Psychological Violence In Hate Crimes: When Is Enough, Enough?

Caroline Murphy, a criminology student, created a podcast exploring hate crimes. She discussed the loopholes in the FBI's definition of hate crimes, particularly the omission of psychological harm. She wanted to emphasize that nonviolent hate crimes should be acknowledged and punished. She researched a hate crime case involving psychological threats towards a synagogue. The case involved a man named Alcatel who made threats against Jews and the LGBTQ+ community. Caroline analyzed the case using social identity theory and discussed the different types of threats involved. She questioned the adequacy of the 15-month sentence given to Alcatel. The podcast highlighted the challenges in addressing psychological violence in legislation. Well, hello, everyone, and thank you for tuning in to my first podcast ever. Allow me to just quickly provide a brief self-introduction. My name is Caroline Murphy. I'm currently a junior at Virginia Tech pursuing a major in criminology alongside a minor in psychology. And this semester, I had the privilege of enrolling in Criminology 4,484 Hate Crimes under the guidance of Professor Reichelman. And for a final project, we were presented the unique opportunity to create a podcast recording where we thoroughly explore the details of a specific hate crimes case. So thank you, Professor Reichelman, for letting me live out my true crime podcaster dreams. So for our initial assignment in this class, we were tasked with examining the loopholes in the FBI's definition of hate crimes. And in my response, I expressed concern about the omission of the term psychological from the definition. I elaborated on the idea that this exclusion could lead to a lack of accountability for non-criminal offenses. And by confining the language to criminal acts, there's a risk that hate crime incidents without physical violence may go unpunished. I aimed to convey the importance of acknowledging that nonviolent actions can pose a significant threat, and holding individuals accountable for such acts is just as vital as addressing physical hate crimes. This sparked my interest and motivated me to delve deeper into a potentially flawed system. So my initial intention with this podcast was to research and analyze a hate crimes case that lacked physical violence or aggression. I aimed to scrutinize the case, emphasizing how a flawed hate crime legislation might fail to address such incidences effectively. I wanted to explore this notion that in society, there's sort of this automatic assumption that if a hate crime is psychologically motivated, no consequences will ensue because no harm was inflicted to technically warrant a criminal offense conviction. And interestingly enough, I actually recently worked on another project in a different class where I explored psychological violence and intimate partner violence, or otherwise known as IPV. And during my research, I discovered a significant lack of coverage on cases that specifically focus on psychological violence with the absence of physical violence. It was honestly nearly impossible to find detailed information on any such cases, especially ones occurring specifically in the U.S. And the key takeaway from this project was sort of the realization that the first step towards seeking more accountability for psychological violence is recognizing that it often serves as the precursor to physical violence. And there exists a high correlation between physical and emotional abuse as indicated by research from Gondoff, Heckert, and Kimmel. And acknowledging that psychological abuse can precede physical abuse allows for this more specific emphasis on identifying the initial signs of psychological abuse. And this increased awareness has the potential to contribute to preventing situations that may escalate into physical abuse. So returning to the discussion of hate crimes, I believe that this analysis can be extended to instances involving hate crimes. But the key difference is in terms of hate crimes is understanding that making an effort to dismantle the biases created around certain social groups could potentially reduce the need for employing psychological tactics with the intent of threat, which sometimes culminates in physical harm. Okay, so enough of the blabbering, let's get into the case, the description I know we have all been anticipating. On November 1st, 2022, Alcatel, age 19, from Middlesex County, New Jersey, employed a social media application to send a link to a document titled, When Swords Collide. In this exchange, he confessed to writing the document and explicitly admitted to targeting a synagogue. The document contained the statement, it's in a context of an attack on Jews, and other individuals reported that he shared this same document with at least five other people while using different social media applications. And as reported by Jeff Goodman, a local news reporter for NewJersey.com, or New Jersey Advanced Media, the recordings documented statements and threats made by Alcatel. These include declarations such as, we will conquer Jerusalem or Jews, and with God's permission, he will slaughter you. And according to a CBS News article, federal prosecutors have highlighted Alcatel's previous statements expressing hatred towards Jews. And apparently he admitted to posting online statements such as, God curse the Jewish people, and God should burn gay people. Additionally, it was noted that during the investigation, Alcatel also revealed that he had researched other information like obtaining a gun, shooting ranges, and mass shootings. He was faced with charges of transmitting a threat in interstate and foreign commerce, to which he pleaded guilty, and this offense is punishable by a maximum penalty of five years in prison and $250,000 fine. And very recently, on Tuesday, November 14th, 2023, he was sentenced to 15 months in prison. And in addition to those 15 months, he was also sentenced to three years of supervised release. So let's get into some theories. In our class, we delved into the social identity theory, which posits that members of an in-group often seek negative aspects in an out-group as a means to boost their own self-esteem. And this process can contribute to inter-group hostility and the development of prejudices against out-groups. Essentially, the human tendency is to evaluate ourselves in a favorable light, utilizing the comparison with others as a tool for self-enhancement. Consequently, the group we compare ourselves to is often