NCJ Number
217411
Journal
Judicature Volume: 90 Issue: 3 Dated: November-December 2006 Pages: 129-134
Date Published
November 2006
Length
6 pages
Annotation
This article considers the unanticipated consequences of hate crime legislation.
Abstract
One of the most glaring unanticipated consequences of hate crime legislation is that, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), there is more minority-on-White hate crime than White-on-minority hate crime. As a consequence, if hate crimes legislation is applied rigorously to all bias-motivated inter-racial crimes, far more minority members would be subjected to enhanced penalties than their White counterparts. The authors support their conclusion by considering the common arguments for and against hate crime legislation. Many critics have argued that hate crime legislation violates the first amendment right of free speech while others have argued that hate crime legislation conflicts with the fourteen amendment’s Equal Protection Clause by encouraging citizens to believe in the inequality of different groups. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that hate crimes legislation does not interfere with the first amendment right to free speech and the authors point out that the Equal Protection Clause can only be violated by the action of the government and not by the personal beliefs of its citizens. Statistics on hate crimes are reviewed, which raise important questions regarding the SPLC’s concerns that hate crime legislation may actually result in more enhanced sentencing for minority members. The SPLC maintains that bias crimes are more frequent than government statistics suggest and that the majority of hate crimes are committed against Whites by minority members. As such, an even-handed application of enhanced penalties could result in outcomes that civil rights activists have long fought against: the disproportionate incarceration of America’s minorities. Footnotes