What Makes a Crime a Hate Crime?

iStock
iStock

Crimes are classified in a few different ways. There are the types of crimes you often see in news headlines, like theft, robbery, assault, and murder. Then there are hate crimes, which are appended to other charges and carry greater penalties.

But what qualifies a crime specifically as a hate crime?

Hate crime cases hinge on motivation: Was the crime motivated by a bias against the victim’s race, religion, sexual orientation, or other protected aspects of their identity? Hate crime laws are usually designed to go hand-in-hand with the actual offense the person is charged with, such as assault or murder, putting greater severity on the crime due to its hateful motivations. For example, it’s not illegal to randomly spew racial epithets—but if you go so far as to punch someone because of your racial bias, the crime becomes much more serious in the eyes of the law.

Furthermore, because hate crimes are dependent on the perpetrator’s intentions, the victim doesn’t actually have to be a member of the protected class the perp thought he or she was attacking to be covered under hate crime laws. If someone attacks you because they think you’re Jewish, but you’re actually an agnostic Catholic, it’s still a hate crime. In other words: Being wrong about who to target is not a legal excuse for bigotry.

If the activities labeled hate crimes, like robbery and assault, are already crimes, why do we need more laws saying those crimes are wrong?

Hate crimes are motivated more by how a person is perceived than any of that person’s words or actions, making such crimes particularly terrifying for both the victim and the community at large. According to the Offices of the United States Attorneys:

"The fact that the victims of such crimes are selected based on characteristics such as their race or religion can cause all those in the community who share that characteristic to experience similar feelings of vulnerability and secondary victimization. In its impact on the community, the fear of becoming a victim of violence can be nearly as debilitating as suffering through an actual crime.

The message of intolerance that is communicated through a hate crime can have broadly disruptive social effects as well, and can lead to greater distrust of law enforcement or friction between racial or religious communities.”

State hate crime laws cover different classes of people in addition to those protected by federal legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Only five states do not have hate crime laws on the books. Many cover crimes perpetrated with bias concerning disabilities, sexual orientation, and gender. Some protect against biases regarding transgender individuals and gender identity, age, and even political affiliation.

Being able to classify something as a federal hate crime helps agencies like the FBI step in where state and local authorities either cannot or will not prosecute, as well as provide grants to assist local police in pursuing the case. For instance, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 expanded federal hate crime statutes to include crimes motivated by a victim’s gender, sexual orientation, and disability status as well as expanding the FBI’s ability to investigate hate crimes.

Matthew Shepard, a gay college student, was beaten, tortured, and left to die in 1998, but because sexual orientation wasn’t yet a federally protected class, the Department of Justice was unable to help the Laramie, Wyoming, police work the case, and pursuing justice ended up being so costly that the police department had to furlough five of its officers to stay afloat.

James Byrd Jr. was an African-American man living in Texas who was dragged to death behind a pickup truck in 1998. Although Texas did have hate crime laws on the books, they were deemed too vague to be enforceable.

However, hate crime laws are controversial in some circles. Some free speech advocates worry that hate crime laws could be wielded to punish freedom of speech, but these laws generally only cover criminal action, not hate speech. In 2004, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down the state’s hate crimes law, arguing that its language was too broad because it didn’t specify the groups that were protected under the statute. It covered all victims chosen because of general “bias or prejudice.” In May 2017, Texas broadened its hate crime laws to include police officers as a protected group, following a 2016 ambush on police that left six Dallas officers dead—though the state is also covered by all federal hate crime statutes.

The federal government’s hate crimes laws have been ruled legally sound. The legality of increasing punishment based on a person’s beliefs was affirmed in a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case called Wisconsin v. Mitchell. Lawyers for a young black man who incited an attack on a young white man because of his race argued that the five extra years tacked on to his sentence for committing a hate crime violated his First and 14th Amendment rights, but the Supreme Court disagreed, upholding the greater penalties awarded in hate crimes.

But if hate crime statutes are in part due to how the offenses disrupt the greater community, is a terrorist attack a hate crime?

A terrorist attack isn’t always a hate crime, but it can be. The FBI defines terrorism as a violent act that’s designed to intimidate the civilian population or influence government policy, including through mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping. For example, in the summer of 2016, the FBI classified the deadly mass shooting at Orlando's Pulse nightclub as both an act of terrorism and a hate crime, saying that the shooter was motivated by anti-gay bias and because he had asserted that his actions were revenge for American airstrikes in the Middle East.

Have you got a Big Question you'd like us to answer? If so, let us know by emailing us at bigquestions@mentalfloss.com.

Why Are Sloths So Slow?

Sloths have little problem holding still for nature photographers.
Sloths have little problem holding still for nature photographers.
Geoview/iStock via Getty Images

When it comes to physical activity, few animals have as maligned a reputation as the sloth. The six sloth species, which call Brazil and Panama home, move with no urgency, having seemingly adapted to an existence that allows for a life lived in slow motion. But what makes sloths so sedate? And what horrible, poop-related price must they pay in order to maintain life in the slow lane?

According to HowStuffWorks, the sloth’s limited movements are primarily the result of their diet. Residing mainly in the canopy vines of Central and South American forests, sloths dine out on leaves, fruits, and buds. With virtually no fat or protein, sloths conserve energy by taking a leisurely approach to life. On average, a sloth will climb or travel roughly 125 feet per day. On land, it takes them roughly one minute to move just one foot.

A sloth’s digestive system matches their locomotion. After munching leaves using their lips—they have no incisors—it can take up to a month for their meals to be fully digested. And a sloth's metabolic rate is 40 to 45 percent slower than most mammals' to help compensate for their low caloric intake. With so little fuel to burn, a sloth makes the most of it.

Deliberate movement shouldn’t be confused for weakness, however. Sloths can hang from branches for hours, showing off some impressive stamina. And because they spend most of their time high up in trees, they have no need for rapid movement to evade predators.

There is, however, one major downside to the sloth's leisurely lifestyle. Owing to their meager diet, they typically only have to poop once per week. Like going in a public bathroom, this can be a stressful event, as it means going to the ground and risking detection by predators—which puts their lives on the line. Worse, that slow bowel motility means they’re trying to push out nearly one-third of their body weight in feces at a time. It's something to consider the next time you feel envious of their chill lifestyle.

Have you got a Big Question you'd like us to answer? If so, let us know by emailing us at bigquestions@mentalfloss.com.

Are Any of the Scientific Instruments Left on the Moon By the Apollo Astronauts Still Functional?

Apollo 11 astronaut Neil Armstrong left the first footprint on the Moon on July 20, 1969.
Apollo 11 astronaut Neil Armstrong left the first footprint on the Moon on July 20, 1969.
Heritage Space/Heritage Images/Getty Images

C Stuart Hardwick:

The retroreflectors left as part of the Apollo Lunar Ranging Experiment are still fully functional, though their reflective efficiency has diminished over the years.

This deterioration is actually now delivering valuable data. The deterioration has multiple causes including micrometeorite impacts and dust deposition on the reflector surface, and chemical degradation of the mirror surface on the underside—among other things.

As technology has advanced, ground station sensitivity has been repeatedly upgraded faster than the reflectors have deteriorated. As a result, measurements have gotten better, not worse, and measurements of the degradation itself have, among other things, lent support to the idea that static electric charge gives the moon an ephemeral periodic near-surface pseudo-atmosphere of electrically levitating dust.

No other Apollo experiments on the moon remain functional. All the missions except the first included experiment packages powered by radiothermoelectric generators (RTGs), which operated until they were ordered to shut down on September 30, 1977. This was done to save money, but also because by then the RTGs could no longer power the transmitters or any instruments, and the control room used to maintain contact was needed for other purposes.

Because of fears that some problem might force Apollo 11 to abort back to orbit soon after landing, Apollo 11 deployed a simplified experiment package including a solar-powered seismometer which failed after 21 days.

This post originally appeared on Quora. Click here to view.

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER