8. Victimology and 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.

Teaching and Learning Guide for: Isn’t Every Crime a Hate Crime? The Case for Hate Crime Laws

The appropriate recording of hate crime by state authorities (most usually by the police) has been recognized internationally as important to addressing hate crime. However, little scholarly attention has been paid to the role played by civil society in monitoring hate crime. This article will elaborate a range of purposes fulfilled by civil society organisations in collecting data on the extent and motivations of hate crime occurring in a given jurisdiction. Drawing on in-depth interviews with civil society organisations engaged in conducting third party monitoring of hate crime in one such jurisdiction, we will document the manner in which such monitoring systems (a) provide a means of reporting hate crime; (b) provide minority communities a means of reporting hate crime; (c) serve as a comparator to potentially unrepresentative official statistics where these are collected; (d) provide an evidence base for legislative change; and (e) provide a platform to affirm victims’ naming of their experiences as hate crimes. This internationally transferable taxonomy of the functions of civil society monitoring systems, is complemented by additional insights into the particular significance of such mechanisms in jurisdictions in which the construct of hate crime is not acknowledged in the justice system. On a critical note, the article will identify victim support as a natural extension of hate crime recording systems, noting that civil society organisations collecting data on hate crime in Ireland do not fulfil this remit. In summary, we argue for the value of civil society hate crime reporting systems as a source of challenge to otherwise hegemonic state constructions of jurisdictional hate crime. We advocate for international bodies to incorporate the financial support of civil society organisations into their monitoring functions on this basis.

Barbara Perry (2003) Hate and Bias Crime:A Reader Routledge: New York, 520 pp., ISBN 0415944082.The last decade of the 20th century has seen a flurry of hate crime legislation and other state activities, none of which have had an appreciable effect on the frequency or certainly the severity of hate crime. Such initiatives are insufficient responses to bias-motivated violence, in that they do not touch the underlying structures that support hate crime. Abdicating responsibility for countering such violence to the state, then, will not be a sufficiently effective long-term strategy. Rather, the responsibility must be shared and distributed across institutional and interactional levels. Moreover, the ultimate goal is not only to attack hate crime, but to disrupt the institutional and cultural assumptions about difference that condition hate crime. To the extent that difference is socially constructed, it can also be reconstructed (Perry, 2003, p. 387)

Barbara Perry (2003) Hate and Bias Crime:A Reader Routledge: New York, 520 pp., ISBN 0415944082. The last decade of the 20th century has seen a flurry of hate crime legislation and other state activities, none of which have had an appreciable effect on the frequency or certainly the severity of hate crime. Such initiatives are insufficient responses to bias-motivated violence, in that they do not touch the underlying structures that support hate crime. Abdicating responsibility for countering such violence to the state, then, will not be a sufficiently effective long-term strategy. Rather, the responsibility must be shared and distributed across institutional and interactional levels. Moreover, the ultimate goal is not only to attack hate crime, but to disrupt the institutional and cultural assumptions about difference that condition hate crime. To the extent that difference is socially constructed, it can also be reconstructed (Perry, 2003, p. 387)

Hate crimes are criminal acts motivated by the victim's perceived group affiliation. Most US states and many countries have enacted hate‐crime laws within the past few decades, but these laws often do not include offenses committed against members of the LGBTQ community, even though members of this community are disproportionately likely to suffer from threats and violence. Furthermore, hate crimes against LGBTQ people are rarely reported and even more rarely result in convictions. But victims of these crimes may suffer more ill effects than victims of other crimes, and victimization may contribute to psychological harms.

Hate crime is a problem in many countries around the world. Scholars define hate crimes as unlawful conduct directed at different target groups, which can include violent acts, property damage, harassment, and trespassing (see Hate crime: An emergent research agenda. Annual Review of Sociology 27.1 [2001]: 479–504). Hate crime perpetrators target their victim’s race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, or disability, but also a variety of other characteristics. Several social movements (e.g., the civil rights movement, women’s movement, and LGBT movement) laid the foundation for anti-violence movements and placed the hate crime discourse on the political and legislative agenda. One way to better understand hate crime is to explore how governments in different parts of the world address the issue of crimes motivated by hate or prejudice. Targeted laws and policies transformed hate violence from ordinary to extraordinary crime (see Hate crime policy in western Europe: Responding to racist violence in Britain, Germany, and France. American Behavioral Scientist 51.2 [2007]: 149–165). Different countries implemented hate crime legislation in order to condemn crime committed due to prejudice or bias against an individual or group of people, introducing such legislation during different periods in time. The United States emerged as the leader of hate crime policy approaches, implementing legal responses to prejudice and bias in the early 20th century. The United States was also the first country to circulate the term “hate crime” during the 1980s (see Hate crime: An emergent research agenda. Annual Review of Sociology 27.1 [2001]: 479–504). Europe and the Asia-Pacific region followed suit in implementing their own responses to hate crime. The diversity of hate crime legislation in different countries makes it difficult to combine the legislative contexts under a common framework. A controversial debate exists around the need for a separate set of hate crime legislation. Scholars dispute the seriousness of the hate crime offense, the possibilities of proving motivational aspects of the hate crime, criminalizing hate, and introducing more severe punishments. They also debate the utilization of the civil versus the criminal code, the inclusion of different protected categories under hate crime legislation, the symbolic character of hate crime, and the social and political impact of hate crime legislation. This bibliography reviews key resources on hate crime legislation, including its historical context, its globalization, and the socio-criminological debate around hate crime legislation.

