A critical geography of disability hate crime

This study aimed to analyse the emergence and development of Disability Hate Crime as a policy area in the criminal justice system in England and Wales. It did this through building an understanding of the contributory factors including the challenges within the criminal justice system, wider government and politics, the independent statutory sector and disabled peoples organisations that led to the emergence and development of Disability Hate Crime policy and practice. This study contributes the first comprehensive analysis of the emergence and development of Disability Hate Crime in England and Wales to hate crime studies. Using a case study approach the thesis triangulates evidence from interviews in activist, policy and political streams, from hate crime cases and analysis of policy documents to chart this policy journey. It analyses the journey from agenda invisibility through agenda triggering to significant institutionalised actions on Disability Hate Crime in the criminal justice system, showing the roles of activism, politics and policy making in shaping this policy process. It underscores the analysis of this policy journey with a key focus on problematisation in policy making on Disability Hate Crime. This study found that Disability Hate Crime has faced challenges in its emergence and development as a policy area in the criminal justice system. It has faced challenges at each stage of the policy journey from initial agenda triggering, through agenda setting and onto agenda institutionalisation. This study concludes that Disability Hate Crime is an unsettled and unsettling policy agenda with agenda institutionalisation, as an established predictable area of policy and practice, some way off, despite legislation in 2003. The study found that: - Disability Hate Crime remains an unsettled policy agenda in that it displays an unsettled discourse, varied ways of responding, a need for ongoing national strategic action, and limited transition into day-to-day routine business. - Disability Hate Crime is an unsettling policy agenda in that it challenges understandings of hostility and prejudice beyond direct manifestations of hostility. It is also unsettling in that it raises a dual problematisation of targeted crimes against disabled people as either hostility targeting or vulnerability targeting. This reflects a wider dual problematisation of disability as either an issue of welfare or as an issue of rights. - Current understandings of disability hostility reflect under recognition of disability discrimination and linked ideologies of ableism and disablism. This under recognition of disability hostility lead to justice failures in Disability Hate Crime cases. Constructions of the targeting of disabled people in crime as based on vulnerability lacks recognition of such targeting as biased, hostile targeting of disabled people. This study reconceptualises disability hostility as hostility including vulnerability targeting. Arising from these conclusions, on an optimistic note, this study recommends a change to hate crime law which recognises that disability hostility can be based on hostility demonstration, a hostility motivation or hostile targeting because of disability. This study concludes that rather than institutionalisation of Disability Hate Crime as day-to-day hate crime business, it still remains unusual business. This study contributes a reconceptualization of the concept of disability hostility to include targeting because of disability – ‘disability vulnerability’. It makes the case for varied legal provisions to reflect the protection requirements of different hate crime strands. It adds to the body of case studies on public policy making. Finally, it illuminates the influence of equality law on Disability Hate Crime policy making.

Making disablist hate crime visible: addressing the challenges of improving reporting: Chih Hoong Sin

