Effects of victims' characteristics on attitudes toward hate crimes

Hate crimes are motivated by perpetrators' prejudice toward targets' group. To examine individuals' attitudes toward hate crime perpetrators and targets, participants responded to vignettes of court cases in which the victim's group membership was varied. Results showed that participants recommended more severe sentences for perpetrators when the targets of their crimes were not White males or White females and reported those crimes as more closely fitting the definition of "hate crime." These results show that participants consider penalty enhancements appropriate for hate crimes and that they do not consider crimes against women to be hate crimes, consistent with present hate crime legislation. These results have implications for the utility and support of hate crime legislation but may showcase the resistance to expanding the legislation to protect individuals of other groups, especially women.     

„So,what's a hate crime anyway?” young adults' perceptions of hate crimes,victims, and perpetrators

Male and female young adults provided responses to open-ended questions about hate crimes. Results indicated considerable variability in their definitions, with perceptions of hate crimes differing with regard to demographic characteristics of both victims and perceivers. Victims may experience hate crimes differently because of who they are, why they are victimized, and with whom they share their experiences. In a separate study, males and females each evaluated a scenario of a hate crime perpetrated upon a male or female victim. Whether the crime was described as motivated by racial or religious bigotry, heterosexism, or was ambiguous was systematically varied. The demographic status of the participant appeared to determine how disruptive they regarded the crime scenario, and the likelihood that they would report personal knowledge of a victim of a similar type of assault. None of the participants was likely to report knowledge of a victim of a heterosexist assault. Policy implications of results from both studies are discussed.     

The Impact of Unpunished Hate Crimes: When Derogating the Victim Extends into Derogating the Group

Just world research has shown that observers derogate victims more for their misfortunes if the perpetrator is not harshly punished (Lerner in J Personal Soc Psychol 1(4):355–360, 1980). However, few studies have investigated minority group derogation as a just world preservation strategy after instances of intergroup harm-doing. This study is among the first to demonstrate the derogation of both individual victims and of the victim’s minority group experimentally, using the context of a racist hate crime in Australia. In the present experiment, participants (N = 110) read a news article describing a hate crime against an Aboriginal Australian teenager and were informed that the perpetrator was harshly or leniently punished (secure vs. justice threat condition). Our results show that in the justice threat condition, participants not only derogated the individual Aboriginal Australian victim more after his death, they also expressed greater racism toward the victim’s group. An indirect effect of the justice threat condition on modern racism via individual victim derogation was observed, along with moderating effects of individual differences in belief in a just world. These findings provide support for the alarming hypothesis that racist hate crimes are not only the manifestation of a racist society, but may also bolster racial prejudices if leniently treated. The results highlight the important role of political and judicial authorities, whose response or non-response to a hate crime can exacerbate or ameliorate existing prejudices.     

A mock juror investigation of blame attribution in the punishment of hate crime perpetrators

We examined blame attribution as a moderator of perceptions of hate crimes against gay, African American, and transgender victims. Participants were 510 Texas jury panel members. Results of vignette-based crime scenarios showed that victim blame displayed significant negative, and perpetrator blame significant positive, effects on sentencing recommendations. Also as hypothesized, victim and perpetrator blame moderated the effect of support for hate crime legislation. Interaction patterns suggested that both types of blame attribution influence sentencing recommendations, but only for participants disagreeing with hate crime legislation. Three-way interactions with victim type also emerged, indicating that the effects of both types of blame attribution show particular influences when the victim is gay, as opposed to transgender or African American. Implications for attribution theory, hate crime policy, and jury selection are discussed.     

Assessing the public's demand for hate crime penalties

In this article, we analyze responses from a nationally representative sample of American adults to determine public attitudes toward punishment for hate crimes. While attitudinal polls find strong support for hate crime laws, criminological research provides reasons to believe that this support may be weaker than assumed. Our findings suggest that, while there is minimal public support for harsher penalties for offenders who commit hate crimes, attitudes toward punishment, treatment, and minority rights are predictive of preferences for differential treatment of hate crime offenders. We discuss possible implications of these results in our conclusion.     

It Is Not Paranoia if People Really Are Out to Get You

Abstract

The incidence of hate crime victimization in the states has received scant attention by researchers. Nor is it always clear who feels most vulnerable to hate crime victimization and why. In this research we included hate crime victimization questions in two years (2000, 2001) of a statewide survey. Idaho is a state with a predominately White population. It has been bedeviled with an Aryan Nation's compound and its attendant racist propaganda. We found that many citizens had been the victim of hate crimes in the last year and over the course of their lifetime. Minority group members were disproportionately represented as victims of hate crime and were almost three times as likely to feel vulnerable to it, as White respondents.     

The impact of racial slurs and racism on the perceptions and punishment of violent crime

When a crime is committed by an individual of one race against an individual of another race, there is the possibility that the crime is a hate crime. Legislation often mandates harsher penalties for perpetrators convicted of crimes determined to be hate crimes, yet this determination is difficult to make. This study used vignettes of violent crimes to examine how the races of the perpetrators and victims, the severity of the assault, and the use of racial slurs by the perpetrators would affect perceptions of the crimes as "hate crimes," victim blaming, and sentencing recommendations. Results showed that each of these factors affected participants' perceptions and punishments of violent crime. Participants' levels of racism were an additional factor. These results contribute to the understanding of how crimes in which the perpetrator's and victim's races differ are perceived.     

Stereotypical Hate Crimes and Criminal Justice Processing: A Multi-Dataset Comparison of Bias Crime Arrest Patterns by Offender and Victim Race

Many hate crimes are not reported and even fewer hate crimes result in an arrest. This study investigates patterns of victim reporting and arrest for hate crimes in two parts. First, using data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, we find that, controlling for offense severity, hate crimes are less likely than non-bias crimes to be reported to the police and that the police are less likely to take further action for hate crimes, compared to non-hate crimes. Second, we use data from the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission and the National Incident-Based Reporting System to compare differences between types of hate crimes in the likelihood of crime clearance. We find that those hate crimes most likely to result in arrest are those that fit the profile of a “stereotypical” hate crime: violent incidents, incidents committed by hate groups, and incidents involving white offenders and black victims.     

Threat,emboldenment, or both? The effects of political power on violent hate crimes*

How do expressions of support or opposition by the U.S. federal government, influence violent hate crimes against specific racial and ethnic minorities? In this article, we test two hypotheses derived from Blalock's (1967) conceptualization of intergroup power contests. The political threat hypothesis predicts that positive government attention toward specific groups would lead to more hateful violence directed against them. The emboldenment hypothesis predicts that negative government attention toward specific groups would also lead to more hateful violence directed against them. Using combined data on U.S. government actions and federal hate crime statistics from 1992 through 2012, vector autoregression models provide support for both hypotheses, depending on the protected group involved. We conclude that during this period, African Americans were more vulnerable to hate crimes motivated by political threat, and Latinx persons were more vulnerable to hate crimes motivated by emboldenment.     

Attitudes toward hate crime laws

The research reported here was a survey study exploring attitudes toward hate crime laws and possible causes of such attitudes. In a path model, which was supported by the data, it was found that the major factor determining acceptance or rejection of a hate crime law was whether or not homosexuals would be included as a protected group: those wanting inclusion supporting such a law, and those not wanting inclusion opposing such a law. Consistent with identity politics theory, the data-supported model further found that both social and economic liberals, and people who thought hate crimes created fear in other members of the victim's group, wanted homosexuals included in hate crime laws. Other findings, however, were inconsistent with the identity politics theory position that this movement was a united front. Other results from the data-supported model are also discussed and explanations are provided.     

On Mimicry and the Psychology of the Belief in a Just World: Imitating the Behaviors of Others Reduces the Blaming of Innocent Victims

Innocent victims of crime are often blamed for what happened to them. In this article, we examine the hypothesis that victim blaming can be significantly reduced when people mimic the behavior of the victim or even a person unrelated to the crime. Participants watched a person on a video after which we assessed the extent of their spontaneous mimicry reactions (Study 1) or participants were instructed to mimic or not to mimic the movements of this person (Study 2). Then, they were informed about a rape and criminal assault and judged the degree to which they thought the victims were responsible for the crime. One of the crimes happened to the same person as the person they previously did or did not mimic. The other crime happened to a person unrelated to the mimicry situation. Results of both studies revealed that previously mimicking the victim or an unrelated person reduced the degree to which victims were being blamed.     

Penalty Enhancement for Hate Crimes: An Economic Analysis

This article develops an economic analysis of penalty enhancementsfor bias-motivated (or "hate") crimes. Our model allows potentialoffenders' benefits from a crime to depend on the victim's groupidentity, and assumes that potential victims have the opportunityto undertake socially costly victimization avoidance activities.We derive the result that a pattern of crimes disproportionatelytargeting an identifiable group leads to greater social harm(even when the harm to an individual victim from a bias-motivatedcrime is identical to that from an equivalent non–hatecrime). In addition, we consider a number of other issues relatedto hate crime laws.     

