Hate crime

Criminal law
Elements
Actus reus Mens rea Causation Concurrence
Scope of criminal liability
Accessory Accomplice Complicity Corporate Mandated reporter Principal Use of force continuum Vicarious
Severity of offense
Felony (or Indictable offense) Misdemeanor (or Summary offense) Infraction (also called violation)
Inchoate offenses
Attempt Conspiracy Incitement Solicitation
Offense against the person
Assassination Assault Battery Child abuse Concealment of a corpse Criminal negligence Domestic violence False imprisonment Frameup Harassment Street Home invasion Hate crime Homicide Human trafficking Intimidation Kidnapping Manslaughter (corporate) Mayhem Murder felony Homicide Negligent homicide Reckless homicide Robbery Stalking Stabbing Torture
Sexual offenses
Adultery Bigamy Child sexual abuse Cybersex trafficking Fornication Homosexuality Groping Incest Indecent exposure Masturbation Obscenity Prostitution Rape Pederasty Sex trafficking Sexual assault Sexual harassment Sexual slavery Voyeurism
Crimes against property
Arson Arms trafficking Blackmail Bribery Burglary Cybercrime Embezzlement Extortion False pretenses Forgery Fraud Gambling Intellectual property violation Larceny Looting Payola Pickpocketing Possessing stolen property Robbery Smuggling Parallel import Tax evasion Theft Trespass to land Vandalism Mischief
Crimes against justice
Against public justice Justice delayed Compounding Contempt Malfeasance in office Miscarriage of justice Judicial misconduct Misprision Perjury Perverting the course of justice
Crimes against the public
Apostasy Corruption Censorship violation Dueling Genocide Ethnic cleansing Hostage-taking People smuggling Insider trading Smuggling Illegal consumption (such as drugs, alcohol, and smoking) Miscegenation Piracy Political corruption Regicide Unreported employment Usurpation War crimes
Crimes against animals
Cruelty to animals Poaching Wildlife smuggling Bestiality
Crimes against the state
Lèse-majesté Treason Espionage Secession Sedition Subversion
Defenses to liability
Actual innocence Automatism Consent Defense of property Diminished responsibility Duress Entrapment Ignorantia juris non excusat Infancy Insanity Intoxication Justification Might makes right Mistake (of law) Necessity Possession is nine-tenths of the law Provocation Sanctuary Self-defense Statute of limitations
Other common-law areas
Contracts Defenses Evidence Property Torts Wills, trusts and estates
Portals
Law
v t e

