Hate Crime and Incident Support

Any criminal offence perceived to be motivated by hate or prejudice towards a person’s or group of person’s sexual orientation, disability, gender identity, religion or race is classified under hate crime. On the other hand an incident that may either constitute or not constitute a criminal offence and which is perceived to be motivated by hate or prejudice towards the person’s or a group of people’s sexual orientation, disability, gender identity, religion or race is classified as a hate incident (“Learn About Hate Crimes”, 2019). A hate incident or hate crime can include making insulting gestures, arson, bullying, people doing distressing, intimating or frightening things, abusive remarks, a dispute with neighbors, threats, harassment and physical attacks. Hate crimes do not only victimize one victim but every member of the target group represented by the immediate target individual. An offence that is motivated by bias can cause varied discomfiture among members of the target group. In essence, this offence, as well as crime, can easily spread feelings of loathing as well as terror across an entire community. Other than the psychological impact, violent hate crimes can cause retaliatory as well as counter retaliatory tides. Therefore, bias-motivated criminal actions may carry more weight compared to other criminal acts. When the young men hanged the effigy of Michael Sam from the tree on their property, the action constituted hate incident and not hate crime because by hanging Michael’s effigy, on a tree in their own property, the young men’s actions did not constitute a criminal offence. Burning of effigies is not a punishable offence and the constitution. According to the Public Order Act 1986, burning of effigies cannot amount to an offence when other party or parties are exercising rights to freedom of speech as well as assembly. The actions of these parties must not interfere with the daily activities of other people in a manner likely to cause distress, raise alarm or cause harassment. The young men’s actions, therefore, do not amount to a criminal offence but rather a hate incidence. By placing the sign next to the tree indicating “Gay Pride Just Died,” the young men were expressing displeasure against gay pride. Their actions did not violate any persons’ right since they hanged the sign on a tree on the front lawn of their property. However, the victim understood that the actions were motivated by prejudice as well as hostility against him because of his sexual orientation, and thus the incident was a hate incident. Later on, the young men got in their pick-up truck and drove to a local park where they shouted anti-gay slogans to random people in the park. The incident can either be classified as a hate incident or not. If one or more people in the park was a member of the target group, in this case, a gay, the actions of the young men could be said to be hate incident, but if none of the people was a gay, the actions could not be regarded as a hate incident. On their way back home, the young men came across a gay couple, who were cuddling on a bench, outside of a restaurant. They pushed the men to the ground, grabbed their money and cell phones, hurled anti-gay slurs and ran off. The victims had to cry out for help, and a passerby had to call 911 from her cell phone. By physically assaulting the gay couple and grabbing their phones, the young men committed a crime and thus, a hate crime. The incident did not only victimize one victim but every member of the target group represented by the immediate target gay couple. The young men’s actions were motivated by bias and could easily cause discomfiture among members of the target group. Other than the psychological impact, the crime could easily cause a retaliatory as well as a counter retaliatory tide. Supposing that, the couple had a firearm; they could have used it against the young men, thus aggravating the matter further. Their bias-motivated criminal actions may have carried more weight compared to other criminal acts. IACP is tasked with investigating as well as studying conditions as well as situations with the potential to encourage or induce crime. As a 15 year veteran police of the Local Police Department, my first response after arriving on the scene would be securing the scene; stabilizing the hate crime victims; requesting medical attention if necessary; ensure victims’ safety; preserve the crime scene; collect physical evidence such as threatening letters, spray paint cans, hate literature as well as other symbolic objects used by the groups. I would also conduct record information as well as preliminary investigation on the suspected perpetrators’ identity, witness identity, prior occurrences with the victim or the area as well as the statements made by suspects. I would also arrest the perpetrators if the probable cause exists. I would also take care not to deny or confirm the crime in the presence of the victim for the determination would be made later during the investigative process. 

References 

Dixon, D. (1987). Protest and disorder: the Public Order Act 1986. Critical Social Policy , 7 (19), 90-98. doi: 10.1177/026101838700701908 

(2019). Retrieved 18 September 2019, from https://www.theiacp.org/resources/responding-to- hate-crimes-a-police-officers-guide-to-investigation-and-prevention\ 

Learn About Hate Crimes. (2019). Retrieved 18 September 2019, from https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/learn-about-hate-crimes