||The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. (September 2010)|
|Part of a series on|
In both crime and law, hate crime (also known as bias-motivated crime) is a usually violent, prejudice motivated crime that occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group. Examples of such groups include but are not limited to: ethnicity, gender identity, language, nationality, physical appearance, religion, or sexual orientation.
"Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts that are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the types above, or of their derivatives. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).
A hate crime law is a law intended to deter bias-motivated violence. Hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech in that hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct that is already criminal under other laws, while hate speech laws criminalize a category of speech.
- 1 History
- 2 Victims in the United States
- 3 Psychological effects
- 4 Hate crime laws
- 4.1 Eurasia
- 4.1.1 European Union
- 4.1.2 Andorra
- 4.1.3 Armenia
- 4.1.4 Austria
- 4.1.5 Azerbaijan
- 4.1.6 Belarus
- 4.1.7 Belgium
- 4.1.8 Bosnia and Herzegovina
- 4.1.9 Bulgaria
- 4.1.10 Croatia
- 4.1.11 Czech Republic
- 4.1.12 Denmark
- 4.1.13 Finland
- 4.1.14 France
- 4.1.15 Georgia
- 4.1.16 Germany
- 4.1.17 Greece
- 4.1.18 Hungary
- 4.1.19 Iceland
- 4.1.20 Ireland
- 4.1.21 Italy
- 4.1.22 Kazakhstan
- 4.1.23 Kyrgyzstan
- 4.1.24 Russia
- 4.1.25 Spain
- 4.1.26 Sweden
- 4.1.27 United Kingdom
- 4.1.28 Eurasian countries with no hate crime laws
- 4.2 North America
- 4.3 South America
- 4.1 Eurasia
- 5 Support and opposition to hate crime laws
- 6 See also
- 7 References
- 8 External links
The term "hate crime" did not really begin to be used until after World War II and the end of most major government-sanctioned racial cleansing, but the term is often used retrospectively about persecutions earlier than that. Examples include pogroms against Jews and the Armenian genocide.
Concern about hate crimes has become increasingly prominent among policymakers in many nations and at all levels of government in recent years. There have been many examples throughout modern-day Europe by groups who harass and threaten many different racial groups.[examples needed] In the United States, racial and religious biases have inspired most hate crimes.
The verb lynching is sometimes attributed to the actions of Charles Lynch, an 18th-century Virginia Quaker. Lynch, other militia officers and justices of the peace rounded up Tories sympathizers who were given a summary trial at an informal court; sentences handed down included whipping, property seizure, coerced pledges of allegiance, and conscription into the military. Originally the term referred to organized but unauthorized punishment of criminals. It later evolved to describe execution outside of "ordinary justice" and is associated with weak or nonexistent police authority, like in the Old West, and racism. Experts continue to debate the origin of the term.
As Europeans began to colonize the world from the 16th century onward, indigenous peoples in the colonized areas, such as the 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 the U.S. include lynchings of African Americans, cross burnings to drive black families from predominantly white neighborhoods, assaults on white people traveling in predominantly black neighborhoods, assaults on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, the painting of swastikas on Jewish synagogues and xenophobic responses to a variety of minority ethnic groups.
Examples like the murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom and the Wichita Massacre tend not to be classified as "hate crimes" by U.S. investigative officials, but they have meanwhile been described as "hate crimes against whites by blacks" by Conservative commentators such as David Horowitz (a conservative author and academic), Michelle Malkin (a commentator for the Fox News channel and a prolific conservative author) and Stuart Taylor, Jr. (journalist). The district attorneys in both these cases have specifically stated that while these incidents were indeed horrible, and had tremendous impacts on the communities affected by them, neither displayed evidence of being black-on-white racism, either upon initial or more in-depth review.
Victims in the United States
Racist anti-black bias is the most frequently reported hate crime motivation in the United States. Of the 8,208 hate crimes reported to the FBI in 2010, 48% were race related - with 70% of those having an anti-black bias. Other frequently reported bias motivations were anti-Hispanic, anti-Jewish, anti-Islamic, anti-white, and against a person's perceived sexual orientation. At times, these bias motivations overlap, as violence can be both anti-gay and anti-black, for example.
High profile murders motivated by the victims' sexual orientation have prompted the passage of hate crimes legislation, notably the cases of Sean W. Kennedy and Matthew Shepard. Kennedy was mentioned by Senator Gordon Smith in a speech on the floor of the US Senate while advocating such legislation. The Matthew Shepard and James E. Byrd Jr. Hate crime Prevention Act was signed into law in 2009. It included sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, the disabled and military personnel and their family members. This is the first all-inclusive bill ever passed in the United States, taking 45 years to complete.[clarification needed]
Gender-based crimes may also be considered hate crime. This view would designate rape and domestic violence, as well as non-interpersonal violence against women such as the École Polytechnique massacre, as hate crime.
Hate crimes can have significant and wide-ranging psychological consequences, not only upon the direct victim but on others as well. A manual issued by the Attorney-General of the Province of Ontario in Canada lists the following consequences:
- effects on people – psychological and affective disturbances; repercussion on the victim's identity and self-esteem; both reinforced by the degree of violence of a hate crime, usually stronger than that of a common one.
- effect on the targeted group – generalized terror in the group to which the victim belongs, inspiring feelings of vulnerability over the other members, who could be the next victims.
- effect on other vulnerable groups – ominous effects over minority groups or over groups that identify themselves with the targeted one, especially when the referred hate is based on an ideology or doctrine that preaches simultaneously against several groups.
Hate crime victims can also develop depression.
Hate crime laws
Hate crime laws generally fall into one of several categories:
- laws defining specific bias-motivated acts as distinct crimes;
- criminal penalty-enhancement laws;
- laws creating a distinct civil cause of action for hate crimes; and
- laws requiring administrative agencies to collect hate crime statistics. Sometimes (as in Bosnia and Herzegovina), the laws focus on war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity with the prohibition against discriminatory action limited to public officials.
Discriminatory acts constituting harassment or infringement of a person's dignity on the basis of origin, citizenship, race, religion, or sex (Penal Code Article 313). Courts have cited bias-based motivation in delivering sentences, but there is no explicit penalty enhancement provision in the Criminal Code. The government does not track hate crime statistics, although they are relatively rare.
Azerbaijan has a penalty-enhancement statute for crimes motivated by racial, national, or religious hatred (Criminal Code Article 61). Murder and infliction of serious bodily injury motivated by racial, religious, national, or ethnic intolerance are distinct crimes (Article 111).
Belgium's Act of 25 February 2003 ("aimed at combating discrimination and modifying the Act of 15 February 1993 which establishes the Centre for Equal Opportunities and the Fight against Racism") establishes a penalty-enhancement for crimes involving discrimination on the basis of sex, supposed race, color, descent, national or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, civil status, birth, fortune, age, religious or philosophical beliefs, current or future state of health and handicap or physical features. The Act also "provides for a civil remedy to address discrimination." The Act, along with the Act of 20 January 2003 ("on strengthening legislation against racism"), requires the Centre to collect and publish statistical data on racism and discriminatory crimes.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
The Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina (enacted 2003) "contains provisions prohibiting discrimination by public officials on grounds, inter alia, of race, skin colour, national or ethnic background, religion and language and prohibiting the restriction by public officials of the language rights of the citizens in their relations with the authorities (Article 145/1 and 145/2)."
Bulgarian criminal law prohibits certain crimes motivated by racism and xenophobia, but a 1999 report by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance found that it does not appear that those provisions "have ever resulted in convictions before the courts in Bulgaria."
Croatian Penal code explicitly defines hate crime in article 89 as "any crime committed out of hatred for someones race, skin color, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other belief, national or social background, asset, birth, education, social condition, age, health condition or other attribute". On 1 January 2013 new Penal code will be introduced with the recognition of a hate crime based on a "race, skin color, religion, national or ethnic background, sexual orientation or gender identity".
The Czech legislation finds its constitutional basis in the principles of equality and non-discrimination contained in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms. From there, we can trace two basic lines of protection against hate-motivated incidents: one passes through criminal law, the other through civil law. The current Czech criminal legislation has implications both for decisions about guilt (affecting the decision whether to find a defendant guilty or not guilty) and decisions concerning sentencing (affecting the extent of the punishment imposed). It has three levels, to wit: • a circumstance determining whether an act is a crime – hate motivation is included in the basic constituent elements. If hate motivation is not proven, conviction for a hate crime is not possible. • a circumstance determining the imposition of a higher penalty – a hate motivation is included in the qualified constituent elements for some types of crimes (murder, bodily harm). If hate motivation is not proven, the penalty is imposed according to the scale specified for the basic constituent elements of the crime. • general aggravating circumstance – the court is obligated to take the hate motivation into account as a general aggravating circumstance and determines the amount of penalty to impose. Nevertheless, it is not possible to add together a general aggravating circumstance and a circumstance determining the imposition of a higher penalty. (see Annex for details) Current criminal legislation does not provide for special penalties for acts that target another by reason of his sexual orientation, age or health status. Only the constituent elements of the criminal offense of Incitement to hatred towards a group of persons or to the curtailment of their rights and freedoms, and general aggravating circumstances include attacking a so-called different group of people. Such a group of people can then, of course, be also one defined by sexual orientation, age or health status. A certain disparity has thus been created between, on the one hand, those groups of people who are victimized by reason of their skin color, faith, nationality, ethnicity or political persuasion and enjoy increased protection, and, on the other hand, those groups that are victimized by reason of their sexual orientation, age or health status and are not granted increased protection. This gap in protection against attacks motivated by the victim's sexual orientation, age or health status cannot be successfully bridged by interpretation. Interpretation by analogy is inadmissible in criminal law, sanctionable motivations being exhaustively enumerated.
Although Danish law does not include explicit hate crime provisions, "section 80(1) of the Criminal Code instructs courts to take into account the gravity of the offence and the offender's motive when meting out penalty, and therefore to attach importance to the racist motive of crimes in determining sentence." In recent years judges have used this provision to increase sentences on the basis of racist motives.
Since 1992, the Danish Civil Security Service (PET) has released statistics on crimes with apparent racist motivation.
Finnish Criminal Code 515/2003 (enacted January 31, 2003) makes "committing a crime against a person, because of his national, racial, ethnical or equivalent group" an aggravating circumstance in sentencing. In addition, ethnic agitation (Finnish: kiihotus kansanryhmää vastaan) is criminalized and carries a fine or a prison sentence of not more than two years. The prosecution need not prove that an actual danger to an ethnic group is caused but only that malicious message is conveyed. A more aggravated hate crime, warmongering (Finnish: sotaan yllyttäminen), carries a prison sentence of one to ten years. However, in case of warmongering, the prosecution must prove an overt act that evidently increases the risk that Finland is involved in a war or becomes a target for a military operation. The act in question may consist of
- illegal violence directed against foreign country or her citizens,
- systematic dissemination of false information on Finnish foreign policy or defense
- public influence on the public opinion towards a pro-war viewpoint or
- public suggestion that a foreign country or Finland should engage in an aggressive act.
In 2003, France enacted penalty-enhancement hate crime laws for crimes motivated by bias against the victim's actual or perceived ethnicity, nation, race, religion, or sexual orientation. The penalties for murder were raised from 30 years (for non-hate crimes) to life imprisonment (for hate crimes), and the penalties for violent attacks leading to permanent disability were raised from 10 years (for non-hate crimes) to 15 years (for hate crimes).
"There is no general provision in Georgian law for racist motivation to be considered an aggravating circumstance in prosecutions of ordinary offenses. Certain crimes involving racist motivation are, however, defined as specific offenses in the Georgian Criminal Code of 1999, including murder motivated by racial, religious, national or ethnic intolerance (article 109); infliction of serious injuries motivated by racial, religious, national or ethnic intolerance (article 117); and torture motivated by racial, religious, national or ethnic intolerance (article 126). ECRI reported no knowledge of cases in which this law has been enforced. There is no systematic monitoring or data collection on discrimination in Georgia."
The German Criminal Code does not have hate crime legislation, but instead criminalizes hate speech under a number of different laws, including Volksverhetzung. In the German legal framework motivation is not taken into account while identifying the element of the offence. However, within the sentencing procedure the judge can define certain principles for determining punishment. In section 46 of the German Criminal Code it is stated that "the motives and aims of the perpetrator; the state of mind reflected in the act and the willfulness involved in its commission." can be taken into consideration when determining the punishment; under this statute, hate and bias have been taken into consideration in sentencing in past cases.
Hate crimes are not specifically tracked by German police, but have been studied separately: a recently published EU "Report on Racism" finds that racially motivated attacks are frequent in Germany, identifying 18142 incidences for 2006, of which 17597 were motivated by right wing ideologies, both about a 14% year-by-year increase. Relative to the size of the population, this represents an eightfold higher rate of hate crimes than reported in the US during the same period. Awareness of hate crimes and right-wing extremism in Germany remains low.
Article Law 927/1979 "Section 1,1 penalises incitement to discrimination, hatred or violence towards individuals or groups because of their racial, national or religious origin, through public written or oral expressions; Section 1,2 prohibits the establishment of, and membership in, organisations which organise propaganda and activities aimed at racial discrimination; Section 2 punishes public expression of offensive ideas; Section 3 penalises the act of refusing, in the exercise of one’s occupation, to sell a commodity or to supply a service on racial grounds." Public prosecutors may press charges even if the victim does not file a complaint. However, as of 2003, no convictions had been attained under the law.
