islamic mosqueswhose members
tend to be mostly black.
45
Federal investigators are reluctant to estimate what portion of the total
number of arsons at black churches appear to be racially motivated. Nearly
two-thirds of the individuals arrested on charges of burning black churches
are white, and about one-third are African Americans. Of the individuals
arrested for setting arson fires at African-American churches, a few are
card-carrying members of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). But others include a
13-year-old girl who holds anti-Christian beliefs, a volunteer fireman who
also is a pyromaniac, and many juvenile vandals. Overall, about 40 percent
of the fires appear to have been started by juveniles.
46
Investigators have found that racial hatred is only one of several motives
behind the burnings. Some fires appear to be the work of copycats, bur-
glars covering their tracks, disgruntled church members, thrill-seekers, or
the result of insurance scams. Many of the suspects apprehended thus far
are economically disadvantaged, poorly educated, and abusers of alcohol.
47
Federal officials first noticed a spike of black church arson reports in
January 1996, around the birthday of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther
King, Jr. The number of reports increased as news coverage intensified.
Since the peak month of June, the number of reports has decreased slightly
from six or seven a week to four or five a week.
48
The spike occurred after a decade in which the overall number of church
arsons appeared to be on the decline. According to the National Fire Pro-
tection Association (NFPA), a nonprofit organization that promotes fire
safety, there were 1,420 church arson fires in 1980 compared with 520 in
1994a decrease of 63 percent. Property damage caused by arson was
estimated at $16 million in 1994, down from as high as $30 million in
16
previous years. Since 1980, the annual number of reported church arsons
increased in only two years1984 and 1991. (Because of a five-quarter lag
in the collection, reporting, and compilation of arson statistics, national
church arson figures for 1995 are not expected to be ready until March
1997, according to the NFPA.)
Despite indications that the overall number of church arsons has been
waning in the past decade, both civil rights leaders and hate crime experts
say that public recognition of the church arson problem is long overdue.
[The church burnings] have brought out the race relations problem in this
country, said one civil rights leader.
49
Role of the Black Church
African-American churches have always been vulnerable to arson attacks.
Many churches are small wood-frame structures located in isolated rural
areas without smoke alarms, burglar alarms, or other security devices.
50
The lack of amenities, however, masks the powerful role that churches his-
torically have played in black communities. The influence of the black
church was such that during the 18th and 19th centuries, many States and
counties had laws that prohibited slaves from gathering for religious ser-
vices because of fears that such gatherings might lead to spontaneous or
organized insurrection.
51
The first recorded arson destroying a black church occurred in South Caro-
lina in 1822, and the practice persisted throughout the Civil War. Arson be-
came a favorite tool of intimidation and destruction for racists during the
civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Churches were popular tar-
gets because they often served as meeting places for activists seeking to
end segregation or ensure voting rights.
52
During those turbulent years, Night Ridersdescendants of the night
patrols that used to roam country roads enforcing curfews during slave
timesterrorized the black community by firebombing black churches and
homes. Night Riders were part of a well-organized effort to maintain seg-
regation in the South that was largely orchestrated by members of the
Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.
53
Public Responses
The Center for Democratic Renewal, an organization that advocates the
prosecution of racist groups such as the KKK, was one of the first organi-
zations to bring the problem of church burnings to national attention.
Shortly after the burning of three churches in the Boligee, Alabama, area in
December 1995 and January 1996and a spate of other fires in Louisiana
and Tennesseethe organization, based in Atlanta, Georgia, began issuing
regular reports on church burnings.
54
17
Later, the New York-based National Council of Churcheswhose director
also sits on the board of directors of the Center for Democratic Renewal
also began issuing press releases about the church burnings. Soon, report-
ers from all of the major news organizations were converging on the town
of Boligee and its 258 citizens, and each new arson report attracted na-
tional coverage. As church arsons grew in the Nations consciousness,
other civil rights and religious groups entered the fray.
55
The Christian Coalition in April 1996 offered rewards of $25,000 to anyone
who could provide information that would lead to the arrests of church ar-
sonists. Less than 2 months later, Ralph Reed, director of the Christian
Coalition, promised that his organization would raise at least $1 million to
help rebuild black churches and would set up a special fund to provide
alarms, motion detectors, outdoor flood lights, and smoke detectors for re-
built churches. Reed also called for a day of national racial reconciliation,
which was held on Sunday, July 14, 1996, at churches around the country.
56
Meanwhile, the National Council of Churches launched a $4 million
fundraising drive to rebuild black churches and assist multiracial congre-
gations. By October, the organization, joined by the American Jewish Com-
mittee and National Conference of Catholic Bishops, had collected more
than $6 million.
57
The National Black Evangelical Association and the
National Association of Evangelicalswhose membership includes 52
Protestant denominations and thousands of independent churchesalso
established a rebuilding fund.
58
The 15.6-million-member Southern Baptist
Convention, the Nations largest Protestant denomination, reportedly
raised $282,000 among delegates to its annual convention.
59
When two former Klansmen were indicted on civil rights violations for
allegedly conspiring to burn a South Carolina church in June 1995, the
Southern Poverty Law Center filed a civil lawsuit on behalf of the church.
The two had pleaded guilty to criminal charges for torching the Macedonia
Baptist Church in Bloomville, South Carolina, and the Mount Zion AME
Church in Greeleysville, South Carolina.
In its civil suit filed on behalf of Macedonia Baptist, the center alleges that
the men were acting as agents of the KKK when they lighted the fires. Such
a lawsuit represents the linchpin of a strategy that the organization has
used successfully in similar cases of racial terror: holding a group finan-
cially responsible for the racist crimes of its members.
60
Meanwhile, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights held a series of public
forums in seven Southern states to examine the conditions that contributed
to the wave of arsons. The eight-member bipartisan panel published a se-
ries of reports summarizing the concerns and observations expressed at
the forums. (A final report on the forums, part of a 5-year project that
began in late 1991 to gauge the nature of race relations in the nation, is
expected to be released in late 1997.)
18
The reports assert that the arsons reflect deep-seated racial animosity and
segregation in the South but caution that racial hatred is just one of several
explanations for the fires. We could not find a pattern as such or a con-
spiracy, said Melvin Jenkins, the commissions central States regional di-
rector. But we do know that some whites are involved and [that] the good
ol boy network is at work. And some of it boils down to a cluster effect
where you have several church arsons within a 100-mile radius.
61
Federal Responses
To help church congregations rebuild in the aftermath of arsons and bring
the perpetrators to justice, President Clinton launched a major Federal ini-
tiative in the summer of 1996. First, he ordered the Justice and Treasury
departments to collaborate in a massive investigation of church arsons.
More than 200 agents from Justices Federal Bureau of Investigation and
Treasurys Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms formed a task force,
and hundreds more State and local law enforcement and fire officials
formed regional task forces that operate out of U.S. attorneys offices
across the States.
62
On July 3, Clinton signed the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996
(H.R. 3525), which makes it easier to prosecute church arsons as Federal
offenses.
63
The law enhances penalties for damaging religious property or
obstructing any persons free exercise of religious freedom if the offense in
some way affects interstate commerce. Previously, the provisions applied
only when a suspect crossed State or national lines and the loss exceeded
$10,000. The law also provides compensation to churches that fall prey to
arsons and extends Federal hate crime and crime victim protections to
churches attacked because of the ethnic or racial composition of their
memberships.
In addition, the act directs the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development to guarantee private loans amounting to $5 million to re-
build destroyed churches and reauthorizes the Hate Crime Statistics Act of
1990, which directs the Justice Department to collect hate crime data from
State and local jurisdictions.
On July 19, Clinton announced a national arson prevention initiative, in-
structing several Federal agencies to coordinate all available Federal, State,
local, and private resources to foster arson prevention and establish an ar-
son prevention clearinghouse.
64
A week later, Clinton and leaders of eight national fire service organiza-
tions signed the Presidents Partnership for Fire and Arson Protection,
which resulted in the publication of several church arson prevention bro-
chures. Clinton also made $6 million available from the Justice Department
through the Bureau of Justice Assistance to 1,291 communities in 13 targeted
Southern States. The funds may be used to support efforts to enhance law
enforcement, intensify surveillance of churches, hire additional employees,
or reimburse overtime expenses.
65
19
Other Targets of Hate Crimes
Two groups to experience a surge of hate crimes in the past 2 years are
Asian Americans (including Pacific Islanders) and homosexuals. Accord-
ing to the UCR, the number of bias-motivated offenses targeting Asian
Americans increased nearly 70 percent in 1995 compared with the previous
year, from 209 incidents to 355 incidents, and 38 percent since 1993.
66
A
civil rights group tracking hate crimes against Asian Americans reported
458 incidents in 1995, 452 incidents in 1994, and 335 incidents in 1993.
67
Incidents against gays (including bisexuals) increased 51 percent in 1995
compared with the previous year, from 663 to 1,002 incidents. The number
of incidents increased 20 percent since 1993, according to the UCR.
68
Of all religious groups, Jewish people are most likely to be the targets of
bias-motivated offenders. In 1995, offenses against Jews accounted for
1,058 of the 1,277 incidents involving a hatred for a particular religion,
about 83 percent.
69
Because these crimes often involve vandalism against
synagogues, schools, and cemeteries, Jews are more likely than other
groups to report incidents to authorities.
70
A Climate for Hate Crimes
A host of factors may create a climate in which people, motivated by their
biases, take criminal action. Such factors include poor or uncertain eco-
nomic conditions, racial stereotypes in films and on television, hate-filled
discourse on talk shows or political advertisements, the use of racial code
language such as welfare mothers and inner city thugs, and an
individuals personal experiences with members of particular minority
groups. Once a climate of hate is created, a single incident can trigger a
wave of hate crimes.
Consider the forces that led to the spike in hate crimes during the early
1990s. The Nation was in the midst of an economic recession, and for-
eign competition for jobs, sales markets, and resources increasingly were
being cited as direct or indirect causes of the malaise. The year 1992 was
also a presidential election year, and the electronic media was inundated
with a continual stream of political messages, some of which seemed de-
signed to stoke fear and resentment. Meanwhile, a surge of immigration
was changing the racial makeup of the Nation, and many people were un-
comfortable with the growing diversity.
71
In addition, a public debate was raging over the appropriate role and cost
of the Federal Government. In the print and electronic media, institutions
of every kind were being bashed. Shock radio hosts were attracting a
growing national audience and, in the process, changing the tone of civil
discourse on social and political issues. One result was a growing accept-
ability of hateful discourse.
72
This combination of factors created a climate
for hate crimes.
20
Trigger Incidents
Once a climate for hate crimes exists, all that is needed is a sensational,
high-profile racial incident, called a trigger incident, to set off a cycle of
retaliatory incidents or even civil disorder.
73
Two trigger incidents during
the early 1990s were the videotaped beating of a black 25-year-old motor-
ist and petty offender named Rodney King in March 1991, and the subse-
quent acquittal in April 1992 of four white Los Angeles, California, police
officers accused in the assault. News of the acquittal sparked massive riot-
ing, looting, vandalism, and fire setting in South Central Los Angeles. The
following month, the level of hate crimes began to increase in many juris-
dictions across the Nation.
74
Similarly, the highest level of bias-motivated
incidents in New York City occurred during the month immediately fol-
lowing the attack on a group of black men in Howard Beach, New York.
75
External Influences
Hate crime incidents are sensitive to external events. In the 1980s, when it
seemed that Japan was cutting into American sales of automobiles and
electronic equipment, there was an increase in attacks on Japanese.
76
Dur-
ing the Gulf War, there was an increase in attacks on Arab-Americans.
77
There is a sense of retaliation. One thing happens and people want to get
even. There is sort of a juvenile gang mentality. `They got one of ours;
well get one of theirs, one researcher said.
78
After the Oklahoma City
bombing, there was an initial outpouring of anti-Arab-American sentiment
that threatened to escalate but was quelled when it became known that the
chief suspects in the bombing were Caucasians born in the United States.
79
Scapegoating
Some hate crime experts have noted that hate crimes tend to rise during
times of economic uncertainty. In fact, a few say that a general correlation
exists between the publics perception of the state of the economy and the
level of hate crimes. The perception of how things are is almost more im-
portant than the reality, one expert said.
80
Although some feel that the
connection between hate crimes and the state of the economy is over-
stressed,
81
hate crimes do seem to increase during periods of economic un-
certainty.
82
During these periods, minorities find themselves regarded as
the cause of the negative conditions that others are experiencing. Such a
climate gives rise to scapegoating, the blaming of a minority group for
the misfortunes of society as a whole.
Who Commits Hate Crimes?
Most hate crimes are committed not by members of an organized hate
group but by individual citizens. A Louis Harris poll of 1,865 high school
students conducted in 1990 found that more than half claimed that they
had witnessed a racial confrontation very often or once in a while.
While few could be called members of organized hate groups, nearly half
21
admitted that they had joined a bias-motivated confrontation or, at the
very least, thought that the people being confronted were getting what
they deserved.
83
Some perpetrators resent the growing economic power of a particular ra-
cial or ethnic group and engage in scapegoating; others react to a per-
ceived threat to the safety and property value of their neighborhood. The
desegregation of public housing provides a good example of the latter. Re-
search has shown that when the first nonwhite family moves into a white
neighborhood there is a spike of bias-motivated incidents. The number of
incidents wanes until minority saturation reaches about 20 percent, then it
increases again. When minority saturation crosses 50 percent, there is a
third spike of hate crimes incidents.
84
Other offenders include the thrill seekersthose who randomly target
interchangeable representatives of minority groups for harassment and
violenceand the mission offenders, those who believe they are on a
mission to rid the world of some perceived evil. The last group, the mis-
sion offenders, comprises less than 2 percent of bias-motivated offend-
ers.
85
The majority of offendersand passive observersmerely are
individuals who believe racial and ethnic stereotypes and act upon spur-
of-the-moment impulses. Frequently, alcohol or drug use is a factor.
86
Significance of Hate Crime Statistics
While statistics may seem to indicate a low number of hate crimes com-
pared with other types of crime, hate crime statistics carry more weight
than statistics for other offenses. A bias-motivated threat or action not only
victimizes the immediate target, it victimizes every member of the group
that the immediate target represents.
87
A single hate crime has the power to send a broad ripple of fear and dis-
comfiture across a community. A skinhead who paints a swastika on the
wall of a synagogue has not merely committed an act of vandalism; he has
communicated a message of ethnic loathing to everyone within eyeshot,
whether Jew or Gentile. He has scrawled a symbol that for many observers
will invoke memories of concentration camps, Kristallnacht, the Holocaust,
and World War IIa symbol that has galvanized and inspired dread
among individuals and nations for more than 60 years.
Similarly, a racist who burns a cross on the front lawn of the home of an
African-American family has not merely committed an act of arson and
harassment; he has sent a racial message to everyone who hears of, reads
about, or sees the event, whether they are black or white. He has commit-
ted an act that for many observers is bound to invoke memories of slavery,
hangings, hooded Klansmen, school segregation, even the Civil War, and
will undoubtedly stir up emotions ranging from fear of persecution to
sadness over the persistent social divisions that plague the Nation.
22
Violent hate crimes are the most virus-like offenses in terms of the message
they send and their psychological impact on members of the targeted
group. Violent hate crimes often create tides of retaliation and
counterretaliation that can spill into other minority groups and eventually
may engulf an entire community. The month after the Howard Beach inci-
dent in 1986, when three African Americans were set upon by an angry
young mob of whites, New York experienced possibly the highest spike
of hate crime incidents in the citys history.
88
During and after the Los An-
geles riots of 1992, sparked by the acquittal of four white police officers in
the beating of Rodney King, vandals and looters destroyed or damaged
dozens of businesses, including many Asian-American businesses.
89
The simple truth about hate crimes is that each act victimizes not one per-
son, but many. Each act connotes and denotes far more than the average
criminal offense. It is in such a light that hate crime statistics must be
viewed.
23
The Role of Hate Groups
Since the terrorist bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, in April 1995, the Nation has focused on a
growing antigovernment movement that seems to share some of the ideo-
logical precepts of certain organized hate groups, most notably white su-
premacists. Whether domestic terrorists are taking their inspiration or
orders from fringe militia groups or so-called patriot groups is open to
debate, but Federal law enforcement agencies and national groups that
regularly track hate crimes agree that the threat of domestic terrorism has
increased sharply in recent years. The FBI called 1995 the year of the ter-
rorist and hired an additional 50 analysts to study both international and
domestic terrorism.
90
More than 800 groups, including 441 self-styled militia units, have been
identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as part of a growing pa-
triot movement. The Anti-Defamation League has estimated that militias,
with about 15,000 total members, are active in 40 States. Most of these
groups operate independently but are linked by a hatred of other groups
and government authorities. Among the groups that the center has linked
to the movement are white supremacists, Neo-Nazis, Klansmen, Freemen,
anti-abortion radicals, and Christian Identity (CI) followers.
Some experts assert that extremist groups are not necessarily growing in
size or number but in influence through their access to shortwave and
commercial radio frequencies, the vast and growing global cyberculture
of the Internet, and underground books, magazines, and music.
91
A New Strategy
The historic image of a Ku Klux Klansman is of a robed and hooded figure
bearing a lighted torch. The word skinhead may evoke an image of a
shaved-head, tattooed young ruffian in black boots. Their appearances are
carefully designed to send unmistakable messages of alienation and threat.
Their rhetoric traditionally has been blatantly racist and defiant, and their
tactics of confrontation have become well known to law enforcement agen-
cies. However, during the past decade, organized hate groups have been
evolving a new image that is more palatable to middle America. At the
same time, they have been finding new ways of communicating to a larger,
more mainstream segment of society. Morris Dees, chairman of the South-
ern Poverty Law Center, notes the more recent tactics of Louis Beam, a
leader of the Aryan Nation and the KKK militia:
24
Beam and his militia followers are repackaging their message. They
downplay racism and focus on peoples fear and anger. The fear of,
and anger at, a government that overregulates, overtaxes, and, at
times, murders its citizens. . . . The fear of, and anger at, a govern-
ment that takes away a persons right to bear arms so that the
country is vulnerable to domination by a New World Order. Tens
of thousands of people are hearing the message and thousands are
joining the movement, many unaware that Beam and his fellow
travelers are helping to set the agenda. . . . [Those joining] are
mainly white and middle class. Most hold jobs, own homes, wear
their hair short, dont use drugs, and, for one reason or another,
they hate the government.
92
Under the new strategy, racial violence rarely is ordered; rather it is tacitly
sanctioned. The hate group exists to provide the ideological justification
for violence. Instead of asking members to commit specific acts of vio-
lenceand risk the legal repercussionsthese groups merely get out their
message. Invariably, someone else, perhaps someone only tangentially
connected to a hate group, will commit the offense.
93
Experts also have observed a coalescing of traditional hate crime groups
with fringe and extremist antigovernment groups, which may be supply-
ing the ideological justification and inspiration for domestic terrorism.
94
Racist organizations such as the Aryan Nation already have in the past
decade developed close ties to the militia movement and welded their
message of white supremacy at all costs to the antigovernment, anti-
gun-control sentiments expressed by most militia groups.
95
The CI movement, described as a theology of racism, antisemitism, and
male supremacy, has become the adoptive religion of the Freemen, a
fringe group that in 1996 engaged in an 81-day standoff with FBI agents
near Jordan, Montana, that ended peacefully with several arrests on
charges of threatening to kidnap and murder a Federal judge, check fraud,
and helping Federal fugitives avoid arrest. There is little doubt that some
of the Freemen holed up in the 960-acre compound first heard CIs unor-
thodox Bible interpretations and the truth about the white race through
satellite television programs, shortwave radio, the Internet, or videotapes
and pamphlets.
The growing influence of the CI movement has prompted the Montana
Association of Churches to start a program to educate citizens about the
dangers of religious extremism. One researcher gave a talk to a womens
Bible study group in Montana after several members ordered CI video-
tapes, thinking they would be receiving materials with a traditional Bible
interpretation.
96
Yet another piece of the new strategy is the concept of leaderless resis-
tance. Rather than organize themselves into the conventional pyramid
structure favored by military forces and corporations, some hate groups
25
are reorganizing into secret or phantom cells of a few people, even
one-man cells, that are difficult to detect and even more difficult to infil-
trate and control. Without a recognized leader or any central control or di-
rection, the cells run less risk of exposure and can continue their activities
if other cells are exposed.
97
A New Definition?
With the increasing influence of hate crime groups and the coalescence of
formerly disparate groups, the line between hate crimes and terrorism is
beginning to blur. In fact the rising influence of hate groups and the in-
crease in acts of domestic terrorism have even led a few researchers and
political leaders to call for a new definition of hate crimes, one that might
include crimes motivated by a hatred of people, not because of their race,
national origin, sex, sexual preference, and religion but because of their af-
filiations or occupation.
While an assault on a lone homosexual person by a gang of teenagers on a
violent spree no doubt would be investigated, prosecuted, and reported as
a hate crime, there is little chance that an attack on an employee of the U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, by a group of
antigovernment patriots would be considered a bias-motivated crime
under any current definition.
Yet recent attacks on Federal workers, including the bombing of the Fed-
eral Building in Oklahoma City, are being viewed by some as hate crimes
committed against people who happen to work for the Federal Govern-
ment. Testifying before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Emanuel
Cleaver II, mayor of Kansas City, Missouri, noted that his State had be-
come a hotbed of militia activity. Urging Congress to expand the defini-
tion of hate crimes, Cleaver said, When you look at what happened in
Oklahoma City, it clearly was a hate crime against workers of the Federal
Government.
98
At a hate crime and terrorism planning meeting at the National Academy
of Sciences in Washington, D.C., a few dozen prominent researchers, aca-
demicians, and Federal experts in the fields of hate crimes and terrorism
struggled to identify the connections between hate crimes and terrorism.
They also sought to develop a definition of bias-motivated activity that
might embrace the concepts of both.
Jerome Skolnik of the University of California at Berkeleys School of Law
said that terrorism and hate crimes are similar in that they are both ideo-
logically connected. Brent Smith, a criminal justice professor at the Uni-
versity of Alabama, however, pointed out that while both hate crimes and
terrorism include motive as an element of the offense, traditionally the mo-
tive in a terrorist act has been considered only during the sentencing phase
of a prosecution. William Chambliss, a sociologist who teaches at George
26
Washington University in Washington, D.C., suggested that such a defini-
tion might encompass any ideologically justified act.
Finally, the participants exhausted the issue of definitions. Other than to
agree that hate crimes and terrorism share an overlapping pathology and
actors, they decided it was more important to concentrate their efforts on
the best areas for research, such as identifying the differences between a
hate group follower and someone who commits bias-motivated violence,
and what actions might be taken to prompt a hate group follower to reject
his racist, anti-Semitic, or antigovernment ideology. We must try to un-
derstand what leads people in, what they do when theyre in, and what
leads people out, said Jerrold Post of George Washington University.
27
Chapter 4
Hate Crimes and the Law
Jurisdictions across the Nation use three basic legislative approaches to
combat hate crimesprohibiting specific intimidating actions, prohibiting
general behavior motivated by bias, and enhancing penalties for criminal
acts motivated by bias.
A number of States, including California, Florida, and Ohio, have passed
laws prohibiting specific activity at specific places, such as vandalism and
intentional disturbances at places of worship. Florida and the District of
Columbia have banned acts such as burning a cross or placing a swastika
or other symbol on anothers property with the intent to intimidate.
Other jurisdictions have passed legislation punishing any behavior that is
motivated by bias. These statutes punish motive and criminal conduct as
one offense. A New York hate crimes statute prohibits bias-motivated dis-
crimination or harassment. The targeted activitythe selection of a vic-
timis an integral part of the underlying crime, one State supreme court
justice said in characterizing such statutes.
99
Still other jurisdictions have passed statutes creating enhanced penalties
when the motivation for an otherwise criminal act is bias. In Wisconsin, for
example, State law provides that the maximum penalty for an offense is
enhanced if the defendant intentionally selects the person against whom a
crime is committed because of the race, religion, color, disability, sexual
orientation, national origin, or ancestry of that person.
Hate crime statutes may have significant elements in common with other
State laws. For example, hate crime laws that include gender bias may
overlap with domestic violence statutesstatutes that create specific pen-
alties for criminal activity directed at family members and intimate part-
ners. Multiple laws addressing similar conditions may create the
opportunity to stack charges and improve the likelihood of a satisfactory
conclusion to the case from the victims viewpoint. However, overlapping
statutes also may produce conflict concerning which charges should be
brought in a highly political and sensitive case.
Hate crime statutes have been most frequently challenged on the grounds
that they violate the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which re-
stricts governments power to make laws infringing upon an individuals
freedom of speech and expression. Opponents of hate crime laws argue
that punishing an offender more harshly when that person commits a
crime because of a bias against a class of persons penalizes his or her
thoughts and violates the first amendment. Such opponents consider hate
crime laws to be viewpoint discrimination and challenge the grounds
28
AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DC DE FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO
upon which the proponents of the laws rely as purely speculative. They
assert, for example, that penalty enhancement cannot be justified on the
grounds that injury to society is greater when a crime is motivated by bias.
They claim that retaliatory crimes do not necessarily increase when crimes
are bias motivated, citing examples of certain religious groups that, in ac-
cordance with the tenets of their religion, will not retaliate when attacked,
and certain disabled persons who cannot retaliate. They also argue that all
crimes, not only those motivated by bias, are dehumanizing and distress-
ing to the victim; therefore, a rash of any type of crime, not just hate crime,
is likely to generate community unrest and injure society as a whole.
Figure C: State Hate Crime Statutory Provisions
100
Bias-Motivated Violence
and Intimidation G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G
Civil Action G G G G G G G G G G G G G
Criminal Penalty G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G
Race, Religion, Ethnicity
101
G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G
Sexual Orientation G G G G G G G G
Gender G G G G G G G G G G
Other
102
G G G G G G G G G G
Institutional Vandalism G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G
Data Collection G G G G G G G G G G G
Training for Law
Enforcement
103
G G G G
MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY
Bias-Motivated Violence
and Intimidation G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G
Civil Action G G G G G G G G G G G G
Criminal Penalty G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G
Race, Religion, Ethnicity G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G
Sexual Orientation G G G G G G G G
Gender G G G G G G G
Other G G G G G G G
Institutional Vandalism G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G
Data Collection G G G G G G G G
Training for Law
Enforcement G G G
29
Proponents of hate crime laws counter that hate crime statutes do not con-
flict with the tenets of the first amendment because they do not punish an
individual for exercising freedom of expression but rather for motivation
for engaging in criminal activity, a factor often considered when evaluat-
ing the seriousness of an offense. They maintain that when an offender has
a biased motive, that offenders crime should carry a more severe penalty
because the injury suffered by the victim and by society is greater. When
the core of a persons identity is attacked, they contend, the degradation
and dehumanization is especially severe, and additional emotional and
physiological problems are likely to result.
104
Society in turn can suffer
from the disempowerment of a group of people, say the proponents. Fur-
thermore, they assert, 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.
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minn.
The U.S. Supreme Court has addressed certain issues raised by first
amendment scholars in two recent rulings on the constitutionality of hate
crime legislation. In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minn.,
105
the Court in 1992
examined legislation that made particular bias an element of a crime.
R.A.V. was accused of burning a cross on a black familys lawn. He was
charged subsequently under St. Pauls Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance,
which made it a misdemeanor to place on public or private property a
symbol, object, appellation, characterization, or graffiti, including, but not
limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has rea-
sonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on
the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.
The trial court dismissed the charges on the grounds that the ordinance
violated the first amendment because it was impermissibly broad and
regulated the content of the offenders speech. The Minnesota Supreme
Court reversed the trial courts decision, holding that the ordinance pro-
hibited fighting wordswords that inflict injury or tend to incite imme-
diate violencewhich are not protected by the first amendment. The court
further found that the regulation was tailored appropriately to serve the
States interest in protecting the community against bias-motivated threats
to public safety and order.
In an opinion written by Justice Antonin B. Scalia, a majority of the U.S.
Supreme Court reversed the Minnesota Supreme Courts ruling, finding
that the ordinance unconstitutionally restricted speech on the basis of its
content. Applying its free speech precedents to the St. Paul ordinance, the
majority concluded that the ordinance applied only to fighting words
that insult or provoke violence on the basis of race, color, creed, religion,
or gender. A jurisdiction may proscribe unprotected speech on the basis
30
of its content, the Court held, but it may not select one area of speech to
criminalize while leaving other areas unrestricted, unless the selection is
content-neutral. Therefore, Scalia wrote, a jurisdiction may criminalize un-
protected speech in a selective manner, as long as the selectivity is not
conditioned upon the governments agreement with what the speaker
may intend to say.
The Court noted that words that expressed hostility toward a person be-
cause of his or her sexual orientation or political affiliation were not pro-
hibited by the city ordinance. The Court wrote that because the ordinance
restricted biases of a particular nature, it barred only those viewpoints that
the city council found distasteful. Scalia asserted that the ordinance uncon-
stitutionally allowed persons on one side of a debate to speak freely while
restricting the other sides response. The majority held that a law prohibit-
ing all fighting words communicated in a threatening manner, instead of
proscribing all fighting words that convey messages of racial intolerance,
would be constitutional. In this case, the Court ruled, the Minnesota ordi-
nance went beyond permissible regulation and infringed upon the free
speech rights of the defendant.
Wisconsin v. Mitchell
R.A.V. did not address the constitutionality of other types of hate crime
legislation. In 1993, the Court provided clarification when it considered the
constitutionality of a statute that enhanced the penalty for otherwise crimi-
nal behavior motivated by prejudice.
In Wisconsin v. Mitchell,
106
a group of young African-American males, in-
cluding Todd Mitchell, discussed a scene from the movie Mississippi
Burning in which white men beat a black boy who is praying. As the
group left the apartment where they had gathered, Mitchell asked them if
they were hyped up to move on some white people. A few minutes later
a white boy approached the group from across the street. As the boy
walked by, Mitchell prompted the others to attack him. He said, There
goes a white boy; go get him. Mitchell counted to three and pointed to-
ward the boy. The group ran toward the boy and beat him severely, ren-
dering him comatose for 4 days.
Mitchell was convicted of aggravated battery, an offense that normally car-
ried a penalty of 2 years imprisonment. Because the jury found that
Mitchell intentionally had selected his victim based upon the boys race,
however, the maximum sentence increased to 7 years. State law specifi-
cally provides that a maximum penalty for an offense is enhanced if the
defendant intentionally selects the person against whom the crime is com-
mitted because of the race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation,
national origin, or ancestry of that person. Mitchell was sentenced to
4 years imprisonment. He appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing
that Wisconsins penalty-enhancement provision violated the first amend-
ment by punishing offensive thought.
31
On the day after the R.A.V. decision was issued by the U.S. Supreme
Court, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a ruling in Wisconsin v.
Mitchell that the States hate crimes law violated the defendants right to
free speech. According to the court, the law violated the first amendment
because the State imposed additional penalties solely because of the
defendants biased motivation in committing the crime. A statute that is
designed to punish personal prejudice impermissibly infringes upon an
individuals first amendment rights, the court said. Relying on Scalias
majority opinion in R.A.V., the court concluded that the hate crime law
was unconstitutional because it singled out the defendants biased
thoughts and penalized him based upon the content of those thoughts.
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected this analysis and upheld the statute as
constitutional. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who wrote the Mitchell
courts unanimous opinion, found that the St. Paul ordinance targeted ex-
pression, which is protected by the first amendment, while the Wisconsin
statute is aimed at conduct not protected by the Constitution. Wisconsins
enhanced-penalty law created an increased penalty for illegal conduct in-
spired by the defendants bigoted motivations, according to the Court.
While a particular bias was an element of the crime itself under the Minne-
sota ordinance, it was a factor to be considered during sentencing under
the Wisconsin statute, said the Court.
Rehnquist said that, although a sentencing judge may not take into account
the defendants abstract beliefs, however obnoxious to most people, the
Constitution does not preclude the admission of evidence concerning ones
beliefs and associations at sentencing if those beliefs and associations are
in some way related to the commission of the crime. Rehnquist explained
that sentencing judges traditionally have considered a wide variety of fac-
tors in addition to evidence bearing on guilt, including a defendants mo-
tive for committing the offense. For example, murder, if committed for
financial gain, can be considered an aggravating factor under many States
capital sentencing statutes, said the Court. Moreover, the Court held, the
first amendment permits admission of a defendants statements to prove
motive or intent, provided they are relevant and reliable.
The Court also held that the statute has no chilling effect on free speech.
Rehnquist said that it would be highly unlikely that an individual would
suppress his bigoted beliefs for fear that evidence of those beliefs would
be used against him at trial if he committed a serious offense.
Other Decisions
Other State appellate and high courts considering the constitutionality of
hate crime legislation since Mitchell have followed either Mitchell or R.A.V.
without expressing difficulty in reconciling the two decisions.
107
These
courts generally have upheld State statutes that punish specific behavior
motivated by bias, and the U.S. Supreme Court has denied appeals of these
32
decisions.
108
State courts have ruled that there is no meaningful difference
between such statutes and the penalty-enhancement statute upheld in
Mitchell. Both types of statutes punish a crime motivated by bias, the
courts have held. Following this line of reasoning, the Maryland appellate
court, for example, upheld a statute making it a crime to harass or commit
a crime upon a person . . . because of that persons race, color, religious be-
lief or national origin.
109
As the Supreme Court of Missouri summarized
with regard to a similar statute, While [the statute] admittedly created a
new motive-based crime, its practical effect is to provide additional pun-
ishment for conduct that is already illegal but is seen as especially harmful
because it is motivated by group hatred. It is clear from Mitchell that en-
hanced punishment for criminal conduct on account of a defendants mo-
tives of bias or hatred toward a protected group is consistent with the
United States Constitution.
110
Federal courts have upheld Federal hate crime legislation against first
amendment challenges based on similar reasoning. In United States v.
Stewart,
111
for example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
held that a defendant who burned a cross on a black familys front lawn
was properly prosecuted under Federal civil rights laws including 42
U.S.C. 3631,
112
which prohibits intimidation motivated by the defendants
hatred for a characteristic of the victim such as race or gender. The court
held that because such intimidation itself is unprotected conduct, under
Mitchell the statute is not facially invalid. The court said the defendants
conduct in Stewart was different from a cross burning held to make a po-
litical statement. While in Stewart the defendant burned a cross to threaten
and intimidate a black family, political statements are constitutionally pro-
tected expression, said the court.
113
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to
hear an appeal in this case.
The most recent Supreme Court action on hate crimes occurred in Febru-
ary 1996, when the Court denied review of a Florida Supreme Court deci-
sion upholding the States statute that prohibits burning a cross on
anothers property without the property owner or occupants written
permission.
In T.B.D. v. Florida
114
, a delinquency petition was filed against T.B.D., a
juvenile, charging him with placing a burning cross on private property
without permission. Section 876.18 of the Florida Code provides that it is
a misdemeanor for any person or persons to place or cause to be placed
on the property of another in the State a burning or flaming cross, real or
simulated, in whole or in part without first obtaining written permission
of the owner or occupier of the premises to do so.
The trial court dismissed the petition on the grounds that the statute vio-
lated the first amendment. The appellate court affirmed and the State
appealed to the Florida Supreme Court.
33
The State high court reversed the lower courts, ruling that the law impacts
fighting words or threats, which are unprotected by the first amendment.
Adopting some of its language from U.S. Supreme Court opinions, the
court explained that [t]hreats of violence can be regulated because gov-
ernment has a valid interest in protecting individuals from fear of vio-
lence, from the disruption that fear engenders, and from the possibility
that the threatened violence will occur. . . [and] [f]ighting words . . . by
their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of
the peace. The court commented that in light of the States history of bru-
tal violence connected to cross burning, it is difficult to imagine a scenario
more rife with potential for reflexive violence and peace-breaching.
The court said the Florida statute differed from the ordinance in R.A.V. in
that it did not prohibit threats or fighting words on a particular subject
matter. Furthermore, the statute is not overly broad because cross burning
is eminently proscribable under the first amendment, said the court.
One justice dissented arguing that the statute failed the R.A.V. standard
because cross burning was not regulated in a neutral manner. In order to
comply with R.A.V., the legislature must ban all burnings and fires set on
private property with the intent to intimidate or threaten, said the dissenting
justice.
Although the first amendment debate continues in the prosecution of hate
crimes, State and Federal legislative attempts to combat bias-motivated
offenses generally have been successful.
The American Civil Liberties Unions
Response
While some legal experts believe all hate crime laws jeopardize first
amendment rights, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), histori-
cally a defender of the civil liberties of individuals, has attempted to craft
a distinction between legislation that unconstitutionally restricts freedom
of speech and expression and that which punishes conduct that is intended
to harm or threaten.
The ACLU opposed the St. Paul ordinance challenged in R.A.V. v. City of
St. Paul but supports the U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the stat-
ute in Wisconsin v. Mitchell. The national organization actually found itself
opposing its own local affiliate when it filed an amicus, or friend of the
court, brief in support of the Wisconsin law on behalf of the government.
The ACLU Board of Directors in January 1993 adopted a hate crime legisla-
tion policy. The ACLU historically has opposed legislation that would
punish the mere expression of thoughts, opinions or beliefs, including
expressions . . . such as the advocacy of racial supremacy or religious big-
otry. However, the organization believes that penalty enhancement laws,
34
[i]f properly drawn . . . do not punish protected speech or associations;
rather, they reflect the heightened seriousness with which society treats
criminal acts that also constitute invidious discrimination and are intended
to or have the effect of depriving persons of legal rights or of the opportu-
nity to participate in their communitys political or social life simply be-
cause of their race, religion, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, or
other group characteristic.
Penalty enhancement laws are permissible for hate crimes, according to the
ACLU, because these crimes convey a constitutionally unprotected threat
against the peaceable enjoyment of public places to members of the tar-
geted group. That threat constitutes an additional ground for culpability
on the part of the perpetrator and justifies additional legal sanctions.
Under the ACLUs standard, a statute passes constitutional muster if it fo-
cuses on conduct in which the perpetrator intentionally selects the victim
on the basis of invidiously discriminatory factors. When such statutes are
vague, or overbroad, as in the case of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, the ACLU
will oppose them. Hate crimes legislation should be limited to situations
where the underlying criminal conduct involves harassment, injury, or
threat of physical injury to the victim, or damage or threatened damage to
the victims property.
Daniel Katz, legislative counsel for the ACLU, cited Floridas hate crime
statute, which has been upheld by the State supreme court, as an example
of a very dangerous law that clearly has been abused. Under the Florida
law, expression can be the sole basis for offense enhancement. The Florida
law elevates a crime to a hate crime when it evidences prejudice. Said
Katz: You have suspects being charged under the hate crimes statute be-
cause they called a police officer a cracker while they were being arrested
for some other crime.
35
Other Responses to Hate Crimes
Mounting economic pressures in the face of massive corporate layoffs and
a growing multiculturalism as a result of unprecedented immigrationin
recent years the annual number of legal and illegal immigrants has added
1.4 million people to the U.S. population
115
have created a climate in
which a single bias-motivated incident has the potential of triggering a ma-
jor wave of violence and destruction. In this climate, policymakers at the
State and Federal levels are seeking new strategies to foster understanding
among races and other groups, measure terrorism and hate crime prob-
lems, prevent future incidents of terrorism and hate crime, bring the per-
petrators of bias-motivated crimes to justice, and aid and support hate
crime victims.
Government Responses
As of 1995, 39 States had enacted laws that address bias-motivated vio-
lence and intimidation, many of them based on a model statute developed
by the ADL. Nineteen States had statutes mandating the collection of hate
crime data.
116
Meanwhile, dozens of law enforcement agencies across the
Nation had promulgated new policies and procedures that address hate
crimes, using model policies drafted by, among others, the International
Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Organization of Black Law
Enforcement Executives.
117
In the past 4 years, Congress and the Justice Department have approved
several new initiatives designed to combat hate crimes and violence. Sev-
eral initiatives became part of the 1992 reauthorization of the Juvenile Jus-
tice and Delinquency Prevention Act, as amended. Among the measures
was a requirement that each States juvenile delinquency prevention plan
include a component designed to combat hate crimes, and another that
OJJDP conduct a national assessment of youth who commit hate crimes.
In 1993, OJJDP allocated $100,000 for the study, which was designed to
identify the characteristics of hate crimes and the victims and perpetrators
of hate crimes. The Juvenile Hate Crime Study, conducted by researchers
at West Virginia University, found that only six States, and seven major
cities within those States, collect offense data that specify the age of hate
crime offenders. The data from the six States revealed a wide variance in
hate crimes that can be attributed to people under the age of 188.5 per-
cent to 62.6 percent. From the data, researchers extrapolated that an
estimated 17 to 26 percent of all hate crime incidents recorded by law
enforcement can be attributed to juveniles.
118
36
Other new initiatives to combat hate crimes and violence include:
J The U.S. Department of Education, under its Safe and Drug-Free
Schools and Communities Federal Activities Grants Program, in fiscal
year 1996 made $2 million available to public agencies and private
nonprofit organizations for developing and implementing innovative
strategies designed to prevent and reduce the incidence of hate crimes
in communities.
J OJJDP provided a $50,000 grant for the development of a school-based
curriculum to address prevention and treatment of hate crimes by
juveniles. Education Development Center Inc. (EDC) developed a
curriculum and pilot tested it in schools in Massachusetts, New York,
and Florida. EDC in fiscal year 1996 worked to provide the curriculum
and related training to school districts and juvenile justice agencies.
119
J The Justice Departments Office for Victims of Crime in 1993 funded a
$150,000 training curriculum to improve hate crime responses by law
enforcement and victim assistance professionals.
J The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), Title IV of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 1994, allows
victims of gender-based crimes to sue the perpetrator in either Federal
or State court for money damages or injunctive relief.
120
J Another provision of the 1994 Crime Bill, the Hate Crime Sentencing
Act (HCSA), requires the U.S. Sentencing Commission to increase
penalties for perpetrators of hate crimes.
121
J Under a proposed research project, the FBI and Northeastern
Universitys (Massachusetts) Center for Criminal Justice Policy
Research would seek to develop strategies to increase HCSA data
collection by State and local law enforcement officials.
The Justice Departments Community Relations Service (CRS), the only
Federal agency that exists primarily to assist communities in addressing
intergroup disputes, has played a unique role in helping to identify and
prevent hate crimes. CRS participates in HCSA training sessions for hun-
dreds of law enforcement officials from dozens of police agencies across
the Nation
122
and assists schools and school districts in addressing racial
tension and conflict through programs in peer mediation.
123
In 1994, CRS staffers were dispatched to provide settlement services to
13,225 Cuban and Haitian entrants, and the agency continued to mediate
in specific racially motivated conflicts across the Nation. In partnership
with the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), CRS held re-
gional classes on bias-motivated crimes at the New Jersey Police Academy
and 50 other police departments. CRS expected to train another 125 police
departments in fiscal year 1995.
