8. Hate crime

Hate crimes (or bias crimes) are crimes motivated by an offenders’ personal bias against a particular social group. Modern hate crimes legislation developed out of civil rights protections based on race, religion, and national origin; however, the acts that constitute a hate crime have expanded over time, as have the groups protected by hate crimes legislation. Anti-LGBT hate crimes, in which victims are targeted based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. LGBT people are highly overrepresented as victims of hate crimes given the number of LGBT people in the population, and this is especially true of hate crimes against transgender women. Despite the frequency of these crimes, the legal framework for addressing them varies widely across the United States. Many states do not have specific legislation that addresses anti-LGBT hate crimes, while others have legislation that mandates data collection on those crimes but does not enhance civil or criminal penalties for them, and some offer enhanced civil and/or criminal penalties. Even in states that do have legislation to address these types of hate crimes, some states only address hate crimes based on sexual orientation but not those based on gender identity. The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act gives the federal government the authority to prosecute those crimes regardless of jurisdiction; however, this power has been used in a limited capacity. Hate crimes are distinct from other crimes that are not motivated by bias. For example, thrill seeking, retaliation, or the desire to harm or punish members of a particular social group often motivates perpetrators of hate crimes; these motivations often result in hate crimes being more violent than other similar crimes. The difference in the motivation of offenders also has significant consequences for victims, both physically and mentally. Victims of hate crimes are more likely to require medical attention than victims of non-bias crimes. Likewise, victims of hate crimes, and especially anti-LGBT hate crimes, often experience negative psychological outcomes, such as PTSD, depression, or anxiety as a result of being victimized for being a member of an already marginalized social group.

LGBTQ cultural competence for pharmacists

Bias-motivated crimes, also known as hate crimes, are defined by the U.S. Department of Justice (Hate Crime Statistics, 2016) as “crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.” Hate crimes differ from other types of crime in that they typically involve excessive violence; are more likely to be committed against strangers; are often not planned; are typically committed by young, white males; and often involve more than one offender. The Hate Crime Sentencing Enhancement Act (1993) was created, in part, to account for the specific ways in which hate crimes are directed not only toward the person against whom the crime was committed but toward the group to which that person belongs. Hate crimes committed against members of the LGBTQ community have been explored in various ways over the decades. Perceptions of the crimes themselves and judgments made in cases related to sexual orientation bias have been investigated by psychological, political, and legal scholars, as have the utility and impact of hate crime statutes. Effects of these types of crime on both the victim and the community have also been explored by researchers. Arguments opposing the policing of and challenging the deterrent effects of hate crime legislation aside, hate crime statutes continue to expand, with the most recent federal statute, Public Law No. 111-84 (AKA the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act), enacted in 2009. The purpose of the present chapter is to identify the current state of the literature on sexual orientation and gender bias motivated violent crimes. Knowing the current state of research in this area helps to identify where future research and policy considerations should focus.

