(MintPress) – Recent reports suggest George Zimmerman, who faces charges in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, may have to defend himself from hate crime allegations that say he profiled and stalked Martin before killing him. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is looking into possible hate crime charges, which would require prosecutors to prove that Zimmerman targeted Martin based on the color of his skin. Hate crimes, however, are difficult to prove and the all-encompassing terms and has become a subject of political debate.
Florida television station WFTV reports that the more serious charges made against Zimmerman could result in life in prison or the potential for the death penalty. Zimmerman currently faces second-degree murder charges.
The station’s legal analyst, Bill Sheaffer, said the difficulty with a hate crime prosecution against Zimmerman would stem from proving that the sole reason Zimmerman approached and shot Martin was based on skin color. Sheaffer also acknowledged that the case has already seen its share of inconsistent statements from witnesses and the defense.
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), an organization that fights anti-semitism and bigotry in the United States, said hate crime cases rarely advance through the courts because they are difficult to prove and legal representation is more difficult to find for those cases.
“Some prosecutors have expressed a reluctance to prosecute bias crimes because of the additional evidentiary burden at trial,” the ADL wrote on its website.
In 2009, President Barack Obama signed legislation that expanded hate crime protections by making it a federal crime to target someone based on sexual orientation or gender. The issue became politicized when conservative groups and religious organizations expressed concern over whether their anti-homosexuality stances could be criminalized, arguing that the First Amendment protects their speech. Attorney General Eric Holder made it clear that Obama limited the scope of hate crimes to physical abuse and violent acts, not speech-based criticisms.
With that, Congress defines “hate crime” as “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.” The FBI is clear that hate itself is not a crime and says it is mindful of protecting civil liberties and freedom of speech.
States have adopted their own hate crime legislation in regards to sexual orientation and gender identity prior to and after Obama signed the 2009 federal law. Thirteen states have clauses that include both sexual orientation and gender identity in their hate crimes laws while 19 states include neither sexual orientation nor gender identity in their laws. A handful of states include at least one of the demographics in their hate crime laws.
The degree of variance seen state-by-state with hate crime legislation shows that the laws are far from static. Rob White, with the Criminology and Research Unit at the University of Tasmania, Australia, wrote in the publication “Theoretical Criminology” that politics is the driving force behind a state’s or nation’s response to crime and the dictation of what constitutes as “hate.”
“Responding to hate crimes is first and foremost a political process, one which evolves and mutates as circumstances dictate, transforming the social landscape and bringing intended as well as unintended consequences,” White wrote.
Adjusting with the times
Two months prior to Obama expanding the federal hate crime law, Holder spoke in Washington to highlight instances of what he called “violence masquerading as political activism.” Holder was referencing a rash of instances over a two-week period that saw three killed in alleged hate crimes, all of which had a political undertone.
In one instance, a man identifying himself as a white supremacist and Holocaust denier fatally shot a security guard at the Holocaust museum in Washington DC. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) said the man, James von Brunn, had “an extremely long history with neo-Nazis and white supremacists.”
In another instance, abortion provider, George Tiller, was killed 10 days before while attending a Sunday morning mass at his church by an anti-abortion activist.
During an address, Holder said it was time to update hate crime laws to be more inclusive of groups and people that are targeted in the 21st century. Two months after his address, Obama signed the hate crime expansion into law.
The influx in hate groups has also taken off at alarming rates. “Patriot” groups, which identify as a radical right anti-government movement, saw their numbers rise from 824 groups in 2010 to 1,274 in 2011. The SPLC has acknowledged that the radical groups have been involved in actions that “are growing signs that the extremist movement is already producing significant acts of terrorism.”
But pin-pointing an act as a hate crime is a tough process as the burden of proof is enough to keep legal representation away. In an analysis of all crimes committed in 2008, small fractions were deemed to be motivated by guidelines of hate crimes. Of the 834,885 aggravated assaults reported in 2008, 1,025 were charged as hate crimes, and of the 16,272 murders and non-negligent manslaughters reported, seven were classified as bias motivated.
The most recent hate crime conviction came in March when a former Rutgers University student was convicted of spying on his gay roommate’s sexual encounter with a webcam and streaming it over the Internet. In order for the hate crime convictions to stick, the jury had to decide whether the defense, Dharun Ravi, targeted his roommate, Tyler Clementi, “with the purpose to intimidate” based on sexual orientation.