Violent action, cruelty, and coercion by threat made on the basis of the victim's actual or perceived national, ethnic, religious status or membership in a particular social group are punishable under article 174/B of the Hungarian Criminal Code. This article was added to the Code in 1996.
Section 233a of the Icelandic Penal Code states "Anyone who in a ridiculing, slanderous, insulting, threatening or any other manner publicly abuses a person or a group of people on the basis of their nationality, skin colour, race, religion or sexual orientation, shall be fined or jailed for up to two years."
"The Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989" makes it an offense to incite hatred against any group of persons on account of their race, color, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic or national origins, or membership of the Traveller community, an indigenous minority group."
Italian criminal law, at Section 3 of Law No. 205/1993, the so-called Legge Mancino (Mancino law), contains a penalty-enhancement provision for all crimes motivated by racial, ethnic, national, or religious bias, but not for crimes motivated by sexual orientation.
In Kyrgyzstan, "the Constitution of the State party prohibits any kind of discrimination on grounds of origin, sex, race, nationality, language, faith, political or religious convictions or any other personal or social trait or circumstance, and that the prohibition against racial discrimination is also included in other legislation, such as the Civil, Penal and Labour Codes."
Article 299 of the Criminal Code defines incitement to national, racist, or religious hatred as a specific offense. This article has been used in political trials of suspected members of the banned organization Hizb-ut-Tahrir.
Article 29 of the penal code of the Russian Federation bans incitement to riot for the sake of stirring societal, racial, ethnic, and religious hatred as well as the promotion of the superiority of the same. Article 282 further includes protections against incitement of hatred (including gender) via various means of communication, instilling criminal penalties including fines and imprisonment.
Article 22(4) of the Spanish Penal Code includes a penalty-enhancement provision for crimes motivated by bias against the victim's ideology, beliefs, religion, ethnicity, race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, illness, or disability.
Article 29 of the Swedish Penal Code includes a penalty-enhancement provision for crimes motivated by bias against the victim's race, color, nationality, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or "other similar circumstance" of the victim.
For England, Wales, and Scotland, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 makes hateful behaviour towards a victim based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) in a racial group or a religious group an aggravation in sentencing for specified crimes. For Northern Ireland, Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987/463 (N.I. 7)) serves the same purpose. A “racial group” is a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. A “religious group” is a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief. The specified crimes are assault, criminal damage, offences under the Public Order Act 1986, and offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 requires a court to consider whether a crime which is not specified by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is racially or religiously aggravated. The Act requires a court also to consider whether the following circumstances were pertinent to the crime:
- (a) that, at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrated towards the victim of the offence hostility based on—
- (i) the sexual orientation (or presumed sexual orientation) of the victim, or
- (ii) a disability (or presumed disability) of the victim, or
- (b) that the offence is motivated (wholly or partly)—
On December 4, 2013 Essex Police launched the ‘Stop the Hate’ initiative as part of a concerted effort to find new ways to tackle hate crime in Essex. The launch was marked by a conference in Chelmsford, hosted by Chief Constable Stephen Kavanagh, which brought together 220 delegates from a range of partner organisations involved in the field.The theme of the conference was ‘Report it to Sort it’ and the emphasis was on encouraging people to tell police if they have been a victim of hate crime, whether it be based on race, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or disability.
In Scottish Common law the courts can take any aggravating factor into account when sentencing someone found guilty of an offence. There is specific legislation dealing with the offences of incitement of racial hatred, racially aggravated harassment and offences aggravated by religious prejudice. A Scottish Executive working group examined the issue of hate crime and ways of combating crime motivated by social prejudice, reporting in 2004. Its main recommendations were not implemented, but in their manifestos for the Scottish Parliament election, 2007 several political parties included commitments to legislate in this area, including the Scottish National Party who now form the Scottish Government. The Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Bill was introduced on 19 May 2008 by Patrick Harvie MSP, having been prepared with support from the Scottish Government, and was passed unanimously by the parliament on 3 June 2009.
Eurasian countries with no hate crime laws
“In Canada the legal definition of hate crime can be found in sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code”. 
In 1996 the federal government amended a section of the Criminal Code that pertains to sentencing. Specifically, section 718.2. The section states (with regard to the hate crime):
A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:
(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor, . . . shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances.'' 
A vast majority (84 per cent) of Hate crime perpetrators were “male, with an average age of just under 30. Less than 10 of those accused had criminal records, and less than 5 per cent had previous hate crime involvement (ibid O’Grady 2010 page 163.).”  “Only 4 percent of hate crimes were linked to an organized or extremist group (Silver et al., 2004).” 
As of 2004, Jewish people were the largest ethnic group targeted by hate crimes, followed by blacks, Muslims, South Asians, and gays and lesbians (Silver et al., 2004).
