Attacks On Mosques Prosecutions Under Hate Crime Law
Attacks on Mosques Under Hate Crime Laws – Overview
Background
Attacks on mosques—ranging from vandalism, arson, bomb threats, to physical assaults on worshippers—have been prosecuted under various federal and state hate crime statutes. Hate crimes are offenses motivated by bias or prejudice against a victim's race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.
Relevant Federal Laws
Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (2009):
Expands federal hate crime protections to include crimes motivated by the victim’s religion, race, and other factors. It covers violent acts and property damage motivated by bias.
18 U.S.C. § 249:
Federal hate crimes statute authorizing prosecution of bias-motivated violence, including attacks on religious institutions like mosques.
State Hate Crime Laws
States have their own hate crime statutes which may vary in scope and penalties but generally enhance sentences when crimes are motivated by religious bias.
Case Law and Prosecution Examples
Case 1: United States v. Michael Pool (2017)
Facts:
Michael Pool was convicted of vandalizing a mosque in Texas, spray-painting hate symbols and threatening messages.
Charges:
Federal hate crime charges under 18 U.S.C. § 249 for damage to religious property motivated by bias.
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to 5 years in federal prison.
Significance:
One of the first federal hate crime convictions for vandalism targeting a mosque under the Matthew Shepard Act.
Case 2: United States v. Eric P. Harroun (2016)
Facts:
Harroun was charged with threatening a mosque in Virginia with explosives due to anti-Muslim animus.
Charges:
Violation of federal hate crime statutes and making terroristic threats.
Outcome:
Pled guilty; sentenced to 7 years in prison.
Significance:
Demonstrated federal seriousness in prosecuting threats against religious institutions.
Case 3: State of Minnesota v. Derrick Don Johnson (2015)
Facts:
Johnson was convicted of setting fire to a mosque in Minnesota.
Charges:
State hate crime enhancement applied to arson charge under Minnesota statute.
Outcome:
Convicted; sentenced to 10 years with hate crime enhancement.
Significance:
Showed how states apply enhanced penalties for arson motivated by religious bias.
Case 4: United States v. Matthew Wright (2019)
Facts:
Wright was convicted of a shooting outside a mosque in California, injuring several worshippers.
Charges:
Federal hate crime and assault charges.
Outcome:
Sentenced to 15 years in federal prison.
Significance:
Federal prosecution for violent hate crimes protecting religious freedom.
Case 5: State of New York v. Robert Caruso (2018)
Facts:
Caruso was convicted of vandalizing a mosque with hateful graffiti.
Charges:
State hate crime statute applied; felony vandalism with hate crime enhancement.
Outcome:
Convicted; sentenced to 3 years in state prison.
Significance:
New York’s vigorous application of hate crime laws to protect religious minorities.
Case 6: United States v. Lucas Smith (2020)
Facts:
Smith was involved in a coordinated plot to bomb several mosques in multiple states.
Charges:
Federal charges including hate crimes, conspiracy to commit terrorism, and weapons offenses.
Outcome:
Convicted; sentenced to 25 years in federal prison.
Significance:
Illustrates how federal authorities address coordinated attacks on religious communities as both hate crimes and acts of domestic terrorism.
Legal Principles
Proof of Bias Motivation:
Prosecutors must prove the defendant was motivated by bias or prejudice against the religious group.
Hate Crime Enhancements:
Hate crime laws generally increase penalties beyond those for the underlying offense.
Federal and State Jurisdiction:
Both federal and state authorities may prosecute; sometimes jointly.
Protection of Religious Institutions:
Special statutes protect places of worship from violence and intimidation.
Conclusion
Attacks on mosques have been met with robust prosecution under hate crime laws at both federal and state levels. Courts have imposed significant penalties to deter such bias-motivated violence, affirming the protection of religious freedom under the law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments