Hate Crime vs. Bias Incident
The technical jargon behind the violence
Hate is no stranger to Columbia. The now infamous Ruggles vandalism incident a little over a year ago, the homophobic messages found in East Campus last spring, and the inception of the student group Stop Hate on Columbia’s Campus, among other things, have made that more than clear.
But what constitutes a hate crime, or even a bias incident, has proven more difficult to discern. What is the difference between the two? When and how is someone convicted of a hate crime?
Strictly speaking, the police cannot arrest someone on hate crime charges—they can only determine whether a crime constitutes a bias incident. Perpetrators are not charged with hate crimes until indicted. But how a bias incident or hate crime is determined is also tricky.
According to the Hate Crimes Act of 2000, there are a number of criminal offenses that, if the perpetrator intentionally committed the crime “in whole or in substantial part because of a belief or perception regarding the race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation” would constitute a hate crime (as opposed to simply assault, for example). But the perpetrator’s intent is first determined by the victim’s, or other witnesses’, statements.
In other words, the perpetrator may insist he or she was drunk and had no hateful intent, but if the victim feels he or she was threatened on the basis of any category listed in the Hate Crimes Act, the perpetrator will be charged with a hate crime. Furthermore, if a person is charged with a hate crime, the hate crime is deemed one category higher than the original offense—so instead of first-degree assault, a perpetrator is charged with second-degree assault. By the time the case goes to court, the perpetrator’s intent needs to be clear, or chances are the judge will convict him or her of the lesser offense, as jails are already overflowing.
The Ruggles vandalism case provides the perfect example: Matthew Brown, CC ’07, and Stephen Searles, SEAS ’08, were originally charged with criminal mischief as a hate crime, a class E felony. Six months later, the case was dismissed when the judge accepted a deal between the defendants’ lawyers and the district attorney’s office. Brown and Searles were required to attend sensitivity training and therapy counseling, but they did not have to admit they were guilty. At the time, Searles’ lawyer attributed the fact that he was drunk and from Montana to his lack of sensitivity.
So how does this legal jargon translate? Technically, a person is innocent until proven guilty. Thus bias incident is the most accurate way to describe a hate crime before a conviction. It provides the perpetrator with the benefit of the doubt. But choosing the phrase bias incident instead of hate crime can seem belittling, particularly to the people victimized by the attack.
Of course, opinion pages have more power to illustrate the implications of a hate crime or bias incident. In late March of last year, an NYU student was killed by a car in Harlem while he was fleeing a group of black teenagers. Witnesses reported that the perpetrators were yelling “Hey Whitey!” and “Get the white boy!” as the victim tried to flee. The New York Post and the New York Daily News immediately called upon the city to charge the boys with a hate crime, slamming the city when they did not. The New York Times, however, refrained from doing the same. The reason why the publications differed is unclear.
Spectator news writer Eleazar David Melendez, who is also the crime beat reporter, relayed an argument he had with his fellow deputies last year when SHOCC boycotted the bar Mona after a woman had been sexually assaulted there. “To me the news was that there was this new, at the time relatively small, student group that was effectively boycotting a popular neighborhood bar. But to the other deputies, the news was that someone had been sexually assaulted. You do get to choose the news.” In the end, Melendez’s briefing highlighted the boycott.
In many ways, what constitutes a hateful offense depends upon the community that contextualized the offense, the perpetrator, and the victim. What constitutes a hate crime, and whether it is highlighted, often changes depending on those involved. But inevitably, a hate crime is troublesome as it has the power to intimidate not just one person, but an entire society. Calling it a bias incident might be most accurate and give the perpetrator the benefit of the doubt, but when it comes to hate, shouldn’t we be thinking about the victim?