During the Nazi regime, anti-Semitism was a cause of hate related violence in Canada. For example, on August 16, 1933 there was a baseball game in Toronto and one team was made up of mostly Jewish players. At the end of the game, a group of Nazi sympathizers unfolded a Swastika flag and shouted ‘Heil Hitler’. That event erupted into a brawl that had Jews and Italians against Anglo Canadians and the brawl went on for hours.
The first time someone was charged with hate speech over the internet occurred on 27 March 1996. “A Winnipeg teenager was arrested by the police for sending an email to a local political activist that contained the message ‘Death to homosexuals’ it’s prescribed in the Bible! Better watch out next Gay Pride Week.’ (Nairne, 1996).”
Hate crime laws have a long history in the United States. The first hate crime laws were passed after the American Civil War, beginning with the Civil Rights Act of 1871, to combat the growing number of racially motivated crimes being committed by the Reconstruction era Ku Klux Klan. The modern era of hate-crime legislation began in 1968 with the passage of federal statute, 18 U.S. 245, part of the Civil Rights Act which made it illegal to "by force or by threat of force, injure, intimidate, or interfere with anyone who is engaged in six specified protected activities, by reason of their race, color, religion, or national origin." However, "The prosecution of such crimes must be certified by the U.S. attorney general.".
The first state hate-crime statute, California's Section 190.2, was passed in 1978 and provided for penalty enhancement in cases where murder was motivated by prejudice against four "protected status" categories: race, religion, color, and national origin. Washington included ancestry in a statute passed in 1981. Alaska included creed and sex in 1982 and later disability, sexual orientation, and ethnicity. In the 1990s some state laws began to include age, marital status, membership in the armed forces, and membership in civil rights organizations.
Criminal acts which could be considered hate crimes in various states included aggravated assault, assault and battery, vandalism, rape, threats and intimidation, arson, trespassing, stalking, and various "lesser" acts until in 1987 California state legislation included all crimes as possible hate crimes.
Defined in the 1999 National Crime Victim Survey, "A hate crime is a criminal offense. In the United States, federal prosecution is possible for hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's race, religion, or nation origin when engaging in a federally protected activity." In 2009, the Matthew Shepard Act added actual or perceived gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability to the federal definition, and dropped the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally protected activity.
Forty-five states and the District of Columbia have statutes criminalizing various types of hate crimes. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have statutes creating a civil cause of action in addition to the criminal penalty for similar acts. Twenty-seven states and the District of Columbia have statutes requiring the state to collect hate crime statistics.
According to the FBI Hate Crime Statistics report for 2006, hate crimes increased nearly 8% nationwide, with a total of 7,722 incidents and 9,080 offenses reported by participating law enforcement agencies. Of the 5,449 crimes against persons, 46% were classified as intimidation and 31.9% as simple assaults. 81% of the 3,593 crimes against property were acts of vandalism or destruction.
However, according to the FBI Hate Crime Statistics for 2007, the number of hate crimes decreased to 7,624 incidents reported by participating law enforcement agencies. These incidents included 9 murders and 2 rapes(out of the almost 17,000 murders and 90,000 forcible rapes committed in the U.S. in 2007).
The 2011 hate crime statistics show 46.9% were motivated by race and 20.8% by sexual orientation.
Prosecutions of hate crimes have been difficult in the United States. Recently though, state governments have attempted to re-investigate and re-try past hate crimes. One prominent example is Mississippi's decision in 1990 to retry Byron De La Beckwith for the murder of Medgar Evers, a prominent figure in the NAACP. This would be the first time in U.S. history that an unresolved civil rights case would be re-opened. Byron De La Beckwith, a member of the Ku Klux Klan, was tried for the murder on two previous occasions and it resulted with a hung jury. However, he was finally sentenced to life in prison in 1994. Presented with testimony of two FBI informants who had infiltrated the KKK, the missing transcript from the first trial, the relocation of missing witnesses, numerous witness admissions of Beckwith bragging about his role in the murder and Beckwith’s own racist writings, a mixed race jury found Beckwith guilty of murder. Even though De La Beckwith was 73 years of age when he was sentenced to life in prison, the 1994 conviction has been interpreted as a way for Mississippi to shed its racist past.
In Brazil, hate crime laws focus on racism, racial injury, and other special bias-motivated crimes such as, for example, murder by death squads and genocide on the grounds of nationality, ethnicity, race or religion. Murder by death squads and genocide are legally classified as "hideous crimes" (crimes hediondos in Portuguese).
The crimes of racism and racial injury, although similar, are enforced slightly differently. Article 140, 3rd paragraph, of the Penal Code establishes a harsher penalty, from a minimum of 1 year to a maximum of 3 years, for injuries motivated by "elements referring to race, color, ethnicity, religion, origin, or the condition of being an aged or disabled person". On the other side, Law 7716/1989 covers "crimes resulting from discrimination or prejudice on the grounds of race, color, ethnicity, religion, or national origin".
In addition, the Brazilian Constitution defines as a "fundamental goal of the Republic" (Article 3rd, clause IV) "to promote the wealth of all, with no prejudice as to origin, race, sex, color, age, and any other forms of discrimination".
The Chilean Congress began a discussion on a piece of anti-discrimination in 2005, which was eventually passed in November, 2011. This legislation included an article that spoke expressly against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. However, on January 4, 2012, the Constitutional Tribunal (composed of senators from Chile's Independent Democratic Union) repealed the 2nd Article of the legislation (which applied primarily to sexual diversity).
On April 5, 2012, Chile's Congress passed most of an anti-discrimination law that would make it a crime to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender, appearance or handicap.
Support and opposition to hate crime laws
Support for hate crime laws
Justifications for harsher punishments for hate crimes focus on the notion that hate crimes cause greater individual and societal harm. It is said that, when the core of a person’s identity is attacked, the degradation and dehumanization is especially severe, and additional emotional and physiological problems are likely to result. Society then, in turn, can suffer from the disempowerment of a group of people. Furthermore, it is asserted that 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. The beating of white truck driver Reginald Denny by black rioters during the same riot is also an example that supports this argument.
In Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that penalty-enhancement hate crime statutes do not conflict with free speech rights, because they do not punish an individual for exercising freedom of expression; rather, they allow courts to consider motive when sentencing a criminal for conduct which is not protected by the First Amendment.
Opposition to hate crime laws
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found the St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance amounted to viewpoint-based discrimination is in conflict with rights of free speech, because it selectively criminalized bias-motivated speech or symbolic speech for disfavored topics while permitting such speech for other topics. Many critics further assert that it conflicts with an even more fundamental right: free thought. The claim is that hate-crime legislation effectively makes certain ideas or beliefs, including religious ones, illegal, in other words, thought crimes.
In their book Hate Crimes: Criminal Law and Identity Politics, James B. Jacobs and Kimberly Potter criticize hate crime legislation for exacerbating conflicts between groups. They assert that by defining crimes as being committed by one group against another, rather than as being committed by individuals against their society, the labeling of crimes as “hate crimes” causes groups to feel persecuted by one another, and that this impression of persecution can incite a backlash and thus lead to an actual increase in crime. Some have argued hate crime laws bring the law into disrepute and further divide society, as groups apply to have their critics silenced. Some have argued that if it is true that all violent crimes are the result of the perpetrator's contempt for the victim, then all crimes are hate crimes. Thus, if there is no alternate rationale for prosecuting some people more harshly for the same crime based on who the victim is, then different defendants are treated unequally under the law, which violates the United States Constitution.
- Disability hate crime
- Communal violence
- Fighting Discrimination
- Hate group
- Violence against LGBT people
- Stotzer, R.: "Comparison of Hate Crime Rates Across Protected and Unprotected Groups", Williams Institute, 2007–06. Retrieved on 2012-03-17. "A hate crime or bias motivated crime occurs when the perpetrator of the crime intentionally selects the victim because of his or her membership in a certain group."
- Streissguth, Tom (2003). Hate Crimes (Library in a Book), p.3. ISBN 0-8160-4879-7.
- Hate crime, Home Office
- Fred Fausz, "Jamestown at 400: Caught Between a Rock and a Slippery Slope", History News Network, George Mason University, 7 May 2007
- "A Policymaker's Guide to Hate Crimes" (PDF). Retrieved 2011-11-14.
- "'Hate Crimes' and Double Standards" By Stuart Taylor, Jr. The Atlantic. May 29, 2007.
- "Hate Crime Statistics, 2010". Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved March 16, 2012.
- Meyer, Doug (2010). "Evaluating the Severity of Hate-motivated Violence: Intersectional Differences among LGBT Hate Crime Victims". Sociology 44 (5): 980–995. doi:10.1177/0038038510375737.
- "Hate Crime Victimization, 2003-2011" (PDF). U.S. Department of Justice.
- Angelari, Marguerite (1997). "Hate Crime Statutes: A Promising Tool for Fighting Violence Against Women". In Karen J. Maschke. Pornography, sex work, and hate speech. Taylor & Francis.
- Gerstenfeld, Phyllis B. (2013). Hate Crimes: Causes, Controls, and Controversies. Sage.
