Also known as: social harms · societal harm
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An adverse effect on any social interest protected by the criminal law. The concept distinguishes result crimes, which punish an unwanted outcome experienced by society as a whole, from conduct crimes, which prohibit specified behavior regardless of further consequence.
Scott Summers, editor of a defense newsletter, obtains documents revealing planned naval supply routes during an overseas deployment. The government seeks an injunction to block publication, arguing that release would allow adversaries to target escorted vessels. The court denies the injunction after finding no concrete proof that publication would produce the special societal harm needed to overcome the presumption against prior restraints.
Sydney Santos leads a Santeria congregation that plans ritual animal sacrifices at a new church site. The city enacts ordinances banning such killings while permitting other secular animal deaths. The court strikes down the ordinances, concluding they target religious conduct rather than addressing a distinct social harm unrelated to religious animosity.
In April 1987 the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc., a not-for-profit corporation organized under Florida law in 1973 whose president is Ernesto Pichardo, leased land in Hialeah, Florida, and announced plans to build a house of worship, school, cultural center, and museum at which members would practice Santeria. Santeria originated in nineteenth-century Cuba as a fusion of Yoruba traditions and Roman Catholicism. It centers on animal sacrifice performed by cutting the carotid arteries, after which the animals are usually cooked and eaten except in healing and death rituals. The announcement prompted the Hialeah City Council to convene an emergency public session on June 9, 1987. At that session residents and council members voiced strong opposition to Santeria practices. The council then adopted Resolution 87-66 declaring opposition to religious acts inconsistent with public morals, peace, or safety and passed Ordinance 87-40 incorporating Florida's animal-cruelty statute that criminalizes unnecessary or cruel killing of animals. After the Florida attorney general issued an opinion that ritual animal sacrifice other than for food consumption violated state law, the council in August 1987 adopted Resolution 87-90 opposing ritual animal sacrifice. In September 1987 the council enacted three further ordinances. Ordinance 87-52 barred possession of animals with intent to use them for ritual sacrifice except by licensed food establishments. Ordinance 87-71 directly prohibited any person from sacrificing an animal within city limits. Ordinance 87-72 restricted slaughter of animals to properly zoned slaughterhouse premises while exempting small-scale commercial hog and cattle operations. The Church and Pichardo filed suit against the city and its officials in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They alleged that the ordinances violated their rights under the Free Exercise Clause. After granting summary judgment to the individual defendants on immunity grounds, the district court conducted a nine-day bench trial on the remaining claims and entered judgment for the city. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in a one-paragraph per curiam opinion. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseSamantha Stone, a high school senior, brings a handgun to campus for protection after neighborhood threats. Congress criminalizes possession of firearms in school zones under the commerce power. The court invalidates the statute, holding that the social harm of gun violence in schools lacks a sufficient connection to interstate commerce to justify federal regulation.
In March 1992, Alfonso Lopez, Jr., a twelfth-grade student at Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas, arrived at school carrying a concealed .38-caliber handgun and five bullets. Acting on an anonymous tip, school authorities confronted Lopez, who admitted possessing the weapon. Local police arrested him and charged him under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises. The following day, state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. A federal grand jury indicted him on one count of knowing possession of a firearm at a school zone. Lopez moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the statute exceeded Congress's power to legislate control over public schools. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the statute was a constitutional exercise of Congress's power to regulate activities affecting commerce because the business of schools affects interstate commerce. After a bench trial, the court found Lopez guilty and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment and two years of supervised release. Lopez appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which reversed the conviction, holding that the statute was beyond Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
View caseSolomon Silver, convicted of multiple felonies including robbery, receives a twenty-five-year sentence under California's three-strikes law after shoplifting videotapes. The court upholds the sentence, reasoning that the social harm caused by repeat offenders justifies enhanced punishment to protect public safety and deter recidivism.