Held at the Merseyside Maritime Museum on 13 October 2015, this conference brought together recent research, policy, and practice to discuss the latest developments in challenging hate crime. Organized by the International Criminological Research Unit (ICRU) at the University of Liverpool, in with Merseyside Police and Moving On with Life and Learning (MOWLL), the importance of partnership echoed throughout the day. The transdisciplinary nature of the conference invited speakers from a range of fields to explore the impact of hate crime for the communities too often placed at the centre of victimology. The wide range of speakers included activists, academics, and practitioners representing disability, race, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity. While recognizing the unique cases of hate crime for these different communities, the idea of collaboration was central to developing future debates that could continue to challenge all aspects of hate crime.Introducing the day's keynotes, Professor David Ormerod employed a political interpretation of hate crime. In relation to the project assigned to the Law of Commissions by the Ministry of Justice, he provided a brief outline of the Commissions response for the development of hate crime legislation. The primary concern underpinning this project was the need to extend the categories of aggravated and stirring up hatred so that they applied to all five protected characteristics. In a politically informed exploration of the conceptual tensions underpinning hate crime legislation, Professor Ormerod concluded by giving the final recommendation of the Commission not to extend the current offences. Although justified on the basis that such offences lacked relevance to the forms of hate crime most often experienced by both lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT), and disabled communities, this conclusion generated a varied response among the academics, activists, and professionals in the room. While I recognized the political complexity that legislative change entails, this conclusion left me pondering the political misinterpretation of a human rights agenda that continued a system of legislative discrepancy. Moreover, I could not help feeling pessimistic about the political developments aiming to challenge hate crime. If disabled and LGBT communities are not given equal status and protection in legislation, I wonder how they might gain this in a society that has historically nurtured a rejection of difference.Centred on a approach to the of hate crime, Professor Paul Iganski invited us to move away from the criminological focus of reporting crime toward a perspective on both the spatial and psycho-social consequences. The psycho-social approach extended my own interpretation of victimization, and led me to focus not only on the instant physical and emotional effects of hate crime but also on those of post-traumatic stress, identity, and visibility. Perhaps of greater impact, however, Professor Iganski reaffirmed the spatial impact of hate crime, such as the sense of locational imprisonment, whereby many communities feel restricted and have to avoid certain areas that threaten their identity. The unsettling severity of a global problem questions the cultural and social conditions in which hate crime is nested, probing the need for preventative measures on both individual and community levels. Professor Iganski's attempt to move toward a public health approach therefore encouraged a model of resistance and prevention predicated upon a communitive challenge to hate crime.These keynotes introduced the conference to hate crime in relation to race, religion, gender identity, and sexual orientation. However, my main reflections here are on the work of Professor Alan Roulstone regarding disablist hate crime.1Professor Roulstone introduced the conference to many of the issues faced when challenging disablist hate crime. …

Despite increased attention in the area of hate crime research in the past 20 years, sexual orientation bias crimes have rarely been singled out for study. When these types of crimes are looked at, the studies are typically descriptive in nature. This article seeks to increase our knowledge of sexual orientation bias by answering the question: What are the differences between sexual orientation motivated bias crimes and racial bias crimes? This question is examined using data from the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) and multiple regression techniques. This analysis draws on the strengths of NIBRS to look at the incident characteristics of hate crimes and distinguishing characteristics of sexual orientation crimes. Specifically this analysis looks at the types and seriousness of offenses motivated by sexual orientation bias as opposed to race bias as well as victim and offender characteristics. The findings suggest that there are differences between these two types of bias crimes, suggesting a need for further separation of the bias types in policy and research.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) individuals face social, economic, legal, health, and health care–related disparities amid evolving threats to sociopolitical advances made in the last decade ([1][1],[2][2]). In response, organizations, including the National Institutes of

Hate crimes represent crimes committed against an individual or group on the basis of their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. For the forensic pathologist, a death related to a hate crime should be considered a high-profile case, one in which the pathologist should expect abundant public interest and scrutiny. In this article, an overview of hate crimes is presented, stressing the different types of hate crimes and the motives of those who commit such crimes. For death investigators and forensic pathologists, an awareness of these details will help them to recognize and appropriately anticipate issues that may be important in deaths related to hate crimes.

Violence against the lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) community has only recently emerged more fully as a social problem.1 This chapter will discuss the importance of understanding homophobic violence as a complex social problem that impacts on gay men, lesbians and the LGB community generally in distinctive ways. Furthermore, the appropriateness of the legal response to homophobic violence, particularly the use of hate-crime legislation, will be questioned. It will be argued here that changes in the criminal law, while vital, will not be sufficient on their own to tackle the continuing violence directed towards the LGB community. The general use of the phrase ‘homophobic violence’ rather than ‘homophobichate crime’ in this chapter is deliberate. While the concept of ‘hate crime’ has proved useful in mobilising collective policy responses to crimes and actions based on prejudice or bigotry, ‘hate crime’ also effects a conceptual and theoretical closure that restricts the scope of any inquiry into homophobic violence and elides the role of the law itself in sustaining a hostile environment for the LGB community.2The nail-bombing of the London gay pub, the Admiral Duncan, in 1999, the brutal murder of Jody Dobrowski in 2005 and the shocking shootings at the BarNoar gay youth club in Tel Aviv in 2009 are all examples of homophobic violence sensational enough to penetrate the news agenda of the day. However, the coverage of such crimes fosters a public understanding that homophobic violence is characterised by acts of extreme, physical violence perpetrated by strangers.3Although any coverage of homophobic violence is valuable in raising awareness, research suggests that this value is undermined by the cultivation of a ‘stranger danger’ discourse and its potentially negative effects. A focus on ‘stranger danger’ can disguise the true extent and nature of thebehaviour it seeks to address. By focusing on extreme and isolated acts of physical homophobic violence, ‘the logic of the stranger obscures our ability to understand the ordinariness of hate crime’.4 Members of the LGB community undoubtedly

