"Hate crimes legislation" refers to any law that forbids targeting a person for a crime because of their perceived inclusion in a racial or ethnic group, sexual minority, or other group. Laws forbidding hate crimes impose an additional penalty on the offender beyond the penalty for the crime committed - assault, vandalism, etc.

Because of this "additional" penalty, hate crimes legislation can be controversial. Pros and cons focus on both personal and societal concerns. Supporters of such legislation argue that the intent of the crime - not only to attack a person because of their inclusion in an unpopular group, but also to intimidate other members of the group by doing so - makes it more dangerous to society than similar crimes with a more personal motivation. Opponents respond that legislation based on intent is inconsistent with American values of freedom of opinion and that the punishment for the crime itself is sufficient.

Washington State Laws, Courts and Juries are Supportive
The Washington law is very broad, covering crimes committed because of the perpetrator's "perception of the victim's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap." Punishable acts include physical injury to the victim, physical damage to the property of the victim, and threats against a person or group of persons. The victim need not actually be a member of the perceived group, and evidence of the victim�fs actual status may not be admissible.

This division of opinion about hate crimes legislation has led to the belief that it will be more difficult to convince juries to impose the additional penalty provided by the law. However, this does not appear to be true in Washington. In the March 2005 trial of three men who attacked Micah Painter, a gay man who lives in Seattle, on Pride Day 2004, the jury willingly imposed the additional penalty provided under Washington State law for felony malicious harassment. According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, "The first vote on that count, was 11-1 against each of the defendants, and it didn't take long to change the last juror's mind." http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/218252_painter31.html

This was so even though Mr. Painter had responded to the initial anti-gay remarks of his assailant by making obscene gestures. This did not justify the escalation of the attack according to the jury. Similarly, in an incident in Ocean Shores, WA, in 2000, a group of young white men spent the 4th of July weekend terrorizing racial minorities in their community. When an Asian-American youth killed one of his assailants the all-white jury found him not guilty of any crime. http://www.spectator-online.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/01/21/41f0b8905b0b2

Statewide Data Gathering
Since 1995, Washingtonstate law has required the sheriffs of each county to collect data on hate crimes and report the data to the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs. The WASPC publishes this data in an annual report, available online at http://www.waspc.org/wucrwibr/CIW_Archive_Data/CIW_Historical_Archive.html

The number and percent of bias-motivated crimes against lesbians and gay men has varied from a low of 27 out of 243, or 11%, in 2000 to a high of 46 out of 192, or 24%, in 1997. There has been no clear upward or downward trend, although even the lowest percentage of reported cases is proportionately far larger than the assumed percentage of gays and lesbians in Washington State.

Police Response
The law requires all law enforcement officers to be trained in responding to and reporting bias-motivated crimes. However, there is some evidence that the police have not always responded as well as they should have. In the Ocean Shores case mentioned above, the white men who attacked the Asian youths had also threatened a Filipino family and a black man earlier in the same week. In both cases, the police responded to the complaint, but failed to follow up appropriately.

Other State Remedies
In addition to filing a criminal complaint, a person who has been the victim of a hate crime can file a civil suit for actual damages, punitive damages of up to ten thousand dollars, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in bringing the action.

Broader Local Remedies
Washington state law prohibits harassment of lesbian, gay and bisexual people, but does not extend protection to transgender persons. The Seattle Municipal Code extends the state's malicious harassment ordinance to include gender identity. The law provides that, "A person is guilty of malicious harassment if he or she maliciously and intentionally [harasses another] because of his or her perception of another person's gender identity, marital status, political ideology, age, or parental status..."

No Federal Protection, But National Data Collection
In 1994, Congress passed a law penalizing any person who "by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with... any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin." U.S. Code, vol.18, 245. Efforts to amend this law to include gender, sexual orientation and disability have repeatedly failed.

The federal Hate Crimes Statistics Act, which does include gender and sexual orientation, requires the FBI to collect data about hate crimes. The data for the years 1995 - 2003, available on the FBI's web site at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#hate, shows that while over half of all hate crimes continue to be motivated by race, both the number and percentage of hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation have risen. In 1996, 1001, or 11% of all reported incidents of hate crimes, were motivated by sexual orientation, while in 2003 (the most recent year for which data is currently available), 1225, or 16%, were based on sexual orientation.