This article focuses on gendered experiences of the criminal justice system, specifically the experiences of adult female victims of sexual offending and the communication difficulties they experience during the criminal justice process. Drawing on the findings from qualitative interviews about sentencing with six victims and 15 justice professionals in Australia, we compare the lived experiences of the victims with the perceptions of the justice professionals who work with them, revealing a significant gap between the information justice professionals believe they are providing and the information victims recall receiving. We then analyse the international literature to distil effective communication strategies, with the goal of improving victims’ experiences of the criminal justice system as a whole. Specifically, we recommend verbal communication skills training for justice professionals who work with victims of crime and the development of visual flowcharts to help victims better understand the criminal justice process. We also recommend that Australian victims’ rights regimes be reformed to place the responsibility for providing information about the criminal process on the relevant justice agencies, rather than requiring the victim to seek this information, and suggest piloting automated notification systems to help agencies fulfil their obligations to provide victims with such information.

Much of the academic, practitioner and voluntary sector interest in victims of hate crime have focused upon the impacts of hate crime and the practical and emotional support needs and services for victims. Our own work has been somewhat divergent from this. We were commissioned to identify how hate crime reporting could be improved in a northern town, and made inclusive across different equality groups. We undertook a small scale study that examined individual decision making by hate crime victims in whether or not to report incidents, and how the available reporting arrangements and associated publicity materials affected these decisions (Wong & Christmann, 2008). Somewhat to our surprise, what appeared to be a critical issue in terms of whether or not hate crime policies were likely to succeed was also a much under researched area. Whilst our own research findings cannot be generalised beyond the study site, it did allow us to test out and consider more thoroughly some of the assumptions implicit in policy developments around hate crime reporting, specifically the policy goal of full reporting. We want to reflect back on these findings and the broader research literature to pose some questions on the adequacy and utility of the current reporting agencies approaches and the general policy direction to hate crime victims. We believe this has merit because the statutory criminal justice agencies and the voluntary sector are grappling with the challenges of adopting hate crime in its broadest sense, and providing a responsive, effective and victim centred service across markedly different vulnerable groups. Pertinent questions can be asked about what the current policies on hate crime can be expected to achieve given the nature of victim decision making on the critical issue of whether to report their victimisation. We will draw out some implications that the legacy of the Lawrence Inquiry has had for strategic thinking, policy making and make some tentative suggestions on how these might be improved. We argue something that may be considered heresy among hate crime victimloogy circles and victim campaigning groups; that the current policy message concerning victim reporting does not reflect reality, and risks being discredited. What is required, some 10 years post Lawrence is more nuanced responses and ones which acknowledge: the distance travelled by criminal justice agencies in the intervening years; that the majority of hate crime is manifested as single incidents of harassment (which may not necessarily constitute crimes); and the unlikelihood of full reporting by the public, which realistically fits where the public are in terms of their expectations. In doing so we do not pretend to have any authoritative answers to these issues, but believe the questions are worth posing to prompt a debate between efficacy of response versus a largely unchallenged view of hate crime victimology.

Indonesia's legal protection is inadequate for children as witnesses of victims of criminal acts of decency in the criminal justice process. The objectives of the research include: To analyze the implementation of legal protection for children as witnesses of victims of crime of decency in the criminal justice process at the Kendal District Court, To analyze the treatment of children as witnesses to victims of criminal acts of decency during the criminal justice process at the Kendal District Court and for analyzing the obstacles and solutions in providing legal protection to children as witnesses of victims of crime of decency in the criminal justice process at the Kendal District Court. In this study, a sociological juridical approach is used, an approach used in dealing with problems discussed based on applicable regulations and then linked to the reality that occurs in the community. Based on the research, the conclusion is: Implementation of Legal Protection for Children as Witnesses to Victims of Crime of Decency in the Criminal Court Process against children as victims of decency crimes in the form of legal protection in the form of: Restitution and Compensation, Counseling, Medical Assistance, Legal Aid and Information Providing. Treatment of Children as Witnesses to Victims of Criminal Actions of Decency during the Criminal Court Process Law enforcement officials still treat women victims of child sexual abuse as objects, not subjects that must be heard and respected for their legal rights and Constraints and Solutions in the Kendal District Court. The victim feels traumatized as a result of this case in providing testimony at the trial and the solution and solution to these obstacles is that victims of criminal acts of sexual immorality continue to be given support from both family and community.

