Prosecuting Hate: An Empirical Analysis of Sentencing Disparities in Federal Hate Crime Cases

• In Event: From Detecting to Prosecution Hate Crimes Across Local and Federal U.S. Jurisdictions

Abstract

It is estimated that only 15% of cases investigated as hate crimes by federal authorities result in prosecutions. While studies have addressed the institutional and practical challenges United States attorneys face in using federal hate crime laws, far less attention has been paid to how sentencing outcomes are impacted when prosecutors choose to use more typical criminal charges in cases with clear bias motivations. This study analyzes a sample of federal prosecutions from 2010-2022 to determine how the use of more common criminal statutes in these cases influences three types of sentencing outcomes: length of incarceration, length of post-incarceration supervision, and the use of restrictive monitoring conditions upon release from prison. While controlling for the effects of race, gender, and criminal history, we find that defendants prosecuted using hate crime charges receive significantly harsher penalties for all three sentencing outcomes when compared to defendants who commit similar crimes but are prosecuted using more typical charges. These results suggest that prosecutorial decision making is a key contributor to unwarranted sentencing disparities in crimes motivated by prejudice.

Author

• Michael Jensen, University of Maryland, College Park