This chapter provides a review of the data regarding the prevalence and correlates of violent victimization among gay and bisexual men in the United States. It specifically focuses on the well-recognized problem of anti-gay violence (hate crimes) and the much less studied and discussed problem of intimate partner violence in male same-sex couples. It shows that gay and bisexual men are at increased risk for violent victimization due to their sexual orientation and of intimate partner violence, compared to heterosexual men. The strengths and limitations of the available data are considered and future directions for research are suggested. The chapter also describes governmental and community-based efforts that have been taken to reduce anti-gay violence (hate crimes) and intimate partner violence in male same-sex couples.

Chief complaint: “I feel like I have the brain of a man. Am I crazy?” On her first visit to a psychiatrist ( J.M.B.), “Ms. C,” a 48year-old woman, asked this question about her confused gender identity. Having also discovered a primary sexual attraction to women, Ms. C was having difficulty reconciling her church’s injunctions against sinful homosexual activities with her sense of herself as fundamentally male. She was dressed in a subtly frilly blouse and leather jacket she called “my leather-and-lace look.” Encircling each wrist were tattooed bracelets, traceries of curlicues and rosebuds that gently contradicted pearl earrings and a delicate gold locket. Born in the early 1950s and raised resolutely as a girl, Ms. C did not learn until she was 23 and married the unusual circumstances of her birth. Her mother finally divulged that she had entered the world with strange-looking genitals—neither male nor female. Doctors told her parents it was best to remove the odd tissue, fashion what remained to look female, and raise her as if nothing unusual had happened. At 6 months, surgeons removed both external tissue and presumed intra-abdominal testicular tissue and fashioned labia around the vaginal entrance she had always had. In grade school, she was told her large abdominal scar resulted from herniorrhaphy. At 12, after starting daily estrogen pills to induce puberty, she developed breasts and feminine curves, although without menarche or an increase in height beyond 5 feet. Her mother said she could not have children but did not explain why. She recalls being a tomboy who preferred boys for playmates. Because of her small stature and feminine appearance, however, boys were not particularly comfortable hanging out with her. Then, as now, she identified with the way males think rather than a sense of being physically male. She dated boys in high school, had a sexual experience with a woman during college, and married a man with whom she enjoyed satisfying marital relations for nearly two decades until they experienced a menage a trois. Her husband fell in love with the other woman, and she kindled awareness of her greater attraction to women than men. The marriage ended, and she embarked upon two long-term lesbian relationships and a struggle with alcoholism. Ms. C found sobriety and her church while that second relationship was unraveling. Welcomed and spiritually nurtured by church members, she felt happy except for increasing discontent with her pastor’s insistence that homosexual desires were her “cross to bear” and her options were either heterosexual marriage or celibacy. On one hand, her personal theology concurred that homosexuality was against God’s plan. On the other, she struggled with identifying herself as either man or woman, a dilemma her pastor could not solve. Ms. C’s childhood medical records had been lost. The psychiatrist asked if she had been karyotyped, given her unusual birth. She did not know. When she was born, chromosome testing was not routinely available. Given medical advice to raise her unquestioningly as a girl, the issue had not resurfaced. The psychiatrist suggested the test, and when results revealed 45,X/ 46,XY chromosomes, 75% the latter, the fragments—the childhood operation, hormones, her short stature, “brain of a man”—fell into place. She immediately reported feeling “less of a freak” now that she had a name—“intersexual”—for her condition.

