RECONIZING ANTI-HOMELESS VIOLENCE AS A HATE CRIME

By Professor Brian Levin
Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism, California State University, San Bernardino

After advocacy groups, such as NCH, and researchers consistently documented severe levels of violence against the homeless over the last several years an important issue has emerged in legal policy circles about exactly what to do about the problem. In over a half dozen states, including California, Florida, Maryland, and Texas legislation has been introduced to add homelessness to existing state hate crime laws. In addition, many of the nation’s most notable hate crime researchers have concluded that much anti-homeless violence should be categorized as a hate crime.

Hate crimes are discriminatory crimes where a substantial part of the motive is the actual or perceived status characteristic of another. Discrimination refers to the unequal treatment of people based on their membership in a group. The term “hate crime” itself is somewhat of a misnomer, because in the United States, abstract non-threatening expressions of bigotry are not criminally punishable. In the over 45 states that have hate crime laws, intentionally selecting a crime victim due to a socially recognizable status characteristic is either a distinct criminal offense itself or a factor that increases one’s sentence upon conviction for an underlying offense like assault.

The roots of modern hate crime statutes go back to the post Civil War period where laws were enacted to protect the exercise of various rights from racially based violence and intimidation. Over time some laws revolved around deterring interference with the exercise of particular basic rights, such as using public thoroughfares, housing, and voting without reference to the group characteristic of a potential victim. In other instances, laws focused less on the right a victim was exercising, but instead on his or her status characteristic.

In nearly every state with a hate crime law the protected status characteristic, such as race or religion, is specifically listed in the statute. Either way the result is the potential for greater punishment for victimizations that are based on those particular characteristics listed in the state’s hate crime law. One rationale for these distinct hate crime laws is that various characteristics relating to one’s actual or perceived identity place certain groups of people at a heightened risk of criminal victimization above and beyond that of the general population. Another rationale is that both victim subgroups and democratic societies as a whole suffer when socially identifiable status groups are singled out for prejudiced based violence.

These characteristics relate to how an attacker identifies a class of victim, and not whether a characteristic is technically “changeable” or mutable. Some have mistakenly contended that mutability is critical to inclusion in hate crime statutes.  This likely comes from the fact that both the origins of modern civil rights protections, and today’s largest victim groups involve race.  However, as civil rights and hate crime protections evolved it has become clear that people are targeted for discrimination and violence based on various mutable characteristics as well. Hate crime categories like religion, nationality, or disability are potentially mutable. The fact that one’s religion can be altered does not make it less worthy of protection-and for that reason it is covered in virtually every state statute. Furthermore, the fact that a particular status characteristic, like disability, is one that many would not choose has not precluded its inclusion in many state statutes either.

Thus, two key elements for inclusion of a characteristic in hate crime laws are an increased risk of victimization and discriminatory victim selection.  With most other types of non-hate crime financial gain or personal motive form the basis of victimization—thus allowing for a better opportunity at prevention, or at the very least, compliance to prevent escalation. However, when one is attacked because of an identity characteristic the risk of attack is enhanced because victims are not only attacked for what they do, but because of who they are.

Homeless people face notable other difficulties as crime victims. The lack of shelter and the effects of the elements make them more vulnerable to attack and defending themselves harder. In addition the homeless lack the legal protections available to people of means. Criminal statutes punish more severely those who illegally invade homes or who steal expensive items.

From a purely criminological perspective physical, bias-motivated attacks against the homeless in this country are indistinguishable from other hate crime-with one major exception. The homeless face a rate of victimization that far exceeds that of traditionally covered groups. The more reliable statistics arising from homicide data and victimization studies indicate that the homeless are among the nation’s most criminally vulnerable population. More than double the number of homeless people have been killed by assailants with no personal or economic motive since 1999, than all existing hate crime category victims combined.

Offender characteristics, motive, deterrence, injury levels, and weaponry are basically analogous to those found with all other hate crime victim groups. Assailants are often juveniles or young adults armed with imprecise weapons of opportunity like bricks, bottles or bats. Most rely on biased, soft-core prejudiced stereotypes that are triggered into action by a desire for thrill seeking, turf protection, peer validation, or notions of group superiority. Also telling is the fact that among the most hard core hatemongers, like neo-Nazi skinheads, prejudice and violence against the homeless is a notable part of their subculture as well.

The homeless are among the most victimized groups in the nation, but often fail to report crimes. The criminal laws have traditionally punished those who violate the homes and property of others. However, because the homeless own little and are without housing, their aggressors often face less severe sanctions if they are caught. While many crimes against the homeless involve motives other than prejudice many in fact do. It is time for the law to recognize that bias based attacks upon the homeless are every bit as much hate crimes as those motivated by other prejudice. To do otherwise not only neglects a serious crime problem, but denies the rightful communal condemnation of this prevalent, but often invisible form of violent prejudice.