- McPhail, Beverly (2003). "Gender-Bias Hate Crimes: A Review". In Barbara Perry. Hate and bias crime: a reader. Psychology Press.
- "MANUEL DES POLITIQUES DE LA COURONNE" (PDF) (in French). 21 March 2005. Retrieved 2009-06-21.
- Cox, William T. L.; Abramson, Lyn Y.; Devine, Patricia G.; Hollon, Steven D. (2012). "Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Depression: The Integrated Perspective". Perspectives on Psychological Science 7 (5): 427–449. doi:10.1177/1745691612455204.
- "Michael McClintock: ''Everyday Fears: A Survey of Violent Hate Crimes in Europe and North America''". Humanrightsfirst.org. Retrieved 2013-01-21.
- Arias, Martha L. INTERNET LAW - The European Union Criminalizes Acts of Racism and Xenophobia Committed through Computer Systems, April 20, 2011
- Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus, § 64 (1), para. 9 (translated from the Russian), June 9, 1999.
- Office of the High Representative, Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina, January 2003.
- ECRI, Second Report on Bulgaria, adopted on June 18, 1999, and made public on March 21, 2000.
- "71 28.6.2006 Zakon o izmjenama i dopunama Kaznenog zakona". Narodne-novine.nn.hr. 2006-06-28. Retrieved 2011-11-14.
- "Centar za LGBT ravnopravnost » Vlada prihvatila prijedloge Centra za LGBT ravnopravnost". Ravnopravnost.hr. Retrieved 2011-11-14.
- "Zpráva o násilí z nenávisti v České republice za rok 2011". Retrieved 2012-11-11.
- ECRI, Second Report on Denmark, adopted on June 16, 2000, and made public on April 3, 2001, para. 9.
- Chahrokh, Klug, and Bilger, Migrants, Minorities, and Legislation.
- EUMC, Racism and xenophobia in the E.U., p. 51.
- Penal Code (39/1889) as of 1006/2004. §§ 6:5.1.4 (ethnic hatred as an aggravating factor), 11:8 (ethnic agitation) and 12:2 (warmongering). The points cited remain in force on the day of retrieval, checked from the Finnish version: Rikoslaki. The Government proposal HE 55/2007 will move the § 11:8 to §11:10 without changing the content, if the proposal is passed by the Parliament of Finland. Retrieved 11-23-2007.
- Loi n° 2003–88 du 3 février 2003 visant à aggraver les peines punissant les infractions à caractère raciste, antisémite ou xénophobe
- "Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB)". Iuscomp.org. Retrieved 2011-11-14.
- Marc Coester (2008): Das Konzept der Hate Crimes aus den USA unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Rechtsextremismus in Deutschland. Peter Lang: Frankfurt/Berlin/Bern/Bruxelles/New York/Oxford/Wien
- "EU Xenophobia Report: Racism On the Rise in Germany - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International". Der Spiegel. Retrieved 2011-11-14.
- "FBI — 2006 Hate Crime in the U.S". Fbi.gov. Retrieved 2011-11-14.
- "SPIEGEL ONLINE Interview with Racism Expert: 'Awareness of Ethnic Discrimination Is Low in Germany' - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International". Der Spiegel. Retrieved 2011-11-14.
- ECRI, Second Report on Greece, adopted on 1999-12-10, and made public on 2000-06-27.
- Sitaropoulos, N.: Executive Summary on Race Equality Directive, State of Play in Greece, section 5, 2003-10-12. Retrieved on 2007-08-02.
- Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination : Hungary. 11/01/2002. A/57/18,paras.367-390. (Concluding Observations/Comments), UNCHR
- "Icelandic Penal Code (in Icelandic)". Althingi.is. Retrieved 2011-11-14.
- CERD, Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 9 of the Convention; Concluding Observations: Kyrgyzstan, 1999. Retrieved on 2007-08-02.
- Human Rights in the OSCE Region: Europe, Central Asia and North America, Report 2004 (Events of 2003), International Helsinki Federation, 2004-06-23. Retrieved on 2007-08-02.
- "Swedish Penal Code" (PDF). Retrieved 2013-01-21.
- Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (c. 24) amended sections of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/ukpga_20010024_en_5
- Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987.
- Sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
- "Hate crime" legislation is distinct from "hate speech" legislation. See Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom.
- [dead link]
- "Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Bill". Scottish.parliament.uk. Retrieved 2013-01-21.
- MSPs approve new hate crime laws BBC News 3 June 2009
- O'Grady, William (2011). Crime In Canadian Context: debates and controversies. Oxford University Press. p. 161. ISBN 978-0-19-543378-4.
