Skip to main content

The Law

  • Chapter
Hate Crimes

Abstract

When the police are fortunate enough to make an arrest in a hate crime case, the next decision concerns how the offender will be charged. This judgment is most often made by the prosecutor with jurisdiction over the crime, the United States Attorney for violations of federal law, and the local prosecutor for violations of state law. The decision about which criminal violation to charge can drastically affect the processing of a case by increasing the potential penalties and thus raising the stakes for the offender. The decision to charge a crime as a hate offense will also raise the interest of local advocacy groups and the media. For example, if a fight occurs between two groups of teenagers in a local community, the crime—assault—is generally not considered newsworthy. If however, the two groups are different races, one white and the other black, the decision about whether to charge the crime as a hate offense is news and will involve not only the prosecutor and the victims but the local office of the NAACP and other area human rights groups as well. What is more, the crime will likely be reported as the lead story on the eleven o’clock news.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. National Institute Against Prejudice and Violence, Striking Back at Bigotry: Remedies under Federal Law for Violence Motivated by Racial, Religious and Ethnic Prejudice (Washington DC, 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  2. U.S. v. Lee, 935 F.2d 952 (8th Cir. 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  3. National Institute Against Prejudice and Violence, Striking Back at Bigotry.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Southern Poverty Law Center, Klanwatch Special Reports Outlawing Hate Crime (Montgomery, AL, November 1989), p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  5. R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 1992 WL 135564 (U.S.).

    Google Scholar 

  6. ADL, 1991 Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents (New York, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  7. R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 1992 WL 135564 (U.S.).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Correctional Population of the United States 1985,” Bureau of Justice Statistics Report (Washington, DC, December 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  9. ADL, Hate Crime Statutes: A 1991 Status Report (New York, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  10. National Institute Against Prejudice and Violence, Striking Back at Bigotry.

    Google Scholar 

  11. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 1991 Report on Anti-Arab Hate Crimes (Washington, DC, February 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Center for Democratic Renewal, They Don’t All Wear Sheets: A Chronology of Racist and Far Right Violence—1980-1986 (Atlanta, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  19. ADL, Hate Crime Statutes: A 1991 Status Report.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  22. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 1991 Report on Anti-Arab Hate Crimes.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Center for Democratic Renewal, They Don’t All Wear Sheets.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  34. McDevitt, “Characteristics of Civil Rights Crimes in Massachusetts 1983-1987.”

    Google Scholar 

  35. William Wallace, “Bias Incident Investigation Unit,” New York City Police Department, September 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  36. FBI, “Crime in the United States, 1990,” August 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Francis M. Roche, “Boston Police Department Community Disorders Unit Annual Report,” March 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  38. FBI, “Crime in the United States, 1990.”

    Google Scholar 

  39. Office of Florida Attorney General, Hate Crimes in Florida January 1, 1990-December 31, 1990 (Tallahassee: Florida Department of Law Enforcement, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  40. McDevitt, “Characteristics of Civil Rights Violations in Boston 1983-1978.”

    Google Scholar 

  41. Wallace, “Bias Incident Investigation Unit.”

    Google Scholar 

  42. Roche, “Boston Police Department Community Disorders Unit Annual Report.”

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1993 Jack Levin and Jack McDevitt

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Levin, J., McDevitt, J. (1993). The Law. In: Hate Crimes. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-6108-2_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-6108-2_13

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-306-44471-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4899-6108-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics