Racial episodes show it’s time to fix Connecticut’s hate crime law
Three troubling recent incidents involving apparent racial bias have brought Connecticut’s hate crimes laws into focus, but the way the laws have been applied has been inconsistent — in only one of the three was a hate crime charge filed, although it easily could have been in the other two. It’s time to revisit the legislation and have a wider debate about the what the law is trying to accomplish.
In the first incident, two University of Connecticut students were charged with a hate crime after allegedly chanting the N-word as they walked through a campus parking lot late at night.
In the second, an Andover woman was cited for creating a public disturbance at the Shoppes at Buckland Hills in Manchester after allegedly telling a woman and her daughters, who were wearing hijabs, that they should go back to their own country, among other things.
In the third, a Plainville man was charged with disorderly conduct last week after allegedly draping himself in a Confederate flag and running up and down his driveway as his next-door neighbor, a 12-year-old black girl, waited for the school bus.
The three incidents have one thing in common: racist and hateful attitudes. But the way police and prosecutors responded to them in three different ways shows the need for clarity and consistency about where and how the law should be applied. There needs to be broader understanding about where the line lies between speech that is criminal and that which is objectionable.
As racial fault lines continue to widen, understanding what a law can and cannot do is critical to any sort of constructive movement forward. Is the law meant to change behavior, or just to punish? The concept behind the law is sound: Crimes committed with a racist intent merit a more serious consequence. But the uneven application of the law across the state weakens its intent.
One section of Connecticut law deals with intimidation by bigotry or bias and various degrees thereof. Another section broadly criminalizes “ridicule.” The laws should give police clear direction about what crimes, under what circumstances, should be charged.
The UConn students in the first incident were charged under a law that states: “Any person who, by his advertisement, ridicules or holds up to contempt any person or class of persons, on account of the creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race of such person or class of persons, shall be guilty of a class D misdemeanor.”
Professor Douglas Spencer, who teaches constitutional law at the University of Connecticut law school, told The Courant’s Daniela Altimari that the statute is “unconstitutionally vague.”
“The First Amendment protects against laws that suppress speech based on its content and/or its viewpoint,” Mr. Spencer said. “The 14th Amendment protects against laws that are so vague police and prosecutors have unfettered discretion to criminalize speech they disagree with, and that are so overbroad they criminalize behavior that is clearly acceptable.”
Regarding the second incident in Manchester, police spokesman Lt. Ryan Shea told The Courant’s Jesse Leavenworth the confrontation did not rise to the level of a hate crime.
“Certainly it was disturbing to the victim in terms of the interaction with this woman and the basis of her statements,” Lt. Shea said. “However, it wasn’t threatening in nature. It wasn’t violent in nature.”
In the Plainville incident, 49-year-old Anthony Esposito does not face a hate-crime charge. He was charged with breach of peace after a June incident and disorderly conduct more recently after his appalling actions with the Confederate flag. To fly a Confederate flag is one thing, but to taunt a person with it is different.
Angela Chapman told The Courant’s David Owens that Mr. Esposito engaged in “constant intimidation” and used the Confederate “flag as a tool to harass us, intimidate us.” It could be argued that Mr. Esposito’s behavior qualified him for a threatening charge or a hate crime.
In any of these cases, a different interpretation may have led to a different outcome. That speaks to a need for state lawmakers to take action. Without more clarity, the door is left open to wider interpretation of how the laws apply to the same behavior.
How these laws are crafted has deep implications for society and the role of law enforcement in the process. There is no simple answer here, but the underlying issue is critical. How we address racial bias and inequity within Connecticut speaks to our collective character.