The concept and naming of “hate crime,” and the adoption of special laws to address it, provoked controversy and raised fundamental questions when they were introduced in the 1980s. In the decades since, neither hate crime itself nor those hotly debated questions have abated. To the contrary, hate crime has increased in recent years—although the prominent target groups have shifted over time—and the debate over hate crime laws has reignited as well. The still-open questions range from the philosophical to the doctrinal to the pragmatic: What justifies the enhanced punishment that hate crime laws impose based on the perpetrator’s motivation? Does that enhanced punishment infringe on the perpetrator’s rights to freedom of belief and expression? How can we know or prove a perpetrator’s motivation? And, most practical of all: Do hate crime laws work? This Essay proposes that we reframe our understanding of what we label as hate crimes. It argues that those crimes are not necessarily the acts of hate-filled extremists motivated by deeply held, fringe beliefs, but instead often reflect the broader, even mainstream, social environment that has marked some social groups as the expected or even acceptable targets for crime and violence. In turn, hate crimes themselves influence the social environment by reinforcing recognizable patterns of discrimination. The Essay maintains that we should broaden our understanding of the motivations for and effects of hate crimes and draws connections between hate crimes and seemingly disparate phenomena that have recently captured the nation’s attention.

“仇恨犯罪”的概念和命名，以及通过特别法律来解决这一问题，在 1980 年代引入时引发了争议并提出了基本问题。从那以后的几十年里，仇恨犯罪本身和那些激烈争论的问题都没有减少。相反，近年来仇恨犯罪有所增加——尽管主要目标群体随着时间的推移发生了变化——并且关于仇恨犯罪法的辩论也重新点燃。仍然悬而未决的问题从哲学到教义再到实用：仇恨犯罪法根据犯罪者的动机施加的加重惩罚是什么？这种加重处罚是否侵犯了行为人的信仰和言论自由的权利？我们如何知道或证明犯罪者的动机？而且，最实用的是：仇恨犯罪法有效吗？这篇文章建议我们重新定义我们对仇恨犯罪的理解。它认为，这些犯罪不一定是出于根深蒂固的边缘信仰而充满仇恨的极端分子的行为，而是往往反映了更广泛的、甚至是主流的社会环境，这种环境已将某些社会群体标记为预期甚至可以接受的犯罪目标和暴力。反过来，仇恨犯罪本身通过强化可识别的歧视模式来影响社会环境。这篇文章认为，我们应该扩大对仇恨犯罪的动机和影响的理解，并将仇恨犯罪与最近引起全国关注的看似完全不同的现象联系起来。它认为，这些犯罪不一定是出于根深蒂固的边缘信仰而充满仇恨的极端分子的行为，而是往往反映了更广泛的、甚至是主流的社会环境，这种环境已将某些社会群体标记为预期甚至可以接受的犯罪目标和暴力。反过来，仇恨犯罪本身通过强化可识别的歧视模式来影响社会环境。这篇文章认为，我们应该扩大对仇恨犯罪的动机和影响的理解，并将仇恨犯罪与最近引起全国关注的看似完全不同的现象联系起来。它认为，这些犯罪不一定是出于根深蒂固的边缘信仰而充满仇恨的极端分子的行为，而是往往反映了更广泛的、甚至是主流的社会环境，这种环境已将某些社会群体标记为预期甚至可以接受的犯罪目标和暴力。反过来，仇恨犯罪本身通过强化可识别的歧视模式来影响社会环境。这篇文章认为，我们应该扩大对仇恨犯罪的动机和影响的理解，并将仇恨犯罪与最近引起全国关注的看似完全不同的现象联系起来。将某些社会群体标记为犯罪和暴力的预期甚至可接受目标的社会环境。反过来，仇恨犯罪本身通过强化可识别的歧视模式来影响社会环境。这篇文章认为，我们应该扩大对仇恨犯罪的动机和影响的理解，并将仇恨犯罪与最近引起全国关注的看似完全不同的现象联系起来。将某些社会群体标记为犯罪和暴力的预期甚至可接受目标的社会环境。反过来，仇恨犯罪本身通过强化可识别的歧视模式来影响社会环境。这篇文章认为，我们应该扩大对仇恨犯罪的动机和影响的理解，并将仇恨犯罪与最近引起全国关注的看似完全不同的现象联系起来。