Order Code RL33403
Hate Crime Legislation
Updated July 18, 2007
William J. Krouse
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division

---

Hate Crime Legislation
Summary
Current law defines hate crime as any crime against either person or property in
which the offender intentionally selects the victim because of the victim’s actual or
perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual
orientation. Hate crimes are not separate and distinct offenses under current federal
law. Rather, hate crimes are traditional crimes, during which the offender is
motivated by one or more biases that are considered to be particularly reprehensible
and damaging to society as a whole. Furthermore, federal jurisdiction over hate
crime is limited to certain civil rights offenses, which are considered to be “hate
crimes” when it is determined that the offender was motivated by a bias against race,
color, religion, national origin, and, in limited instances, disability.
In the 110th Congress, there stands a reasonable possibility that hate crime
legislation will be considered, as similar legislation was passed in the House during
the 109th Congress and in the Senate during the 106th and 108th Congresses. On
March 20, 2007, Representative John Conyers, chair of the House Judiciary
Committee, introduced the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act
(H.R. 1592). The House passed this bill on May 3, 2007, by a vote of 237-180.
Senator Edward Kennedy, a key sponsor and leading supporter of such legislation in
previous Congresses, has introduced a similar bill (S. 1105). In addition,
Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee introduced the David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention
Act of 2007 (H.R. 254), and Representative Carolyn Maloney, the Hate Crime
Statistics Improvement Act (H.R. 1164).

Opponents of hate crime legislation view creating separate federal offenses for
hate crime as redundant and largely symbolic, arguing that separate hate crime
offenses would be in addition to the legal prohibitions for traditional crime that
already exist under either federal or state law. They also contend that in most cases
the federal nexus is tenuous, and that such offenses are best handled at the state and
local level. Proponents of creating a separate and distinct federal offense for hate
crime maintain that there is a fundamental difference between ordinary crime and
hate crime. They believe that hate crimes are often perpetrated to send a message of
threat and intimidation to a wider group. They argue that the effects of hate crime
extend beyond the particular victim and reflect more pervasive patterns of
discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, and other
characteristics.
At issue for Congress is whether the prevalence and harmfulness of hate crime
warrants greater federal intervention to ensure that such crimes are systematically
addressed at all levels of government. Another related issue Congress may choose
to consider is the completeness and comprehensiveness of national hate crime data.
A Department of Justice-sponsored study concluded that hate crime statistics
collected by the Federal Bureau of Investigation do not capture an accurate picture
of hate crime nationally. Although there is nearly unanimous consent that hate crime
is deplorable, determining the definitive federal role in addressing hate crime has
proven elusive, as reflected in the legislative history and ongoing congressional
debate. This report will be updated to reflect future legislative action.

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Overview of the Hate Crime Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Historical Evolution of Hate Crime Policy and Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Early Civil Rights Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Second Wave of Civil Rights Movements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Anti-Hate Crime Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
ADL Model Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Establishing Baseline Hate Crime Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Gender and the Hate Crime Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Sexual Orientation and the Hate Crime Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Hate Crime and Current Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Federal Civil Rights Statutes and Hate Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Hate Crime Statistics Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Hate Crime Sentencing Enhancements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Violence Against Women Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Church Arson Prevention Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
U.S. Armed Forces and Hate Crime Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Federal Hate Crime Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Federal Grants for Hate Crime Prevention Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
VAWA Domestic and Sexual Abuse Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Federal Hate Crime Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) and Hate Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
BJS Hate Crime Victimization Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Reporting Hate Crime: Complications and Shortcomings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
NBIRS Hate Crime Statistics and Juveniles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Hate Crime Legislative Action in Recent Congresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Hate Crime Bills in the 110th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007
(H.R. 1592) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 254) . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Hate Crimes Statistics Improvement Act of 2007 (H.R. 1164) . . . . . . . . . . 23
Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act 2007 (S. 1105) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Possible Options and Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Should Federal Jurisdiction Be Broadened? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Should Baseline Statistics Be Improved? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Should Gender Be Included in Hate Crime Statistics? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Should Breakouts for Juveniles Be Included? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

---

Should Federal Training for Law Enforcement Be Improved
and Increased? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
List of Tables
Table 1. Eleven-Year Hate Crime Summary Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

---

Hate Crime Legislation
Most Recent Developments
Current federal jurisdiction over hate crimes is limited to investigating and
prosecuting certain civil rights offenses that are considered “hate crimes,” when it is
determined that the offender was motivated by a bias against race, color, religion,
national origin, and, in limited instances, disability.1 There stands a reasonable
possibility that such legislation will be considered in the 110th Congress, as similar
legislation was passed in the House during the 109th Congress and in the Senate
during the 106th and 108th Congresses.
On March 20, 2007, Representative John Conyers, chair of the House Judiciary
Committee, introduced the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act
(H.R. 1592). As described below, similar legislation sponsored by Representative
Conyers was passed by the House in the 109th Congress. On April 17, the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security held a hearing on H.R.
1592. While the subcommittee approved of H.R. 1592 with little opposition on April
24, the full Judiciary Committee considered the bill for a contentious 10 hours at
markup on the next day.2 Representative Lamar Smith, the ranking minority
member, reportedly led much of the opposition against H.R. 1592, contending that:3
In my view, all victims should have equal worth in the eyes of the law.... If
someone intended to harm a person, no motive makes them more or less culpable
for that conduct.
Despite vigorous opposition, the full Judiciary Committee approved H.R. 1592
with amendments by a “party-line” vote of 20-14.4 Several Republican amendments
were considered, but most were defeated.5 In a press release, Chairman Conyers
stated that:6
1 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, A
Policymaker’s Guide to Hate Crimes, NCJ 162304, March 1997, p. 8.
2 Elaine S. Povich, “Hate Crimes Bill Wrangles Through House Judiciary,” Congress Daily,
April 25, 2007.
3 Colby Itkowitz, “Panel Approved Bill Broadening Hate Crimes to Cover Gender, Sexual
Orientation,” CQ Today — Legal Affairs, April 25, 2007, 10:37 p.m.
4 Elaine S. Povich, “Hate Crimes Bill Wrangles Through House Judiciary,” Congress Daily,
April 25, 2007.
5 Ibid.
6 U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, “House Judiciary Committee
(continued...)

---

CRS-2
H.R. 1592 offers federal protection, in conjunction with state and local officials,
for victims of hate crimes targeted because of their race, religion, sexual
orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. These crimes constitute an
assault not against the victim, but against our communities and against the very
foundation of Democracy.7
The House passed H.R. 1592 on May 3, 2007, by a vote of 237-180.
Senator Edward Kennedy, a key sponsor and leading supporter of hate crimes
legislation in previous Congresses, has introduced a bill (S. 1105) that is nearly
identical to H.R. 1592. In addition, Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee has
introduced the David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 254), and
Representative Carolyn Maloney, the Hate Crime Statistics Improvement Act (H.R.
1164).
Introduction
Current law defines hate crime to include any crime against either person or
property, in which the offender intentionally selects the victim because of the
victim’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender,
disability, or sexual orientation.8 Hate crimes are not separate and distinct offenses
under current federal law; rather, they are traditional crimes that are committed by
individuals who are motivated by one or more biases that are considered to be
damaging to society as a whole.9 Hate crime is also known as bias crime.
Federal jurisdiction over hate crime, however, is limited to investigating and
prosecuting certain civil rights offenses. Those civil rights violations are considered
“hate crimes” when it is determined that the offender was motivated by a bias against
race, color, religion, national origin, and, in limited instances, disability.10 For bias-
motivated offenses, there are enhanced penalties under federal law.
6 (...continued)
Passes Federal Hate Crimes Bill,” April 25, 2007, available at [http://judiciary.house.gov/
newscenter.aspx?A=807].
7 Ibid.
8 28 U.S.C. §994 note.
9 Many traditional crimes involve hate perhaps in the traditional sense, yet they are not
classified as “hate crime.” The distinguishing feature of a hate crime is that the offender is
motivated to move against the victim, because of an ascribed characteristic that marks the
victim as a justifiable target in the mind of the offender. Nevertheless, determining an
offender’s motivation is difficult in many cases. Moreover, the definition of hate crimes
varies among states. Some states, for example, do not include sexual orientation as a victim
characteristic in their definitions of hate crime. Consequently, such states would likely not
report a crime committed against an individual because of their sexual orientation as a hate
crime.
10 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, A
Policymaker’s Guide to Hate Crimes, NCJ 162304, March 1997, p. 8.

