Hate Crimes
Although hate crime has risen in the United States in recent years, our focus is on hate crimes against Muslim Americans. From the California State University, San Bernardino, Special Status Report on Hate Crime in the United States, data has shown that hate crimes against American Muslims went up 78% in 2015. (Levin & Grisham, p. 49) Brian Levin, the director of the Center for the Study of The and Extremism at the San Bernardino campus said that the frequency of anti-Muslim violence had a spike almost immediately after Donald Trump’s incendiary comments towards Muslims. (Levin & Grisham, p. 49) Mr. Levin expressed that his group of researchers estimated there to be 260 hate crimes against Muslims all over America in 2015. (Levin & Grisham, p. 49) In order to understand hate crimes against Muslims, there needs to be an understanding of hate crimes altogether. There is fine line between hate crime laws and the first amendment. The first amendment protects freedom of speech and a lot of hate crimes against Muslim-Americans involve speech. In order to take action against hate speech/crimes, the United States Supreme Court had to nail down the laws and define what was constitutional to punish in regard to hate crimes.
After the American Civil War, the 14th amendment was put into place to give Americans the right to equal protection. With the 14th amendment came the constitutional and legislative civil rights protections which then led to hate crime laws. (Levin & Grisham, p. 49) After hate crimes were brought about in the states, the United States Supreme Court had to determine what was punishable in terms of hate crimes without violating the first amendment. The first amendment protects freedom of speech and states that Congress shall make no law establishing a religion. To illustrate the point, the case in 1992, R.A.V. v. St. Paul shed light on hate speech. A teenager burned a cross in the yard of an African American family. The Supreme Court punished the terroristic use of hate symbols, but only when the symbols were used to express disfavored hatreds like racial bigotry. (Levin & Grisham, p. 50) However, the Supreme Court held it unconstitutional to criminalize the terroristic use of a symbol on the basis of an underlying prejudiced viewpoint was promoted by it. (Levin & Grisham, p. 50) Then, in 2003, the Supreme Court held in Virginia v. Black that “laws outlawing burning a cross on someone’s property to terrorize residents are constitutional, as long as the government does not differentiate which bigoted viewpoint the threat promotes.” (Levin & Grisham, p. 50) Essentially, the court said that it is unconstitutional to punish someone for using a symbol to express their prejudiced views. Then the Court reversed its previous standing and said that it was constitutional to punish for using symbols to express prejudiced views.
In 1993, the Supreme Court decided in Wisconsin v. Mitchell on the penalty enhancement model for hate crime. This model is the model presently used by most states. In the case, Todd Mitchell, a 19-year-old African American resident in Wisconsin got a group of people to attack a 14-year-old white kid, Gregory Riddick. The penalty enhancement laws “lengthen the punishment for an underlying crime with an additional outlawed element is used.” (Levin & Grisham, p. 50) Mitchell was convicted of aggravated battery, party to a crime, and given 2 years for assault. Under Wisconsin’s penalty enhancement laws, he earned another two years for “intentionally selecting his victim on account of race.” (Levin & Grisham, p. 50) The evolution of hate crime laws in the United States has come to 45 states having hate crime laws, 44 covering race, 32 covering sexual orientation, 32 covering disability, 28 covering gender, and 12 covering age. (Levin & Grisham, p. 50) This gives some history on how hate crimes have come to have legal consequences.
In Arizona, there is a Hate Crimes Prevention Act that was put into place in 2009. The idea of the act was to update the hate crime statutes that were already in play at the time of the act. The Prevention act updated to include crimes committed because of a victim’s gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. (YWCA, p.1) The original definition also included crimes committed based on religious bias. Anti-Muslim hate crime falls directly under religious bias. Sergeant Johnathan Howard of the Phoenix Police, said that in Arizona, bias motivation is not a crime itself but it is used to justify a longer sentence for an underlying crime. (Cassidy, p.1) While there are exceptional laws in place to protect people from anti-Muslim hate crimes, understanding why there has been a rise will help officials put even more laws into place to prevent hate crimes against Muslims in America. The increase in hate crime against Muslims in 2015 has been attributed to what was being featured in the news that year. A lot of coverage of the Syrian Civil War was being watched by people in the United States. Footage of violent Salafist Jihadist extremist attacks and the extreme force of ISIS against citizens of the United States were highly publicized. (Levin & Grisham, p. 22) There were multiple incidents of Americans being involved in extremist incidents. Five American servicemen were murdered in Chattanooga on July 16th and in San Bernardino, 14 Americans were killed and 22 injured. (Levin & Grisham, p. 22) These fueled a rage in Americans nationwide just like the terrorist attacks in 2001 did. The increase in hate crimes against Muslims has also resulted from the lack of knowledge about Islam. The 9/11 terrorist attacks shook the United States to the core and put an image of what Islam was and who Muslims were as people. Soon after the attacks on the twin towers, Muslims became the face of terrorism.
Understanding hate crimes against Muslims in America has many parts. The 14th amendment is constantly being upheld by the government. To give the Americans equal protection, the Supreme Court must make hate crime laws. However, a lot of hate crime against Muslims involve the first amendment. Punishing those guilty of religious bias becomes hard when they have the right to free speech. The United States Supreme Court has gone through cases after case reviewing what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional when dealing with hate crimes. To further understand hate crimes against Muslim Americans is to understand the laws and how those cases proceed.
After the American Civil War, the 14th amendment was put into place to give Americans the right to equal protection. With the 14th amendment came the constitutional and legislative civil rights protections which then led to hate crime laws. (Levin & Grisham, p. 49) After hate crimes were brought about in the states, the United States Supreme Court had to determine what was punishable in terms of hate crimes without violating the first amendment. The first amendment protects freedom of speech and states that Congress shall make no law establishing a religion. To illustrate the point, the case in 1992, R.A.V. v. St. Paul shed light on hate speech. A teenager burned a cross in the yard of an African American family. The Supreme Court punished the terroristic use of hate symbols, but only when the symbols were used to express disfavored hatreds like racial bigotry. (Levin & Grisham, p. 50) However, the Supreme Court held it unconstitutional to criminalize the terroristic use of a symbol on the basis of an underlying prejudiced viewpoint was promoted by it. (Levin & Grisham, p. 50) Then, in 2003, the Supreme Court held in Virginia v. Black that “laws outlawing burning a cross on someone’s property to terrorize residents are constitutional, as long as the government does not differentiate which bigoted viewpoint the threat promotes.” (Levin & Grisham, p. 50) Essentially, the court said that it is unconstitutional to punish someone for using a symbol to express their prejudiced views. Then the Court reversed its previous standing and said that it was constitutional to punish for using symbols to express prejudiced views.
In 1993, the Supreme Court decided in Wisconsin v. Mitchell on the penalty enhancement model for hate crime. This model is the model presently used by most states. In the case, Todd Mitchell, a 19-year-old African American resident in Wisconsin got a group of people to attack a 14-year-old white kid, Gregory Riddick. The penalty enhancement laws “lengthen the punishment for an underlying crime with an additional outlawed element is used.” (Levin & Grisham, p. 50) Mitchell was convicted of aggravated battery, party to a crime, and given 2 years for assault. Under Wisconsin’s penalty enhancement laws, he earned another two years for “intentionally selecting his victim on account of race.” (Levin & Grisham, p. 50) The evolution of hate crime laws in the United States has come to 45 states having hate crime laws, 44 covering race, 32 covering sexual orientation, 32 covering disability, 28 covering gender, and 12 covering age. (Levin & Grisham, p. 50) This gives some history on how hate crimes have come to have legal consequences.
In Arizona, there is a Hate Crimes Prevention Act that was put into place in 2009. The idea of the act was to update the hate crime statutes that were already in play at the time of the act. The Prevention act updated to include crimes committed because of a victim’s gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. (YWCA, p.1) The original definition also included crimes committed based on religious bias. Anti-Muslim hate crime falls directly under religious bias. Sergeant Johnathan Howard of the Phoenix Police, said that in Arizona, bias motivation is not a crime itself but it is used to justify a longer sentence for an underlying crime. (Cassidy, p.1) While there are exceptional laws in place to protect people from anti-Muslim hate crimes, understanding why there has been a rise will help officials put even more laws into place to prevent hate crimes against Muslims in America. The increase in hate crime against Muslims in 2015 has been attributed to what was being featured in the news that year. A lot of coverage of the Syrian Civil War was being watched by people in the United States. Footage of violent Salafist Jihadist extremist attacks and the extreme force of ISIS against citizens of the United States were highly publicized. (Levin & Grisham, p. 22) There were multiple incidents of Americans being involved in extremist incidents. Five American servicemen were murdered in Chattanooga on July 16th and in San Bernardino, 14 Americans were killed and 22 injured. (Levin & Grisham, p. 22) These fueled a rage in Americans nationwide just like the terrorist attacks in 2001 did. The increase in hate crimes against Muslims has also resulted from the lack of knowledge about Islam. The 9/11 terrorist attacks shook the United States to the core and put an image of what Islam was and who Muslims were as people. Soon after the attacks on the twin towers, Muslims became the face of terrorism.
Understanding hate crimes against Muslims in America has many parts. The 14th amendment is constantly being upheld by the government. To give the Americans equal protection, the Supreme Court must make hate crime laws. However, a lot of hate crime against Muslims involve the first amendment. Punishing those guilty of religious bias becomes hard when they have the right to free speech. The United States Supreme Court has gone through cases after case reviewing what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional when dealing with hate crimes. To further understand hate crimes against Muslim Americans is to understand the laws and how those cases proceed.
Citations
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2016/11/16/phoenix-reports-hate-crimes-spiked-2015/93975644/
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/us/politics/hate-crimes-american-muslims-rise.html?_r=1
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3110202-SPECIAL-STATUS-REPORT-v5-9-16-16.html
https://www.aclu.org/feature/anti-muslim-discrimination
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/us/politics/hate-crimes-american-muslims-rise.html?_r=1
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3110202-SPECIAL-STATUS-REPORT-v5-9-16-16.html
https://www.aclu.org/feature/anti-muslim-discrimination