The need for hate-crimes laws

By Henry Tomes, PhD
APA Executive Director for Public Interest

Hate is apparently an equal opportunity emotion, having no boundaries limited by race, ethnicity, age, social class or gender. And in our a nation, with its history of current reliance on violence, hatred has a way of ending in death and destruction.

To get at the extent of these activities, in 1990 Congress passed the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, which for the first time enables the FBI to collect information from state law-enforcement officials about the nature and extent of bias-motivated crimes.

The act has been amended twice; once to include information about crimes against persons with disabilities; a second time to include collection of information regarding church arson. This amendment also permanently extended the FBI mandate to collect information on bias-motivated crimes.

Although the law does not mandate law enforcement agencies to report such information, only five states in 1995 and two in 1997 (Hawaii and West Virginia) failed to report--although Alabama and Mississippi law-enforcement agencies reported no bias-related incidents for 1997.

APA involvement

Current legislation (U.S. Code Title 18) provides protection against violence directed toward racial and religious groups, and prohibits "interference by force or threat of force, motivated by bias based on race, relation, national origin or color, in cases where the assailant intended to prevent the victim from exercising a federally protected right." Voting is an example of such a right.

In addition to the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, Congress passed the Hate Crimes Enhancement Act, a complement to state hatecrimes statutes. This law comes into play when hate crimes are committed on federal property. Yet even with this legislation it was clear that something better was needed at the federal level, particularly since fewer than a dozen indictments had been brought since passage of Title 18 USC in 1969.

Thus, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA) was proposed in 1998, which sought to amend Title 18 to allow for federal involvement where violence is directed toward persons because of sexual orientation, gender or disability. Although Congress failed to enact this legislation, APA supported it separately and in coalitions with other organizations.

Several hate crimes have, over the last year, underscored the need for Congress to reconsider hate crimes legislation. In Jasper, Texas, African-American James Byrd Jr. was dragged to the point of dismemberment and death by three men who espoused white supremacy. And yet in May, the Texas legislature failed to pass hate-crimes legislation stimulated by the death of Byrd because the bill also sought to protect homosexuals from similar bias motivated acts.

Last year also witnessed the beating death of Matthew Shepard. An openly gay University of Wyoming student, Shepard was assaulted and died from injuries inflicted by two men who attacked him because of his sexual orientation. One of the men charged with killing Byrd was tried and sentenced to prison; others charged will be tried later. One of the men charged with the death of Shepard pled guilty and was sentenced. More are to be tried later.

APA's Public Policy Office (PPO) advocated for the Hate Crimes Prevention Act and, in collaboration with Div. 9 (Society for Psychological Study of Social Issues), sponsored a briefing on hate crimes for congressional members and staff. Later, in conjunction with the Public Affairs Office, PPO assisted in developing and publishing an APA issues document, "Hate Crimes Today: An Age-Old Foe in Modern Dress."

An impressive panel comprised of Drs. Gregory Herek, Karen Franklin, Donald Green, Edward Dunbar, Jeanine Cogan (SPSSI James Marshall Public Policy Scholar) and Michael Lieberman shared research findings and pointed to legislative, research and policy considerations in dealing with hate crimes.

Future steps

I'm not sure what comes next. It's important to continue pursuit of federal legislation, which extends protections to groups such as persons with disabilities and homosexuals. Such a law will not prevent hate and hatred. But federal protection, certainty of apprehension and punishment for serious crimes are likely to reduce the incidence of harassment and intimidation which, going unchecked, often escalates to much more serious incidents.

Of course, there is much work needed to gain greater understanding of hate and hatred. Psychologists, and other behavioral and social scientists who choose to work in this area, have much to offer. It is important to understand how individuals, groups and nations continue to arrive at solutions that are variations on the theme of "ethnic cleansing."



Read our privacy statement and Terms of Use

Cover Page for this Issue

PsychNET®
© 1999 American Psychological Association

APA Home Page . Search . Site Map