Part of a series on
Discrimination
Forms Institutional Reverse Structural Statistical Systemic Taste-based
Attributes Age Anti-albinism Anti-autism Caste Class Disability Economic Genetic Hair texture Height Anti-intersex Language Dialect Anti-left handedness Looks Mental disorder Nationality or citizenship Race / Ethnicity Reverse Skin color Scientific racism Rank Sex Reverse Sexual orientation Species Size Viewpoint
Social Arophobia Acephobia Adultism Anti-altruistic Anti-homelessness Anti-drug addicts Anti-intellectualism Anti-Masonry Aporophobia Audism Biphobia Elitism Endophobia Ephebiphobia Health mental in poverty Fatphobia Gayphobia Gerontophobia Heterosexism HIV/AIDS stigma Hypergamy Homophobia In-group Leprosy stigma Lesbophobia Against men Misandry Misogyny Misogynoir Nepotism Outgroup Perpetual foreigner Pregnancy Sectarianism Supremacism Aryanism Black Hutu Chauvinism Han Hoklo Taiwanese Female Human Nordicism Male Ultranationalism White Transphobia Non-binary Transmisogyny Trans men Vegaphobia Xenophilia Xenophobia
Religious Religious exemption Persecution of non-believers Atheism In Islam Apostasy Religious police Jizya Religious persecution In China Exclusivism Baháʼí Faith Buddhism Christianity Persecution Catholicism Eastern Orthodoxy Coptic Christianity Jehovah's Witnesses LDS or Mormon Protestantism Tewahedo Orthodoxy post–Cold War era Falun Gong Hinduism Persecution Untouchability Islam Persecution Ahmadiyya Shi'ism Sufism Sunnism minority Muslim Judaism Persecution Neopaganism Rastafari Serers Sikhism Yazidism Zoroastrianism
Race or ethnicity Afghan Pashtun Hazara African Fulani Igbo Serers Albanian Arab Armenian Asian France South Africa United States Assyrian Austrian Azerbaijani Black people African American China South Africa Bengali Catalan Chechen Chinese Han people Colombian Croat Dutch English Estonian Filipino French Finnish Georgian German Greek Haitian Hungarian Indian Indonesian Indigenous people Australia Canada United States Iranian Irish Israeli Italian Japanese Jewish Eliminationist New Religious Anti-Yiddish Zionist Khmer Korean Kurdish Lithuanian Malay Māori Mexican Middle Eastern Mongolian Montenegrin Nigerian Pakistani Palestinian Pashtun Polish Portuguese Quebec Romani Romanian Russian Scottish Serb Slavic Somali Spanish Taiwanese Tatar Thai Tibetan Turkish Ukrainian Uyghur Venezuelan Vietnamese Welsh White people
Manifestations Algorithmic bias Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric SPLC-designated list of anti-LGBTQ hate groups Blood libel Bullying Cancel culture Capital punishment for homosexuality Carnism Compulsory sterilization Corrective rape Counter-jihad Cultural genocide Defamation Democide Dog whistle Domicide Economic Education Academic In curricula Sexism Eliminationism Eliminationist antisemitism Employment Enemy of the people Environmental racism Ethnic cleansing Ethnic conflict Ethnic hatred Ethnic joke Ethnocide Excellence Gender-based dress codes Cosmetics policy High heel policy Forced conversion Freak show Gay bashing Gendercide Transgender genocide Genital modification and mutilation Circumcision Female genital mutilation Intersex medical interventions Genocide examples Glass ceiling Hate crime Disability hate crime Violence against LGBTQ people Violence against transgender people Hate group Hate speech Institutional discrimination Institutional racism Homeless dumping Housing Hypergamy Age disparity Indian rolling International inequality Kill Haole Day Lavender scare LGBTQ+ grooming conspiracy theory Linguicide Lynching Media bias Minority stress Moral exclusion Mortgage Native American mascots Occupational Apartheid Inequality Injustice Segregation Opposition to immigration Paper genocide Persecution Pogrom Political Political repression Ideological repression Purge Racialization Religious persecution Religious terrorism Religious violence Religious war Scapegoating Selective enforcement Selective prosecution Sentencing disparity Sexual harassment Sex-selective abortion Slut-shaming Structural abuse Structural discrimination Structural evil Structural inequality Structural violence Untermensch Trans bashing Victimisation Violence against women White flight White genocide conspiracy theory Wife selling Witch hunt
Policies Algorithmic wage discrimination Age of candidacy Apartheid in South Africa in Israel Blood purity Blood quantum Breadwinner model Conscription and sexism Disabilities Catholic Jewish Disparate impact Fagging Gender pay gap Gender roles Protecting Women's Private Spaces Act Gerontocracy Gerrymandering Ghetto benches Internment Jewish quota Opposition to LGBTQ rights MSM blood donation restrictions No kid zone Numerus clausus (as religious or racial quota) One-drop rule Racial quota Racial steering Redlining Same-sex marriage (laws and issues prohibiting) Segregation age racial Jim Crow laws Nuremberg Laws Segregation academy religious sexual in Islam Social exclusion Sodomy law State atheism State religion Transphobia Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration V-coding Ugly law Voter suppression White Australia policy
Countermeasures Affirmative action Anti-discrimination law Anti-racism Audit study Autism rights movement Gender-blind Blind audition Constitutional colorblindness Cross-sex friendship Cultural assimilation Cultural pluralism Diversity, equity, and inclusion Diversity training Empowerment Fat acceptance movement Feminism Fighting Discrimination Golden Rule Hate speech laws by country Human rights Intersex human rights Korenizatsiia LGBTQ rights Mad pride Music in the movement against apartheid Racial integration Reappropriation Rock Against Sexism Self-determination Social integration Stop Murder Music Toleration Transgender rights movement Universal suffrage Women's rights
Related topics Allophilia Amatonormativity Bias Capital punishment for homosexuality Cisnormativity Civil liberties Criminalization of homosexuality Dehumanization Diseases of despair Ethnic penalty Figleaf Heteronormativity Historical eugenics Internalized oppression Intersectionality Masculism Nazi concentration camp badge Oikophobia Oppression Police brutality Polyculturalism Power distance Prejudice Prisoner abuse Racial bias in criminal news in the United States Racism by country Racial color blindness Religious intolerance Second-generation gender bias Snobbery Social equity Social exclusion Social model of disability Social privilege Christian male white Social stigma Speciesism Stereotype The talk
v t e

Hate crime (also known as bias crime)^[1] in criminal law involves a standard offence (such as an assault, murder) with an added element of bias against a victim (individual or group of individuals) because of their physical appearance or perceived membership of a certain social group.^[2][3][4] Examples of such groups can include, and are almost exclusively limited to race, ethnicity, disability, language, nationality, physical appearance, political views, political affiliation, age, religion, sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation.^[2][5][6][7]

Hate crime should be distinguished from hate violence, or hate incidents, which might not necessarily be criminalised^[8] Incidents may involve physical assault, homicide, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse (which includes slurs) or insults, mate crime, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).^[9] Non-criminal actions that are motivated by these reasons are often called "bias incidents".

For example, the criminal law of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines a hate crime as a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. Hate itself is not a hate crime, but committing a crime motivated by bias against one or more of the social groups listed above, or by bias against their derivatives constitutes a hate crime.^[10] A hate crime law is a law intended to deter bias-motivated violence.^[11] Hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech: hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct which is already criminal under other laws, while hate speech laws criminalize a category of speech. Hate speech is a factor for sentencing enhancement in the United States, distinct from laws that criminalize speech.

The term "hate crime" came into common usage in the United States during the 1980s, but it is often used retrospectively in order to describe events which occurred prior to that era.^[12] From the Roman persecution of Christians to the Nazi slaughter of Jews, hate crimes were committed by individuals as well as governments long before the term was commonly used.^[7] A major part of defining crimes as hate crimes is determining that they have been committed against members of historically oppressed groups.^[13][14]

During the past two centuries, typical examples of hate crimes in the U.S. include the lynching of African Americans, largely in the South, lynchings of Europeans in the East, and lynching of Mexicans and Chinese in the West; cross burnings in order to intimidate black activists or drive black families out of predominantly white neighborhoods both during and after Reconstruction; assaults on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people; the painting of swastikas on Jewish synagogues; and xenophobic responses to a variety of minority ethnic groups.^[15]

The verb "to lynch" is attributed to the actions of Charles Lynch, an 18th-century Virginia Quaker. Lynch, other militia officers, and justices of the peace rounded up Tory sympathizers who were given a summary trial at an informal court; sentences which were handed down included whipping, property seizure, coerced pledges of allegiance, and conscription into the military. Originally, the term referred to the extrajudicial organized but unauthorized punishment of criminals. It later evolved to describe executions which were committed outside "ordinary justice". It is highly associated with white suppression of African Americans in the South, and periods of weak or nonexistent police authority, as in certain frontier areas of the Old West.^[7]

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the violence against people of Chinese origin significantly increased on the background of accusation of spreading the virus.^[16][17][18] In May 2020, the Polish-based "Never Again" Association published its report titled The Virus of Hate: The Brown Book of Epidemic, that documented numerous acts of racism, xenophobia, and discrimination that occurred in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as cases of spreading hate speech and conspiracy theories about the epidemic by the Alt-Right.^[19] In the U.S., this wave of hate brought back old and harmful stereotypes. The idea of the "Yellow Peril," the belief that Asians are a threat to Western society, reappeared in news stories and social media, reinforcing long-standing fears and suspicions. At the same time, the "Model Minority" myth made it harder for people to see the very real struggles Asian Americans face, painting them as silent and successful, and often excluding them from conversations about racial injustice. As a result, Asian Americans across the country experienced a dramatic rise in hate crimes, from verbal abuse and being spit on to physical attacks in public places. Elderly individuals were especially targeted, with several shocking assaults captured on video. Businesses were vandalized, and many people were harassed simply for wearing a mask or speaking their native language. These were not just random incidents, they were symptoms of deep-rooted racism that was reignited during a time of fear, uncertainty, and misinformation.

Hate crimes can have significant and wide-ranging psychological consequences, not only for their direct victims but for others of the group as well. Moreover, victims of hate crimes often experience a sense of victimization that goes beyond the initial crime, creating a heightened sense of vulnerability towards future victimization.^[20] In many ways, hate crime victimization can be a reminder to victims of their marginalized status in society, and for immigrants or refugees, may also serve to make them relive the violence that drove them to seek refuge in another country.^[20] A 1999 U.S. study of lesbian and gay victims of violent hate crimes documented that they experienced higher levels of psychological distress, including symptoms of depression and anxiety, than lesbian and gay victims of comparable crimes which were not motivated by antigay bias.^[21] A manual issued by the Attorney-General of the province of Ontario in Canada lists the following consequences:^[22]

Impact on the individual victim

psychological and affective disturbances; repercussions on the victim's identity and self-esteem; both reinforced by a specific hate crime's degree of violence, which is usually stronger than that of a common crime.

Effect on the targeted group

generalized terror in the group to which the victim belongs, inspiring feelings of vulnerability among its other members, who could be the next hate crime victims.

Effect on other vulnerable groups

ominous effects on minority groups or on groups that identify themselves with the targeted group, especially when the referred hate is based on an ideology or a doctrine that preaches simultaneously against several groups.

Effect on the community as a whole

divisions and factionalism arising in response to hate crimes are particularly damaging to multicultural societies.

Hate crime victims can also develop depression and psychological trauma.^[23] They suffer from typical symptoms of trauma: lack of concentration, fear, unintentional rethinking of the incident and feeling vulnerable or unsafe. These symptoms may be severe enough to qualify as PTSD. In the United States, the Supreme Court has accepted the claim that hate crimes cause 'distinct emotional harm' to victims. People who have been victims of hate crimes avoid spaces where they feel unsafe which can make communities less functional when ties with police are strained by persistent group fears and feelings of insecurity.^[24] In the United States, hate crime has been shown to reduce educational attainment among affected groups—particularly among black, non-Hispanic victims.^[25]

A review of European and American research indicates that terrorist bombings cause Islamophobia and hate crimes to flare up but, in calmer times, they subside again, although to a relatively high level. Terrorists' most persuasive message is that of fear; a primary and strong emotion, fear increases risk estimates and has distortive effects on the perception of ordinary Muslims. Widespread Islamophobic prejudice seems to contribute to anti-Muslim hate crimes, but indirectly; terrorist attacks and intensified Islamophobic prejudice serve as a window of opportunity for extremist groups and networks.^[26]

Sociologists Jack McDevitt and Jack Levin's 2002 study into the motives for hate crimes found four motives, and reported that "thrill-seeking" accounted for 66 percent of all hate crimes overall in the United States:^[27][28]

• Thrill-seeking – perpetrators engage in hate crimes for excitement and drama. Often, there is no greater purpose behind the crimes, with victims being vulnerable because they have an ethnic, religious, sexual or gender background that differs from their attackers. While the actual animosity present in such a crime can be quite low, thrill-seeking crimes were determined to often be dangerous, with 70 percent of thrill-seeking hate crimes studied involving physical attacks. Typically, these attacks are perpetrated by groups of young teenagers or adults seeking excitement.^[29]
• Defensive – perpetrators engage in hate crimes out of a belief they are protecting their communities. Often, these are triggered by a certain background event. Perpetrators believe society supports their actions but is too afraid to act and thus they believe they have communal assent in their actions.
• Retaliatory – perpetrators engage in hate crimes out of a desire for revenge. This can be in response to perceived personal slights, other hate crimes or terrorism. The "avengers" target members of a group whom they believe committed the original crime, even if the victims had nothing to do with it. These kinds of hate crimes are a common occurrence after terrorist attacks.
• Mission offenders – perpetrators engage in hate crimes out of ideological reasons. They consider themselves to be crusaders, often for a religious or racial cause. They may write complex explanations for their views and target symbolically important sites, trying to maximize damage. They believe that there is no other way to accomplish their goals, which they consider to be justification for excessive violence against innocents. This kind of hate crime often overlaps with terrorism, and is considered by the FBI to be both the rarest and deadliest form of hate crime.

In a later article, Levin and fellow sociologist Ashley Reichelmann found that following the September 11 attacks, thrill motivated hate crimes tended to decrease as the overall rate of violent crime decreased while defensive hate crimes increased substantially. Specifically, they found that 60% of all hate motivated assaults in 2001 were perpetrated against those the offenders perceived to be Middle Eastern and were motivated mainly by a desire for revenge.^[30] Levin and McDevitt also argued that while thrill crimes made up the majority of hate crimes in the 1990s, after September 11, 2001, hate crimes in the United States shifted from thrill offenses by young groups to more defensive oriented and more often perpetrated by older individuals respond to a precipitating event.^[29]

The motivations of hate-crime offenders are complex. Therefore, there is no one theory that can completely account for hate-motived crimes.^[31] However, Mark Austin Walters previously attempted to synthesize three interdisciplinary theories to account for the behavior of hate-crime offenders:

1. Strain Theory: suggests that hate crimes are motivated by perceived economic and material inequality, which results in differential attitudes towards outsiders who may be viewed as "straining" already scarce resources. An example of this can be seen in the discourse surrounding some people's apprehension towards immigrants, who feel as though immigrants and/or refugees receive extra benefits from government and strain social systems.

2. Doing Difference Theory: suggests that some individuals fear groups other than their own and, as a result of this, seek to suppress different cultures.

3. Self-Control Theory: suggests that a person's upbringing determines their tolerance threshold towards others, here individuals with low self-esteem are often impulsive, have poor employment prospects, and have little academic success.

Walters argues that a synthesis of these theories provides a more well-rounded scope of the motivations behind hate crimes, where he explains that social, cultural, and individual factors interact to elicit the violence behavior of individuals with low self-control.^[31]

Additionally, psychological perspectives within the realm of behaviorism have also contributed to theoretical explanations for the motivations of hate crimes particularly as it relates to conditioning and social learning. For instance, the seminal work of John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner illustrated that hate, a form of prejudice, was a conditioned emotional response.^[32] Later on, the work of Arthur Staats and Carolyn Staats illustrated that both hate and fear were learned behavioral responses.^[33] In their experiment, Staats and Staats paired positive and negative works with several different nationalities. The pairing of verbal stimuli was a form of conditioning, and it was found to influence attitude formation and attitude change.

These studies are of interest when considering modern forms of prejudice directed towards ethnic, religious, or racial groups.^[33] For instance, there was a significant increase in Islamophobia and hate crimes following the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States. Simultaneously, the news media was consistently pairing Islam with terrorism. Thus, the pairing of verbal stimuli in the media contributed to widespread prejudice towards all Arab individuals in a process that is known as semantic generalization, which refers to how a learned behavior can generalize across situations based on meaning or other abstract representations.^[34] These occurrences continue today with the social and political discourse that contribute to the context in which people learn, come to form beliefs, and engage in behavioral actions. Although not all individuals with prejudicial attitudes go on to engage in hate-motived crime, it has been suggested that hate-crime offenders come to learn their prejudices through social interaction, consumption of biased news media, political hate speech, and internal misrepresentations of cultures other than their own.^[35]

Compared to other types of offending, there has been relatively little research directed towards the management of hate-crime offenders.^[36] However, risk management for hate-crime offenders is an important consideration for forensic psychology and public safety in order to decrease the potential for future harm. Forensic risk assessments are designed to evaluate the likelihood of re-offending and to aid in risk management strategies. While not specifically designed for hate crime offenders, some of the most common risk assessment tools used to assess risk for hate-crime offenders include the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG;^[37]), the Historical Clinical Risk Management 20 (HCR-20;^[38]) and the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R;^[39]). Research has shown that assessing and addressing risk posed by hate-crime offenders is especially complex, and while existing tools are useful, it is important to incorporate bias-oriented factors (Dunbar et al., 2005). That is, hate-crime offenders do tend to score high risk on tools including both static and dynamic factors, but severity has been found to not be solely related to these factors, illustrating a need to incorporate biases and ideological factors.^[40]

Hate crime laws generally fall into one of several categories:

1. laws defining specific bias-motivated acts as distinct crimes;
2. criminal penalty-enhancement laws;
3. laws creating a distinct civil cause of action for hate crimes; and
4. laws requiring administrative agencies to collect hate crime statistics.^[41] Sometimes (as in Bosnia and Herzegovina), the laws focus on war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity with the prohibition against discriminatory action limited to public officials.

Since 2006, with the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime, most signatories to that Convention – mostly members of the Council of Europe – committed to punish as a crime racist and xenophobic hate speech done through the internet. ^[42]

Discriminatory acts constituting harassment or infringement of a person's dignity on the basis of origin, citizenship, race, religion, or gender (Penal Code Article 313). Courts have cited bias-based motivation in delivering sentences, but there is no explicit penalty enhancement provision in the Criminal Code. The government does not track hate crime statistics, although they are relatively rare.^[41]

Armenia has a penalty-enhancement statute for crimes with ethnic, racial, or religious motives (Criminal Code Article 63).^[41]

Austria has a penalty-enhancement statute for reasons like repeating a crime, being especially cruel, using others' helpless states, playing a leading role in a crime, or committing a crime with racist, xenophobic or especially reprehensible motivation (Penal Code section 33(5)).^[43] Austria is a party to the Convention on Cybercrime, but not the Additional Protocol.

Azerbaijan has a penalty-enhancement statute for crimes motivated by racial, national, or religious hatred (Criminal Code Article 61). Murder and infliction of serious bodily injury motivated by racial, religious, national, or ethnic intolerance are distinct crimes (Article 111).^[41] Azerbaijan is a party to the Convention on Cybercrime, but not the Additional Protocol.

Belarus has a penalty-enhancement statute for crimes motivated by racial, national, and religious hatred and discord.^[41][44]

Belgium's Act of 25 February 2003 ("aimed at combating discrimination and modifying the Act of 15 February 1993 which establishes the Centre for Equal Opportunities and the Fight against Racism") establishes a penalty-enhancement for crimes involving discrimination on the basis of gender, supposed race, color, descent, national or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, civil status, birth, fortune, age, religious or philosophical beliefs, current or future state of health and handicap or physical features. The Act also "provides for a civil remedy to address discrimination."^[41] The Act, along with the Act of 20 January 2003 ("on strengthening legislation against racism"), requires the centre to collect and publish statistical data on racism and discriminatory crimes.^[41] Belgium is a party to the Convention on Cybercrime, but not the Additional Protocol.

The Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina (enacted 2003) "contains provisions prohibiting discrimination by public officials on grounds, inter alia, of race, skin colour, national or ethnic background, religion and language and prohibiting the restriction by public officials of the language rights of the citizens in their relations with the authorities (Article 145/1 and 145/2)."^[45]

Bulgarian criminal law prohibits certain crimes motivated by racism, xenophobia and sexual orientation (since 2023), but a 1999 report by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance found that it does not appear that those provisions "have ever resulted in convictions before the courts in Bulgaria."^[46]

The Croatian Penal Code explicitly defines hate crime in article 89 as "any crime committed out of hatred for someone's race, skin color, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other belief, national or social background, asset, birth, education, social condition, age, health condition or other attribute".^[47] On 1 January 2013, a new Penal Code was introduced with the recognition of a hate crime based on "race, skin color, religion, national or ethnic background, sexual orientation or gender identity".^[48]

The Czech legislation finds its constitutional basis in the principles of equality and non-discrimination contained in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms. From there, we can trace two basic lines of protection against hate-motivated incidents: one passes through criminal law, the other through civil law. The current Czech criminal legislation has implications both for decisions about guilt (affecting the decision whether to find a defendant guilty or not guilty) and decisions concerning sentencing (affecting the extent of the punishment imposed). It has three levels, to wit:

• a circumstance determining whether an act is a crime – hate motivation is included in the basic constituent elements. If hate motivation is not proven, a conviction for a hate crime is not possible.
• a circumstance determining the imposition of a higher penalty – hate motivation is included in the qualified constituent elements for some types of crimes (murder, bodily harm). If hate motivation is not proven, the penalty is imposed according to the scale specified for the basic constituent elements of the crime.
• general aggravating circumstance – the court is obligated to take the hate motivation into account as a general aggravating circumstance and determines the amount of penalty to impose. Nevertheless, it is not possible to add together a general aggravating circumstance and a circumstance determining the imposition of a higher penalty. (see Annex for details)

Current criminal legislation does not provide for special penalties for acts that target another by reason of his sexual orientation, age or health status. Only the constituent elements of the criminal offence of Incitement to hatred towards a group of persons or to the curtailment of their rights and freedoms and general aggravating circumstances include attacking a so-called different group of people. Such a group of people can then, of course, be also defined by sexual orientation, age or health status. A certain disparity has thus been created between, on the one hand, those groups of people who are victimized by reason of their skin color, faith, nationality, ethnicity or political persuasion and enjoy increased protection, and, on the other hand, those groups that are victimized by reason of their sexual orientation, age or health status and are not granted increased protection. This gap in protection against attacks motivated by the victim's sexual orientation, age or health status cannot be successfully bridged by interpretation. Interpretation by analogy is inadmissible in criminal law, sanctionable motivations being exhaustively enumerated.^[49]

Although Danish law does not include explicit hate crime provisions, "section 80(1) of the Criminal Code instructs courts to take into account the gravity of the offence and the offender's motive when meting out penalty, and therefore to attach importance to the racist motive of crimes in determining sentence."^[50] In recent years judges have used this provision to increase sentences on the basis of racist motives.^[41][51]

Since 1992, the Danish Civil Security Service (PET) has released statistics on crimes with apparent racist motivation.^[41]

Under section 151 of the Criminal Code of Estonia of 6 June 2001, which entered into force on 1 September 2002, with amendments and supplements and as amended by the Law of 8 December 2011, "activities which publicly incite to hatred, violence or discrimination on the basis of nationality, race, colour, sex, language, origin, religion, sexual orientation, political opinion, or financial or social status, if this results in danger to the life, health or property of a person, are punishable by a fine of up to 300 fine units or by detention".^[52]

Finnish Criminal Code 515/2003 (enacted 31 January 2003) makes "committing a crime against a person, because of his national, racial, ethnical or equivalent group" an aggravating circumstance in sentencing.^[41][53] In addition, ethnic agitation (Finnish: kiihotus kansanryhmää vastaan) is criminalized and carries a fine or a prison sentence of not more than two years. The prosecution need not prove that an actual danger to an ethnic group is caused but only that malicious message is conveyed. A more aggravated hate crime, warmongering (Finnish: sotaan yllyttäminen), carries a prison sentence of one to ten years. However, in case of warmongering, the prosecution must prove an overt act that evidently increases the risk that Finland is involved in a war or becomes a target for a military operation. The act in question may consist of

1. illegal violence directed against a foreign country or its citizens,
2. systematic dissemination of false information on Finnish foreign policy or defense
3. public influence on the public opinion towards a pro-war viewpoint or
4. public suggestion that a foreign country or Finland should engage in an aggressive act.^[54]

In 2003, France enacted penalty-enhancement hate crime laws for crimes motivated by bias against the victim's actual or perceived ethnicity, nation, race, religion, or sexual orientation. The penalties for murder were raised from 30 years (for non-hate crimes) to life imprisonment (for hate crimes), and the penalties for violent attacks leading to permanent disability were raised from 10 years (for non-hate crimes) to 15 years (for hate crimes).^[41][55]

"There is no general provision in Georgian law for racist motivation to be considered an aggravating circumstance in prosecutions of ordinary offenses. Certain crimes involving racist motivation are, however, defined as specific offenses in the Georgian Criminal Code of 1999, including murder motivated by racial, religious, national or ethnic intolerance (article 109); infliction of serious injuries motivated by racial, religious, national or ethnic intolerance (article 117); and torture motivated by racial, religious, national or ethnic intolerance (article 126). ECRI reported no knowledge of cases in which this law has been enforced. There is no systematic monitoring or data collection on discrimination in Georgia."^[41]

The German Criminal Code does not have hate crime legislation, instead, it criminalizes hate speech under a number of different laws, including Volksverhetzung. In the German legal framework motivation is not taken into account while identifying the element of the offence. However, within the sentencing procedure the judge can define certain principles for determining punishment. In section 46 of the German Criminal Code it is stated that "the motives and aims of the perpetrator; the state of mind reflected in the act and the willfulness involved in its commission"^[56] can be taken into consideration when determining the punishment; under this statute, hate and bias have been taken into consideration in sentencing in past cases.^[57]

Hate crimes are not specifically tracked by German police, but have been studied separately: a recently published EU "Report on Racism" finds that racially motivated attacks are frequent in Germany, identifying 18,142 incidences for 2006, of which 17,597 were motivated by right-wing ideologies, both about a 14% year-by-year increase.^[58] Relative to the size of the population, this represents an eightfold higher rate of hate crimes than reported in the US during the same period.^[59] Awareness of hate crimes in Germany remains low.^[60]

Article Law 927/1979 "Section 1,1 penalizes incitement to discrimination, hatred or violence towards individuals or groups because of their racial, national or religious origin, through public written or oral expressions; Section 1,2 prohibits the establishment of, and membership in, organizations which organize propaganda and activities aimed at racial discrimination; Section 2 punishes public expression of offensive ideas; Section 3 penalizes the act of refusing, in the exercise of one's occupation, to sell a commodity or to supply a service on racial grounds."^[61] Public prosecutors may press charges even if the victim does not file a complaint. However, as of 2003, no convictions had been attained under the law.^[62]

Violent action, cruelty, and coercion by threat made on the basis of the victim's actual or perceived national, ethnic, religious status or membership in a particular social group are punishable under article 174/B of the Hungarian Criminal Code.^[41] This article was added to the Code in 1996.^[63] Hungary is a party to the Convention on Cybercrime, but not the Additional Protocol.

Section 233a of the Icelandic Penal Code states "Anyone who in a ridiculing, slanderous, insulting, threatening or any other manner publicly abuses a person or a group of people on the basis of their nationality, skin colour, race, religion or sexual orientation, shall be fined or jailed for up to two years."^[64] Iceland is a party to the Convention on Cybercrime, but not the Additional Protocol.

India does not have any specific laws governing hate crimes in general other than hate speech which is covered under the Indian Penal Code.

In legal effect since December 31, 2024 Ireland implemented broad-based comprehensive legislation on hate crimes.^[65]

The Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989 created the offence of inciting hatred against a group of persons on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the Traveller community (an indigenous minority group), or sexual orientation.^[41][66] Frustration at the low number of prosecutions (18 by 2011) was attributed to a misconception that the law addressed hate crimes more generally as opposed to incitement in particular.^[67]

In 2019, a UN rappourteur told Irish representatives at the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, meeting at UN Geneva, to introduce new hate crime legislation to combat the low prosecution rate for offences under the 1989 act – particularly for online hate speech – and lack of training for the Garda Síochána on racially motivated crimes. The rapporteur's points came during a rise in anti-immigrant rhetoric and racist attacks in Ireland and were based on recommendations submitted by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission and numerous other civil society organisations. Reforms are supported by the Irish Network Against Racism.^[68]

The Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill known as the "Hate Crime Bill", prohibiting hate speech or incitement to hate crimes based on protected characteristics, is in its Third Stage at the Seanad, Ireland's upper house, as of June 2023^[update] and the Irish Times reports it is likely to become law in late 2023.^[69][70] It has drawn concern from the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and from across the political spectrum (specifically from Michael McDowell, Rónán Mullen, and People Before Profit), as well as internationally, from business magnate Elon Musk and political activist Donald Trump Jr.^[70] Paul Murphy of People Before Profit said the bill created a "thought crime" by its criminalisation of possessing material prepared for circulation where circulation would incite hatred.^[70] Pauline O'Reilly, a Green Party senator said that the existing legislation was "not effective" and outdated, adding that the Gardaí saw a rise of 30% in hate crime in Ireland."^[71]

Data published by the Gardaí showed a 29% increase in hate crimes and hate-related incidents from 448 in 2021 to 582 in 2022.^[72] The Gardaí recognise that "despite improvements, hate crime and hate related incidents are still under-reported".^[73]

Italian criminal law, at Section 3 of Law No. 205/1993, the so-called Legge Mancino (Mancino law), contains a penalty-enhancement provision for all crimes motivated by racial, ethnic, national, or religious bias.^[41] Italy is a party to the Convention on Cybercrime, but not the Additional Protocol.

In Kazakhstan, there are constitutional provisions prohibiting propaganda promoting racial or ethnic superiority.^[41]

In Kyrgyzstan, "the Constitution of the State party prohibits any kind of discrimination on grounds of origin, sex, race, nationality, language, faith, political or religious convictions or any other personal or social trait or circumstance, and that the prohibition against racial discrimination is also included in other legislation, such as the Civil, Penal and Labour Codes."^[74]

Article 299 of the Criminal Code defines incitement to national, racist, or religious hatred as a specific offense. This article has been used in political trials of suspected members of the banned organization Hizb-ut-Tahrir.^[41][75]

In March, 2025, the Dutch Senate voted in favour of a bill by which penalties for crimes with a discriminatory aim can be aggravated by 1/3. Since the Lower Chamber of Parliament already accepted the bill, this legislation will soon become into effect.

Article 13 of the Constitution of Poland prohibits organizations "whose programmes or activities sanction racial or national hatred".^[76]

Article 29 of Constitution of the Russian Federation bans incitement to riot for the sake of stirring societal, racial, ethnic, and religious hatred as well as the promotion of the superiority of the same. Article 282 of the Criminal code further includes protections against incitement of hatred (including gender) via various means of communication, instilling criminal penalties including fines and imprisonment.^[77] Although a former member of the Council of Europe, Russia is not a party to the Convention on Cybercrime.