Blaming the victim: disability hate crime

The term ‘disablist hate crime’ is contested; it is used as shorthand for myriad manifestations of hostility, violent attacks, including physical and sexual assault, rape, theft, murder, captivity and damage to property (Thomas, 2011). A common understanding of the term ‘hate crime’ is hostile actions against individuals with certain characteristics. The actions can involve opportunistic street crime, physical assault and damage to residences, including arson. The perpetrators do not usually have a relationship with their victims, but may be known to live within the same neighbourhood. They are generally considered to be motivated by hatred of a perceived group. There are similarities between these types of targeted attacks against disabled people and people in other identity groups, such as BME communities, lesbians and gay men, and transgender people (Macdonald, 2008). ‘Hate crime’ is officially recognised (Crown Prosecution Service, 2007). Earlier critical analysis of ‘hate crime’ has been developed from knowledgeof racist ‘hate crime’, forming a useful basis from which to develop, but the use of a ‘race model’ as the template for disablist hate crime policy is seen by some as misplaced (Roulstone, Thomas and Balderston, 2011). For example, a racist attack on an individual may be, or may be taken to be, an attack on a community, and where that community has the capacity there may be reprisals and events can escalate. This is not the case with disablist hostility, since disabled people are often isolated, not part of a community, and possibly even isolated from their own families. Iganski’s (2008) study highlighted the opportunistic nature of most racist ‘hate crime’, everyday conflicts aggravated by racist hostility, often committed by ordinary people going about their ordinary business. The person who is attacked may recognise their attackers as being local. There does not seem to be any attempt to feign friendship in order to carry out this type of attack, nor to steal cash or goods. In comparison there are few recorded incidents of this kind against disabled people. However, there is a growing body of evidence, and growing media interest raising the profile of disablist hostility. There are reports of disabled people being subjected to opportunistic hostility, and of disabled people being singled out and victimisedGrattet and Jenness (2001) question the usefulness of a concept of crime whichis motivated by perceived difference. They question the benefits of emphasising what could be seen as a ‘special needs’ approach, since this reinforces, rather than alleviates, cultural differences between individuals in different social and administrative groups. But they also realise that treating people as if they are all the same does not challenge stereotypes and does not equalise people’s situation, creating a ‘dilemma of difference’. Reducing the issue to an individual level does not convey the influences of cultures, which allow and perpetuate the oppression of certain groups. Acts of hostility against disabled people on the street or in neighbourhoods, bullying and harassment – such as name calling, throwing missiles at individuals, or at their homes, indicate similarities with incidents which are recognised as ‘hate crime’ against other groups. These acts of hostility against a disabled person may not amount to crime, but nevertheless hurt psychologically and emotionally. A disabled person who has been attacked knows that they are more likely to be targeted again than a person without that characteristic (Macdonald, 2008); the cumulative effect is demonstrated in the case of Fiona Pilkington.

This chapter traces the journey from hate crime to Disability Hate Crime through an analysis of the relevant literature including policy related documents which construct and reference Disability Hate Crime. It considers the origins and evolving conceptions of both hate crime and Disability Hate Crime, the construction of disability in public policy and the construction of disability within hate crime policy. It is only recently that disability hostility has begun to be recognized as Disability Hate Crime, and it is a contested, contentious and ambiguous concept. Nonetheless, it is now recognized as a ‘social fact’ with an active policy domain and set of policies and practices. A review of the key academic literature on Disability Hate Crime and its relationship to hate crime literature in general is set out, as well as a review of the significant literature produced by the independent statutory sector, the community sector and by individual authors. Here is set out the critical consideration of the journey from hate crime to Disability Hate Crime that follows and that is concerned with how Disability Hate Crime policy and practice emerged and developed, and equally on seeking to explain why it emerged as and when it did in hate crime.

In England and Wales, Section 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 made disability hate crimes legal. This advocated for increased sentencing for perpetrators whose crimes were motivated by or demonstrated hate against a person with a handicap or a perceived disability. Currently, this additional sentencing provision is the only legal option for prosecuting disability hate crime perpetrators. This thesis explores the experience and aftermath of hate crimes committed against England’s cognitively challenged senior victim group. The cognitively challenged elderly victim group is far more likely to face bias and violence; they have a greater likelihood of re-victimisation and suffer significant suffering as a result of hate crimes. To date, the voices of cognitively deficient elderly victims and survivors have been mostly absent from scholarly research and hate crime policies. As a result, the purpose of this article is to look into present policy barriers and how the cognitively challenged senior victim group might best receive support, justice, and interventions following discriminatory hate crimes. There has been little examination and discussion of intersectionality in disability studies and hate crime research. Common ideas fail to adequately reflect the multifaceted, overlapping, and complex experiences of danger and victimisation. This paper builds on studies on hate crimes against the cognitively deficient elderly victim group. It noted the challenge of categorising individual encounters as one type of hate crime. Victims and their relatives recognised that they were targeted for a variety of reasons, including their inability to care for themselves and their age. The study contends that the present strand-based approach to hate crime conceals a multitude of cross-identity characteristics that, when combined, might raise the danger of victimisation while decreasing a victim’s chance of reporting their experiences. To address vulnerability, safety, and hate crime against disabled people in England and Wales’ criminal justice, health, social care, and refuge systems, barriers to including the cognitively impaired senior victim group in the policy process are presented, allowing for targeted suggestions and changes on relevant issues.

