In recent years, the frequency of hate crimes has seen an increase in the United States. To address this rise, the federal government and many states have enacted various pieces of legislation specifically targeting hate-motivated crimes.

To gain a better understanding of these laws, a team of researchers from Florida Atlantic University conducted a content analysis. Their analysis focused on hate crime legislation across all 50 states, examining laws in place following the 2016 legislative session but prior to the 2017 session.

The analysis encompassed 271 statutes, revealing four prominent themes: the contextualization of hate crimes, disparities in the coverage of hate crime legislation, variations in court procedures related to hate crime cases, and state efforts to combat hate crimes.

The findings of this study, which were published in the journal Victims & Offenders, indicated that hate crime legislation recognizes several classes and populations as targets, including race, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, and disability. However, the coverage of these groups varied significantly due to different conceptualizations by individual states.

Seth Fallik, Ph.D., the lead author, associate professor, and undergraduate coordinator in the School for Criminology and Criminal Justice within FAU’s College of Social Work and Criminal Justice, stated, "Every state legislates hate crimes differently, which results in differential justice in these cases across the nation."

Key findings from the study include:

  1. Four states—Indiana, Mississippi, New Hampshire, and South Carolina—did not have any hate crime statutes.
  2. While voting and political expression hold paramount importance in a democracy, only Iowa and West Virginia had statutes recognizing hate crimes motivated by political affiliation.
  3. Thirty-one states addressed hate crimes based on sexual orientation, but only 12 states provided protection for individuals based on their gender identity. Although the number of states offering coverage to the LGBTQ+ community is growing, not all states define these groups appropriately in their hate crime legislation.
  4. While 37 states protected religious locations, most states did not explicitly mention mosques and/or synagogues as protected institutions, even though these religious establishments are frequent targets of hate crimes. Churches, although most commonly identified, were explicitly named in fewer than half of the states. Delaware was the only state offering protection to all places of worship.
  5. Thirty-one states offered protection for individuals with physical, mental, and other disabilities. While recognizing the significance of protecting these individuals, states varied in the extent of their safeguards and rights. New Mexico had the most comprehensive statute in this regard.
  6. The most protected classes and populations were race (48 states), nation of origin (47 states), and religion (46 states).
  7. Over half of the states (35 states) required imprisonment, and 30 states mandated jail time for those convicted of a hate crime.
  8. More than half of the states (27) had laws mandating hate crime reporting, which involved collecting and storing data on hate crimes within the state.

States primarily neglected the dissemination of public information and training to combat hate crimes. However, there was consensus among states regarding victim resources and data collection.

California was identified as having the most comprehensive legislation, clearly defining protected classes and locations while addressing the vagueness and inconsistency observed in other state statutes. The researchers suggest that California's approach should serve as a model for other states moving forward.

Cassandra Atkin-Plunk, Ph.D., co-author, associate professor, and associate director in FAU’s College of Social Work and Criminal Justice, emphasized the need for further work. She recommended that state legislation offer greater conciseness and specificity, align with appropriate social science definitions, provide equal coverage to institutions, and establish victims' resources and public services through legislation. By doing so, the criminal justice system can adequately address hate crimes and their impacts.