In 1994 California enacted its three strikes law providing an indeterminate term of 25 years to life for any defendant convicted of a felony who had previously been convicted of two or more serious or violent felonies. On March 12, 2000, Gary Albert Ewing entered the pro shop at the El Segundo Golf Course in Los Angeles County while on parole from a nine-year prison term. He left with three golf clubs priced at $399 each concealed in his pants leg. A shop employee alerted police, and officers apprehended Ewing in the parking lot. Ewing had a long criminal history. In 1984 at age 22 he pleaded guilty to theft and received six months suspended jail time, three years probation, and a fine. Between 1988 and 1993 he accumulated convictions for grand theft auto, petty theft with a prior, battery, burglary, drug paraphernalia possession, unlawful firearm possession, and trespass. In October and November 1993 Ewing committed three residential burglaries and one robbery at a Long Beach apartment complex over five weeks. A jury later convicted him of first-degree robbery and three counts of residential burglary. He received a sentence of nine years and eight months before being paroled in 1999. A jury convicted Ewing of one count of felony grand theft for the golf-club theft. At sentencing the prosecution alleged and the trial court found four prior serious or violent felony convictions arising from the Long Beach crimes. At the sentencing hearing, Ewing asked the court to reduce the grand theft conviction to a misdemeanor or to dismiss some or all of the prior strike allegations. The trial court declined both requests and imposed the mandatory 25-years-to-life term under the three strikes law. The California Court of Appeal affirmed in an unpublished opinion rejecting Ewing's claim that the sentence was grossly disproportionate. The California Supreme Court denied review. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseSelena Singh and accomplices select a victim because of his race and severely beat him. Wisconsin enhances the sentence for crimes motivated by bias. The court sustains the enhancement, explaining that the additional social harm inflicted by bias-motivated violence warrants greater punishment without punishing the defendant's thoughts alone.
Open the case page for the full write-up.
View caseSterling Manufacturing produces short-barreled shotguns and sells them without registering the weapons. Federal law requires registration of such firearms to track items linked to violent crime. The court upholds the requirement, finding that the social harm of untraceable weapons used in crime supports the regulatory scheme.
In 1995 Samuel Mullet purchased land in Jefferson County, Ohio. That land became the Bergholz Amish community in 2001 when a sufficient number of ordained ministers qualified it as a separate Amish church district. The new community appointed Mullet as its bishop. As bishop, Mullet controlled all aspects of life in the Bergholz compound and had the ability to order the shunning of community members who failed to follow the tenets of their Amish faith. In 2006 Mullet excommunicated several church members who questioned Bergholz community practices and his leadership. Included in the group were Lavern and Mattie Troyer, whose son Aden was married to Mullet's daughter Wilma, as well as Melvin and Anna Shrock, whose son Emanuel was married to Mullet's daughter Linda. The excommunications led to family divisions, including a divorce and a custody dispute. Amish bishops from across the country met and voted unanimously to reverse the excommunications. From September 6 to November 9, 2011, several Bergholz community members committed five separate attacks on nine different individuals connected to the community by family or religious ties. The assailants sliced off the men's beards and cut the women's hair. The victims were seen as Amish hypocrites by the assailants. A federal grand jury indicted sixteen members of the Bergholz community for violating and conspiring to violate the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, as well as other charges. At trial, the government presented evidence that the assaults were motivated by the victims' religion, while the defendants presented evidence of personal and family disputes as alternative motives. The jury convicted all sixteen defendants of at least one hate-crime violation. The district court instructed the jury that the victims' religion need only be a significant motivating factor even if other reasons existed. The defendants twice requested a but-for causation instruction, which the court rejected. The defendants appealed their convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
View caseSocial harm refers to the broader injury to society that occurs when a result crime, such as murder or arson, takes place. The immediate victim suffers loss, but the criminal law also recognizes that the community as a whole experiences the adverse effect on protected interests.
Courts require the government to prove a special societal harm of the highest order, such as disclosure of troop movements in wartime, before upholding a prior restraint. Generalized assertions of possible harm fall short of this demanding standard.
Yes. Bias-motivated crimes inflict additional injury on the community by undermining equality and increasing fear among targeted groups. This distinct harm supports penalty enhancements without violating free-speech protections.
…place of accommodation) was part of a general practice that, considered as a whole, caused not only the most serious human and social harm, but had nationally significant economic dimensions as well. See McClung, supra , at 301; Daniel, supra , at 307, n. 10. It is difficult to distinguish the case before us, for the same…