Since the Supreme Court's recent decision in R. A. V. v. St. Paul,(1) striking down on First Amendment grounds a municipal ordinance making it an offense display a symbol which one knows or has reason know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or Congress, state legislatures, and local governments have been considering what do next in the war against crimes. What is true for the nation is also true for New York State and New York City which, if anything, are more likely than other jurisdictions define the world in terms of group, especially racial, issues and interests. The R.A.V. decision provides an opportunity take stock of all recent anti-hate crime initiatives. While this symposium focuses mainly on substantive criminal law and the theory and constitutionality of crime legislation, my focus is on the implementation of a police-made crime reporting policy in New York City. While few cities will have the resources and manpower dedicate an entire unit identifying and investigating crimes, a new federal law mandates nationwide crime data collection.(2) Moreover, calls mark for special attention are likely continue no matter what the fate of post-R.A.V. decisions. The question is whether new motivation-specific criminal laws and police initiatives, of whatever type, can significantly remediate such deeply entrenched and sordid problems as racism, anti-semitism, and homophobia. The New York City Experience In 1980, in response a spate of attacks on synagogues, Police Commissioner Robert McGuire ordered a study of what could be done. The report led directly the establishment of a Bias Crime Unit, consisting of one captain, one sergeant, and ten investigators, that would report directly the Department's highest ranking uniformed officer. (Later the unit expanded eighteen persons.) The unit's original mission was to monitor and investigate acts committed against a person, group, or place because of race, religion or ethnicity. In 1985 the Bias Unit's jurisdiction was extended include motivated by anti-gay and lesbian prejudice, but it has not yet been extended motivated by other prejudices and group hatreds--for example, gender, age, union membership or non-membership, mental or physical handicap, wealth, neighborhood, and so on. Undoubtedly, however, if crime jurisprudence survives the current constitutional attack, it will expand cover against members of some or all of these groups as well. Indeed, it is not inconceivable that some day practically all generic will also constitute hate crimes of one species or another. While the Bias Unit shares responsibility with the NYPD as a whole for solving bias crimes, it is uniquely responsible for deciding whether particular are bias-related, a job fraught with sensitive, even potentially explosive, social and political ramifications. Once new official categories are created, they are likely have real-world political effects. New Yorkers and citizens of other cities may come increasingly assess the state of racial and other inter-group relations in their cities and neighborhoods, and perhaps assess their own sentiments toward members of other groups, according official pronouncements and statistics about crimes. Classifying a particular crime as bias-motivated or non-bias-motivated is no easy matter. It depends upon a subjective judgment about the motivation of an offender or, as in many cases, the motivations of multiple offenders whose personalities and behaviors are likely be complex, confused, and sociopathic. Like many crime statistics and substantive crime statutes, the NYPD's definition of bias crime requires only that the offender's biased motivation be in part responsible for the offense.(3) Would it be implausible say that practically any inter-group crime was in part motivated by bias, especially when multiple offenders were involved? …
Read full abstract
Jan 17, 2006
Jennifer Fisher Wilson 
Open Access