perceived negatively, fostering an us-versus-them mentality that can give rise to prejudiced opinions about the out-groups. In analyzing the Omar Alcatel case, one might theorize that he perceived a threat from out-groups, specifically individuals associated with the Jewish and LGBTQ plus communities. His recorded statements indicate that he used God as a justification for his actions, making statements like God cursed the Jewish people and asserting that he had divine permission from God. And given the limited information available, it just could be speculated that he's part of a group functioning as the in-group, which may not be supportive of the out-group comprising of Jewish and LGBTQ plus members. And the resentment towards these groups seem to have fueled a narrative of an us-versus-them mentality, and fortunately the situation did not escalate to physical violence, but he was marked by concerning threats. And this semester we also learned about four types of threats that can contribute to prejudice – realistic, symbolic, intergroup anxiety, and negative stereotypes. And symbolic threat occurs when a group is concerned about differences in values, traditions, ideologies, and morals with another group. This concern becomes more pronounced when the first group believes that their cultural values are significantly different from those of another group. A realistic threat is a type of threat that represents a genuine danger or harm to the well-being of an in-group. It is a perceived threat that involves tangible and concrete risk, contributing to the group's concerns about their safety, resources, or overall stability. And upon further research, I actually found that socially marginalized out-groups like homosexuals are more prone to encountering symbolic threats. And interestingly enough, I also learned that when dealing with symbolic threats from a religious out-group, there may be elements of realistic threats involved. And so when we're looking at the Alcatel case, it's interesting because you can see that these two types of threats are involved. When we're talking about the Jewish community, Alcatel used words suggesting differences in beliefs, which can correlate with symbolic threats. But he also made serious threats of harm, like slaughtering – like saying words like slaughtering, which is a real danger, so realistic threats. And for the LGBTQ community, he also used realistic threats by talking about burning. So it's evident that there's an intention to psychologically sort of empower these groups, accompanied by a potential threat of violence. And it's almost like Alcatel has developed sort of this impurity complex bias for his own group in relation to the out-groups such as the Jewish community or the LGBTQ community. And with his biased perspective, he expressed these threats towards these communities, suggesting a potential for actual physical violence. So Alcatel's case is just one among several examples illustrating how pre-existing biases can escalate to psychological abuse and ultimately physical harm. But by employing social identity theory and exploring symbolic and realistic threats, he delved deeper into understanding the potential motivations behind Alcatel's inclination to impose threats. Okay, now I understand I just threw a lot of complex information at you, but I want to just leave us off with some takeaway thoughts. In this case, we were specifically focusing on the bias and psychological threats in regards to hate crimes. Stepping away from a moment, let's talk about legislation and the challenges when dealing with cases of widespread psychological violence. So there isn't a one-size-fits-all approach, and actually laws regarding psychological violence vary between states because of their different legislation, making it very difficult to connect psychological violence to specific consequences. And it's crucial to grasp the legal setup and how it addresses psychological violence when dealing with such cases. The case of Alcatel raises intriguing questions about the adequacy of the 15-month sentence he received. It sort of seems puzzling that prior threats made against the LGBTQ community did not lead to repercussions, as authorities deemed he did not, quote, impose a threat to public safety. However, when similar threats were directed at the Jewish community, he was finally held accountable, albeit with a relatively short sentence. And this discrepancy in response prompts considerations about the effectiveness and consistency of the legal system in addressing different types of threats and potential dangers to public safety. And the inconsistency in determining what leads to convictions in psychological violence cases contributes to an ongoing pattern of such behaviors. The lack of accountability for these offenses allows this pattern to persist. Alcatel not being held accountable for his initial threats against the LGBTQ plus community already speaks volumes in itself. So the absence of a uniformed legislation in this area is often attributed to a common argument that laws might infringe on our First Amendment right, freedom of speech. And in exploring the implications of freedom of speech, Erika Goldberg in a journal article discusses the concept of free speech consequentialism. This perspective asserts that the morality of speech should be assessed based on the outcomes or consequences it generates. And she notes that scholars argue that current free speech does not adequately consider the harms caused by speech and advocate for more regulation of harmful types of speech. Alcatel received a 15-month sentence for transmitting a threat across state and international borders. And the concern is if he hadn't explicitly mentioned physical harm, would there really have been any consequences? This uncertainty is highlighted by his earlier threats against the LGBTQ plus community, which didn't lead to any repercussions. So to address this, we sort of need a system that treats verbal threats seriously and even without mentioning physical harm while still respecting our rights. And so looking forward, analyzing how, you know, potentially building a structure involves adjusting laws to ensure the verbal threats are taken as seriously as physical violence while also striking a balance that preserves our rights. So as much as I can continue discussing this all day, I'll leave it here for now. Thank you for tuning in to my very first podcast. I appreciate your time and I hope you've gained some new insights to psychological violence when it comes to speech crime.