FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL HATE CRIME LAWS

Federal, State, and Local hate crime laws

Federal, State, and Local hate crime laws

Introduction

There are many challenges to the proper integration of homeland security and law enforcement. Most of the major challenges fall under the categories of surveillance and intelligence, but total redesign, restructuring, and reorganization are not off the table either. In terms of redefining the police role in society, it can be noted that the homeland security movement came about at precisely the same time in history (circa 2001) as the community policing movement was dying down. Some people believed that there was a way to salvage the community policing movement and/or make it compatible with the homeland security movement (Crank, 2005).

For example, the IACP (2002) and Stephens and Hartmann (2002) thought that community policing would evolve into intelligence-led policing. Unfortunately, intelligence-led policing never caught on either, primarily because too many of its techniques smacked of profiling to get at high-frequency offenders, thus making it of limited utility against religious and ideological extremists (McGarrell, Freilich, & Chermak 2007). Additionally, there are profound differences between a "military model" and "police model" for combating terrorism (Norwitz 2002; McCauley 2007; Deflem 2010).

The military model works best against an enemy who can be killed in combat or who can be temporarily detained until a cessation of hostilities comes about. The police model works best when the enemies are treated as suspects (not even really enemies) who are accorded certain rights and upon a determination of guilt receive some semi-lasting punishment. Further, no one has really ever bothered to conceptualize the difference between an ex-con and an ex-terrorist.

Discussion

The somewhat awkward phrase "counterterrorism policing" (which symbolizes the integration of homeland security and law enforcement) provokes an image of hardened officers that might be willing to sacrifice civil liberties in the name of national security. This is more than a common fear; it is essentially a problem of ideas. Police are normally accustomed to helping make citizens "feel" safer through actual police behaviors, and the police are unaccustomed to helping make the public feel "safer" through police thinking. There are reasons why the high-IQ cop movement never got off the ground in the early-20th century. People simply don't want the police to be too smart. Dick Tracy captured this public sentiment (Ronczkowski, 2011).

Also, the courts don't want the police to be too technological. Identity cards, for example, have never been successfully implemented in any modern democracy. Further, given the demise of the community policing movement, it's questionable whether the public even wants the police to be more caring. In a world where terrorism is more a "war of ideas" (Mena, 2003) than pulling over offenders, the police would be lucky to become anything more than the "Officer Friendly" or public relations arm of the "real" counterterrorists, like the military or CIA paramilitary units.

It's ironic that in some progressive quarters (like the ACLU and ABA), the police are frequently envisioned to be the guardians/leaders ...