Education-based alternatives for antisemitic hate crime offenders - opinion

When individuals target Jews with criminal threats, harassment, or violence, we want sentencing that deters future bad actors by signaling that Jews are ready to fight back, have the legal support to do so, and can avail themselves of courts willing to dispense justice.

Unfortunately, in our daily work with Jewish hate crime victims across the country, we see a different reality.

Judges and prosecutors are increasingly reluctant to pursue harsh penalties in crimes targeting Jews or Israelis, particularly in non-violent or first-time offenses.

Prosecutors often prioritize efficiency, seeking quick guilty pleas rather than lengthy trials. Courts, in turn, lean toward lighter sentencing when alternatives are available. For victims and their advocates, this can feel like a profound failure of the justice system – a “slap on the wrist” for hate-based criminal conduct.

The Jewish community often internalizes this as a betrayal because we experience hate crimes collectively. When Jews are targeted, it doesn’t feel like an isolated incident.

It activates a deep, collective memory of repeated vulnerability and powerlessness against attack, where current events are understood in continuity with centuries of persecution.

When two Israelis are beaten for speaking Hebrew at a restaurant in California, this is not just a single offense – it echoes a long history in which violent conduct like this can be a precursor to unpredictable, further violence and victims.

Yet this is the US criminal justice system we are working within, whether we like it or not.

And so, at StandWithUs, we have adjusted to meet that reality: if the justice system is not consistently delivering strong punitive outcomes, we must ensure that antisemitic crimes are still meaningfully addressed through legal action coupled with education.

Across the country, judges, prosecutors, and school districts are searching for diversion options – programs as part of sentencing or disciplinary processes that address antisemitism.

But there is a glaring gap.

Very few Jewish institutions today provide programming specifically designed for antisemitic offenders. Those that do often rely heavily on Holocaust education alone, which does not address today’s main drivers of antisemitism.

Many of the perpetrators we encounter do not deny the Holocaust nor lack information about its history. Their antisemitism stems from hatred for Jews and Israel – the origins of which may have been online, at work, at school, or personal grievances projected onto Jews as a group.

Our Diversion Justice Program is not a concession to a lenient system; it is a response to it. If courts are going to assign alternative sentencing, then that alternative must be meaningful, smart, and effective.

Available nationwide to courts, prosecutors, District Attorney offices, and schools, our program consists of three structured sessions totaling approximately 15 to 20 hours.

Conducted by a StandWithUs facilitator with decades of background in Jewish history, antisemitism education, and social work, our goal in each session is to identify the source of the antisemitism and then engage in individualized, one-on-one sessions designed to increase knowledge, confront bias, and reduce the likelihood of reoffending.

The general curriculum addresses antisemitism’s origins, evolution, and modern expressions. It examines the real-world impact of antisemitic harassment and violence, challenges misinformation, and requires participants to reflect on the harm they have caused.

But what sets the program apart is its specificity: each participant’s curriculum is tailored to their criminal actions, personal history, and mindset.

This is not a lecture. It is an intervention.

In one case, our participant was charged with sending threatening, antisemitic emails targeting individuals they knew personally. The emails’ content was violent, specific, and horrifying.

A generic program would have focused on broad history or the Holocaust, but that was not what this participant needed. Within a few minutes of the first session, our facilitator quickly realized that the participant was already familiar with Jews and history. The issue was not ignorance – it was a failure to understand impact.

We adjusted the sessions immediately and accordingly. We pivoted the curriculum to focus on antisemitic hate speech – how it escalates, how it has historically led to violence, and how it affects real people.

After each session, the participant had to answer specific questions in their own words (not AI) and complete written reflections, part of our requirement that they demonstrate significant engagement with the material.

This was not about learning facts. It was about making connections and taking responsibility. These exercises forced a shift from abstraction to accountability.

When participants attempt to justify their behavior, such as claiming they were once bullied by Jews and try to reframe their personal experience as Jewish collective blame, we do not dismiss these experiences. However, individual grievances do not justify targeting an entire group.

At the same time, the process creates space for humanization. We aim to show that Jews are no longer an abstract category, but a diverse group of individuals – people with their own struggles, vulnerabilities, and lives.