RFFM.org Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza, National Director
Laws which prosecute individuals who participate in crimes driven by hate may sound like a good idea to the general public. However, as with any other issue, upon closer inspection things may not be as simple as they seem. When a hate crime law is violated, motivation is almost impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and often such laws are not applied equally.
A perfect example of how hate crime laws muddy the criminal justice system can be illustrated by the situation in Jena, Louisiana. Six African-American males were charged with attempted murder after they assaulted a white classmate. Justin Barker was knocked unconscious during the attack. A sixteen year old African-American, named Michael Brown, was the first individual of the six to be charged with attempted murder. Brown, who has an extensive rap sheet, was prosecuted as an adult and was serving time in a Louisiana prison before an appellate court overturned his conviction. The court claimed Brown and the five other defendants should not have been tried as adults. Brown was recently released on bail.
The case has generated national attention. In September, thousands descended on the small Louisiana town, including civil rights leaders Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. What once was a local issue left up to those in the community of Jena became a stage on which a debate over race relations in America was being waged.
One of the arguments advanced by Jackson, Sharpton and others regarded the failure by local and state officials to charge white students with violations of state hate crime laws. Some believe the racial tension in Jena began because of a tree that was on school property. Allegedly, only white students were allowed to congregate under the tree and when African-American students sat under the tree, therefore, challenging some sort of ridiculous tradition, trouble began. Three nooses were hung at the site and the white students who were involved were suspended. The community believed the incident and the turmoil which resulted from it were over. Yet, in reality, the tumult had just begun.
Civil rights activists wanted a greater penalty for the white students who hung the nooses. There was a call for the white students to be charged with hate crimes and the mantra was quickly picked up by the national press. Most certainly it would have been reasonable for the white students to have been charged with intimidation, expelled from school or both. Nooses and lynching hold a significant meaning for African-Americans in the South, especially those who remember the Jim Crowe years which were in effect in the former Confederacy between 1876 and 1965. These laws permitted segregation through the implementation of "separate, but equal." Also, Jim Crow laws prohibited blacks from voting and greatly restricted the civil rights of African-Americans in general. Subsequently, the reaction of some blacks can be well understood regarding the incident in Jena. But, from many reports, the community itself was well underway towards healing until outsiders ratcheted up racial tension in the region to the boiling point.
While there was a very boisterous appeal for the whites who hung the nooses to be charged with hate crimes, there was something missing from this argument. The six black students who attacked their fellow classmate were not charged with crimes of hate. In fact, there was no discussion by the community itself, civil rights activists or the dominant media of charging the so-called Jena 6 with a hate crime. Indeed, what is more serious? The hanging of the nooses or the actual beating of a human being--almost to the point of death? The lack of consistency here approaches absurdity and it seems impossible that anyone would miss the point. But it happened and it is still happening today.
Recently, the U.S. Senate passed a version of hate crime legislation, but before the U.S. House of Representatives follows suit and the President signs such a bill into law, some questions need to be answered and soul-searching must be done.
The situation in Jena alone points to the impossible scenarios that can arise concerning the prosecution of hate crimes. How do we know what is in the mind of those charged with hate crime violations? Who is protected by hate crime laws? Are such laws equally applied? Are there those not protected by hate crime legislation? Does hate crime legislation lead to prejudice?
Recently in Urbana, Illinois a number of predominantly white churches were vandalized. Messages of hate were painted and carved into the church signage and the churches themselves. Swastikas, the numbers 6-6-6, and images of upside-down crosses were part of the desecration which took place. Clearly, the vandalism was motivated by hate or, at least, one would think so. However, the Urbana Police did not refer to these crimes as being driven by hate.
The situation in Urbana raises the question; just who determines what qualifies as hate? If Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would have showed up in Urbana, would the police have approached these crimes in a different manner? If the churches were predominantly African-American, would the national media have led a crusade citing the prevalence of racial hatred in America?
The Jena, Louisiana case is, and should be, troubling to us all. However, until the law becomes as color-blind concerning race as we should be as individuals, hate crime laws have the potential to exacerbate racial relations in the United States--instead of heal them.
Comments