Defining Hate Crimes (Fronteras) | Not in Our Town

This is a background piece on the meaning of a “hate crime” in the five-part series published by our public media partners at Fronteras.

Defining Hate Crimes

ByJude Joffe-Block

PHOENIX This week we launch our five-part Fronteras Desk series,The Search For Tolerance. Five reporters in five cities checked on the ways that communities are trying to prevent hate crimes. The stories air on several public radio stations in the Southwest this week.

But as communities work to prevent hate, a question often arises when some form of harassment or discrimination does occur: Was that a hate crime?

During the last few decades, the vast majority of states have added hate crime laws to their books. These statutes allow longer criminal sentences if there is evidence that a crime was motivated by bias.

At a recent town meeting in thePhoenix suburb of Gilbert, concerned residents and the police chief entered into a dialogue about the legal definition of a hate crime.

Their discussion focused on the case of Felix Bermea and Roy Messerschmidt, a same-sex couple who recently moved their four foster children to a home in Gilbert, where they say they have been been harassed for the past several months. The couple has reported a break in, a phallic drawing outside their home, repeated knocking on their front door, and a fire set to the bushes on their property line.

“While legally this is not considered a hate crime, in my opinion and in the opinion of a lot of the gay community, it is a hate crime,” said concerned citizen Forrest Kruger at a community meeting on July 11. Kruger was one of several people who had heard of the Bermea-Messerschmidt family’s situation and felt the Gilbert police were not taking the harassment seriously enough. “These people are being targeted, and they have been terrorized for months now, when does it stop?”

So far, both the local chapter of theAnti-Defamation Leagueand theGilbert Police Departmenthave said there is not enough information to classify the incident as a hate crime, since the perpetrators haven’t been caught, and their intent is still unknown.

“I believe that they believe that they are being targeted because of their sexual orientation,”Gilbert Police Chief Tim Dornresponded during the meeting. “If I was in their shoes i would probably think that I was being targeted, too.”

There is no criminal charge that is a hate crime in Arizona. Instead it is a sentencing enhancer for another crime.

Dorn said his agency is investigating the crimes that occurred at the residence, such as criminal trespass in a residential structure and arson. At a later date if there is evidence that the crimes were motivated by homophobic or racist attitudes, then they could be classified as hate crimes. That would mean the perpetrators could face a longer sentence.

Michael Lieberman, a lawyer for the Anti-Defamation League, explained the rationale for these hate crime laws and accompanying harsher sentences in a2010 essay in Dissent Magazine. He wrote that while it is best to prevent hate crimes from happening in the first place, “when these crimes do occur, we must send an unmistakable message that they matter, that our society takes them very seriously.”

Which explains why emotions can run hot when there is a clash between what community members believe was a hate crime, and the legal definition according to law enforcement.

So far the fact that the recent harassment in Gilbert doesn’t necessarily constitute a hate crime isn’t preventing a town response.The Arizona Republicreportedthe town is intensifying its efforts to promote tolerance, and the police department said it would appoint a part-time diversity officer.Originally posted by Fronteras.

Go here to read the rest:

Defining Hate Crimes (Fronteras) | Not in Our Town

Related Post

December 12, 2017   Posted in: Hate Crimes |

Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."