University students’ support to penalty enhancement for hate crime

Laws enabling penalty enhancement for crimes motivated by hostility or prejudice, i.e. hate crimes, have become common in many countries. However, laws as a measure against hate crimes have been contested, because their deterrent effect has gained none or little support in the (limited) literature, and they may be considered symbolic rather than deterrent. This study investigates attitudes towards penalty enhancement for hate crimes. Previous empirical investigations of this question are scarce. The material consists of a survey targeting nearly 3000 Swedish university students. Support for penalty enhancement for hate crime was moderate, shown by one third of the total sample. Results supported the premise that students belonging to a minority group, assumed to be at risk of hate crime victimization, agree to a higher extent of penalty enhancement than students belonging to the majority. Previous victimization experiences and worrying about being victimized were not significantly related to punitive attitudes. However, respondents who perceived the risk of victimization to be increased for minority groups in general were more likely to support penalty enhancement for hate crime. Findings should be confirmed in a nationally representative sample since the public’s perspective on the criminal justice system is important for understanding and dealing with the social problem of hate crime.     

Religious Motivated Hate Crimes: Reporting to Law Enforcement and Case Outcomes

Relative to non-bias motivated crimes, hate crimes have much graver consequences for victims and their community. Despite the large increase in religious hate crimes over the past decade relative to all other hate crime, little is known about these types of crimes and the factors associated with both reporting to law enforcement and case outcomes. Utilizing the National Crime Victimization Survey and National Incident-Based Reporting System datasets, this study examines the relationship between victim, offender, and incident characteristics on reporting to law enforcement and case outcomes. Most religious hate crimes are not reported (41.3 %) in part due to perceptions of law enforcement’s perceived response. Of the violent incidents that are reported, the vast majority do not result in the arrest of an offender (22.2 %). Whereas only a small number of variables related to the seriousness of the offense are associated with both reporting and arrest, these exhibited large effect sizes.     

Hate,Threats, and Violence. A Register Study of Persons Suspected of Hate Crime

This article focuses on individuals suspected of hate crimes with xenophobic, Islamophobic, and homophobic motives. The objective is to fill a gap in the knowledge left by existing research, which has primarily focused on victims and definitional problems. This article's genuine contribution to new research is the comparative perspective and the study of co-offending and specialization in offences for persons suspected for hate crimes. To find persons suspected for hate crimes, register data relating to hate-crime-motivated assault and unlawful threats/molestation offences from 2006 have been used. The study is based on a total of 1,910 offence reports together with information from the Registers of Suspected and Convicted Offenders for 558 persons suspected for hate crimes. Xenophobic hate crimes are over-represented in the material by comparison with homophobic and Islamophobic hate crimes. In the reports that have information about the relation between victim and perpetrators, it is more common for the perpetrators to be known than unknown to the victims. In cases where a suspected person has been identified, males are in a clear majority. Those suspected of homophobic hate crimes have the lowest mean age. Only a small number of offence reports include information on suspected co-offenders. Fifty-five per cent of the suspected people have prior registered convictions. It is very uncommon for them to be specialized in violent offences or unlawful threats/molestation, however. It is not possible to generalize the results to perpetrators of hate crimes, because 70% of the offence reports did not have information of suspected persons.     

Crime Victims Serving as Jurors: Is There Bias Present?

This project examined the decisions of 2435 mock jurors of whom 984 reported being a victim of some type of crime and 982 reported knowing a close friend or relative who had been a victim. Participants watched a videotape of a trial of a burglary of a habitation and were asked to give individual verdicts. Results indicated that jurors who identified themselves as victims of the same crime convicted significantly more frequently than those who had not been victims. Victims of violent crimes (a type of crime dissimilar to that for which the defendant was on trial) were not more likely to convict than were non-victims. Implications of this research are discussed.     

Motive,Action, and Confusions in the Debate over Hate Crime Legislation

In this article I argue that the objections against hate crimes defined as separate offenses and in terms of group animus are misguided and are based upon a mistaken view of human action that does not see motives as constituent parts of complex actions. If we are going to have hate crimes legislation, there are no good formal reasons keeping us from having distinct offenses for hate crimes or from having ones defined in terms of group animus. My goal is to clear up a number of action-theoretical confusions that have led some theorists and jurists to raise objections that draw attention away from the real crux of the debate over hate crime legislation. Initially, I defend several considerations that weigh against an understanding of hate crimes legislation as being concerned exclusively or even primarily with character, belief, or motive. These considerations in turn help undercut the related concern that hate crime legislation violates free speech protections.     

Hate Thy Neighbor: Lessons for Neighborhood Integration for the Post‐Obama Era and Beyond

This essay explores contemporary racial harassment, hate crimes, and violence targeted at African Americans and other racial minorities who have moved to white neighborhoods in the 1990s and 2000s, as described in my book Hate Thy Neighbor: Move In Violence and the Persistence of Segregation in American Housing. The essay details the experiences of blacks, Latinos, and Asian Americans who face race‐based hate crimes upon integrating white neighborhoods. This violence is not limited to a specific geographic area of the United States, and is an important factor in continuing patterns of racial segregation. Social segregation and the failure of existing law to address this violence are important factors in its survival. Analyzing the roots and causes of such violence, the essay calls for greater attention to the enforcement of legal remedies designed to address neighborhood hate crime.