Abstract

Hate crimes were first recognised as a specific category of criminal conduct in the United States of America. Evidence of such recognition is supported by a number of state level and federal hate-crime laws that were enacted in the United States between the early 1980s and 1990s. There is a tendency in some American literature, however, to trace the recognition of hate crime as a specific category of criminal conduct to two specific historical time periods. The first historical period that is usually considered, is the nineteenth-century post-American Civil War period when federal civil-rights statutes were passed by the American Congress to protect vulnerable groups of people who were victimised because of their race and prior status as slaves. The second time period that is considered is the mid-twentieth century, post-Second World War era up to the period of the Civil-Rights Movement. Irrespective of the origins of hate crime as a category of criminal conduct, their recognition has spawned a new category of crime and criminal laws in the United States of America and internationally. Contemporary hate-crime laws recognise a wide spectrum of prejudices and biases. Despite the international trend, particularly in democratic Western nations towards the recognition of hate crimes and the enactment of hate-crime laws, the Republic of South Africa has yet to enact a hate-crime law.

Highlights

  • While the recognition of hate crime as a category of criminal conduct undoubtedly has its roots in the United States of America, there is no consensus as to the date when criminal conduct motivated by specific prejudices or biases was first accorded such recognition in American history

  • There is some suggestion that the recognition of hate crime as a specific category of criminal conduct and the origin of hate-crime laws may be traced to the postSecond World War period when bigotry based on race, ethnicity and gender were increasingly condemned by American society

  • Ehrlich68 opines that his term “ethnoviolence” which had hitherto been commonly used to refer to criminal conduct motivated by bias and prejudice was replaced by the term “hate crime” since it was a term that appealed to issues of crime, law and social control which were considered as legitimate issues by the media popularising such issues

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The non-recognition of hate crime as a specific category of criminal conduct in South African law has prompted recent calls for the enactment of hate-crime legislation. A hate crime may be described as criminal conduct which is motivated. The non-recognition of hate crime as a specific category of criminal conduct in South African law has prompted recent calls for the enactment of hate-crime legislation.. A hate crime consists of conduct which complies with the definition of a crime and which is motivated by the perpetrator’s bias or prejudice against the victim.. Several academic scholars agree that the United States of America has been at the forefront of the enactment of hate-crime legislation for more than two decades.. While the recognition of hate crime as a category of criminal conduct undoubtedly has its roots in the United States of America, there is no consensus as to the date when criminal conduct motivated by specific prejudices or biases was first accorded such recognition in American history.. Several academic scholars agree that the United States of America has been at the forefront of the enactment of hate-crime legislation for more than two decades. While the recognition of hate crime as a category of criminal conduct undoubtedly has its roots in the United States of America, there is no consensus as to the date when criminal conduct motivated by specific prejudices or biases was first accorded such recognition in American history. This article attempts to trace the origins of both hate crime as a specific category of criminal conduct as well as hate-crime laws

Post-American Civil-War origins of hate-crime laws
Levin 1999
The twentieth-century origins of hate-crime laws
According to Henderson
34 See Lawrence 1999
52 According to Wang 2000
Conclusion
75 See Hall 2013
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call