The Reality of Hate Crimes

"It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important." --Martin Luther King, Jr., 1967

Hate crimes have become a ubiquitous phenomenon in the United States. The murder of Matthew Shepard, an openly gay University of Wyoming student, was one of the most prominent incidents of such violence, and one that will be remembered by this generation for its brutality and senselessness. The dragging death of James Byrd basically scared the hell out of most of America. Recent FBI statistics show that 7,876 bias-motivated incidents occurred in 1999. That boils down to almost one incident per hour.

These facts point to a trend that dramatically affects the nation, and college students in particular. We have a stake in this dialogue, and, if we don't believe so, we need only look at our own community. After homes and roads, colleges were the most likely venue for hate-motivated violence. Sure enough, Harvard students returned to school this fall to be greeted by a pair of hate-motivated incidents within 72 hours of each other. This problem touches all of our lives.

Federal hate-crimes legislation has been on the books since 1969, but stronger and more comprehensive revisions are needed. Currently, individuals can be prosecuted under federal law if they commit a crime against an individual due to racial, religious or national bias, and the victim is engaged in a "federally protected activity." "Federally protected activities" include voting, serving on a jury, registering for school, taking part in a federal program and not much else. So the current hate-crimes legislation is limited in two ways. It only covers crimes based on race, religion or national bias (to the exclusion of disability, gender and sexual orientation bias), and it only covers a very limited range of activities.

This is why, in recent years, numerous attempts have been made to beef up legal protection for minorities in this country through federal legislation. The legislation now being debated in Congress seeks to add federal penalties to any crime committed with bias as a motivation. This measure would also protect a much broader range of minorities than our current law.

Unfortunately, these attempts have not yet succeeded. One common complaint is that federal hate-crimes laws would take criminal prosecutions out of the hands of state and local officials. Yet, hate-crimes legislation--and the federal prosecutions it would allow--would not replace or even compete with state and local authority. This law assumes that states and localities would always be the first line of prosecution. Existing hate-crimes statutes, as well as the proposed legislation, explicitly state the conditions under which federal prosecution may proceed. Namely, the federal government may only prosecute a crime when the state cannot or will not exercise jurisdiction, the state requests or does not object to federal prosecution or the state prosecutes but does not receive an outcome that sufficiently combats the bias-motivation. This language is intended to allay concerns about states' rights in the criminal justice process.

Another argument against hate-crimes legislation is that it would allow prosecutions based on the motivation for a crime, which some argue should not be a consideration. Opponents of the legislation argue that all crimes should be prosecuted equally, regardless of motivation. Yet, our criminal justice system already prosecutes the same crime differently based on different circumstances. For example, the difference between first-degree murder and second-degree murder is based on the planning involved in the crime. Our society believes murders that involve prior planning deserve to be more severely punished than spontaneous killings. Accordingly, a first-degree murder conviction could result in the death penalty or life in jail, while second-degree murderers will likely be released into society again some day.

By mandating that bias motivation be given special consideration, hate-crimes legislation sends a strong message about the position of the government on hate. This is not to say, of course, that hate speech should be limited in any way. Freedom of speech is guaranteed absolutely; the violent actions that result from hate speech are the target of hate-crimes legislation. These crimes are almost always committed against victims unknown to the perpetrator. Ultimately, hate-crimes legislation is about protecting innocent people.

Though the 106th Congress failed to pass hate-crimes legislation, the outlook is promising this year. Bills have been introduced into both houses of Congress, and they are now working their way through committee. This legislation deserves students' strong support. It is a crucial step in fighting hate in our society and protecting the victims of hate-motivated crimes.

Geoffrey F. Reed '03 is a social studies concentrator in Eliot House. He is the Legislative Director of the Harvard College Democrats.