Abstract
Two critical Supreme Court cases decided in the early 1990s set forth a plethora of constitutional and policy issues that plague the application of contemporary hate crime statutes. In RAV v The City of St Paul Minnesota, the Court struck down the city ordinance that it deemed a violation of the principle of content neutrality. However, a year later, the Court in Wisconsin v Mitchell upheld the Wisconsin penalty enhancement discriminatory selection statue because it proscribed discriminatory conduct. The Wisconsin Court distinguished the statute in RAV that proscribed disfavored expression from the Wisconsin statute that proscribed disfavored conduct. These cases were decided on 1st and 14th amendment grounds that the statutes were content biased (RAV) and permissible as a compelling governmental objective as the court ruled against the petitioner’s 14th amendment due process challenge (Mitchell). However, constitutional scholars and opponents of hate crime statutes continue to challenge the efficacy of hate crime statutes on 1st and 14th amendment grounds and argue a series of unintended consequences undermine the statutes and polarize groups against one another.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The NCVS special report by Wilson (2014) does not indicate whether the offenders were prosecuted.
References
ADL. (2012). Hate Crime Laws.
Appleborne, P. (1993, December 13). Rise is found in hate crimes committed by blacks. The New York Times, p. A12.
Chaplinski v. New Hampshire (1942). U.S. Supreme Court, 315 U.S. 568.
Cohen v. California. (1971). U.S. Supreme Court, 403 U.S. 15.
Crocker, L. (1992/1993). Hate crime statutes: Just? constitutional? wise?. Annual Survey of American Law 485.
Dixon, B., & Gadd, D. (2014). Look before you leap: Hate crime legislation reconsidered. South African Crime Quarterly, 40, 25–30.
Franklin, K. (1996). Hate crime or rite of passage?: Assailant motivations in antigay violence (Doctoral dissertation).
Franklin, K. (1998) Unassuming motivations; contextualizing the narratives of antigay assailants. In G. M. Herek (Ed.), (1997), Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice against lesbians, gay men and bisexuals (Vol. 4). Sage Publications.
Franklin, K. (2002). Good intentions: The enforcement of hate crime penalty-enhancement statutes. American Behavioral Scientist, 46, 154–172.
Gellman, S. (1992/1993). Hate crime laws are thought crime laws. Annual Survey of American Law, 509.
Gerstenfeld, P. B. (1992). Smile when you call me that! The problems with punishing hate motivated behavior. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 10, 259–285.
Gerstenfeld, P. B. (2013). Hate crimes: Causes, controls, and controversies. Sage.
Goldberger, D. (1992/1993). Hate crime laws and their impact on the first amendment. Annual Survey of American Law, 569.
Grattet, R., & Jenness, V. (2001). Examining the boundaries of hate crime law: Disabilities and the dilemma of difference. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 91, 653.
Jacobs, J. B., & Potter, K. (1998). Hate crimes: Criminal law & identity politics (Vol. 67). New York: Oxford University Press.
Jacoby J. (2002). Punish crime not thought crime In P. Iganski (Ed.), The hate debate: Should hate be punished as a crime (pp. 114–122). London: The Institute for Jewish Policy Research.
Jenness, V. (2002). Contours of hate crime politics and law in the United States. In P. Iganski (Ed.), The Hate Debate: should hate be punished as a crime (pp. 15–35). London: The Institute for Jewish Policy Research.
Lawrence, F. M. (2009). Punishing hate: Bias crimes under American law. Harvard University Press.
Maldonado, M. (1992/1993). Practical problems with enforcing hate crime legislation in New York. Annual Survey of American Law, 555.
Minow, M. (1991). Making all the difference: Inclusion, exclusion, and American law. Cornell University Press.
Morsch, J. (1992). The problem of motive in hate crimes: The argument against presumptions of racial motivation. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82(3), 659–689.
Philips, M. (2002). Hate crime: the Orwellian response to prejudice. In P. Iganski (Ed.), The hate debate: Should hate be punished as a crime (pp. 123–131). London: The Institute for Jewish Policy Research.
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul Minnesota. (1992). U.S. Supreme Court, 505 U.S. 377.
Soule, S. A., & Earl, J. (2001). The enactment of state-level hate crime law in the United States: Intrastate and interstate factors. Sociological Perspectives, 44(3), 281–305.
Strom, K. (2001). Hate crimes reported in NIBRS, 1997–99. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Tatchell, P. (2002). Some people are more equal than others in the hate debate: Should hate be punished as a crime (pp. 54–70). London: The Institute for Jewish Policy Research.
United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2014, December). Hate Crime Statistics, 2012. Retrieved 3 September 2015 from https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2012/tables-and-data-declarations/1tabledatadecpdf/table_1_incidents_offenses_victims_and_known_offenders_by_bias_motivation_2012.xls.
Wilson, M. (2014). Hate crime victimizations, 2004–2012-statistical tables. Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey.
Wisconsin v. Mitchell. (1993). U.S. Supreme Court, 505 U.S. 476.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pezzella, F.S. (2017). Constitutional and Public Policy Issues. In: Hate Crime Statutes. SpringerBriefs in Criminology(). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40842-2_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40842-2_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-40840-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-40842-2
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)