The shocking Facebook Live video documenting the torture, both physical and verbal, of an 18-year-old mentally disabled man was reprehensible beyond belief. Even more shocking were the charges. Among them were torture and kidnapping, but one stood out amongst them all: hate crime. While difficult to prove, hate crime in the U.S. is well documented despite the small number of actual charges and convictions that appear in court records. It is a fact that to be charged with a hate crime is actually quite rare. For example, vandalism and/or other property crimes often overrule whatever religiously motivated prejudices and undertones that are in direct relation to a swastika being drawn on a Jewish grave or place of worship.
A hate crime “commonly refers to unlawful, racist, destructive, or threatening conduct where the perpetrator is motivated by prejudice towards the victim’s presumed social group.” (Crutchfeld). While this is not a legal working definition, the key word is presumed. Why or how could these four individuals involved in such a heinous criminal act assume that the man they tortured was a supporter of Trump is beyond me, but what is known is that there was certainly violence, racially charged language, and threatening conduct all in the name of his presumed social group (white males, who may or may not have voted for Trump). The presumed social group is known as a motivating factor - this is a characteristic of a hate crime. In this specific case, we see an example of bigoted motivation, in which the perpetrator attacks out of contempt for the perceived social characteristics of the victim. This is a direct desire to terrorize a broader social group, to lash out against targets because he or she fears or despises the group to which they belong. However, it should be noted that motivation is extremely difficult to prove and determine.
For a more analysis-driven interpretation, hate crimes usually point to any one of six different theories that can be used for explaining bias motivation, taken from Robert Crutchfeld's Crime Readings:
Psychological: generally assumes a necessary psychological cause. Leading definitions of hate crime presuppose individual hostility towards the victim's social groups.
Social-psychological: seeks to identify not only the source of potentially violent prejudicial orientations but also the circumstances under which they will express themselves.
Historical-cultural: emphasis is placed on political discourse and political culture, with importance placed on the propensities for hate being rooted in longstanding cultural traditions and patterns of behavior.
Sociological: focuses on the impact of collective or individual losers of modernization on hate crime.
Economic hate crimes: rooted in displaced frustration and competition for material resources.
Politically motivated hate crimes: seek to explain the mobilization of grievances (not commonly used or referred to).
Which category does the hate crime in question fall under? In truth, I firmly believe that any of the previously mentioned categories are justifiable in explaining the theoretical backing as to why these four men and women subjected an innocent to such brutalities; but in particular, the sociological and political theories are extremely sufficient.
The media, our Facebook feed and academics alike may continue to try breaking down the violence and analyzing it as a part of some broader social phenomenon in order to make sense of what happened. The fact remains: laws alone cannot determine what is and what is not a hate crime; police must have broad discretion in order to charge an individual. In order to charge an individual under most bias crime statutes, police and prosecutors must produce evidence of bias motivation; in this case, the Facebook live video was more than sufficient. The reason for why those involved in this crime were charged of a hate crime was due to the obvious racially charged language and acts that were carried out in the video.
It should also be noted that because the man mentally disabled, this too constitutes a determining factor in the hate crime charges. Despite the outright evidence against them, I have read countless posts and commentary over the last week debating about whether or not this truly constitutes a hate crime. While many of my Facebook “friends” argue about “reverse racism”, BLM or President-elect Trump, we cannot forget that the man who was brutalized in such a horrible manner both psychologically and physically was a human being, someone with real feelings, real issues, a person just like everyone else who should never be subjected to the volatile treatment that he experienced. I still somewhat unsure of the opinion of my peers, but I will certainly call this for what it is: a hate crime.
Source: Crutchfield, Robert D., Charis E. Kubrin, and George S. Bridges. Crime: readings. SAGE, 2007.