In 2023, Slovenia introduced a penalty-enhancement provision in its Penal Code. If the victim's national, racial, religious or ethnic origin, sex, colour, descent, property, education, social status, political or other opinion, disability, sexual orientation or any other personal circumstance was a factor contributing to the commission of the criminal offence, it shall be taken into account when determining the penalty.^[78]

Article 22(4) of the Spanish Penal Code includes a penalty-enhancement provision for crimes motivated by bias against the victim's ideology, beliefs, religion, ethnicity, race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, illness or disability.^[41]

On 14 May 2019, the Spanish Attorney General distributed a circular instructing on the interpretation of hate crime law. This new interpretation includes nazis as a collective that can be protected under this law.^[79]

Although a member of the Council of Europe, Spain is not a party to the Convention on Cybercrime.

Article 29 of the Swedish Penal Code includes a penalty-enhancement provision for crimes motivated by bias against the victim's race, color, nationality, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or "other similar circumstance" of the victim.^[41][80]

The constitution of Ukraine guarantees protection against hate crime:

• Article 10: "In Ukraine, free development, use and protection of Russian and other languages of ethnic minorities of Ukraine are guaranteed".
• Article 11: "The State shall promote the development of the ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity of all indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities of Ukraine".
• Article 24: "There can be no privileges or restrictions on the grounds of race, color of the skin, political, religious or other beliefs, sex, ethnic or social origin, property status, place of residence, language or other grounds".^[81]

Under the Criminal Codex, crimes committed because of hatred are hate crimes and carry increased punishment in many articles of the criminal law. There are also separate articles on punishment for a hate crime.

Article 161: "Violations of equality of citizens depending on their race, ethnicity, religious beliefs, disability and other grounds: Intentional acts aimed at incitement to ethnic, racial or religious hatred and violence, to demean the ethnic honor and dignity, or to repulse citizens' feelings due to their religious beliefs, as well as direct or indirect restriction of rights or the establishment of direct or indirect privileges of citizens on the grounds of race, color, political, religious or other beliefs, sex, disability, ethnic or social origin, property status, place of residence, language or other grounds" (maximum criminal sentence of up to 8 years in prison).

Article 300: "Importation, manufacture or distribution of literature and other media promoting a cult of violence and cruelty, racial, ethnic or religious intolerance and discrimination" (maximum criminal sentence of up to 5 years in prison).^[82]

For England and Wales, the Sentencing Act 2020 makes racial or religious hostility, or hostility related to disability, sexual orientation, or transgender identity an aggravation in sentencing for crimes in general.^[83]

Separately, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 defines separate offences, with increased sentences, for racially or religiously aggravated assaults, harassment, and a handful of public order offences.

For Northern Ireland, Public Order 1987 (S.I. 1987/463 (N.I. 7)) serves the same purposes.^[84] A "racial group" is a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. A "religious group" is a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief.

"Hate crime" legislation is distinct from "hate speech" legislation. See Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom.

The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) reported in 2013 that there were an average of 278,000 hate crimes a year with 40 percent being reported according to a victims survey; police records only identified around 43,000 hate crimes a year.^{[85][needs update]} It was reported that police recorded a 57-percent increase in hate crime complaints in the four days following the UK's European Union membership referendum; however, a press release from the National Police Chief's Council stated that "this should not be read as a national increase in hate crime of 57 percent".^[86][87]

In 2013, Greater Manchester Police began recording attacks on goths, punks and other alternative culture groups as hate crimes.^[88]

On 4 December 2013, Essex Police launched the 'Stop the Hate' initiative as part of a concerted effort to find new ways to tackle hate crime in Essex. The launch was marked by a conference in Chelmsford, hosted by Chief Constable Stephen Kavanagh, which brought together 220 delegates from a range of partner organizations involved in the field. The theme of the conference was 'Report it to Sort it' and the emphasis was on encouraging people to tell police if they have been a victim of hate crime, whether it be based on race, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or disability.^[89]

Crown Prosecution Service guidance issued on 21 August 2017 stated that online hate crimes should be treated as seriously as offences in person.^[90]

Perhaps the most high-profile hate crime in modern Britain occurred in Eltham, London, on 24 April 1993, when 18-year-old black student Stephen Lawrence was stabbed to death in an attack by a gang of white youths. Two white teenagers were later charged with the murder, and at least three other suspects were mentioned in the national media, but the charges against them were dropped within three months after the Crown Prosecution Service concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. However, a change in the law a decade later allowed a suspect to be charged with a crime twice if new evidence emerged after the original charges were dropped or a "not guilty" verdict was delivered in court. Gary Dobson, who had been charged with the murder in the initial 1993 investigation, was found guilty of Stephen Lawrence's murder in January 2012 and sentenced to