Are US ‘Hate Crime’ Laws Racially Biased?

hate crimes

Why is one Hate Crime treated differently from another?

It’s no secret that for decades the United States legal system has been rigged against minorities. But, has all of that changed when it comes to sentences specific to a hate crime? These questions matter.

Relax, my conservative friends. It’s okay for you to admit the obvious. Statistics don’t lie. In fact, in 2014 alone, African Americans constituted 2.3 million, or 34%, of the total 6.8 million correctional population.

However, in recent years where social justice has become a social and political focal point in mainstream news, campaigns and even sports, has this over-sensitized, self-victimized and easily offended culture lead to the legal system becoming increasingly biased towards ‘hate crimes’?

Lately, it seems as though you cannot have a normal conversation in public without someone somewhere getting overly offended.

hate crime

Simple political disagreements are now translating to riots, protests, lawsuits, arrests and even death. Today, it has become as easy as labeling someone, who has ‘the wrong politics’, a Nazi, and having that title stick. Labeling someone a racist, nazi or bigot somehow brands them so in society – like a modern-day Salem witch trial. However, where does the nazi-branding stop? When do we go from calling someone a racist to that title actually holding water in a legal sense?

The FBI reports that In 2016, out of 5,770 known hate crime offenders, 46.3% were white while only 26.1% were black or African American. When 34% of incarcerated individuals in America are black, why are 46.3% of hate crime offenders white?

Has modern society influenced the legal system?

If you are quick to say no, then you are either not paying attention or lying to yourself. This applies to both my black and white readers. When 34% of incarcerated individuals in the US are black, this is a testament to the fact that society has indeed influenced the legal system.

Likewise, when 46.3% of hate crime offenders are white, this too is a testament to the fact that society has indeed influenced the legal system. It is my contention that the legal system, unfortunately, is not currently – nor has it ever been – blind to color and creed in America.

Consider the well-known case of Emmett Till, a 14-year-old African-American who was lynched in Mississippi in 1955, after a white woman said she was offended by him in her family’s grocery store. Reportedly, Till whistled at the woman. Several nights after the store incident, the woman’s husband Roy Bryant and his half-brother J. W. Milam went armed to Till’s great-uncle’s house and abducted the boy. They took him away and beat and mutilated him before shooting him in the head and sinking his body in the Tallahatchie River. Three days later, Till’s body was discovered and retrieved from the river. In September 1955, Bryant and Milam were acquitted by an all-white jury of Till’s kidnapping and murder. 


Why was this the ruling? Why did an obvious hate crime render this blatantly unfair verdict? Becuase the society of the time had influenced the legal system.

Fast forward 62-years to 2017. Blacks are no longer voiceless. Civil Rights have been instilled – on paper at least – organizations are omnipresent in support and defense of black rights and new movements like Black Live Matter have taken the nation by storm, for better or for worse. With the new societal gauge on political correctness, is it absurd to call a black person a racist as easily as it is to call a white person a racist? After all, the FBI has determined that revenge, inspired by the Black Lives Matter movement, is the what motivates a “majority” of those targeting copsBut, let’s get back on track to the question at hand here.

Are US ‘Hate Crime’ laws racially biased?

To help answer that delicate question by offering some quantifiable reasoning, consider the recent case of a Black Lives Matter supporter, for instance. In early 2017, four African American teenagers kidnapped and tortured a white special needs man. Their sole reason for this hate crime — because of “Trump” and “honkies.” They live-streamed the torture session on Facebook, cutting the victim’s head and beating him.


Via CNN:
The disturbing 30-minute video shows a man tied up and his mouth covered, cowering in the corner of a room. His attackers laugh and shout “f*ck Donald Trump” and “f*ck white people” as they kick and punch him and cut into his forehead with a knife.

Police found the disoriented victim, described as a man from the Chicago suburbs with special needs, wandering the street and brought him to a hospital. Shortly afterward, officers responded to a battery call at a residence near where he was found and saw signs of a struggle and property damage, police said.

After pleading guilty to the hate crime on Friday, December 8, 2017, Brittany Covington, 19 was sentenced to four years of probation. Part of Covington’s probation sentence includes being banned from social media over the four years, being prohibited from contact with two of her co-defendants and being ordered to perform 200 hours of community service.

Why was this the ruling? Why did an obvious hate crime render this blatantly unfair verdict? Becuase the society of the time had influenced the legal system.

Consider another recent case – this time the offender was white.

A Florida man, Michael Wolfe, 37, broke into a mosque and began smashing windows and lights with a machete before leaving bacon by the front door as an insult to the Muslim community. After pleading guilty to the hate crime, Wolfe was sentenced to 15 years in prison.  Part of Wolfe’s prison sentence includes being placed on probation for a further 15 years after his release.


Why was this the ruling? Why did an obvious hate crime render this blatantly unfair verdict? Becuase the society of the time had influenced the legal system.

Both cases cited here were clear-cut examples of hate crimes. In the case of the abduction, torture and live streaming, the offender received probation. In the case of the broken windows and bacon, the offender received 15 years in prison. Both offenders were complete low life degenerate racists who committed their hate crimes with intentional malice. Both offenders represent the worst that society has produced. One offender was black and the other, white. Why the difference in sentencing?

Short answer – current American society has placed blacks, Muslims, and illegals in a protected category of social justice. Not to say that whites are innocent of racism. Of course, that is not the case at all – far from it, in fact. We all know that whites have had a racist history since the days of the pilgrims in America. Being Puerto Rican myself, I have personally been a victim of racism by whites as recent as this year. White on minority racism is systemic. No one can or should deny that fact.

Nonetheless, the legal system has a responsibility to remain color blind, even when the taboo crime is that of a hate crime. Just because the category of crime is one where the offender is predominantly white or predominantly black, does not grant the courts the rights to issue heavy-handed sentences to one racial group while providing lighter sentences to another based on stereotypes alone. Courts must remain color blind in all cases without taking into consideration the current societies temperament. 

Again, society has a direct influence on the legal system.

Side Note:

If you are offended by what you’ve just read, I encourage you to be a bit more genuine in your approach to racism. Stating well-known stereotypes about whites and blacks alike does not make one a racist. Pointing out these taboo lines does not make one a bigot. However, ignoring them exclusively as to not upset the status quo of remaining politically correct at all times is ignorant, counterproductive and dangerous as it only serves to continue to contribute to the problem at hand. I have no problem pointing out these issues. If you do, it’s time for a wake-up call.

The United States legal system must become an unbiased institution at all times, regardless of the political environment, and unchanged by societal influence. Lest, we will continue to become a further divided nation eager to fight for racial supremacy (both black and white), through violence, cloaked in the exterior appearance of equality, rather than striving for genuine equality for all, through peaceful methods.

It takes each of us to personally lay to rest our contribution to the fight. However, it is top-down leadership that is required to tip the scales of justice – pun intended. Judges must be held accountable for the sentences they hand down.

When a trigger happy cop kills an unarmed black teen and gets off with impunity – or when a Black Lives Matter activist beats a Trump supporter for wearing a MAGA hat at a protest, the law needs to treat these hate crimes equally.

Share your thoughts.

Be sure to like Ricky Diaz on Facebook.

Facebook Comments

What's Your Reaction?

Angry Angry
Cry Cry
Dislike Dislike
Like Like
Lol Lol
Love Love
Win Win
Ricky Diaz

Ricky Diaz is the founder and Editor In Chief of Digital Hype News.

Comments 0

Are US ‘Hate Crime’ Laws Racially Biased?

Choose A Format
Personality quiz
Series of questions that intends to reveal something about the personality
Trivia quiz
Series of questions with right and wrong answers that intends to check knowledge
Voting to make decisions or determine opinions
Formatted Text with Embeds and Visuals
The Classic Internet Listicles
The Classic Internet Countdowns
Open List
Submit your own item and vote up for the best submission
Ranked List
Upvote or downvote to decide the best list item
Youtube, Vimeo or Vine Embeds
Soundcloud or Mixcloud Embeds