---

CRS-3
At issue for Congress is whether the prevalence and harmfulness of hate crime
rises warrants greater federal intervention. Although there is a consensus that hate
crime is deplorable, determining the definitive federal role in addressing hate crime
appears to be elusive, as reflected in the legislative history and ongoing congressional
debate.
This report provides an overview of the hate crime debate, with background on
current law, hate crime statistics, a legislative history of hate crime prevention bills
in recent Congresses, and discussion of possible options and issues for Congress.
This report is not intended to be an analysis of the constitutional or other legal issues
that often arise as part of the hate crime debate. For such an analysis, see CRS
Report RL32850, Hate Crimes: Legal Issues, by Paul Starett Wallace, Jr.
Overview of the Hate Crime Debate
Proponents of creating a separate and distinct federal offense for hate crime
maintain that there is a fundamental difference between ordinary crime and hate
crime. They contend that hate crime is often perpetrated to send a message of threat
and intimidation to a wider group. Furthermore, they argue that the effects of hate
crime extend beyond the particular victim and reflect more pervasive patterns of
discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, and other
characteristics. In addition, proponents argue that those characteristics, whether real
or perceived, identify an individual as belonging to a group that has been marked for
persecution and discrimination in the past, and to tolerate any further persecution and
discrimination on such counts, as manifested in either crimes against persons or
property, is no longer acceptable.
Opponents of creating a separate and distinct federal offense for hate crime often
counter that the victim of any crime suffers regardless of the offender’s motive. They
claim that the perpetrator of an assault in the course of an armed robbery should be
punished no less vigorously, no matter what his motivation might have been. They
maintain that the public interest would be better served if law enforcement efforts
addressed crime across-the-board, rather than focusing on the offender’s motive.
Opponents also view a separate federal offense for hate crime as redundant and
largely symbolic, asserting that a separate hate crime offense would be in addition to
the legal prohibitions for traditional crime that already exist under either federal or
state law. In addition, they argue that the federal nexus is tenuous, and that such
offenses should be handled at the state and local level.11
11 The federal nexus hinges upon powers given to the federal government under the U.S.
Constitution. For analysis of federal police powers and hate crime, see CRS Report
RL32850, Hate Crimes: Legal Issues, by Paul Starett Wallace, Jr.

---

CRS-4
Historical Evolution of Hate Crime Policy
and Legislation12
Social scientists view modern hate crime policy in the United States as having
evolved, in part, out of the civil rights movement that began in the mid-1950s.13
Although the initial focus of the civil rights movement was on promoting the legal,
social, and economic status of African-Americans, it soon expanded to include other
racial and ethnic minorities in the 1960s.14 Through nonviolent protest and other
forms of political activism, these “rights-based movements” coalesced to expand
civil rights and reduce violence directed at minorities.15
By the 1970s, the contemporary women’s rights movement and the gay and
lesbian rights movement constituted what some experts have termed the “second-
wave civil rights movements.”16 In addition, the crime victims’ movement emerged
as part of the women’s rights movement.17 According to social scientists, by the
1980s, support from both the wider civil rights movement and the crime victims’
movement provided the broad constituent base that proved critical to the formation
of the early anti-hate-crime movement.18 Even within the anti-hate crime movement,
however, defining what constituted a hate crime and who would be protected against
such crimes proved a matter of controversy.19
Early Civil Rights Movement
In the not so distant past, some types of bias-motivated violence were in whole
or part sanctioned by governments. Federal and state statutes that once legalized
slavery loom large as examples of state-sanctioned violence in the United States.
Under these laws, Africans and their descendants were subject to acts that resulted
12 Janice Cheryl Beaver contributed to portions of this section.
13 Valerie Jenness and Kendal Broad, Hate Crimes: New Social Movements and the Politics
of Violence (New York: Aldine De Gruyter, 1997), p. 23. (Hereafter cited as Jenness and
Broad, Hate Crimes.)
14 Ibid., p. 24.
15 Valerie Jenness and Ryken Grattet, Making Hate Crime a Crime: From Social Movement
to Law Enforcement (New York: American Sociological Association, Rose Series in
Sociology, 2001), p. 26. (Hereafter cited as Jenness and Grattet, Making Hate Crime a
Crime.)
16 See Ryken Grattet and Valerie Jenness, “The Birth and Maturation of Hate Crime Policy
in the United States,” in Barbara Perry ed., Hate and Bias Crime: A Reader (New York:
Routledge, 2003), p. 392.
17 Terry A. Maroney, “The Struggle Against Hate Crime Movement at a Crossroads,” New
York University Law Review, vol 73 (May 1998), pp. 574-575. (Hereafter cited as Maroney,
“The Struggle Against Hate Crime.”)
18 Jenness and Grattet, Making Hate Crime a Crime, p. 27.
19 James B. Jacobs and Kimberly Potter, Hate Crimes: Criminal Law & Identity Politics
(Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 72. (Hereafter cited as Jacobs and Potter, Hate Crimes.)

---

CRS-5
in millions of deaths and abuses, including beatings, rape, torture, branding, forced
separation of families, trafficking in human beings, and exploitation.20 Although
slavery was ended, following Reconstruction, southern states adopted comprehensive
segregation laws known as “Jim Crow” laws. These laws, which were upheld by the
Supreme Court, effectively institutionalized post-slavery forms of violence and hate
against African-Americans from the 1870s to the 1960s.21
With the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s, the struggle to address
Jim Crow laws and other forms of discrimination was pioneered by the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and Southern
Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC).22 Under the leadership of Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr. and others, the United States made great strides in addressing social
injustices associated with the residual effects of slavery and other forms of
institutionalized discrimination that were contrary to the principle of “equal justice
for all” as set out in the U.S. Constitution.23 Other disadvantaged groups were
influenced by the early civil rights movement, particularly the success of the NAACP
and SCLC.24 Based on those models, in part, and the principle of nonviolent protest,
minority groups mobilized by organizing themselves into nongovernmental
organizations and advocacy groups.25
Second Wave of Civil Rights Movements
As part of the “second wave of civil rights movements,” the women’s rights
movement and the gay and lesbian rights movement emerged in the 1970s out of the
wider civil rights movement.26 Particularly in the women’s rights movement, the
issue of the rights of victims of violent crime became an important issue, as crime
victims and their advocates voiced concern about the “secondary victimization” of
victims of rape and domestic abuse.27 Secondary victimization is a term used to refer
to the psychological trauma suffered by crime victims at the hands of the criminal
20 See David Eltis, The Rise of African Slavery in the Americas (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2000).
21 Richard Wormser, The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow: The African-American Struggle
Against Discrimination, 1865-1954 (New York: Franklin Watts, 1999).
22 Gilbert Jonas, Freedom’s Sword: the NAACP and the Struggle Against Racism in
America, 1909-1969 (New York, NY: Routledge, 2005). Also, see Harvard Sitkoff, The
Struggle for Black Equality, 1954-1992 (New York: Hill and Wang, 1981).
23 Taylor Branch, Parting the Waters: America in the King Years, 1954-63 (New York:
Simon and Schuster, 1988).
24 Jenness and Grattet, Making Hate Crime a Crime, p. 24.
25 Ibid., p. 26.
26 Ryken Grattet and Valerie Jenness. “The Birth and Maturation of Hate Crime Policy in
the United States,” in Barbara Perry ed., Hate and Bias Crime: A Reader (New York:
Routledge, 2003), p. 392.
27 Jenness and Grattet, Making Hate Crime a Crime, p. 27.

---

CRS-6
justice system.28 In particular, the crime victims’ movement was critical of the
Warren Supreme Court for expanding defendants’ rights in criminal cases.29
Advocates for greater crime victims’ rights asserted that in many cases the
perpetrators of crime were inadequately punished and victims were inadequately
protected.30 According to social scientists who have studied the hate crime
movement the crime victims’ rights movement lent impetus and considerable support
to the anti-hate crime movement.31
Anti-Hate Crime Movement
The convergence of the civil rights movement, the women’s movement, the gay
and lesbian movements, and the crime victims’ movement created an environment
that was open to a wider public discourse about how violence manifests itself as
discrimination brought on by deep-seated social biases.32 Out of this wider public
discourse, the anti-hate crime movement emerged, calling attention to “hate crime”
as a societal problem, which — in the view of the movement — warranted greater
legislative intervention at either the state or federal level, or both.33
ADL Model Legislation. By 1981, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai
B’rith (ADL) had developed proposed model hate crime legislation, and advocates
for tougher laws targeting “hate crime” began lobbying state and federal legislators.34
This model legislation consisted of five proposals that addressed vandalism directed
at religious institutions, intimidation, a civil action for both types of crime, data
collection, and police training.35 Based on one or more elements of this model
legislation, more than half the states had enacted hate crime legislation by 1994.36
Establishing Baseline Hate Crime Statistics. Since 1981, civil rights
advocacy groups, including the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the ADL, the
Coalition on Hate Crimes Prevention, and the Klanwatch Project, called for the
collection of national hate crime statistics.37 At that time, there was no national
source or mechanism for collecting hate crime data. Although some states collected
such data, characterizing hate crimes accurately, or determining the extent of hate
crimes nationally, was difficult, if not impossible. Nonetheless, civil rights advocates
maintained that such data would (1) provide an empirical basis from which to shape
28 Ibid.
29 Maroney, “The Struggle Against Hate Crime,” pp. 574-575.
30 Jenness and Grattet, Making Hate Crime a Crime, p. 27.
31 Ibid., p. 28.
32 Ibid., p. 30.
33 Maroney, “The Struggle Against Hate Crime,” p. 580.
34 Jenness and Broad, Hate Crimes, p. 32.
35 See discussion of model legislation at [http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/text_legis.asp].
36 Jenness and Broad, Hate Crimes, p. 40.
37 Ibid., p. 38.

---

CRS-7
public policy, (2) raise the consciousness of reporting law enforcement agencies, and
(3) stimulate local prevention strategies, more effective responses, and greater
sensitivity to the specific needs of hate crime victims.38 Although hate crime
proposals initially included categories of protected classes that were limited to race,
religion, and ethnicity, the scope of those provisions were later expanded to include
sexual orientation and gender.
Gender and the Hate Crime Debate. Within the ranks of hate crime
legislation supporters, the inclusion of gender under the hate crime statistics
legislation proved contentious. For example, anti-gender bias-motivated crime was
not included as a hate crime by the Coalition on Hate Crimes Prevention, one of the
leading advocacy groups.39 The coalition noted that statistics on domestic violence
and rape were already being collected.40 In many of these crimes, they pointed out
the offenders were acquaintances of the victims.41 They maintained that hate crime
involved attacks on victims because of their membership in a group, not because of
their individual identities.42 Women’s advocates countered that many crimes against
women are committed by persons other than acquaintances, and that such crimes are
often motivated by the offender’s irrational fear and hatred of women.43 And, even
if the offender was an acquaintance, violent crimes against women often involve an
element of misogyny.44
Some observers have noted that the coalition’s opposition to inclusion of anti-
gender bias under the definition of “hate crime” was likely based upon the notion
that, if it were included, other types of hate crime would be washed out by the
prevalence and sheer volume of anti-gender bias motivated crime (misogynistic
violence) against women.45
Sexual Orientation and the Hate Crime Debate. The inclusion of sexual
orientation as a category under proposed legislation also generated considerable
debate during the 1980s in congressional hearings on anti-gay violence and during
legislative debates leading to the Hate Crime Statistics Act (described below).46
Those debates often focused upon the question of whether sexual orientation should
38 Ibid., p. 38.
39 Jacobs and Potter, Hate Crimes, p. 72.
40 Ibid., p. 72.
41 Ibid.
42 Ibid.
43 Ibid., p. 73.
44 Ibid.
45 Ibid.
46 See U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice,
Anti-gay Violence, hearings, 99th Cong., 2nd sess., October 9, 1986; U.S. Congress, House
Committee on the Judiciary, Hate Crimes Statistics Act, report, 100th Cong., 2nd sess., April
20, 1988; Congressional Record, vol. 134 no. 70 (May 18,1988), p. H 3373; Congressional
Record, vol. 135 no 87 (June 27, 1989), p. H 3179.

---

CRS-8
be considered an ascribed and immutable characteristic like race or ethnicity, or a
matter of individual choice. In some cases, those favoring the inclusion of sexual
orientation as a category for which hate crime statistics should be gathered held the
former view, whereas those opposing such proposals often held the latter view. As
described below, Congress passed hate crime legislation in 1990 and 1994. While
sexual orientation was included as a category for which federal hate crime data would
be gathered, it has not been included as a protected category under federal civil rights
statutes. Federal authorities, consequently, have no jurisdiction over bias-motivated
crimes directed against individuals because of their sexual orientation.
Hate Crime and Current Law
The term “hate crime” became prevalent during the 1980s, when there appeared
to be an upward trend in violent crimes committed against persons for reasons related
to their race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and other characteristics.47 As
hate crime statistics were not collected nationally, however, it was unknown whether
hate crime was increasing, remaining the same, or decreasing. Nevertheless, the
perception that bias crime was on the rise was reflected in the effectiveness of the
anti-hate crime movement,48 and many states were prompted to enact legislation
against hate crimes.49
Congress responded by considering several proposals that addressed hate crime,
and it passed legislation that (1) required the Attorney General to capture hate crime
statistics annually; (2) increased penalties for certain civil rights offenses that were
determined to be bias-motivated; and (3) expanded federal jurisdiction over the
arson, destruction, or vandalism of religious property as well as violent interference
with an individual’s right to exercise religious freedom. Also, Congress attached
hate crime-related provisions to other pieces of legislation, such as the FY1997
47 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, A
Policymaker’s Guide to Hate Crimes, NCJ 162304 (March 1997), p. 1.
48 See generally James B. Jacobs and Kimberly Potter. Hate Crimes: Criminal Law &
Identity Politics (Oxford University Press: 1998). Also Maroney, p. 580.
49 High-profile incidents raised national consciousness about hate crime. Two of those
crimes included the 1984 shooting death of Alan Berg, a Denver radio talk show host, and
the 1986 beating of three African-American youth that resulted in the death of one of those
youth, in the Howard Beach neighborhood of Queens in New York City. Similar crimes
preceded enactment of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act (P.L. 101-275). Later in the mid-
1990s, the racially motivated 1995 murder of an African-American couple by three soldiers
from Fort Bragg in Fayetteville, North Carolina, as well as church burnings in Louisiana and
Alabama, prompted congressional action, which led in part to the Hate Crime Sentencing
Enhancements Act (P.L. 103-322) and the Church Arson Prevention Act (P.L. 104-455).
The brutal 1998 murders of James Byrd, because he was an African-American in Jasper,
Texas and of Matthew Shepherd, because he was gay, outside of Laramie, Wyoming have
appeared to increase the momentum of legislative proposals to create a separate and distinct
hate crime offense under federal law, even though suspects in both cases were tried for
murder under state law.

---

CRS-9
Defense Authorization Act and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Furthermore,
Congress appropriated funding for anti-hate crime training.
Federal Civil Rights Statutes and Hate Crime
Enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, section 245 of Title 18 of the
United States Code (U.S.C.) prohibits interference with certain “federally protected
activities.” Specifically, it prohibits the use of force, or threat of force, to injure,
intimidate, or interfere with any person for reasons related to their race, color,
religion, or national origin, while they are engaged in one of six listed protected
activities. Those federally protected activities include
! enrolling in or attending a public school or college;
! participating in or enjoying a service, program, facility, or activity
provided or administered by any state or local government;
! applying for or enjoying employment;
! serving in a state court as a grand or petit juror;
! traveling in or using a facility of interstate commerce; and
! enjoying the goods and services of certain places of public
accommodation.
Other civil rights statutes provide protection as well. According to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), its jurisdiction over hate crimes is primarily predicated
on section 245, and the following three statutes:
! 18 U.S.C. §241, Conspiracy Against Rights;
! 18 U.S.C. §247, Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996; and
! 42 U.S.C. §3631, Criminal Interference with Right to Fair
Housing.50
The FBI notes that there is no federal jurisdiction over any crimes (civil rights-
related or otherwise), in which the offender is motivated by a bias against the
victim’s sexual orientation. Also, there is only limited federal jurisdiction over
crimes motivated by a disability bias.51 In the latter case, federal jurisdiction is
limited to offenses under 42 U.S.C. §3631, pertaining to interfering with a person’s
right to fair housing.52
Hate Crime Statistics Act
Following several years of debate, Congress passed the Hate Crime Statistics
Act (HCSA) in 1990.53 The act requires the Attorney General to acquire data
50 See FBI, Investigative Programs, Civil Rights, Hate Crime,
at [http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/hate.htm].
51 Ibid.
52 Ibid.
53 P.L. 101-275, 104 Stat. 140, codified at 28 U.S.C. 534 note.

---

CRS-10
about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual
orientation, or ethnicity, including, where appropriate, crimes of murder, non-
negligent manslaughter; forcible rape; aggravated assault, simple assault,
intimidation; arson; and destruction, damage, or vandalism of property.
In 1994, Congress amended this definition to include prejudice based on “disability”
as well.54 The HCSA further requires the Attorney General to publish that data on
an annual basis. The Attorney General has delegated the duty for compiling hate
crime statistics to the FBI as part of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program.
As required by the HCSA, the FBI first reported hate crime statistics in 1993 for
1991.55 Although the statistics for 1991 are considered to be preliminary and were
not published in a stand-alone report, the FBI has issued a separate hate crime report
for the years 1992 through 2004.56 As enacted, HCSA originally required that the
data be collected annually for five years. Congress amended the HCSA in 1996 (with
the Church Arson Prevention Act, described below) and made the data collection
authorization permanent, requiring the collection of these data “for each calender
year.”57 As discussed in greater detail below, however, collecting such data has
proved problematic.
Hate Crime Sentencing Enhancements
In 1994, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act,
Congress included a provision that defined “hate crime” and directed the U.S.
Sentencing Commission to promulgate guidelines or amend existing guidelines to
provide sentencing enhancements of not less than three offense levels for hate
crimes.58 The provision defines “hate crime” as
a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a
property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual
or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or
sexual orientation of any person.59
Under this provision, such offenses must be found to be hate crimes beyond a
reasonable doubt as determined by “the finder of fact at trial.” The U.S. Sentencing
Commission must ensure that sentencing enhancements for hate crimes are
reasonably consistent with other guidelines, avoid duplicative punishments for
54 P.L. 103-322 (Sec. 320926), 108 Stat. 2131.
55 “ADL Welcomes Release of FBI Statistics on Hate Crimes,” U.S. Newswire, January 4,
1993.
56 The hate crime statistics reports for 1995 through 2004 are available at
[http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#hate]. Copies of the hate crime statistics reports for 1992
through 1994 can be obtained by contacting the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services
(CJIS) division.
57 P.L. 104-155, 110 Stat. 1392.
58 P.L. 103-322 (Sec. 280003), 108 Stat. 2096, codified at 28 U.S.C. §994 note.
59 Ibid.

---

CRS-11
substantially the same offense, and take into account mitigating circumstances that
might justify exceptions.60
Violence Against Women Act
Some observers, including the ADL, view the Violence Against Women Act
(VAWA) as “hate crime” legislation.61 As described above, gender is included in the
definition of “hate crime” under the Hate Crime Sentencing Act, but it is not included
in the definition of “hate crime” under the Hate Crime Statistics Act. Among other
things, many VAWA provisions provide authorizations and appropriations for law
enforcement assistance programs aimed at combating domestic and sexual abuse. In
addition, Congress included a provision in this statute that would have given victims
a “private right of action” against offenders in cases of gender-related violence.62
The Supreme Court, however, ruled that this provision was unconstitutional, as it
exceeded congressional power under both the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth
Amendment (United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 588, 608-10 (2000)). The issues
related to this case, however, are beyond the scope of this report. For further
information, see CRS Report RL32850, Hate Crimes: Legal Issues, by Paul Starett
Wallace, Jr.
Church Arson Prevention Act
In response to an increase in church arson incidents, Congress passed the
Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996.63 This act expands federal jurisdiction over
property crime related to incidents of arson, destruction, or vandalism of places of
religious worship, and crime against persons related to violent interference with any
individual’s exercise of religious freedom.
U.S. Armed Forces and Hate Crime Prevention
In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, Congress
included a provision requiring the Secretary of Defense to provide ongoing human
relations training for armed forces personnel that would cover “race relations, equal
opportunity, opposition to gender discrimination, and sensitivity to ‘hate group’
activity.”64 It also requires the Secretary to conduct annual surveys on the “state of
racial, ethnic, and gender issues and discrimination among members of the Armed
Forces,” and to report survey results annually to Congress.65
60 See United States Sentencing Guidelines §3A1.1.
61 P.L. 103-322, Title IV (Sec. 40001), 108 Stat. 1902.
62 42 U.S.C. §13981.
63 P.L. 104-155, 110 Stat. 1392, codified at 18 U.S.C. §247.
64 Section 571 of P.L. 104-201, 110 Stat. 2532, codified at 10 U.S.C. §113 note.
65 Section 571 of P.L. 104-201, 110 Stat. 2532, codified at 10 U.S.C. §451.

---

CRS-12
Federal Hate Crime Funding
Federal Grants for Hate Crime Prevention Education. In the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001, Congress included a provision authorizing the Department
of Education (ED) to issue grants designed to prevent hate crime.66 According to ED,
while no monies have been appropriated under this authorization, the Secretary of
Education allocated $1.8 million in FY1996 funding for hate crime prevention
education grants under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Activities
Grants Program.67
VAWA Domestic and Sexual Abuse Programs. As described above,
VAWA provides authorizations for programs and appropriations to assist state, tribal,
city, and county law enforcement agencies with assistance in dealing with domestic
and sexual abuse, and other violence directed against women and children. VAWA
programs also provide for victim services in cases involving such violence. The
109th Congress has considered legislation to reauthorize and modify existing VAWA
programs, as well as establish additional programs. For further information on
VAWA, see CRS Report RL30871, Violence Against Women Act: History and
Federal Funding, and CRS Report RS21259, Violence Against Women Office:
Background and Current Issues, both by Garrine Laney.
State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance. For FY2004 and
FY2005, Congress appropriated funding to provide anti-hate crime training to state
and local law enforcement agencies. This hate crime grant program is administered
by DOJ’s Office of Justice Assistance. For FY2004, Congress appropriated
$989,000.68 For FY2005, Congress appropriated $987,000.69 For FY2006, Congress
provided no funding for this grant program. For FY2007, the Administration
requested no funding for hate crimes training for law enforcement.

Federal Hate Crime Statistics
As discussed above, the FBI is responsible for collecting hate crime statistics
as part of its UCR program.70 In November 2005, the FBI released its thirteenth
66 Section 4123 of P.L. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1752, codified at 20 U.S.C. §7133.
67 U.S. Department of Education, “Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Federal
Activities Grants Program (Hate Crimes Prevention); Final Priority and Inviting
Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year 1996; Notice,” 61 Federal Register 34669,
July 2, 1996.
68 P.L. 108-199, 118 Stat. 56. The total amount appropriated was $1 million, however, the
amount given above reflects certain across-the-board rescissions.
69 P.L. 108-447, 118 Stat. 2864. The total amount appropriated was $1 million, however,
the amount given above reflects certain across-the-board rescissions.
70 In 1930, the Attorney General made the FBI responsible for collecting, publishing, and
archiving national uniform crime statistics for the United States. Today, the UCR program
falls under the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division. The UCR program
(continued...)

---

CRS-13
annual report, Hate Crime Statistics 2004.71 In the same month, the Bureau of Justice
Statistics (BJS) also released a report, Hate Crime Reported by Victims and Police,72
which is primarily based upon data gathered as part of the National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS).73
Although the BJS findings confirm many observations made by the FBI about
hate crime on a percentage basis, there is a considerable difference (nine fold) in the
overall number of hate crime victimizations according to the BJS, as compared to the
hate crimes reported to the FBI. In addition, a BJS-sponsored report suggested that
hate crime as reflected in the UCR statistics may be “seriously under-reported.”74
Other shortcomings also limit the usefulness of the UCR hate crime statistics.
Policymakers, for example, have been concerned about juveniles and hate crime from
the beginning of the wider public discourse on hate crime, but even today UCR data
tell us little about the prevalence of juvenile involvement in hate crime.
Nevertheless, the UCR program remains the primary source of hate crime data,
providing the only national statistical “baseline.”
FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) and Hate Crime
As part of its regular compilation of crime statistics under the UCR program,
the FBI has collected hate crime data on crime motivated by a bias against a person’s
race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin since 1992 (with
preliminary data for 1991), and against a person’s disability since 1994.
As shown in Table 1, the number of law enforcement agencies reporting on hate
crimes to the FBI has fluctuated somewhat during the 11 years covered, 1995 through
2005. Nevertheless, the trend has generally been upward. In 2004, of the more than
17,000 law enforcement agencies participating in the UCR, 12,711 (72.5%)
70 (...continued)
publishes crime data in three different volumes, which cover crime in the United States
generally, hate crime specifically, and law enforcement officers killed and assaulted in the
line of duty.
71 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Hate Crime Statistics 2004,
November 2005, 157 pp, available at [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/openpage.htm].
(Hereafter cited as DOJ, Hate Crime Statistics 2004.)
72 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Hate
Crime Reported by Victims and Police, by Caroline Wolf Harlow, NCJ 209911, November
2005, 12 pp, available at [http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/hcrvp.pdf]. (Hereafter cited
as BJS, Hate Crime Reported by Victims and Police.)
73 The NCVS is the principal source of national crime victimization data. Conducted
annually by the BJS, the survey includes a nationally representative sample of 42,000
households comprising 76,000 persons and yields statistically significant data on the
frequency, characteristics, and consequences of criminal victimizations in the United States.
For further information, go to [http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm].
74 Jack McDevitt, et al., Bridging the Information Disconnect in National Bias Crime
Reporting, Final Report, Northeastern University, Institute on Race and Justice, February
2003, p. 18. (Hereafter cited as McDevitt, Bridging the Information Disconnect.)

---

CRS-14
responded to the FBI about hate crime.75 In 2005, however, the number of agencies
reporting on hate crime decreased to 12,417, a 2% decrease. In addition, Table 1
shows that the number of reported hate crime incidents has fluctuated between a low
of 7,163 in 2005 and a high of 9,730 in 2001. The annual average across the 11 years
for reported hate crime incidents is 7,995. Table 1 also shows the number of
offenses, victims, and known offenders.
Table 1. Eleven-Year Hate Crime Summary Table

Population
Agencies
Agencies
Known
Year
covereda
Incidentsb
Offenses c
Victims
Participating
Reporting
Offenders
(%)
1995
9,584
74%
1,560
7,947
9,895
10,469
8,433
1996
11,354
83%
1,834
8,759
10,706
11,039
8,935
1997
11,211
82%
1,732
8,049
9,861
10,255
8,474
1998
10,730
78%
1,810
7,755
9,235
9,722
7,489
1999
12,122
83%
1,815
7,876
9,301
9,802
7,271
2000
11,690
84%
1,892
8,063
9,430
9,924
7,530
2001
11,987
85%
2,106
9,730
11,451
12,020
9,239
2002
12,073
86%
1,868
7,462
8,832
9,222
7,314
2003
11,909
83%
1,967
7,489
8,715
9,100
6,934
2004
12,711
87%
2,046
7,649
9,035
9,528
7,145
2005
12,417
83%
2,037
7,163
8,380
8,804
6,804
Source: CRS presentation of FBI data taken from the annual Hate Crime Statistics reports for 1995-2005.
a. CRS based these percentages upon the estimated U.S. population covered, as reported by the FBI,
over the estimated U.S. resident population.
b. Incidents often include multiple offenses.
c. Offenses include the number of violations for which charges were filed.
Of the 7,163 hate crime incidents reported to the FBI for 2005, 3,919 (55%)
were motivated by a racial bias; 1,227 (17%), by a religious bias; 1,017 (14%) by a
sexual-orientation bias; 944 (13%), by an ethnicity/national origin bias; 53 (less than
1%), by a disability bias; and three, by multiple biases. Of the 8,380 offenses
reported for 2005, intimidations accounted for 2,539 (30%) offenses; and destruction,
damage, or vandalism of property combined for 2,528 (30%) offenses. Simple
assault accounted for 1,566 (19%) offenses, and aggravated assault accounted for
1,062 (13%). Other forms of violent crime (murder, nonnegligent manslaughter,
forcible rape, and other) accounted for 23 offenses. Of the six bias-motivated
murders reported for 2005, three stemmed from a racial bias (two anti-black and one
75 DOJ, Hate Crime Statistics 2004, p. 1.

---

CRS-15
anti-white) and three stemmed from a ethnic/national origin bias (two were anti-
hispanic).
Of the 8,804 victimizations reported for 2005, 4,895 (56%) were race-based.
An anti-Black bias accounted for 3,322 (38%) of all victims, and an anti-White bias
for 975 (11%) offenses. An anti-religion bias accounted for 1,405 (16%) victims,
with an anti-Jewish bias accounting for 977 (11%) victims. An anti-sexual
orientation bias accounted for 1,213 (14%) victims, with an anti-male homosexual
bias accounting for 743 (8%) victims. An anti-ethnicity/national origin bias
accounted for about 1,228 (14%) victims. And an anti-disability bias accounted for
54 victims (less than 1%).
BJS Hate Crime Victimization Statistics
Although many of the findings in the FBI and BJS reports are similar, the
number of victimizations reported in each report stand in stark contrast. For
example, for a 3½-year period (July 2000 through December 2003), BJS reported an
annual average of 210,000 hate crime victimizations. Of these victimizations, survey
results indicated that victims only reported them to the police on 92,000 occasions.
For a comparable time period, 2000 through 2003, the FBI reported 40,266
victimizations, or about 10,000 annually.76 Hence, BJS reported over nine times the
number of hate crime victimizations than were reported by state and local police to
the FBI for about the same time period. This variance, on the one hand, suggests that
some state and local police agencies may be resistant to classifying crimes as hate
crimes, despite the perceptions of victims. On the other hand, it also suggests that
the FBI and BJS’s methodologies for determining whether a crime should be
considered a hate crime are very different.
For example, under the NCVS definition of hate crime there must be
corroborating evidence of a bias motivation, which could include (1) the offender
using derogatory language, (2) the offender leaving hate symbols, or (3) the police
confirming that a hate crime had taken place.77 The FBI protocol for determining a
hate crime appears to be more rigorous. For such determinations, the FBI directs law
enforcement agencies to consider whether several factors support a finding of bias.78
Those factors include the following:
! Were the offender and victim of different race, religion, disability,
sexual orientation, and/or ethnicity/national origin?
! Did the offender make oral comments, written statements, or
gestures, which indicated his bias?
76 For 2000 through 2003, the FBI reported over 40,266 hate crime victimizations, or an
annual average of 10,067.
77 BJS, Hate Crime Reported by Victims and Police, p. 2.
78 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information
Services Division, Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines: Uniform Crime Reporting,
Revised October 1999, p. 4, available at [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecrime.pdf].

---

CRS-16
! Were bias-related drawings, markings, symbols, or graffiti left at the
crime scene?
! Were other objects, items, or things used that would indicate a bias?
! Is the victim a member of a racial, religious, disability, sexual
orientation or ethnic/national origin group, which is overwhelmingly
outnumbered by other residents in the neighborhood where the
victim lives and the incident took place?
! Was the victim visiting a neighborhood where previous hate crimes
were committed against other members of his racial, religious,
disability, sexual-orientation, or ethnic/national origin and where
tensions remain high against his group?
! Had several incidents occurred in the same locality, at or about the
same time, and the victims were all of the same race, religion,
disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin?
! Did a substantial portion of the community where the crime occurred
perceive the incident as bias-motivated?
! Was the victim engaged in activities promoting his race, religion,
disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin at the time
of the incident?
! Did the incident coincide with a holiday or a date of particular
significance related to a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation,
or ethnicity/national origin?
! Was the offender previously involved in a similar hate crime or a
hate group member?
! Were there indicators that a hate group was involved?
! Did a historically established animosity exist between the victim’s
and the offender’s groups?
! Was the victim, although not a member of a targeted racial,
religious, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnic/national origin
group, supporting the precepts of a victim group?79
Despite improvements in collection and coverage, observers of the FBI data have
long suspected that hate crime could be under-reported.
Reporting Hate Crime: Complications and Shortcomings
Regarding under-reporting hate crime, DOJ has made some general
observations. For example, some small and rural law enforcement agencies do not
have the manpower, inclination, or expertise to report such crimes.80 Victims are
often reluctant to report such crime for fear of reprisals in some cases.81 For
example, studies have cited the prevalence of nonreporting by victims of crimes
based on sexual orientation for fear of secondary victimization and concerns about
79 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, A
Policymaker’s Guide to Hate Crimes, NCJ 162304, March 1997, pp. 5-6.
80 Ibid., pp. 9-10.
81 Ibid., pp. 10-11.

---

CRS-17
public disclosure of one’s homosexuality.82 In other cases, some agencies are
reluctant to report such crimes for fear of the cultural, political, and economic
repercussions that could result from admitting that such problems exist in their
communities.83 Differences in state hate crime statutes have also led to differences
in collection that make it difficult to compare such data from one jurisdiction to
another and weaken the overall national assessment of hate crime trends and
patterns.84
To address some of those shortcomings, the FBI has developed an anti-hate
crime training curriculum for state, tribal, and local law enforcement.85 In addition,
the FBI continues to advance its latest generation crime statistics program, the
National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS). Under this more
comprehensive crime reporting system, the FBI endeavors to capture additional data,
including demographic characteristics for both victim and offender, that will improve
determinations as to whether a crime is bias-motivated.
As of November 2005, 29 states were certified participants in NIBRS.86 Those
states were Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa,
Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska,
New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.87
Of these states, however, only eight submit all their data through NIBRS; these were
Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and
Vermont.88 As full state participation in NIBRS is far from complete, the FBI
continues to maintain the pre-existing UCR summary reporting system.
In addition, in one DOJ-sponsored study published in July 2000, Northeastern
University researchers reported that UCR hate crime statistics may not be
comprehensive. Among other things, the researchers pointed to “false zeroes” as
evidence that hate crime is under-reported.89 Based on a national mail survey of law
82 Gregory M. Herek, Jeanine C. Cogan, and J. Roy Gillis. “Victim Experiences in Hate
Crimes Based on Sexual Orientation,” in Barbara Perry ed., Hate and Bias Crime: A Reader
(New York: Routledge, 2003), pp. 243-259.
83 DOJ, Hate Crime Statistics 2004, p. 10.
84 Rory McVeigh, et al., “Hate Crime Reporting as a Successful Social Movement
Outcome,” American Sociological Review, vol. 68, iss. 6 (December 2003), p. 3.
85 See [http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/hate.htm].
86 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States
2004, Uniform Crime Reports, November 2005, p. 5.
87 Ibid.
88 Ibid.
89 Jack McDevitt, et al., Improving the Quality of and Accuracy of Bias Crime Statistics
Nationally: An Assessment of the First Ten Years of Bias Crime Data Collection,
Northeastern University, Center for Criminal Justice Policy Research, Executive Summary,
July 2000, p. 3. (Hereafter cited as McDevitt, Improving the Quality and Accuracy of Bias
(continued...)

---

CRS-18
enforcement investigators in several agencies, the study’s researchers reported that
31% of respondents (n=58) indicated that they believed their departments had
investigated hate crimes in 1997, yet their departments had reported “zero” hate
crimes to the FBI as participants in the UCR program.90 Consequently, the
researchers concluded that there was a disconnect between what line officers believed
and what was reported to the FBI. The Northeastern researchers concluded that,
because of problems with under-reporting, UCR statistics do not capture an accurate
enough picture of hate crime nationally to allow for “cross-jurisdictional comparisons
or national estimates.”91
In a followup study published in February 2003, the Northeastern University
researchers reiterated the previous report’s finding that there was evidence that hate
crime was “seriously under-reported” in the UCR statistics.92 Based on examining
the hate crime reporting procedures at several police departments across the United
States, the researchers concluded that the FBI-recommended two-tier reporting
process was the best procedure for ensuring greater accuracy and consistency in hate
crime reporting.93 This process removes the responsibility for making the final bias
motivation determination from the responding patrol officers and gives it to a
criminal intelligence analyst or a hate crime specialist. Although the Northeastern
University researchers made other recommendations, which are beyond the scope of
this report, they concluded that because of problems with under-reporting, UCR
statistics do not capture an accurate picture of hate crime nationally.94
NBIRS Hate Crime Statistics and Juveniles
The involvement of juveniles in hate crime has been a concern for policymakers.
Nevertheless, data on juvenile victims and offenders is limited.95 For example,
researchers at West Virginia University (WVU) have provided analysis of selected
NIBRS data, which could suggest that juveniles represent a disproportionately high
percentage of victims and offenders in hate crimes.96 The WVU researchers culled
89 (...continued)
Crime Statistics Nationally.)
90 Ibid., p. 61.
91 Ibid., p. 3.
92 Jack McDevitt, et al., Bridging the Information Disconnect in National Bias Crime
Reporting, Final Report, Northeastern University, Institute on Race and Justice, February
2003, p. 18.
93 Ibid., p. 91.
94 Ibid., p. 3.
95 Under the UCR program, reporting agencies record the age, sex, and race for both adult
and juvenile arrestees. The UCR program, as described above, consists of the older
summary reporting system and NIBRS. Under NIBRS, more comprehensive data is
collected about crimes. For example, under NIBRS, data are collected for victims under 12
years of age, whereas similar data are not collected under the summary reporting system.
96 James J. Nolan, III, et al., NIBRS Hate Crimes 1995-2000, Juvenile Victims and Offenders,
(continued...)

---

CRS-19
through 5,855 bias crime incidents reported through NIBRS for the years 1995
through 2000.97 Of the 5,855 incidents, there were 7,070 victims and 7,566 offenders
of all ages. The victim’s age was recorded in 4,874 incidents involving crimes
against persons.98 The offender’s age was recorded in 3,330 of these incidents in
crimes against both persons and property.99 For hate crime incidents, in which the
victims and offenders’ ages were recorded, juveniles accounted for 26.7% (1,305) of
victims and 29.1% (969) of offenders.100 However, these hate crime cases, as
selected from NIBRS, do not represent a random or representative sample. Hence,
it would not be valid to make any generalizations from those data about hate crime
nationally regarding juvenile victims or offenders.
Hate Crime Legislative Action
in Recent Congresses
In the past four Congresses, the Senate has acted upon hate crime legislation.
In the 107th Congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported hate crime
legislation, but cloture motions to bring this bill to the Senate floor for further
consideration were defeated. In the 106th and 108th Congresses, the Senate passed
similar legislation as amendments to other bills on three other occasions. In the 109th
Congress, House passed hate crime legislation. The hate crime provisions, however,
were not included in the final bills following conference committee negotiations. On
one of these occasions, the hate crime provisions were omitted in conference, despite
a House-passed resolution instructing the conferees to keep this legislation in the
final bill.
In the 108th Congress, on June 15, 2004, the Senate passed hate crimes
legislation as an amendment offered by Senator Gordon H. Smith to the FY2005
Defense Authorization Act (S. 2400). This amendment would have broadened
federal jurisdiction over hate crime by, among other things, creating hate crime
offenses under federal law. The language was nearly identical to the Local Law
Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2003 (S. 966), which was introduced by Senator
Edward Kennedy. The amendment passed by a recorded vote, 65-33.
In the 107th Congress, on May 9, 2002, the Senate Judiciary Committee
successfully reported out the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2001 (S.
260; S.Rept. 107-147), which was introduced by Senator Kennedy. Senator Tom
96 (...continued)
available at [http://www.as.wvu.edu/~jnolan/nibrshatecrime.html].
97 It is notable, however, that during these years, 48,449 hate crime incidents in total were
reported to the FBI. Consequently, only 12% of hate crimes were reported through NIBRS.
98 James J. Nolan, III, et al., NIBRS Hate Crimes 1995-2000, Juvenile Victims and Offenders,
available at [http://www.as.wvu.edu/~jnolan/nibrshatecrime.html].
99 Ibid.
100 Ibid.

---

CRS-20
Daschle, the Majority Leader, attempted to invoke cloture and bring this bill to floor
consideration, but the cloture bid was defeated.
In the 106th Congress, second session, on June 24, 2000, the Senate passed two
hate crime-related amendments to the FY2001 Defense Authorization Act (S. 2549).
Senator Kennedy offered language that would have broadened federal jurisdiction
over hate crime. The language of this amendment was similar to the Hate Crimes
Prevention Act (S. 622), which was also sponsored by Senator Kennedy. Senator
Orrin Hatch offered an alternative amendment that would have required the
Department of Justice and the then General Accounting Office to conduct studies on
hate crime activity. The language of this amendment was similar to a bill to combat
hate crimes (S. 1406), which was introduced by Senator Hatch. The Hatch
amendment passed by a recorded vote, 50-49. The Kennedy amendment passed by
recorded vote, 57-42. On September 18, 2000, the House passed a non-binding
motion to instruct the conferees to accept the hate crime legislation as part of the
final bill by recorded vote, 232-192.
In the 106th Congress, first session, on July 22, 1999, the Senate passed two hate
crime-related amendments to the FY2000 Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations
Act (S. 1217). Senator Kennedy offered language that was similar to his and Senator
Craig’s amendments described above. This amendment passed by voice vote, as did
an amendment offered by Senator Hatch as an alternative. The Hatch amendment
would have provided $5 million for a federal grant program to assist state, local, and
tribal governments in prosecuting hate crimes.
In the 109th Congress, Representative John Conyers, who was then the ranking
minority member on the Judiciary Committee, successfully offered an amendment
to the Children’s Safety Act (H.R. 3132) on September 14, 2005, which included the
language of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2005 (H.R.
2662).101 The Conyers’ amendment would have broadened federal jurisdiction over
hate crime by, among other things, establishing two partially overlapping categories
of hate crime offenses under federal law.102 First, it would have prohibited the
attempted or otherwise willful bodily injury to any person through the use of fire, a
firearm, explosive, or incendiary device, if such criminal conduct were motivated on
the basis of actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any
individual. Second, it would have prohibited the same criminal conduct, if such
conduct were motivated on the basis of an individual’s gender, sexual orientation,
gender identity, or disability, in addition to the other four characteristics listed above.
As asserted in the amendment’s findings, both provisions were arguably
founded upon Congress’s legislative authority under the Commerce Clause of, as
well as provisions of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments to the
U.S. Constitution. The reach of the second offense, however, would have been
limited to specific jurisdictional ties to the Commerce Clause, which were outlined
in the amendment. In the past, opponents of expanding federal jurisdiction over hate
crime have argued that such an expansion would be an overreach of congressional
101 House Amendment 544.
102 Proposed 18 U.S.C. §249.

---

CRS-21
power, which could possibly be challenged in the Supreme Court. Opponents
pointed to Supreme Court cases in which rulings were made based upon tighter
interpretations of the Commerce Clause.103
In addition to the language of H.R. 2662, Representative Conyers also offered
another hate crime-related amendment that would have required additional hate crime
statistics be collected for gender-biased crime and that breakouts be reported for
juvenile victims and offenders.104 With little debate, the House adopted this
amendment by a voice vote.
The language of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of
2005 (H.R. 2662) proved more divisive, however. Representative F. James
Sensenbrenner, Jr., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the amendment
would be a “poison pill,” and would possibly erode the bill’s bipartisan support.105
The House nevertheless passed the amendment by a recorded vote of 223-199, on
September 14, 2005. On the same day, the House passed H.R. 3132 by a recorded
vote, 371-52. The Senate did not acted upon this measure, however.
On March 8, 2006, the House passed the Children’s Safety and Violent Crime
Reduction Act of 2006 (H.R. 4472). Although this bill included many of the
provisions that were in H.R. 3132, it did not include the hate crime language. As the
bill was brought up under suspension of the rules, amendments were not considered
and the hate crime issue was not addressed during consideration of H.R. 4472.
On May 25, 2005, Senator Edward Kennedy introduced the Local Law
Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2005 (S. 1145). This bill was similar to H.R. 2662
and the Conyers amendment to the House-passed version of H.R. 3132.
Hate Crime Bills in the 110th Congress
Several bills have been introduced that would address hate crime issues in the
110th Congress, which are nearly identical to measures introduced in the 109th
Congress.
Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention
Act of 2007 (H.R. 1592)
On March 20, 2007, Representative Conyers introduced H.R. 1592. This bill
that is nearly identical to H.R. 2662, a version of which was passed in the 109th
Congress (described above). On April 17, the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security held a hearing on H.R. 1592. On April 24, the
Subcommittee approved this bill. On April 25, the Judiciary Committee amended
103 For further information, see CRS Report RL32850, Hate Crimes: Legal Issues, by Paul
Starett Wallace, Jr.
104 House Amendment 528.
105 Congressional Record, September 14, 2005, p. H7920.

---

CRS-22
and approved H.R. 1592 in a markup that lasted a contentious 10 hours. The House
passed this bill on May 3, 2007, by a vote of 237-180.
H.R. 1592, as introduced, sets out congressional findings regarding the
harmfulness posed to society by hate crimes, that is, crime motivated by the victim’s
actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation,
gender identity, or disability. The bill also includes findings regarding the
constitutionality of federal intervention into such matters under the Commerce
Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as well as sections of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and
Fifteenth Amendments.106
The bill would authorize the Attorney General to provide assistance (technical,
forensic, prosecutorial, or other), when requested by a state, local, or tribal official,
for crimes that (1) would constitute a violent crime under federal law or a felony
under state or tribal law; and (2) are motivated by the victim’s actual or perceived
race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or
disability. It would also direct the Attorney General to give priority to crimes
committed in more than one state, and to rural jurisdictions that would have difficulty
covering the extraordinary investigatory or prosecutorial expenses.
To further assist state, local, or tribal officials with the expenses related to hate
crime cases, the bill would authorize the Attorney General to establish a grant
program. In implementing this grant program, the bill would direct the Office of
Justice Programs to (1) work closely with funded jurisdictions to ensure that the
needs of all interested parties were met; and (2) award grants to programs aimed at
combating hate crime committed by juvenile offenders. The bill would also set forth
certain parameters for the grant application process and would authorize
appropriations of $5 million for FY2006 and FY2007. It would also authorize
appropriations for DOJ to hire additional staff to respond to alleged violations of the
hate crime provisions described below.
The bill would also broaden federal coverage of hate crimes under two
scenarios. First, under any circumstance, it would prohibit willfully inflicting bodily
injury to any person, attempted or otherwise, through the use of fire, a firearm,
explosive, or incendiary device, if such conduct were motivated on the basis of actual
or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person. Second, it would
prohibit the same conduct, if such conduct were motivated on the basis of the
victim’s gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, in addition to the
four characteristics enumerated under the first scenario. The reach of the second
offense would be limited to specific jurisdictional ties to the interstate Commerce
Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which were outlined in the bill.
Under either scenario, offenders could be sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment
and a fine, or for any term up to life imprisonment if the crime resulted in the
victim’s death, or involved attempted murder, kidnaping, attempted kidnaping, rape,
or attempted rape.
106 For discussion of constitutional issues, see CRS Report RL32850, Hate Crimes: Legal
Issues, by Paul Starett Wallace, Jr.

---

CRS-23
For hate crime cases prosecuted federally under these provisions, it would
require the Attorney General, or his subordinate, to certify that pertinent state or local
officials (1) were unable or unwilling to prosecute; (2) favored federal prosecution;
or (3) prosecuted, but the investigation or trial’s results did not satisfy the federal
interest to combat hate crimes.
Finally, the bill would amend the HCSA to require that the FBI collect statistics
on gender- and gender identity-related bias crimes, as well as juvenile victims and
offenders. Under current law, such statistics are collected on the basis of race,
religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and disability.
David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 254)
Introduced by Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee on January 5, 2007, H.R. 254
includes criminal provisions that are similar to those described above under H.R.
1592. It also includes similar findings and would authorize a grant program to assist
state, local, and tribal governments with hate crime cases, as well as authorize DOJ
to hire additional staff to enforce hate crime statutes. In addition, it includes a
provision that would direct the U.S. Sentencing Committee to conduct a study to
determine whether it would be appropriate to adjust the sentencing guidelines for
hate crimes that involve the adult recruitment of minors to commit such offenses. In
the 109th Congress, Representative Jackson-Lee introduced a similar bill (H.R. 259),
which was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, but no further action was
taken on that bill.
Hate Crimes Statistics Improvement Act of 2007 (H.R. 1164)
Introduced by Representative Carolyn Maloney on February 16, 2007, H.R.
1164 would amend the Hate Crimes Statistics Act to require that the FBI collect
statistics on gender-based hate crime. Under current law, such statistics are collected
on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and disability. In the
109th Congress, Representative Maloney introduced a similar bill (H.R. 1193), which
was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, but no further action was taken on
that bill.
Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act 2007 (S. 1105)
Introduced by Senator Edward Kennedy on April 12, 2007, S. 1105 is similar
to H.R. 1592, except that it also includes a provision that is similar to one in H.R.
259, which would have directed the U.S. Sentencing Committee to conduct a study
to determine whether it would be appropriate to adjust the sentencing guidelines for
hate crimes that involve the adult recruitment of minors to commit such offenses.
Senator Kennedy introduced a similar measure (S. 1145) in the 109th Congress, which
was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, but no further action was taken on
that bill.

---

CRS-24
Possible Options and Issues for Congress
As noted in the introduction, at issue for Congress is whether the prevalence and
harmfulness of hate crime warrants greater federal intervention to ensure that such
crimes are systematically addressed at all levels of government (federal, state, tribal,
city, and county). Although many believe that hate crime is deplorable, determining
the federal role in combating hate crime has proven complicated and divisive.
Should Federal Jurisdiction Be Broadened?
As described above, Congress has and may in the future consider legislation to
broaden federal jurisdiction over hate crime by creating a separate offense for such
crimes under federal law. Although FBI hate crime statistics document that hate
crimes continue to be perpetrated, it is questionable whether the statistics are robust
enough to capture an accurate picture that allows for cross-jurisdictional comparisons
or national estimates.107 Nor is it definitively known whether state and local
authorities are unable or unwilling to investigate and prosecute such crimes.
Consequently, opponents of creating a separate hate crime offense are likely to argue
on the side of caution until better data are available and that Congress should not
intervene into matters that may be best handled at the state and local level.
Proponents counter that state and local authorities are often not in a position to
pursue such cases because of their complexity and cost. Moreover, they point out
that under the Conyers/Kennedy proposal, federal intervention would be the course
of last resort. Under their proposal, the Attorney General would have to certify that
the local authorities had been unable or unwilling to prosecute a hate crime under
existing state laws, among other conditions, before the federal authorities would take
up the case. Finally, proponents argue that it is the federal government’s duty to
ensure that such cases are adequately addressed to combat vestiges of biases that as
a civil society the United States has collectively found to be intolerable.
Should Baseline Statistics Be Improved?
In light of the finding that the data collected under the HCSA are arguably not
complete and comprehensive enough to yield valid hate crime trends and patterns at
the national level, Congress could choose to require the collection of additional data.
As described above, Senator Hatch has made past proposals to assess UCR hate
crime data.108 As a result of such an assessment, new reporting requirements might
address the “false zero” phenomenon, regional trends, types of crime, trial outcomes,
as well as sentences imposed.
107 Jack McDevitt et al., Bridging the Information Disconnect in National Bias Crime
Reporting, Final Report, Northeastern University, Institute on Race and Justice, February
2003, p. 3.
108 See amendment number 3474 in the Congressional Record, June 24, 2000, p. S. 5340.
In addition, see S. 1406, a bill introduced in the 106th Congress.

---

CRS-25
As a corollary issue, Congress could address the slow pace with which states are
participating in the next-generation FBI crime statistics program, NIBRS. Congress
could call upon the Bureau of Justice Statistics or the Government Accountability
Office to assess the status of the NIBRS program, as a first step towards establishing
a timetable for the program’s full implementation with an eye on dovetailing such
efforts with a more complete and comprehensive hate crime statistics report.
Should Gender Be Included in Hate Crime Statistics?
If Congress should consider legislation to broaden federal jurisdiction over hate
crime, it is likely that proposals to expand the federal collection of hate crime
statistics to include gender would be offered. Proponents assert that crimes that are
motivated by a gender-bias ought to be singled out for special consideration as a hate
crime. They point out that, like other forms of hate crime, violence against women
in the United States has reached levels that require greater monitoring, and federal
intervention is necessary.
Opponents counter that the consideration of gender as a protected class suggests
that every domestic abuse, battery, rape, and murder case, in which the victim was
of the opposite gender, could plausibly be considered a hate crime. Opponents
contend that the inclusion of gender would increase the scope of what constitutes a
hate crime to the point that hate crime statistics would largely become meaningless.
Should Breakouts for Juveniles Be Included?
Proposals have been considered to require hate crime statistics be expanded to
include breakouts for juvenile victims and offenders. Selected data arguably suggest
that juveniles could represent a disproportionately high percentage of victims and
offenders in hate crimes. Yet those data are not robust enough to draw valid
statistical conclusions. Although few would argue that better data would not be
useful, opponents argue that an objective assessment of the current hate crime
statistics should be made before placing additional data collection requirements on
the FBI.
Should Federal Training for Law Enforcement
Be Improved and Increased?
Congress could examine DOJ’s efforts to assist state, tribal, city, and county law
enforcement authorities in not only investigating and prosecuting hate crimes, but in
categorizing and reporting hate crimes. Future efforts could be built upon the past
and current efforts of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Community Relations
Service, and the FBI. A comprehensively designed program might be one way to
address the hate crime issue at the federal, state, tribal, city, and county levels.
Congress could also call upon the Attorney General to report on DOJ’s efforts to
promote comprehensive, department-wide hate crime policies.

---