- O'Grady, William (2011). Crime In Canadian Context: debates and controversies. Oxford University Press. p. 163. ISBN 978-0-19-543378-4.
- O'Grady, William (2011). Crime In Canadian Context: debates and controversies. Oxford University Press. p. 162. ISBN 978-0-19-543378-4.
- O'Grady, William (2011). Crime In Canadian Context: debates and controversies. Oxford University Press. p. 164. ISBN 978-0-19-543378-4.
- Streissguth (2003), p.20.
- Streissguth (2003), p.20-21.
- Streissguth (2003), p.21.
- State Hate Crime Laws, Anti-Defamation League, June 2006. Retrieved 2007-05-04.
- Statistics, 2006 Hate Crime Statistics, 2006,[dead link] Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Statistics, 2007 Hate Crime Statistics, 2007,[dead link] Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Statistics, 2007 FBI Crime in the United States 2007,[dead link] Federal Bureau of Investigation
- "Attorney general urges new hate crimes law – Crime & courts". MSNBC. 2009-06-16. Retrieved 2011-11-14.
- "FBI releases 2011 hate crime statistics". Lakeconews.com. 2012-12-11. Retrieved 2013-01-21.
- Labuda, P. (2011). "Racial Reconciliation in Mississippi: An Evaluation of the Proposal to Establish a Mississippi Truth and Reconciliation Commission.". Harvard Blackletter Law Journal 271: 1–48.
- Alston, A.A. and Dickerson, J.L. (2009). Devil’s Sanctuary: An Eye-Witness History of Mississippi Hate Crimes. Chicago, IL: Lawrence Hill Books.
- http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/Leis/L8072.htm (Law 8072/1990, Article 1st, I)
- http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/Leis/L2889.htm (Law 2889/1956, Article 1st)
- Law 8072/1990 (aforementioned link), Article 1st, I and single paragraph.
- "Racismo ou injúria racial? - Boletim Jurídico". Boletimjuridico.com.br. Retrieved 2013-01-21.
- "DEL2848compilado". Planalto.gov.br. Retrieved 2013-01-21.
- "L7716". Planalto.gov.br. Retrieved 2013-01-21.
- Matthew Jenkin (2012-03-30). "UN calls for harsher hate crime laws in Chile". Gay Star News. Retrieved 2013-01-21.
- "Chile's Congress approves most of hate crime law". BBC News. 2012-04-05.
- "Wisconsin v. Mitchell". Enotes.com. Retrieved 2011-10-12.
- R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992).
- The Essayist (1998). Hate Crime Premise. 24 Jul. 1998.[dead link]
- Evenson, Brad (2003). Looking for thoughtcrime to crimestop. National Post. February 8, 2003.
- Schwartz, L., I.T. Ulit, & D. Morgan (2006). "Straight talk about hate crimes bills: Anti-gay, anti-transgender bias stall federal hate crimes legislation". Georgetown Journal of Gender & the Law 7 (2): 171–186.
- Icke, David (2003). Tales from the Time Loop. Bridge of Love. ISBN 0-9538810-4-0. 
- Smith, Peter J. (2007). Democrats refuse religious freedom amendment to hate crimes bill. LifeSite, 26 April 2007.
- Kamine, Wendy. The Return of the Thought Police: "Hate crime" legislation is an assault on civil liberties. The Wall Street Journal. October 28, 2007.
- Wolski, Chris (1999). Hate Crime Laws Will Spawn Thought Police. Capitalism Magazine Website. Retrieved 2009-06-18.
- Jacobs, James B. & Kimberly Potter. (1998). Hate Crimes: Criminal Law and Identity Politics. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 130–144
- Troy, Daniel E. (1999-08-04). "AEI – Short Publications". Aei.org. Retrieved 2011-11-14.
- "Constitutional Challenges to Hate Crimes Statutes". Adl.org. Retrieved 2011-11-14.
- Hate crimes information, by Dr. Gregory Herek
- Hate Crime Survey, annual Human Rights First report on the prevalence of hate crimes in the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe region.
- Hate Crime Statistics, annual FBI/U.S. Department of Justice report on the prevalence of hate crimes in the United States. Required by the Hate Crime Statistics Act.
- A Policymaker's Guide to Hate Crimes, a publication by the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, part of the U.S. Department of Justice. Many parts of this article have been adapted from this document.
- Tolerance.org, a web project sponsored by the Southern Poverty Law Center
- Peabody, Michael "Thought & Crime," Liberty Magazine, March/April 2008, review of recently proposed hate crime legislation and criminal intent issues.
- "Hate Crime." Oxford Bibliographies Online: Criminology.