After a hate crime has been committed it may leave the victim's community in a vulnerable, unstable state and could cause tension to grow between groups. It is important to make sure that there are appropriate repercussions for the offender(s). Hate crime sentences do not have any straight forward, black and white rules. Each case ruling depends on aggravating and mitigating factors decided by the judge (Renke, 2014). Mitigating factors are what the defence can use to advocate for a lesser charge and include lack of a prior criminal record, culpability of the victim, mental or physical illness, and circumstances at the time of the offense. The Criminal Code section 718.2 outlines aggravating factors as "evidence that [an] offence was motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age mental of physical disability, sexual orientation or any other similar factor" (Renke, 2014). .
Paul Butler, a professor at George Washington University Law School, believes that "when an incident is designed to send a message to a whole group, then the punishment ought to reflect that intent" ("Are Hate Crime Laws Necessary [Interview]", 2012). Butler uses the Trayvon Martin case as an example saying that in order for Zimmerman to have a harsher sentence through aggravating factors "the government would have to prove that Mr. Zimmerman targeted Trayvon in part because he's African American" (Are Hate Crime Laws Necessary [Interview], 2012). When a hate crime is committed the offender is charged with the initial crime and the judge decides if a hate crime charge can correctly be added. If the offence was motivated by hate then the sentence becomes longer. Unfortunately hate crimes occur everywhere and occur every day and it is important to ensure proper protection and justice for all citizens. .
Canadian Statistics and Cases.
