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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
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).
U.S. v. Lee, 935 F.2d 952 (8th Cir. 1991).
National Institute Against Prejudice and Violence, Striking Back at Bigotry.
Southern Poverty Law Center, Klanwatch Special Reports Outlawing Hate Crime (Montgomery, AL, November 1989), p. 4.
R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 1992 WL 135564 (U.S.).
ADL, 1991 Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents (New York, 1992).
R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 1992 WL 135564 (U.S.).
Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Correctional Population of the United States 1985,” Bureau of Justice Statistics Report (Washington, DC, December 1987).
ADL, Hate Crime Statutes: A 1991 Status Report (New York, 1991).
National Institute Against Prejudice and Violence, Striking Back at Bigotry.
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 1991 Report on Anti-Arab Hate Crimes (Washington, DC, February 1992).
Ibid.
Ibid.
Center for Democratic Renewal, They Don’t All Wear Sheets: A Chronology of Racist and Far Right Violence—1980-1986 (Atlanta, 1987).
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
ADL, Hate Crime Statutes: A 1991 Status Report.
Ibid.
Ibid.
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 1991 Report on Anti-Arab Hate Crimes.
Center for Democratic Renewal, They Don’t All Wear Sheets.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
McDevitt, “Characteristics of Civil Rights Crimes in Massachusetts 1983-1987.”
William Wallace, “Bias Incident Investigation Unit,” New York City Police Department, September 1991.
FBI, “Crime in the United States, 1990,” August 1991.
Francis M. Roche, “Boston Police Department Community Disorders Unit Annual Report,” March 1992.
FBI, “Crime in the United States, 1990.”
Office of Florida Attorney General, Hate Crimes in Florida January 1, 1990-December 31, 1990 (Tallahassee: Florida Department of Law Enforcement, 1991).
McDevitt, “Characteristics of Civil Rights Violations in Boston 1983-1978.”
Wallace, “Bias Incident Investigation Unit.”
Roche, “Boston Police Department Community Disorders Unit Annual Report.”
Rights 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