Hate Crimes

Learn more about the Task Force's work on hate crimes. Read our historical overview, explore our historical timeline tracing our longtime commitment to this issue and view our hate crimes issue map.

About Hate Crimes:

Anti-LGBT leaders argue that hate crimes laws punish unpopular but constitutionally protected thought and speech. But hate crimes laws are designed to punish actions, not thought or speech. These critics also focus on intent, claiming that all violence is motivated based on some kind of hate, or that it is hard to prove whether a perpetrator is specifically choosing a victim because of his or her real or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. The fact is, however, that the criminal justice system focuses on intent or motive all the time, particularly in sentencing. For example, the legal distinction between murder and manslaughter rests on whether the killer intended to kill and whether the killing was premeditated.

In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that hate crimes laws, and enhanced sentences based upon intent, are constitutional. In his decision, Chief Justice William Rehnquist specifically noted that judges have traditionally been allowed to consider the motivation of defendants when imposing sentences. Justice Rehnquist also noted that hate crimes inflict distinct emotional harm on their victims and can trigger greater social instability.

Hate crimes send a message of terror to an entire group and are therefore unlike a random act of violence. For example, the brutal murder of James Byrd, who was chained to the bumper of a truck and dragged down a street in Texas, sent a chilling message to African-Americans that racial violence and murder remain continued threats. Likewise, LGBT people wonder whether they will be the next Matthew Shepard. Hate crimes laws recognize the particular social threat of bias-motivated violence. Unfortunately, anti-LGBT groups like the Traditional Values Coalition and Focus on the Family oppose hate crimes laws.

Those who murder police officers face higher penalties than people who murder civilians, and terrorists who target federal buildings face higher penalties. In 1999, Congress passed a law that created harsher sanctions for countries that persecute religious freedoms. Such laws are not viewed as valuing some lives more than others. Instead, they send a message that certain crimes that strike at this country’s core values, such as the freedom to live free of persecution, will be punished and deterred by both enhanced penalties and federal involvement in the investigation and prosecution of the crime.