PurposeThis paper aims to consider the relationship between disability hate crime and safeguarding adults. It critically considers whether safeguarding responses to disability hate crime have changed following the implementation of the Care Act 2014. Historically, protectionist responses to disabled people may have masked the scale of hate crime and prevented them from seeking legal recourse through the criminal justice system (CJS). This paper investigates whether agencies are working together effectively to tackle hate crime.Design/methodology/approachThe research presented draws on semi-structured interviews with key informants who work with disabled people and organisations as part of a wider study on disability hate crime.FindingsPrior to the Care Act, safeguarding practice often failed to prioritise criminal justice interventions when responding to reports of disability hate crimes. Improving engagement within multi-agency safeguarding hubs and boards has the potential to increase hate crime awareness and reporting.Research limitations/implicationsThis research was limited in scope to 15 participants who worked in England within safeguarding teams or with victims of hate crime.Practical implicationsRaising the profile of disability hate crime within safeguarding teams could lead to achieving more effective outcomes for adults at risk: improving confidence in reporting, identifying perpetrators of hate crimes, enabling the CJS to intervene and reducing the risk of further targeted abuse on the victim or wider community.Originality/valueThis paper is original in its contribution in this field as there is a dearth of research on the relationship between safeguarding and disability hate crime.

Disability hate crime is an area of “academic, campaign and Government interest” yet understanding this is in its infancy. It incorporates targeted violence, abuse, harassment and public disorder towards disabled individuals, communities and their environments. Sexual violence has been identified as a dominant method of disability hate crime towards disabled women and underscores the importance of evaluating the intersections of both gender and disability when attempting to understand the experiences of hate crime victims. Consequently, an application of intersectionality to researching disablist crimes encourages the consideration of multiple, overlapping and complicated experiences of risk and victimisation. This chapter is based on empirical evidence from a broader project looking at disabled people’s experiences of hate crime, here focusing specifically on the ways in which disabled women have experienced hate crime. It starts by evaluating current literature on disability hate crimes against women, before outlining the methodology involved in the empirical research process. Intersectional analysis of disabled women’s experiences will illustrate the difficulty in categorising individual experiences through a single strand of hate crime. Evidence from disabled women exposed experiences of historical and repeated sexual violence which can be conceptualised through hate crime and gendered violence. The context and circumstances surrounding disabled women’s experiences will be considered, as well as the responses by the criminal justice system. The chapter concludes by positioning these findings within wider academic discourses around violence against women.

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. …

Hatescape? A relational geography of disability hate crime, exclusion and belonging in the city

During recent years ‘disability hate crime’ has become a major political and criminal justice concern due to a number of high-profile murders in the United Kingdom. The aim of this article is to compare disability-motivated hate crimes with other hate crimes motivated by homophobic or racist bias. This study employs a quantitative methodology utilising data collected by the ARCH hate crime recording system over a 10-year period (2005–2015). The data findings illustrate a number of variations concerning incidents reported by disabled people regarding violence and threatening behaviour, when compared with incidents motivated by race/faith or homophobic bias.