37
CRS also developed the Prison Racial Tension Assessment Tool, which
allows correctional administrators to gauge the amount of racial tension in
a correctional facility and provides information on ways to reduce such
tensions. The agency began testing the Intercultural Sensitizer instrument,
a diagnostic and training tool, in collaboration with the Defense Equal
Opportunity Management Institute. CRSs Central Regional Office coordi-
nated conflict resolution and cultural diversity training for the National
Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives.
Under a cooperative agreement with CRS, the National Institute Against
Prejudice and Violence has published two booklets, Bias Incident Data
Collection: A Guide for Communities and Organizations and The
Lawyers Role in Combating Bias-Motivated Violence.
Organizational Responses
For the past decade, public interest organizations have worked indepen-
dently and in tandem with government agencies to develop hate crime
legislation, improve the enforcement of existing hate crime laws, prosecute
and track hate crime offenses, and prevent the further spread of hate
crimes.
The ADL has been involved in a number of youth intervention and hate
crime education programs. In Massachusetts, for example, ADL staffers
from the organizations Boston regional office and the A World of Differ-
ence Institute worked with the State attorney generals office to develop a
Youth Diversion Project in which nonviolent offenders are diverted into
alternative education and community service programs.
124
Hate crime response expertsincluding representatives from the ADL
are helping to develop a model curriculum for use by FLETC for Federal,
State, and local police officials. The ADL has been pressuring Congress to
fund the training through FLETCs National Center for State and Local
Law Enforcement Training.
125
The NGLTF has provided staff support, literature, and technical assistance
to community anti-violence projects and local gay and lesbian groups. Re-
cently, for example, the organization provided literature and technical as-
sistance to the Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project in Washington, D.C.
The NGLTF lobbies to have sexual orientation included in the lists of pro-
tected groups in State statutes and local ordinances. Beyond its routine
support activities, the NGLTF intervenes in individual cases, keeps files on
political candidates, and publishes a score card that rates a candidates
support or opposition to gay and lesbian rights issues.
Increasingly, religious groups are recognizing the need to promote racial
and cultural tolerance. One example is the Racial Reconciliation Initiative,
sponsored by the National Black Evangelical Association and the National
38
Association of Evangelicals. Under the initiative, materials are dissemi-
nated that explain church-based multiculturalism and help Christians un-
derstand the source of conflicts among races.
A Closer Look at Responses in the States
A number of other initiatives have been undertaken in the States to re-
spond to hate crimes. The following are descriptions of selected initiatives
with contact information included.
Hate Crime Response Networks
In Hate Crimes: The Rising Tide of Bigotry and Bloodshed, Levin and McDevitt
recommend the formation of coalitions united against bigotry. Just as there
has been a coalescing of hate crime groups, so too must local governments,
agencies, and organizations bind together to fight prejudice and bias-
motivated violence. Whether they are called coalitions, networks, or asso-
ciations, these groups serve as clearinghouses of information about rights
and services, and focal points for resources. California, Massachusetts, and
a few other States are setting up hate crime response networks.
Selected Initiative:
California Association of Official Human Relations Agencies
The California Association of Official Human Relations Agencies, based in
San Francisco, is in the process of developing regional hate violence re-
sponse networks in 10 regions in California. The network is arranged like a
wheel with many spokes. At the hub is a human rights commission or
other appropriate public agency or nonprofit organization that acts as a fis-
cal agent and/or designates staff to coordinate the project. A series of com-
mittees constitute the spokes of the network structure, each representing
and named after a different focus area, such as community activities,
criminal justice, schools, the media, and youth. A community committees
members might include religious institutions, conflict resolution providers,
civil rights organizations, neighborhood associations, or private sector rep-
resentatives. A criminal justice committees membership might include
representatives of the police, district attorney, city attorney, attorney gen-
eral, civil rights organizations, attorneys, and victims support groups.
Contact Information:
California Association of Human Relations Organizations
965 Mission Street, Suite 540
San Francisco, CA 94103
(415) 5439741
39
Tracking Hate Crimes
As part of a study conducted in 1992, Brian Levinthen of Stanford
Universitys (California) law school and the Center for the Study of Ethnic
and Racial Violence in Edgewater, Coloradoplaced jurisdictions that col-
lect hate crime statistics into two broad groups. The first group is the core
group of jurisdictions that have the most reliable data collection systems.
These are the jurisdictions that have kept data for at least 3 years and have
at least 100 incidents per year (Los Angeles County, California; San Fran-
cisco, California; Connecticut; Florida; Chicago, Illinois; Maryland; Boston,
Massachusetts; Minnesota; New Jersey; New York, New York; Oklahoma;
Oregon; and Pennsylvania).
In the second tier are jurisdictions that have smaller sample sizes, that
have made changes in collection methods, that have unusual calendar cut-
offs, or that have been collecting data for less than 3 years (Colorado; Dela-
ware; District of Columbia; Idaho; Maine; Massachusetts, excluding
Boston; Michigan; Montana; Rhode Island; Texas; Virginia; Washington;
Wisconsin; and Wyoming).
126
Recently, several States have taken steps to improve their hate crime re-
porting efforts. In North Carolina, for example, the State Department of
Justice has created a new hate crime data collection strategy. Under the
new program, the Division of Criminal Information (DCI) invites law en-
forcement agencies to sign a memorandum of understanding that the
agency will report HCSA data in return for training by the North Carolina
Justice Academy and DCI technical assistance.
Selected Initiatives:
New Jersey Uniform Crime Reporting Unit
New Jersey Office of Bias Crime and Community Relations
Considered a model State for bias crime reporting and enforcement, New
Jersey takes a two-pronged approach to identifying bias-motivated crimes
and enforcing bias crime statutes. The New Jersey Uniform Crime Report-
ing Unit of the State police has, since 1988, collected county-by-county data
on hate crime statistics from all police agencies in the State and published
an annual bias incident report. Agency reporting is mandated by State law.
The States Office of Bias Crime and Community Relations, part of the
New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Criminal
Justice, assists law enforcement agencies in the investigation and prosecu-
tion of bias-motivated incidents; facilitates educational and training pro-
grams that aid law enforcement agencies in the investigation and
prevention of hate crimes; and facilitates community relations, conflict
resolution, and cultural diversity.
40
New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety
Division of Criminal Justice
Office of Bias Crime and Community Relations
25 Market StreetCN 085
Trenton, NJ 086250085
(609) 9841936
New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety
Division of State Police
Uniform Crime Reporting Unit
Post Office Box 7068
West Trenton, NJ 086280068
609) 8826920
Responding to Reported Incidents
127
Rapid and effective responses to hate crimes show the community that law
enforcement will take reports of potential hate crimes seriously. The extra
attention given to the problem encourages other victims to report the
crimes.
Because victims are hesitant to report hate crimes either out of embarrass-
ment or fear, many agencies have established an integrated hate crime
response network to aid them in receiving reports and responding effec-
tively. Networks often include liaisons to local prosecutors, human rights
commissions, and community-based victim advocacy organizations.
Through the network, concerned community members may work with the
police by supporting the victims and encouraging them to report crimes.
Community-based groups and victim support organizations work with
law enforcement agencies in urging citizens to report hate crimes to help
reduce the victims sense of vulnerability and isolation.
Montgomery County (Maryland) Human Relations Commission
The Montgomery County Human Relations Commission (HRC) is a
15-member board charged with researching, assembling, analyzing, and
disseminating pertinent data and educational materials that support activi-
ties and programs designed to help eliminate prejudice, intolerance, big-
otry, and discrimination. HRC also institutes and conducts educational
and other programs, meetings, and conferences to promote equal rights
and initiates, receives, investigates, and seeks conciliation of discrimina-
tion complaints from residents. Among the programs operated by HRC
are the Network of Neighbors and Network of Teens, which recruit and
train citizens to provide peer support to victims of hate or violence in
41
their communities and schools. Staff members provide support, refer vic-
tims to support and counseling services, provide translation services, and
accompany victims to court. HRC also conducts a program to educate
juveniles who have committed acts of hate or violence.
Montgomery County Government
Human Relations Commission
164 Rollins Avenue
Rockville, MD 20852
Administration: (301) 4684260
Complaints: (301) 4684265
Anti-Defamation League
The Anti-Defamation League publishes a book listing cities that have
departments and programs specifically dealing with bias crimes.
Contact information:
823 United Nations Plaza
New York, NY 10017
(212) 4902525
Court Monitoring
Volunteers in some communities watch their local court system carefully
for biased decisionmaking. Court monitoring groups analyze court perfor-
mance and meet regularly with court leaders to make suggestions. The
watch groups publicize their findings through the press and public hearings.
For the program to work, volunteers must be impartial and comment on
the performance of the court, not on the outcomes of particular cases. The
Womens Bar Association of Maryland started a court monitoring program
after a report by the Joint Committee on Gender Bias in the Courts showed
gender bias to be a problem in the Maryland court system. The National
Center for State Courts supports self-monitoring of court systems and has
published a manual that describes how a court can establish self-monitoring
commissions.
Contact information:
Court Watchers
The Womens Bar Association of Maryland
520 West Fayette Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
(410) 5289681
42
National Center for State Courts
300 Newport Avenue
Williamsburg, VA 23187
(757) 2532000
Diversity and Tolerance Education
Tolerance education in elementary schools is being used across the country
to help children relate to others from different backgrounds and cultures.
Sociologists have said that children recognize racial and sexual differences
early in life, and that by age 12 they have already developed stereotypes.
Effective programs, therefore, target children ages 4 to 9.
Classroom exercises vary from newsletters written for a certain age group
to theatrical productions and role playing. However, lessons students learn
in the classroom need to be reinforced through parental involvement.
The Green Circle Program based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, strives to
promote awareness, understanding, and appreciation of diversity in
groups and schools across the United States. In 1992, the American Bar
Associations Young Lawyers Division (YLD) launched four tolerance edu-
cation pilot programs in elementary schools, middle schools, high schools,
and colleges throughout the country. The programs featured education
about the law, open discussions, and mock trials to give students a greater
understanding of prejudice and discrimination.
The South Carolina Bar YLD sends attorneys to teach children in third and
fourth grades. Students participate in mock trials and open discussions.
American Bar Association, Young Lawyers Division
750 North Lake Shore Drive
Chicago, IL 60611
(312) 9885000
South Carolina Bar, Young Lawyers Division
205 North Irby Street
P.O. Box 107
Florence, SC 29503
(803) 6626301
Green Circle Program
1300 Spruce Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 8938400
43
New Jersey Prejudice Reduction Education Program
To help young people deal with social problems and to teach racial toler-
ance, the New Jersey Departments of Law and Public Safety and Education
have developed a special school curriculum called the Prejudice Reduction
Education Program (PREP). PREP teaches prejudice reduction and conflict
resolution and is designed to be used in the secondary schools. The cur-
riculum is organized into four areas: Law and Values, the Nature of Preju-
dice, the Effects of Prejudice, and Developing Individual Coping Skills.