"Either/Or" and "Both/Neither": Discursive Tensions in Transgender Politics -- TEST

Introduction Victimization based on sexual orientation or gender identity is a cause for concern. Bias-motivated violence affect not only the individuals targeted but also their communities and societies as a whole. Objective To estimate the proportion of bias-motivated victimization among cisgender men who have sex with men (MSM) and to compare sociodemographic and behavioral characteristics and HIV and syphilis test results between victims and non-victims. Methods We used data from the baseline visit of 2811 adult cisgender MSM from July 2017 to December 2020 in the Lisbon Cohort of MSM. Victimization was defined as self-reported lifetime or recent (in the previous 12 months) experience of physical or verbal violence motivated by sexual orientation or gender identity. Rapid HIV and syphilis tests determined serostatus. We conducted descriptive statistics to summarize the sociodemographic and behavioral characteristics and the prevalence of victimization and compared groups using the Student t-test or Mann–Whitney U test and chi-square test, as appropriate. Results Overall, 40.3% of participants reported lifetime bias-motivated physical or verbal violence, and 11.7% reported recent victimization. Recent victimization contexts more frequently reported were street/neighborhood (67.9%) and workplace/school (35.5%). Victimization was associated with younger age (mean age: 26.5 vs 30.2, p-value < 0.001), being born in Brazil or other American countries, or being 14 or younger at their anal intercourse with a man debut (19.5% vs. 11.0%, p-value < 0.001). Lifetime victimization was not significantly associated with reactive results for HIV (p-value = 0.135) or syphilis (p-value = 0.760). Conclusion The violence motivated by sexual orientation or gender identity was quite frequent in this community. The occurrence of violence based on sexual orientation or gender identity in the Lisbon Cohort of MSM was associated with adverse social conditions and health risk behaviors. Policy Implications Raising awareness about bias-motivated violence as a hate crime may deter potential aggressions. Primary violence prevention should tackle specificities of sexual and gender minorities.

Sexual violence is conceptualised as a hate or bias-motivated crime, and is recognised as a social problem of global proportion. However, the platform for this paper focuses on incidents of rape in South Africa, a country where the most progressive legislation concerning sexual minorities is enforced, including gender non-conforming people namely Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex (LGBTI). South Africa still must address rape inflicted on black lesbians residing in Cape Town townships, despite gender equality being granted in on the basis of sexual orientation (Silvio, 2011). The same applies to same sex marriages, making South Africa the role model of other African countries yet to be included in the signatory to the 2008 United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. An alternative concept to categorising rape as a hate crime might be a more effective tool in the legislation to combat rape based on sexual orientation; justice will be served as a female homosexual enjoys equal citizenship as that of a heterosexual citizen. Preliminary findings show that some rape victims became mothers as a result of the rape. Rape victims discuss conception due to corrective rape and how this affects the mother-child relationship. Feedback from victims include coping mechanisms from religious beliefs to alcohol abuse. None of the rape-survivors interviewed in this study contracted HIV/AIDS as a consequence of the rape.

In the United States, the dominant approach to responding to various forms of interpersonal violence, such as intimate violence or bias attacks, supports and expands the state apparatus of incarceration. For communities of color and LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer) communities who are already at risk for institutional violence, solutions that are built on a foundation of criminalization become a source of violence as they intensify policing mechanisms. These uneasy dynamics can be examined through a closer look at legislation intended to protect survivors of intimate violence and hate crimes. Analyzing the emergence of legislative responses to violence that is committed against people who are marginalized because of their race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability provides an insight into systematized sociopolitical institutions, such as the state incarceration apparatus. Legislation that addresses “violence against women” and “hate crimes” are used both against and in “protection of” Asian American communities and offer illustrative examples of the relationship between individualized violence and state violence. In this Article, we examine how these legislative acts exclude, neglect, and punish survivors who deviate from the parameters of the “model minority victim.” Next, we examine the impact of these different legal remedies -- how they expand state criminalization of immigrant communities and perpetuate negative stereotypes of people of color, and how they rely on the criminal-legal infrastructure in the United States for “safety” and “punishment” and serve to build the perpetually expanding prison system. Finally, we examine the potential for transformative justice strategies as a response to individualized violence that do not rely on the state. We look at the ways in which state-based responses to violence contribute to race-based discrimination and fail to encourage solidarity among people of color. Instead, we propose a shift away from state-based responses to community-based responses that identify all forms of violence whether personal, political, state, or systemic.

Sex trouble: Sex/gender slippage, sex confusion, and sex obsession in machine learning using electronic health records