The horrific stories of James Byrd Jr., Matthew Shepard and Stephen Lawrence are forever etched in criminal law. In each of these cases, activists, family members, politicians, academics, the public and media all reacted in their unique way to bring the problem of ‘hate crime’ onto the agenda. There are many other cases that have activated such a public imagination, or what we call ‘figurehead’ cases, yet the factors pertinent to figurehead recognition remain under-explored within hate crime scholarship. Using a case study analysis, three racist and heterosexist hate crime cases are examined in order to assess the individual and collective conditions that facilitated their place on the public agenda. This analysis has important implications for the category of ‘disability’, and highlights several shortcomings that forestall the recognition of ‘disablist hate crime’ publicly, legislatively and judicially. It is argued that the positioning of disability as ‘abject’ has inhibited the operationalization of disablist violence within the hate crime framework, and within criminal justice systems more generally.

Twenty years ago, Disability Hate Crime was unheard of in Britain. Today, it is a significant criminal justice concern. This book asks and answers the questions as to how and why Disability Hate Crime developed as a criminal justice system policy concern. It analyses the development of Disability Hate Crime in the criminal justice system in England and Wales and provides the first comprehensive account of this issue’s development. This book analyses the contributions of activists, politicians, policymakers and CJS practitioners to this area of hate crime development. It uniquely analyses the challenges posed by the pervasive view of disability targeting in crime as vulnerability targeting. It points to practical ways through this challenge. It also addresses the under-recognition of disability prejudice–hostility and links this to the wider non-recognition of a fuelling ideology of ableism. While the book identifies Disability Hate Crime as an unsettled and unsettling agenda, it offers an optimistic view that a combination of legal policy change and a critically reflective approach on the part of policymakers and practitioners can lead to progress on Disability Hate Crime such that it becomes embedded as ‘business as usual’ rather than unusual business in the criminal justice system.

The aim of this research scoping review was to assemble an evidence base for the UK on mental health service user experiences and perspectives on mental health-related targeted violence and hostility ('disability hate crime'). It also aims to address some of the gaps in the knowledge on risk management, help-seeking and prevention from the perspectives of those who experienced targeted violence and hostility because of their mental health problems or psychiatric status. Seven key mental health and social care bibliographic databases were searched for relevant UK research studies from 1990 until 2016. Grey literature was identified through online searches. A scoping review charting approach and thematic analysis methodology were used to analyse the studies. In total 13 studies were finally included, over half of which used survey methods. All studies included people with experiences of mental health problems. The studies provide information on: the types of potential hate crime; indicate where incidents take place; give some insight into the victims' relationship with the perpetrators; the location of incidents as well as the psychological, social, financial and physical impacts on the victim; the types of help-seeking behaviours adopted by the victims; a range coping strategies that people with mental health problems adopted in response to experiences of targeted violence or abuse. This scoping review provides a UK-based overview of mental health service user concepts and experiences of mental health-related targeted violence and hostility ('disability hate crime'). It reveals some specific issues relating to mental health and disability hate crime. Further investigation into disability hate crime with a specific focus on mental health is required. This is a UK-based overview, which offers a useful comparator for researchers, practitioners and policy-makers internationally.

In the context of there being little robust U.K. data on disabled people's exposure to violent crime and hate crime, we examined self-reported rates of exposure over the preceding 12 months to violent crime, hate crime, and disablist hate crime in a newly established survey, the U.K.'s Life Opportunities Survey. Information was collected from a nationally representative sample of 37,513 British adults (age 16 or older). Results indicated that (a) disabled adults were significantly more likely to have been exposed over the previous 12 months to violent crime (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 2.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [2.08, 2.61]) and hate crime (adjusted OR = 2.58, 95% CI = [2.17, 3.07]) than their non-disabled peers, (b) the differential risk of exposure to violent crime was particularly elevated among disabled adults with mental health problems (adjusted OR = 6.26, 95% CI = [5.01, 7.82]), (c) the differential risk of exposure to hate crime was particularly elevated among disabled adults with mental health problems (adjusted OR = 10.70, 95% CI = [7.91, 14.47]) or cognitive impairments (adjusted OR = 6.66, 95% CI = [3.95, 11.22]), and (d) these effects were strongly moderated by poverty status with no increase in differential risk of exposure for disabled adults among more wealthy respondents.