The program curriculum explains the nature and sources of prejudice; pro-
vides examples of antisocial behavior and the destructive philosophy of
hate groups; explains the nature and motivations of stereotyping, discrimi-
nation, and scapegoating; provides examples of prejudice that have resulted
in discrimination; teaches critical social skills such as empathy and resist-
ing negative peer pressure; and teaches techniques for resolving conflicts.
Mr. Chuck Davis
Public Information Officer
The New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety
Justice Complex
Trenton, NJ 09625
(609) 2924791
Multilingual Reporting and Education Services
Employing bilingual police officers and posting bilingual notices will help
bridge both language and cultural gaps between law enforcement agencies
and immigrants who do not speak English. By reaching out to the immi-
grant communities, law enforcement can better protect minority groups
that might otherwise fear police and make them more comfortable about
reporting crime.
Some States provide funding for law enforcement agencies to hire bilin-
gual officers or provide education on preconceptions that immigrants may
have about law enforcement. Substations, police stations located in the im-
migrant community with community service officers (CSOs), give residents
easier access to officers.
Garden Grove (California) Police Community Service Officers
The Garden Grove Police Department in California received a grant from
the State to hire two bilingual CSOs and to create substations in the midst
of Little Saigon, where about 70,000 Vietnamese immigrants live. In
44
addition to being present in the community and schools to speak about
crime prevention, the CSOs also host a question-and-answer radio pro-
gram in Vietnamese, which has received an overwhelmingly positive
response.
Community Service Officer
Garden Grove Police Department
P.O. Box 3070
11301 Acacia Parkway
Garden Grove, CA 92642
(714) 5392284
Youth Leadership and Empowerment Programs
Several trial programs across the Nation are offering youth educational
and skill development programs with advising sessions. The programs are
culturally based to match the needs and customs of the community. How-
ever, program directors must work hard to gain the community members
support and confidence since residents are often skeptical of outside offi-
cials who enter the community.
The Martin Luther King Community Services in Freeport, Illinois, targets
mostly African-American children living at or below the poverty line. The
goal of the program is to reduce risks in the childrens lives through educa-
tional programs, parent training and support, and partnerships in the com-
munity. The program provides after-school supervision and academic
assistance.
Martin Luther King Community Services of Illinois
Freeport Initiative
511 South Liberty
Freeport, IL 61032
(815) 2339915
Police-Minority Partnerships and Associations
Ethnically oriented community organizations help create partnerships
with law enforcement agencies to bridge the cultural and language barriers
that exist between ethnic groups. These organizations help immigrants un-
derstand the history and customs of the United States, in addition to edu-
cating the rest of the community on immigrants traditions and lifestyles.
A liaison from each ethnic group in the community is responsible for such
tasks as translating documents and human service information, providing
mediation services, and coordinating events such as multicultural festivals
for the whole community.
45
Lincoln Police Departments Vietnamese Outreach
Law enforcement agencies in Lincoln, Nebraska, have reached out to the
Vietnamese community through various community events aimed at cul-
tural awareness. For example, they held a school festival in which students
had the opportunity to experience foods, dances, and costumes of other
cultures. Since implementing the cultural awareness program in the com-
munity, Lincoln has recorded a decrease in racially motivated crimes.
Community Liaison
Lincoln Police Department
233 South 10th Street
Lincoln, NE 68508
(402) 4416350
Pennsylvania Alliance for Community and Law Enforcement Relations
To identify strategies to reduce tensions between minorities and law en-
forcement agencies, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge (R) in March 1996
ordered the formation of a 20-member commission composed of minority
leaders, community activists, religious leaders, law enforcement officers,
and State and local government officials. Called the Alliance for Commu-
nity and Law Enforcement Relations, the commission will be chaired by
State Attorney General Thomas W. Corbett. The Alliance will gauge the
effectiveness of State social programs, identify community strategies that
already are working well, and target areas that need strengthening. Mem-
bers will develop recommendations for policy development, resource allo-
cation, and coordination of public and private efforts. Between 1988 and
1993, hate crimes in Pennsylvania reportedly increased by 130 percent.
Forty-six percent of the victims were African American, while African
Americans make up 9 percent of the State population.
The Honorable Thomas Corbett
Attorney General
State of Pennsylvania
Strawberry Square, 16th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17120
(717) 7873391
Diversity Awareness Media Campaigns
The news media can help educate the public about other cultures, thereby
decreasing prejudice. Community and religious leaders work together to
persuade local newspapers and television stations to cover cultural festivals
46
and produce specials and documentaries to acquaint residents with the
customs and cultures of their neighbors.
Anti-Defamation Leagues A World of Difference Program
The ADLs Boston office in 1985 started the A World of Difference pro-
gram, which links media and educational resources to develop diversity
awareness programming used in elementary and secondary schools, col-
leges, workplaces, law enforcement agencies, and community organiza-
tions. The ADL in Washington, D.C., together with WUSATV, created a
program focusing on multicultural education training for teachers through
live specials, documentaries, and other programs. The ADL has been in-
vited to establish A World of Difference programs in Germany, Russia,
and South Africa.
1100 Connecticut Avenue NW., Suite 1020
(202) 4528320
Community-Based Dispute Mediation Services
Conflict management programs provide mediation services to prevent dis-
putes from escalating into larger community problems. Community-based
mediators are recruited and trained in conciliation measures that attempt
to resolve arguments peacefully. Disputing parties come to the program
voluntarily or are referred from another organization. The small claims
court, the police, the juvenile probation department, other city agencies,
and schools refer individuals to the program.
San Francisco Community Board Program
The Community Board Program in San Francisco, California, has grown
from 20 volunteer mediators in 1977 to 300 volunteers currently and has
provided mediation services to approximately 25,000 people. The program
also has created conflict resolution training programs for schools, local
government agencies, juvenile corrections facilities, and public housing
committees.
Community Board Program
Conflict Resolution Resources
1540 Market Street, Suite 490
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 5521250
47
Support for Victims
Programs to help the victims of hate crimes are just as important as educa-
tional programs for offenders. Support services must be made available to
help victims cope with the emotional, physical, and financial impacts of
bias-motivated crimes.
Horizons Anti-Violence Project
The Horizons Anti-Violence Project has been serving Chicago's gay, les-
bian, and bisexual community since 1988. The group runs a 24-hour crisis
line and refers victims to attorneys, counselors, and therapists. The project
also provides court advocates for victims who press charges.
To prevent future crimes from occurring, the Horizons project sponsors
community forums instructing residents how to protect themselves from
violence and avoid conflicts. Horizons also provides training sessions
through the police department on how to respond to hate crime incidents
and works with the States attorneys office to draft hate crime laws.
Horizons Anti-Violence Project
961 West Montana
Chicago, IL 60614
(312) 4726469
Counseling Offenders
A counseling program for young members of hate crime groups helps dis-
pel attitudes that lead to criminal behavior through education about those
ethnic groups that are the object of their hate. The purpose of the program
is to broaden the offenders views of other cultures and in doing so, to
change their values. The counseling includes an encounter session at
which hate crime offenders come face-to-face with members of minority
groups. Offenders also visit county prisons and juvenile facilities to which
they could be sentenced if they commit a hate crime.
The Juvenile Diversion Project
The Juvenile Diversion Project, operated by the ADL, is a sentencing op-
tion for underage offenders in New York City family courts. Through a
20-hour educational program, students hear guest speakers from other
cultures, visit synagogues and churches of other religions, and hear stories
from bias victims. The curriculum, which involves take-home assignments
and weekly readings, varies with the nature of the offense. After the class-
room sessions are completed, an offender must complete 10 to 15 hours of
community service in the community that was the target of his or her actions.
48
The program was based on a similar ADL Boston project that boasts that
its graduates have had no further arrests for hate crimes; the Juvenile
Diversions Project shows similar results. Program graduates from the first
group of offenders have had no further arrests for any type of crime. Fur-
thermore, the graduates have become leaders in the fight against bias,
according to Associate Director Eliot Hoff.
Eliot B. Hoff
Associate Director
New York Regional Office, Anti-Defamation League
New York, NY 100173560
(212) 8857974
Other Suggestions
Trickle-Up Effect
To most advocacy organizations, the failure to report a hate crime is nearly
as bad as the offense itself. Underreporting masks the true extent of hate
crime activities, which encourages the perpetrators to continue their big-
oted behavior and encourages similar behavior among their friends and
associates, said Leiberman.
128
When law enforcement officers are trained to identify, respond to, and
report hate crime incidents, the result is that more hate crimes actually are
reported, responded to, and prosecuted. The investigation and prosecution
especially of notorious or high-profile hate crimes causes a trickle-up
effect that tends to promote even more reporting by victims and witnesses.
129
According to the ADL, the trickle-up effect begins with the officer who
responds to a hate crimes report. The officer sets the proper tone for a
thorough investigation and prosecution if he or she is able to identify a
hate crime, respond to it appropriately, and report it accurately. If police
verify a hate crime and conduct followup inquiries, prosecutors . . .
should be expected to press hard for convictions and judges should
then be under scrutiny to provide substantial sentences after convictions.
If potential victims know a reporting system is in place and see a well-
publicized case result in a stiff sentence for the perpetrators, they will be
more likely to report a hate crime in the future.
130
Thus, collecting and acting upon bias-motivated incident data serves a
number of purposes such as making victims feel that someone is aware of
their problem; creating opportunities for referrals to victim assistance ser-
vices; encouraging reporting by individuals who might not otherwise no-
tify police; providing police with information on potential trouble spots of
hate group activity to allow for early intervention; and increasing public
awareness of the issue.
49
Because reporting under the HCSA is voluntary, the credibility of the na-
tional numbers is determined by the level of participation by State and lo-
cal law enforcement agencies.
131
Law enforcement agencies representing
more than 40 percent of the American population did not participate in the
HCSA in 1994, and the vast majority of agencies that did participate re-
ported zero hate crimes for that year. Of the 7,298 participating depart-
ments, only 1,150 reported even one hate crime.
The increased number of participating agencies indicates that the FBI has
done a good job in its initial outreach and education on the need to iden-
tify, report, and respond to hate violence, Strassler and Foxman said in
their joint statement. This years figures, however, are incomplete
especially from such significant States as California, Massachusetts, and
Illinois. The low numbers indicate a need to reaffirm our national com-
mitment to hate crime data collection effortsand to aggressive enforce-
ment of hate crime laws.
The ADL has urged that the HCSA be made permanent to ensure that hate
crime data collection remains a part of the UCR. The ADL also wants the
administration and Congress to take measures to ensure that the FBI con-
tinues hate crime training and education outreach efforts among field
agents and that the FBI receives sufficient funding to continue to educate
and train State and local law enforcement agencies about hate crimes.
To encourage HCSA participation at the State and local levels, the ADL
urges Congress to provide incentives to State and local governments and
law enforcement agencies, including national recognition, matching grants
for training, a network to promote replication of successful programs, and
awards for exemplary departments.
The organization also favors making participation in the HCSA program a
prerequisite for receiving funds through the Justice Departments Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) or technical assistance
grants from the Justice Departments Office of Justice Programs. Hate vio-
lence can be addressed effectively through a combination of presence, pre-
vention, and outreach to the community that is the hallmark of community
policing, Arent said. Congress and the administration should insist that
new officers hired and trained under the COPS initiative begin to receive
training in how to identify, report, and respond to hate violence.
The long-term impact of the HCSA will be determined at the local level;
and it will be measured not just by the aggregate numbers compiled by the
FBI each year, but also by the improved response of law enforcement offi-
cials to each and every criminal act motivated by prejudice in communities
across America. These numbers do not speak for themselvesbecause
behind each of these figures are real people who have suffered physical
and emotional trauma.
132
50
In the fight against prejudice and hate crimes, the criminal justice system
can have only a limited impact. Levin and McDevitt noted that the crimi-
nal justice systemeven when it operates at maximum effectivenessis
limited in its ability to stem the rising tide of bigotry and bloodshed. Solu-
tions that work will require that our leaders lay the groundwork by long-
term planning to reduce both intolerance and resentment.
133
The authors believe that measures must be taken to reduce the sources of
resentment among groups that feel they are being deprived of the benefits
they believe other groups are attaining through affirmative action. For
example, some low-income whites might feel less disenfranchised by
affirmative action programs and policies if they were based on residence
instead of race. Colleges and universities, for example, could change their
image from that of exclusivity to access if they provided scholarship pro-
grams that address the needs of lower-income families in the neighbor-
hoods in which the particular [schools] are located.
134
51
Notes
1. Mark S. Hamm, Terrorism, Hate Crimes, and Anti-Government
Violence: A Preliminary Review of the Research (background paper for
National Research Council, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences
and Education, Committee on Law and Justice, March 1996), pp. 12.
2. Jack Levin and Jack McDevitt, Hate Crimes: The Rising Tide of Bigotry and
Bloodshed (New York: Plenum Press, 1993), pp. 18, 75, 8687.
3. Hamm, p. 11.
4. Hamm, p. 12.
5. Hamm, p. 10.
6. Testimony of Charles W. Archer, Assistant Director, Criminal Justice In-
formation Services Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Depart-
ment of Justice, before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary (March 19,
1996).
7. Archer testimony.
9. Stephen Labaton, Poor Cooperation Deflates FBI Report on Hate
Crimes, New York Times, January 6, 1993, p. A10.
10. Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Dakota, South
Carolina, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia.
11. The U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Defense, and
the FBI.
12. Telephone interview with Jack McDevitt, co-director, Center for Crimi-
nal Justice Policy Research, College of Criminal Justice, Northeastern Uni-
versity (April 18, 1996).
13. Levin and McDevitt.
14. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Hate Crime Statistics, 1992 (Washing-
ton, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1993); Hate Crime Statistics, 1993
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1994); Hate Crime Statistics,
1994 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1995); Hate Crime Sta-
tistics, 1995 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1996).
52
15. McDevitt interview; Telephone interview with Brian Levin, Counsel,
Klanwatch, a project of the Southern Poverty Law Center (March 14, 1996);
Anthony Fainberg, Terrorism and Hate Crimes in the U.S.: Prospects for
the Nineties and Government Responses (background paper for National
Research Council, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Edu-
cation, Committee on Law and Justice, March 1996), p. 6.
16. NGLTF Policy Institute, Anti-Gay and Lesbian Violence, Victimization,
and Defamation Report for 1991 (Washington, D.C., 1991).
17. NGLTF Policy Institute, Anti-Gay and Lesbian Violence in 1994: National
Trends, Analysis, and Incident Summaries (Washington, D.C., 1995).
18. National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, Audit of Violence
Against Asian Pacific Americans (Washington, D.C., 1994).
19. Interview with Michael Lieberman, Associate Director/Counsel,
ADLs Washington, D.C., office (February 20, 1996).
20. Telephone interview with Helen Gonzales, Public Policy Director,
NGLTF (March 7, 1996).
21. McDevitt, p. 12; NGLTF Policy Institute, Anti-Gay and Lesbian Violence,
Victimization, and Defamation Report for 1994 (Washington, D.C., 1994), p. 12.
23. Testimony of Bobby Moody, Chief of Police in Covington, Georgia,
and Second Vice President of the International Association of Chiefs of
Police, before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary (March 19, 1996).
24. Michael Lieberman, Federal Action to Confront Hate Crimes: Pre-
venting Violence and Improving Police Response, New Challenges: The
Civil Rights Record of the Clinton Administration Mid-term (Washington, D.C.:
Citizens Commission on Civil Rights, 1995), pp. 217-229.
25. Testimony of Stephen Arent, Vice Chairman, ADL, National Civil
Rights Committee, before the Senate Committee of the Judiciary
(March 19, 1996).
26. Levin and McDevitt, p. 201.
27. Gonzales interview.
31. Brian Levin, Bias Crimes: A Theoretical and Practical Overview,
Stanford Law and Policy Review (Winter 199394); Levin interview.
53
32. Levin interview.
33. McDevitt interview.
35. Eric Bishop and Jeff Slowikowski, Hate Crime, Fact Sheet #29
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, August 1995).
36. Levin, Bias Crimes.
37. Levin interview; Levin, Bias Crimes; Office for Victims of Crime, Na-
tional Bias Crimes Training for Law Enforcement and Victim Assistance Profes-
sionals: A Guide for Training Instructors (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Justice, 1995), p. 61.
38. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Hate Crime Statistics, 1994.
39. Telephone interview with Melvin Jenkins, Central States Regional
Director, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (November 14, 1996).
40. The World Almanac and Book of Facts (New York, 1996), pp. 382386.
41. Klanwatch, a Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center, The
Dynamics of Youth, Hate and Violence, Klanwatch Intelligence Report
(Montgomery, Alabama, October 1995), p. 12.
42. Robert Kapler, Number of Hate Crimes by Blacks Rising, Rights
Group Says, Justice Research (Washington, D.C.: National Criminal Justice
Association, November/December 1993), p. 3.
43. Jenkins interview.
44. Eric Harrison, Christian Coalition Offers Blacks Repentance, Funds,
Los Angeles Times, June 19, 1996, p. A1, quoting Ralph Reed, director of the
Christian Coalition.
45. Telephone interview with Richard Jerome, Special Assistant to the As-
sistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division
(November 15, 1996).
46. Jerome interview.
49. Jenkins interview.
50. Interview with Charles R. River, Press Officer, U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights (November 13, 1996); Eric Harrison, Black Churches Have
Long Been Targets, Los Angeles Times, June 15, 1996, p. A1.
54
51. Harrison, Los Angeles Times, June 15, 1996, quoting C. Eric Lincoln, Pro-
fessor Emeritus of Religion at Duke University.
52. Harrison, Los Angeles Times, June 15, 1996.
53. Harrison, Los Angeles Times, June 15, 1996; Klanwatch, a Project of the
Southern Poverty Law Center, The Ku Klux Klan: A History of Racism and
Violence (Montgomery, Alabama, 1991).
54. David Crumm, Truth Emerges From a False Crisis, Detroit Free Press,
September 3, 1996, p. A7.
55. Crumm, Detroit Free Press, September 3, 1996.
60. Telephone interview with Marcia Bull, Attorney, Southern Poverty
Law Center (November 8, 1996).
61. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Transcripts of Community Forums,
Burning of African-American Churches in (Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi,
North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee) and Perceptions of Race Rela-
tions (July 218, 1996); Jenkins interview.
63. Public Law 104155.
64. National Fire Academy, The National Arson Prevention Initiative
(Emmitsburg, Maryland: U.S. Fire Administration, 1996).
65. National Fire Academy.
66. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Hate Crimes Statistics, 1993; Hate
Crimes Statistics, 1994.
67. National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, Audit of Violence
Against Asian Pacific Americans (Washington, D.C., 1996).
68. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Hate Crime Statistics, 1993; Hate Crime
Statistics, 1994.
69. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Hate Crime Statistics, 1993; Hate Crime
Statistics, 1994.
55
71. Levin interview; Morris Dees and James Corcoran, Gathering Storm:
The Story of Americas Militia Network (New York: Harper Collins, 1996),
p. 112122.
77. David Johnston, Hostility Toward Arabs and Jews Is Found on Rise,
New York Times, February 7, 1991, p. A22.
78. Johnston, New York Times, February 7, 1991.
79. Untitled database text of a story about post-Oklahoma City tensions
against Arab Americans, Washington Post, April 21, 1995.
80. Untitled, Washington Post, April 21, 1995.
81. Lieberman interview.
82. Levin interview; McDevitt interview.
90. Presentation by Kevin P. Giblin, unit chief, Terrorist Research and
Analytical Center, U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investiga-
tion (National Research Council, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sci-
ences and Education, Committee on Law and Justice, Planning Meeting,
March 1996).
92. Dees and Corcoran, p. 4.
56
95. Dees and Corcoran, p. 202.
96. Laurie Goodstein, Freemens Theological Agenda, Washington Post,
April 9, 1996, p. A3.
97. Dees and Corcoran, pp. 204-208.
98. Testimony of Mayor Emanuel Cleaver II, Kansas City, Missouri, before
the Senate Committee on the Judiciary (March 19, 1996).
99. State v. Stalder, 630 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 1994).
100. Anti-Defamation League, Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents, 1994 (New
York, 1995).
101. The following jurisdictions criminalize interference with religious
worship: California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, New
York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Da-
kota, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, D.C., West Virginia.
102. Other includes mental or physical disability or handicap (Alaska,
California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Minnesota,
New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Vermont, Washington, Washington,
D.C., Wisconsin), political affiliation (Indiana, West Virginia, Washington,
D.C.), and age (Indiana, Vermont, and Washington, D.C.).
103. Other States have regulations mandating such training.
104. Rosemarie A. Miccacci, Wisconsin v. Mitchell: Punishable Conduct v.
Protected Thought, New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement
21(1995), p. 131.
105. 505 U.S. 377 (1992).
106. 113 S. Ct. 2194 (1993).
107. See, e.g., Grover v. Florida, 632 So. 2d 691 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994);
Florida v. Trabert, 637 So. 2d 72 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994); People v.
MacKenzie, 34 Cal. App. 4th 1256 (1995); In re M.S., 896 P.2d 1365 (Cal.
1995); People v. Aishman, 896 P.2d 1387 (Cal. 1995); State v. Vanatter, 869
S.W.2d 754 (Mo. 1994); State v. McKnight, 511 N.W.2d 389 (Iowa 1994).
108. See, e.g. Ayers v. State, 645 A.2d 22 (Md. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct.
942 (1995); State v. McKnight, 511 N.W.2d 389 (Iowa 1994), cert. denied, 114
S. Ct. 2116 (1994); State v. Mortimer, 641 A.2d 2576 (N.J. 1994), cert. denied,
115 S. Ct. 440 (1994).
109. Ayers v. State, 645 A.2d 22 (Md. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 942
(1995).