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.

Hate crimes (e.g., anti-Asian and antisemitic) continue to be a problem in the United States. Federal laws protect specific groups (i.e., race, color, national origin, religion, gender/sex, gender identity, disability, and sexual orientation) from victimization of bias-motivated crimes. There is little research investigating how laypeople “know” whether a hate crime has occurred, as well as who they believe are hate crime offenders and victims. The current study explores laypeople's awareness and recognition of hate crimes, offenders, and victims that fit or do not fit their lay theories (e.g., stereotypes). More specifically, the study explores laypeople's (i.e., jurors’) lack of knowledge about federal hate crime legislation, offenders, and victims. The overarching research question is “What are people's lay beliefs about hate crimes, offenders, and victims?” A sample of jury-eligible participants was recruited through Prolific Academic. We conducted semi-structured interviews using quota sampling based on gender (men, women) and race (White, Asian, Black, Hispanic). We conducted a content analysis of the qualitative data. Results demonstrated that participants’ lay beliefs generally aligned with what federal law dictates; however, there were some non-protected groups that laypeople believed could still be victims of hate crimes. Additionally, results can inform researchers and policy makers about laypeople's beliefs about hate crimes, offenders, and victims, which can be applied broadly and to the context of juror decision-making. If laypeople's beliefs about hate crimes, offenders, and victims are inaccurate or do not align with the federal definition of hate crimes, they could subsequently make legally unsound and inaccurate decisions.

Concern for immigrants as victims of crime or immigrant victims' access to justice has been scarce. The lack of research on the victimization of immigrants is undoubtedly related to the difficulty of obtaining valid data on the immigration status of crime victims. Another reason for the lack of research on immigrants as victims is what researchers working within the social constructionist tradition would describe as the process of defining victim categories and of 'making claims' (Spector and Kitsuse, 1977) on behalf of those categories. Victim-activists have been remarkably successful at placing a variety of victim categories and victim issues on the public agenda including elder abuse, hate crime, child abuse, intimate partner violence, and crime against the elderly. The fact that they have not cast 'immigrants' in the role of star victim' does not necessarily mean that concern about immigrant victimization does not exist at all. Rather, it is because certain immigrant troubles have been subsumed under politically hotter topics, such as 'hate crime' and 'domestic violence'. The articles included here reflect the fragmented and thin state of our knowledge about immigrants as victims of crime. Each of the articles makes a valuable contribution to our understanding of the various dimensions of this increasingly significant problem. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)

There is an ongoing debate amongst hate crime scholars about the categories of victims that should be included within hate crime legislation. Some commentators argue that affording protection to groups based on predefined characteristics results in many victims being excluded from the legislation. They would prefer a more inclusive approach that would offer protection to a potentially limitless number of groups. This paper considers the question from a doctrinal perspective, and argues that a principled way of deciding the characteristics of hate crime is required. It will conclude that the core concern of hate crime legislation is with the furthering of the broader equality agenda and, as such, the victims of hate crime should form an exclusive group based on those characteristics protected under equality legislation. This approach can help provide a theoretical framework for hate crime legislation that can be more easily accommodated within criminal law principles.

The report provides an overview and comparison of key developments in two areas of hate crime policy in Poland: data collection and criminal law. By doing so, it seeks to shed light on the role of international organizations in developing national hate crime measures. It is the first report of its kind with a particular focus on the role of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) – the most specialized of all international institutions dealing with hate crime. The purpose of this report is to develop concrete policy recommendations, based on an analysis of ongoing efforts, to key stakeholders involved in the work on advancing the response to hate crime in Poland.Key findings include: - International organizations, through periodic reviews and other mechanisms, have a significant influence on Poland’s response to hate crimes.- This influence is visible in the area of hate crime data collection. While a number of actors have been active in this domain, creating an effect of synergy, the influence of supranational bodies seems instrumental.- Despite on-going debates, the legal framework on hate crimes has not changed.- The lack of progress in this area can be linked with the fact that the bulk of the efforts was on the shoulders of civil society organizations, which lack the leverage that supranational bodies have.- Cooperation between Polish civil society organizations and supranational bodies, aimed at amplifying civil society demands with regard to hate crime, seems to be an effective strategy.- ODIHR had an instrumental role in improving Poland’s data collection mechanisms, but was absent from the debate on the amendment of the Criminal Code. Civil society organizations were not aware of ODIHR’s mandate in this area and the possible role it could play.The report suggests that through active cooperation with civil society, not limited to hate crime reporting only, ODIHR may be able to identify possible new ways to support the state in countering hate crime. For the moment, civil society organizations in Poland and ODIHR, while cooperating in some areas, “forget” about each other in other areas. For ODIHR, strengthening the cooperation may open channels of communication with political decision makers who are not aware of ODIHR’s mandate, for example in the area of legislative support. For civil society, this could mean receiving tangible support in the area where support is most needed.