Making a Home for the Homeless in Hate Crime Legislation

Abstract

Several jurisdictions in the United States (e.g., Florida and Washington) have recently incorporated the status of "homeless" under the protection of hate crime legislation. This was largely promoted by new data and reports by the National Coalition for the Homeless urging added protection for the homeless. The issue of whether the homeless belong under hate crime provisions raises the following question: What criteria must a group meet to be eligible for its inclusion? What similarities do the homeless have with other protected groups? Finally, what implications does the recognition of economic status have on other economic groups, particularity the top wealthy 1%? In this article, I explore some of the issues raised by including the homeless as a protected group. I survey several rationales offered for the selection of protected characteristics. I argue that the rationales currently offered suffer from descriptive inadequacy by either being under- or over-inclusive. I turn instead to the political conception of "disadvantage" for an identity marker that better explains the link between the various protected groups and identities under hate crime legislation. Moreover, the use of disadvantage allows for the inclusion of the homeless without the need for incorporating other socio-economic identities.

A Contemporary Review of Hate Crime Legislation in the United States

“…Findings from this study show that some groups see widespread inclusion as protected classes in state hate crime laws, while others do not. Debates about the inclusion/exclusion of protected classes will persist, particularly for those whose inclusion is controversial, like law enforcement, homelessness, sexual orientation, and gender identity (Al-Hakim, 2015; Mason, 2022; Valcore, 2018; Walters et al, 2020). Policies should be adopted that show criminal justice actors and the public that, while states may not currently grant legal protection to certain groups, they are still vulnerable to hate crime victimization and should receive assistance if they are victimized.…”

“…Although this intention has remained, the proposed and actualized addition of certain groups as protected classes, such as law enforcement, has reignited discussion about whether the inclusion of those groups diverges from the original aim of hate crime law. Other controversies surround the addition of protected classes possessing characteristics that contrast with moral views some individuals have about gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and homelessness (Al-Hakim, 2015; van der Toorn et al, 2017; Walters et al, 2020). Controversies surrounding the inclusion of law enforcement, sexual orientation, gender identity, and homelessness are discussed below, providing insight as to why variation exists in hate crime laws across the United States.…”

“…The inclusion of the homeless as a protected class is debated as well. Being homeless, though, is not an intrinsic characteristic, like race or sexual orientation (Al-Hakim, 2015). Society often considers individuals experiencing homelessness as deviant/criminal, “undesirable,” responsible for their circumstances, and, as a result, undeserving of inclusion as a protected class in hate crime laws (Allison & Klein, 2021; Chakraborti & Garland, 2012).…”

“…Some states and cities have laws/ordinances that criminalize panhandling and camping in outdoor areas (O’Keefe, 2010). Although societal opinions downplay the worthiness of the homeless to receive additional legal protection, and laws/ordinances penalize behaviors the homeless may take part in, research has found that the homeless are at an increased risk of experiencing targeted harassment and violence (Al-Hakim, 2015; Allison & Klein, 2021; O’Keefe, 2010; Wachholz, 2009). Advocates for including homelessness as a distinct protected class use data and the documented vulnerability of the homeless to support arguments for inclusion.…”

A continuum of hate: delimiting the field of hate studies

“…2 Importantly, genocidal acts go beyond just the killing of individuals, and include other forms of violence up to and including rape. From a definitional perspective, in as much as one of the key debates in hate studies scholarship is the identity groups which deserve protection under hate crime legislation (see, for example, Al-Hakim, 2015;Mason, 2014;Schweppe, 2012), a parallel debate occurs in the context of genocide, with, for example, Kakar (1995)arguing that social and political groups should be incorporated within the definition, and Axelson (2016) arguing that sexual orientation should be included.…”