57
110. State v. Vanatter, 869 S.W.2d 754 (Mo. 1994).
111. 65 F.3d 918 (11th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 116 S. Ct. 958 (1996).
112. 42 U.S.C. 3631 specifically provides that whoever . . . by force or
threat or force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts
to injure, intimidate or interfere with(a) any person because of his race,
color, religion, sex, handicap . . ., familial status . . ., or national origin and
because he is or has been . . . purchasing, [or] occupying . . . any dwelling .
. . shall be fined under this subchapter or imprisoned not more than one
year, or both. . . .
113. See also United States v. Lee, 6 F.3d 1297 (8th Cir. 1993), cert. denied 114
S. Ct. 1550 (1994); Cotton v. Duncan, 1993 WL 473622 (N.D. Ill. 1993).
114. 656 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1995).
115. William Branigan and John E. Yang, House Passes Major Immigra-
tion Bill Without Reducing Legal Limits, Washington Post, March 22, 1996,
p. A10.
116. Anti-Defamation League, Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents, 1994.
117. Arent testimony.
118. Bishop and Slowikowski.
119. Lieberman, Federal Action to Confront Hate Crimes.
120. Public Law 103-322, Title IV.
121. Public Law 103-322, Section 280003.
123. Community Relations Service, Annual Report of the Community Rela-
tions Service (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1995). This re-
port was for fiscal year 1994.
126. According to the UCR, these States either did not participate in 1995,
had fewer than 10 agencies submitting reports, or had fewer than 10 inci-
dents reported: Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Geor-
gia, Hawaii, Illinois (excluding Chicago), Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,
Nebraska, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North
Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont,
and Wyoming.
58
127. Part of the information in this chapter was gleaned from 350 Tested
Strategies to Prevent Crime: A Resource for Municipal Agencies and Community
Groups (Washington, D.C.: The National Crime Prevention Council, 1996).
Used with permission.
128. Leiberman interview.
131. Michael Lieberman, The Hate Crime Statistics Act: The FBIs 1994
Report, ADL Law Enforcement Bulletin (New York: Anti-Defamation
League, 1995), p. 1.
59
Appendix A
Bibliography
Anti-Defamation League. Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents, 1994. New York.
1995.
Bishop, Eric and Slowikowski, Jeff. Hate Crime. Fact Sheet #29.
Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
U.S. Department of Justice. August 1995.
Branigan, William and Yang, John E. House Passes Major Immigration
Bill Without Reducing Legal Limits. Washington Post, March 22, 1996,
p. A10.
Community Relations Service. Annual Report of the Community Relations
Service. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. 1995.
Crumm, David. Truth Emerges From a False Crisis. Detroit Free Press,
September 3, 1996, p. A7.
Dees, Morris and Corcoran, James. Gathering Storm: The Story of Americas
Militia Network. New York: Harper Collins. 1996.
Fainberg, Anthony. Terrorism and Hate Crimes in the U.S.: Prospects for
the Nineties and Government Responses. Background paper for National
Research Council, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education, Committee on Law and Justice, March 1996.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. Hate Crime Statistics, 1992. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. 1993.
Goodstein, Laurie. Freemens Theological Agenda. Washington Post,
April 9, 1996, p. A3.
Hamm, Mark S. Terrorism, Hate Crimes, and Anti-Government Violence:
A Preliminary Review of the Research. Background paper for National
Research Council, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education, Committee on Law and Justice. March 1996.
Harrison, Eric. Black Churches Have Long Been Targets. Los Angeles
Times, June 15, 1996, p. A1.
60
Harrison, Eric. Christian Coalition Offers Blacks Repentance, Funds.
Los Angeles Times, June 19, 1996, p. A1.
Johnston, David. Hostility Toward Arabs and Jews Is Found on Rise.
New York Times, February 7, 1991, p. A22.
Kapler, Robert. Number of Hate Crimes by Blacks Rising, Rights Group
Says. Justice Research. Washington, D.C.: National Criminal Justice Asso-
ciation. November/December 1993. p. 3.
Klanwatch, a Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center. The Dynamics
of Youth, Hate and Violence. Klanwatch Intelligence Report. Montgomery,
Alabama. October 1995.
Klanwatch, a Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center. The Ku Klux
Klan: A History of Racism and Violence. Montgomery, Alabama. 1991.
Labaton, Stephen. Poor Cooperation Deflates FBI Report on Hate
Crimes. New York Times, January 6, 1993, p. A10.
Levin, Brian. Bias Crimes: A Theoretical and Practical Overview.
Stanford Law and Policy Review (Winter 199394).
Levin, Jack and McDevitt, Jack. Hate Crimes: The Rising Tide of Bigotry and
Bloodshed. New York: Plenum Press. 1993.
Lieberman, Michael. Federal Action to Confront Hate Crimes: Preventing
Violence and Improving Police Response. New Challenges: The Civil Rights
Record of the Clinton Administration Mid-term. Washington, D.C.: Citizens
Commission on Civil Rights. 1995. p. 217-229.
Lieberman, Michael. The Hate Crime Statistics Act: The FBIs 1994
Report. ADL Law Enforcement Bulletin. New York: Anti-Defamation
League. 1995.
Miccacci, Rosemarie A. Wisconsin v. Mitchell: Punishable Conduct v.
Protected Thought. New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement
21(1995), p. 131.
National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium. Audit of Violence
Against Asian Pacific Americans. Washington, D.C. 1994.
National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium. Audit of Violence
Against Asian Pacific Americans. Washington, D.C. 1996.
National Crime Prevention Council. 350 Tested Strategies To Prevent Crime:
A Resource for Municipal Agencies and Community Groups. Washington, D.C.
1995.
National Fire Academy. The National Arson Prevention Initiative.
Emmitsburg, Maryland: U.S. Fire Administration. 1996.
61
NGLTF Policy Institute. Anti-Gay and Lesbian Violence in 1994: National
Trends, Analysis, and Incident Summaries. Washington, D.C. 1995.
NGLTF Policy Institute. Anti-Gay and Lesbian Violence, Victimization, and
Defamation Report for 1991. Washington, D.C. 1991.
NGLTF Policy Institute. Anti-Gay and Lesbian Violence, Victimization, and
Defamation Report for 1994. Washington, D.C. 1994.
Office for Victims of Crime. National Bias Crimes Training for Law Enforce-
ment and Victim Assistance Professionals: A Guide for Training Instructors.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. 1995.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Transcripts of Community Forums, Burning
of African-American Churches in (Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee) and Perceptions of Race Relations.
July 218, 1996.
The World Almanac and Book of Facts. New York. 1996.
63
Sources for Further Information
Appendix B
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 2124902525
Arab American Institute
918 16th Street NW., Suite 601
Phone: 2024299210
Fax: 2024299214
Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 6000
Rockville, MD 208496000
Phone: 18006884252
Fax: 3015795212
E-mail: [email protected]
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Phone: 2023070765
Fax: 2023075846
Community Relations Service
U.S. Department of Justice
600 E Street NW., Suite 2000
Phone: 2023052935
Fax: 2023053009
Disability Law Center
11 Beacon Street, Suite 925
Boston, MA 02108
Phone: 6177238455
Fax: 6177239125
Facing History and Ourselves
National Foundation
16 Hurd Road
Brookline, MA 02146
Phone: 6172321595
Fax: 6172320281
Federal Bureau of Investigation
J. Edgar Hoover Building
10th and Pennsylvania Avenue NW.
Phone: 2023241143
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Criminal Justice Information Services
Division
Attn: Uniform Crime Reports
1000 Custer Hollow Road
Clarksburg, WV 26306
Phone: 3046254995
Fax: 3046255394
Human Rights Campaign
1101 14th Street NW. , Suite 200
Phone: 2026284160
Fax: 2023475323
International Association of Chiefs
of Police
515 North Washington Street
Alexandria, VA 223142357
Phone: 7038366767
Fax: 7038364543
National Asian Pacific American Legal
Consortium
1140 Connecticut Avenue NW., Suite 1200
Phone: 2022962300
Fax: 2022962318
The National Conference of Christians
and Jews
71 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1100
New York, NY 10003
Phone: 2122060006
Fax: 2122556177
National Congress of American Indians
2010 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Second Floor
Phone: 2024667767
Fax: 2024667797
64
National Council of La Raza
1111 19th Street NW.
Suite 1000
Phone: 2027851670
Fax: 2027761792
National Criminal Justice
Association
444 North Capitol Street NW.
Suite 618
Phone: 2026241440
Fax: 2025083859
National Gay and Lesbian
Task Force
2320 17th Street NW.
Phone: 2023326483
Fax: 2023320207
National Network of Violence
Prevention
55 Chapel Street
Newton, MA 02158
Phone: 6179697100
Fax: 6172443436
National Womens Law Center
11 Dupont Circle NW., Suite 800
Phone: 2025885180
Fax: 2025885185
Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention
Phone: 2023075911
Fax: 2023072093
Office for Victims of Crime
Phone: 2023075983
Fax: 2025146383
The Presidents Initiative on Race
The New Executive Office Building
Phone: 2023951010
Fax: 2023951020
Simon Wiesenthal Center
9760 West Pico Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90035
Phone: 3105539036
Fax: 3105538007
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
624 Ninth Street NW.
Suite 700
Phone: 2023370382
Fax: 2023767558
U.S. Department of Education
600 Independence Avenue SW.
Phone: 2022055557
Fax: 2022055381
U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development
Room 10000
Phone: 2027080417
Fax: 2027082476
Violence Against Women Office
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.
Room 5302
Phone: 2026168894
Fax: 2023073911
Womens Legal Defense Fund
1875 Connecticut Avenue NW.
Suite 710
Phone: 2029862600
Fax: 2029862539
Information
General Information
Callers may contact the U.S. Department of Justice Response Center for general information or specific needs,
such as assistance in submitting grants applications and information on training. To contact the Response Center,
call 18004216770 or write to 1100 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20005.
Indepth Information
For more indepth information about BJA, its programs, and its funding opportunities, requesters can call the
BJA Clearinghouse. The BJA Clearinghouse, a component of the National Criminal Justice Reference Service
(NCJRS), shares BJA program information with state and local agencies and community groups across the
country. Information specialists are available to provide reference and referral services, publication distribu-
tion, participation and support for conferences, and other networking and outreach activities. The Clearing-
house can be reached by:
Mail
P.O. Box 6000
Rockville, MD 208496000
Visit
2277 Research Boulevard
Rockville, MD 20850
Telephone
18006884252
Monday through Friday
8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m.
eastern time
Fax
3015195212
Fax on Demand
18006884252
BJA Home Page
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA
NCJRS World Wide Web
www.ncjrs.org
E-mail
[email protected]
JUSTINFO Newsletter
E-mail to [email protected]
Leave the subject line blank
In the body of the message,
type:
subscribe justinfo
[your name]

Guide To Hate Crimes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guide To Hate Crimes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guide To Hate Crimes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

U.S.

You might also like