2002bepress Legal RepositoryOpen access

Deciding When Hate Is a Crime: The First Amendment, Police Detectives, and the Identification of Hate Crime

Jeannine Bell

Open full text 4 citations

Abstract

This Article adds to the debate a story of how hate crime law is enforced, based on the experiences of the police detectives who are required to enforce hate crime law. Part I of this Article provides a brief description of hate crime laws and argues that the police play an important role in the determination of how hate crime law is enforced and ultimately, whether defendants’ First Amendment rights will be respected. Part II describes critics’ concerns about defendants’ First Amendment rights and the narrow constitutional line that enforcers of hate crime law must walk between enforcing hate crime and policing free speech. In Part III, I describe how enforcers decide that incidents are hate crimes and argue that they are able to avoid the pitfalls identified by critics. The Article concludes in Part IV with a discussion of the disconnect between hate crimes and hate speech and an exploration of new justifications for hate crime law.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This Article adds to the debate a story of how hate crime law is enforced, based on the experiences of the police detectives who are required to enforce hate crime law. Part I of this Article provides a brief description of hate crime laws and argues that the police play an important role in the determination of how hate crime law is enforced and ultimately, whether defendants’ First Amendment rights will be respected. Part II describes critics’ concerns about defendants’ First Amendment rights and the narrow constitutional line that enforcers of hate crime law must walk between enforcing hate crime and policing free speech. In Part III, I describe how enforcers decide that incidents are hate crimes and argue that they are able to avoid the pitfalls identified by critics. The Article concludes in Part IV with a discussion of the disconnect between hate crimes and hate speech and an exploration of new justifications for hate crime law.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 4 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This Article adds to the debate a story of how hate crime law is enforced, based on the experiences of the police detectives who are required to enforce hate crime law. Part I of this Article provides a brief description of hate crime laws and argues that the police play an important role in the determination of how hate crime law is enforced and ultimately, whether defendants’ First Amendment rights will be respected. Part II describes critics’ concerns about defendants’ First Amendment rights and the narrow constitutional line that enforcers of hate crime law must walk between enforcing hate crime and policing free speech. In Part III, I describe how enforcers decide that incidents are hate crimes and argue that they are able to avoid the pitfalls identified by critics. The Article concludes in Part IV with a discussion of the disconnect between hate crimes and hate speech and an exploration of new justifications for hate crime law.

Key concepts: Hate crime, Law, Political science, Criminology, Identification (biology), First amendment, Sociology, Supreme court

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Deciding When Hate Is a Crime: The First Amendment, Police Detectives, and the Identification of Hate Crime — Research Paper | ScholarLens