A Contemporary Review of Hate Crime Legislation in the United States

• Author: Matthew A. Bills,Michael S. Vaughn
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/08874034221112847
• Published date: 01 March 2023
• Date: 01 March 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/08874034221112847

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2023, Vol. 34(2) 115 –139

© The Author(s) 2022

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/08874034221112847

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

A Contemporary Review of

Hate Crime Legislation in the

United States

Matthew A. Bills1 and Michael S. Vaughn1

Abstract

Hate-motivated crime remains problematic in the United States. California passed the

first hate crime law in 1978; Congress followed in 1990. States continue to amend

their hate crime legislation, producing an amalgam of statutory provisions. This article

creates a conceptual framework from which to classify hate crime legislation across

the 50 states and Washington, DC. Laws were identified through Westlaw. Analyses

compared the types of crimes covered, discrete and insular minorities protected,

prosecutorial alternatives, mandates for law enforcement agencies, and additional

rights provided to victims among states’ legislation. Considerable variation in scope

and content of hate crime legislation exists among states, leaving several vulnerable

groups unprotected, law enforcement underprepared, and victim rights and resources

sparse. Future directions for hate crime policy and legislation are discussed.

Keywords

hate crime, hate crime policy, hate crime law, hate crime victims

Introduction

Hate crimes have existed throughout American history; however, the terminology hate

crime is more contemporary, starting in the 1970s with lawmakers and advocacy

groups calling attention to perceptions of what was at the time an outbreak of crimes

motivated by bias toward certain groups (Cogan, 2002; Grattet et al., 1998; Grattet &

Jenness, 2001; Jenness, 2007). Advocacy efforts targeting hate crime can attribute

their origination and sustainment to other social movements that began advocating for

1Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, USA

Corresponding Author:

Matthew A. Bills, Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Sam Houston State University 816

17th Street, Huntsville, TX 77341, USA.

Email: mab010@shsu.edu

1112847CJPXXX10.1177/08874034221112847Criminal Justice Policy ReviewBills and Vaughn

research-article2022

116 Criminal Justice Policy Review 34(2)

marginalized individuals decades ago. The civil rights movement, women’s rights

movements, and activism for sexual minorities and persons with disabilities have all

pushed for more attention to hate crimes and those affected by them (Grattet & Jenness,

2001; Jenness, 1999; Sheehan et al., 2021). Although these movements have divergent

groups for which they advocate, they unite in their fight against hate (Cogan, 2002;

Grattet & Jenness, 2001; Jenness, 2007; Jenness & Grattet, 1996). More recent advo-

cacy efforts, such as those for sexual minorities, transgender individuals, and individu-

als with disabilities (Bostock v. Clayton County Board of Commissioners, 2019; Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc.,

2018; Zarda v. Altitude Express Inc., 2019), are still establishing the presence of those

groups in hate crime legislation.

Currently, discussion of hate crimes occurs across the United States in news stories,

public discourse, among academics, and within the criminal legal system, in part due

to the efforts and dedication of resources from advocacy groups. Major events, such as

the 2016 Pulse Night Club shooting in Orlando, Florida, and the 2019 shooting in El

Paso, Texas, have brought even more attention to hate-motivated crime nationwide,

leading to further calls for improved policy and law. States and the federal government

alike have enacted legislation to address hate crime, from denoting protected groups to

criminalizing certain acts. The content of this legislation differs significantly, which

the current study will review in greater detail.

This variation can be partially attributed to differences in how hate crime is defined,

as there is no universally agreed-upon empirical definition for hate crime (Chakraborti,

2018; Vergani & Navarro, 2021). This status persists today, but collectively, hate

crimes are generally defined as criminal acts committed against people, property, and/

or organizations because of the group they identify with/belong to or are perceived to

belong to (e.g., Black, Jewish, Muslim, sexual minority; Chakraborti & Garland, 2012;

Cogan, 2002; Hall, 2013; Uhrich, 1999). The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI,

n.d.) currently defines hate crimes as “a committed criminal offense which is moti-

vated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias(es) against a race, religion, disability,

sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.” Due to the U.S. criminal legal

system’s decentralized nature, states have their own definitions and guidelines for hate

crimes, which do not always align with the FBI definition. Indeed, there is consider-

able variation in protected classes and punishable offenses, depending on where one is

in the country.

The combination of the prevalence of hate crime in the United States (FBI, n.d.;

Kena & Thompson, 2021), inconsistent reporting (Lantz et al., 2019; Lockwood et al.,

2022), and variation between states in what is covered by hate crime laws all point to

the importance of studying hate crime legislation. States across the country have con-

sistently changed aspects of their hate crime legislation, including recent substantial

changes by Utah in 2019 and Georgia in 2020, making it difficult to follow for those

not proximally involved with their amendment and enforcement. Even for those who

are more closely associated, such as criminal justice actors, the fluid nature of hate

crime legislation and related agency policies, and lack of quality, related information

and training may create confusion on how they should handle hate-motivated incidents