When it comes to criminal law, there is supposed to be a strictly defined description of what constitutes unlawful activities. It facilitates understanding of someone’s actions for both the citizens and the police. However, some criminal acts are ambiguous and not as easy to identify. Among such offenses are hate crimes, which still do not have a universal law designation in the United States. Until recently, the State of Georgia also did not have hate crime legislation. This changed in June 2020, when the respective bill was signed. Ascertaining what constitutes a hate crime in Georgia is essential in preparing the police officers to correctly identify and investigate these offenses.
The newly signed law gives a definition of a hate crime. It refers to a criminal activity committed “intentionally based on race, sex, sexual orientation, color, religion, national origin, mental disability, or physical disability” (Borna, 2020, para. 3). The first problem, which officers should pay attention to, is that the manner in which an offense is committed is not defined. The important part is the intentions and the feelings of an abuser. This means that an officer should look for an emotional component because there is a difference between a crime with no specific target and an offense on a discriminatory basis.
The law also specifies a procedure for establishing the prejudice of an abuser. Even before the suspect is arrested, a “Bias Crime Report” is required to be completed. In it, the law Georgian enforcement officers will ascertain whether “the incident at issue occurred because of the person’s actual or perceived attributes” (Borna, 2020, para. 5). At the same time, the involvement of different races in crime does not automatically mean a hate crime. It is important to retain a clear and unbiased perspective. Therefore, it would be better to assign the officers to write educational Bias Crime Reports without identifying the race of an abuser. It would help the police pay attention to other possible discriminatory attributes without the excessive focus on race.
Another problem arises not as much from the hate criminals but rather from the police staff. There have been numerous reports about the inappropriate handling of poor communities and communities of color by law enforcement officers (Cos et al., 2020). This pertains especially to white policemen, who comprise the majority of the security agencies. Officers should be reminded that hate crimes might also apply to them since there is no definition of what form such an offense should actually take. Thus, it is entirely possible for police misconduct to be attributed the label of a hate crime.
In order to avoid such repercussions, measures should be taken to achieve transparency. Georgian officers should be instructed to favor communication with suspects and witnesses in areas with surveillance. The more technology and equipment is installed, the easier it is to ascertain whether any illegal activities took place (Cos et al., 2020). Otherwise, police officers may be subject to complaints of misconduct, which would be difficult to refute without any video evidence.
Altogether, it should be evident that the Georgian hate crime legislation may have adversarial effects on both the abusers and the police. Almost any wrongdoing may classify as such if prejudice is involved. Police officers should learn to pay attention to other possible motives in order not to overemphasize ethnicity. Moreover, officers’ misconduct may also fall within the hate crime framework. The solution is a heavier reliance on surveillance equipment, which would help establish the fact of prejudice. Overall, instructions, writing educational reports, and preference to areas with higher supervision constitute the preparation of Georgian officers for managing hate crimes.
References
Cox, S. M., Massey, D., Koski, C. M., and Fitch, B. D. (2020). Introduction to Policing. Sage Publications.
Borna, E. S. (2020). Georgia’s New Hate Crimes Legislation. The National Law Review. Web.