Megan Williams and Hate Crimes

There is a lot of understandable outrage over the decisions of the both the US Attorney and the state prosecutor to not bring hate crime charges against the 6 whites accused of kidnapping, torturing and raping Megan Williams in Logan County, West Virginia.

There seems to be a prevailing assumption that if there is racial bias involved, we are talking hate crime. But "hate crime" is a legal classification with specific criteria. Federal prosecution of hate crimes is under 18 U.S.C. § 245, which

makes it unlawful to willfully injure, intimidate or interfere with any person, or to attempt to do so, by force or threat of force, because of that other person's race, color, religion or national origin and because of his/her activity as one of the following:

• A student at or applicant for admission to a public school or public college
• A participant in a benefit, service, privilege, program, facility or activity provided or administered by a state or local government
• An applicant for private or state employment; a private or state employee; a member or applicant for membership in a labor organization or hiring hall; or an applicant for employment through an employment agency, labor organization or hiring hall
• A juror or prospective juror in state court
• A traveler or user of a facility of interstate commerce or common carrier
• A patron of a public accommodation or place of exhibition or entertainment, including hotels, motels, restaurants, lunchrooms, bars, gas stations, theaters, concert halls, sports arenas or stadiums.

Federal prosecution for hate crimes requires two key ingredients: bias as a motive and federally protected activities. In my book, the racial motive of the perpetrators is undeniable---but the crimes against Megan Williams do not involve any of the federally protected activities, so federal hate crimes prosecution is not possible.

But at the state level hate crime charges are a different matter. West Virginia's hate crime statute, W. Va. Code §61-6-21, has three criteria. Raging Red explains:

To decide whether or not to charge the six defendants under the hate crime statute, the prosecutor will look at the elements of the crime, which can be broken down as follows:

1. willful use of force or threat of force
2. that attempts to or does injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten a person’s free exercise or enjoyment of a secured right or privilege
3. motivated by the person’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, political affiliation, or sex

The first element is straightforward and is clearly present in the case of Megan Williams.

The second element requires that the force or threat of force was used in an attempt to prevent someone from exercising a right or privilege guaranteed to them by state law, federal law, the West Virginia Constitution, or the U.S. Constitution. This element is simple to meet, because the hate crime statute itself is a state law that guarantees people the right to be free from violence or threats of violence because of their race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, political affiliation, or sex.

The third element is the bias element. Nothing in the statute indicates that the crime must be solely motivated by bias or even primarily motivated by bias, just that the crime was committed against that person “because of” one of the listed characteristics. (Note that sexual orientation is not included in that list.)

Were the crimes against Megan Williams motivated at least in part by her race? In my opinion, there’s plenty of evidence from which a jury could conclude that yes, what those six people did to Williams was done at least in part because of her race.

So at the state level the prosecutor absolutely should charge the 6 alleged perpetrators with hate crimes. Raging Red tears down the common rationales for not charging the defendants with hate crimes.

[W]hat’s the point of having a hate crime statute if you’re not going to use it? The maximum penalty under WV’s hate crime law is ten years, so does that mean a prosecutor would never charge someone with a hate crime if they were already charged with a crime that carries a stiffer penalty? The purpose of charging someone with a hate crime isn’t just the penalty imposed — it has symbolic value.

In our criminal justice system, it’s very common for people to be charged with multiple crimes that carry sentences of varying lengths, even when one or more of those crimes already carries a life sentence. Courts sometimes impose consecutive life sentences, which is merely symbolic — a person can’t actually serve more than one life sentence. But courts do it because the community wants to impose a punishment for every act a person commits and every victim he harms. (There are practical reasons to do it too — if a conviction is overturned or a sentence is reduced on appeal, the other convictions and sentences are still in place.)

In the past couple of days, I have heard various reasons that hate crime charges may not be appropriate in this case:

• She apparently knew at least one of the six people before this crime occurred.
• She went of her own free will to the mobile home where she was held captive.
• The defendants already face life in prison.

I don’t find any of those reasons compelling. I’ve covered the third one already. As for the others, the fact that the victim knows the perpetrator does not negate the possibility that it’s a hate crime. I can see how it might be a factor that a prosecutor would consider in determining whether to file hate crime charges, but it alone doesn’t rule out the possibility. Whether she went to the mobile home of her own free will or not is irrelevant.

I'm with Raging Red: you have to call it what it is. The legal system can and should use the tools that it has to advance public understanding of race and gender in this case. The Megan Williams story, like the Jena story, exposes old-style racism that Americans like to pretend is a thing of the past. The two stories are not so much anomalies as they are evidence that the past is still very much with us---and is not even past.

In my next post on the Megan Williams case, I will discuss race and gender issues from cultural and historical perspectives that are unlikely to be addressed in court, even under the best of circumstances. I will also address some of the reservations that some people, including Raging Red, have been having hate crime charges since it came out that Williams was on the Brewster premises for over four weeks and may not have been there against her will---at first.

RELATED POSTS

• White Supremacist Fabrications
• History of the Obvious
• Megan Williams Says She Was Set Up, Reveals More Details of Abuse