A Picture of Bias Crime in New South Wales

ABSTRACTThis article presents the findings of the first study of official bias crime data held by the New South Wales Police Force. The purpose of this study was to unearth the institutional policies, procedures and practices that frame the response of the New South Wales Police Force to the reporting and recording of bias crime. While several overall patterns and trends are discernable in the bias crime data, their real significance lies in what they tell us about challenges for law enforcement in the dual process of reporting and recording bias crime. The article draws on qualitative interviews with New South Wales Police Force personnel to argue that a sustained program of capacity building and community engagement is needed if bias crime data is to provide meaningful intelligence on the nature of the problem and inform law enforcement responses.

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

Hate crimes have been found to have more severe consequences than other parallel crimes that were not motivated by the offenders' hostility toward someone because of their real or perceived difference. Many countries today have hate crime laws that make it possible to increase the penalties for such crimes. The main critique against hate crime laws is that they punish thoughts. Instead, proponents of hate crime laws argue that sentence enhancement is justified because hate crimes cause greater harm. This study compares consequences of victimization across groups of victims to test for whom hate crimes hurt more. We analyzed data that were collected through questionnaires distributed to almost 3,000 students at Malmö University, Sweden, during 2013. The survey focused on students' exposure to, and experiences of, hate crime. A series of separate logistic regression analyses were performed, which analyzed the likelihood for reporting consequences following a crime depending on crime type, perceived motive, repeat victimization, gender, and age. Analyzed as one victim group, victims of hate crime more often reported any of the consequences following a crime compared with victims of parallel non-hate-motivated crimes. And, overall victims of threat more often reported consequences compared with victims of sexual harassment and minor assault. However, all hate crime victim groups did not report more consequences than the non-hate crime victim group. The results provide grounds for questioning that hate crimes hurt the individual victim more. It seems that hate crimes do not hurt all more but hate crimes hurt some victims of some crimes more in some ways.

Since 1. April 2024, a new legal basis for regulating hate crimes has come into effect in Scotland. The <Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021> contains a legal basis for expanding protective measures to respond to hate crimes across Scotland. It strengthens the criminal discipline system for hate crimes, while specifying the types of hate crimes and expanding the scope of objects that are protected against hate crimes. <Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021> in Scotland clarifies the scope of punishable hate crimes by categorizing them as ‘aggravation of offence by prejudice, offence of racially aggravated harassment, and offences of stirring up hatred’. It specifically lists the characteristics of victims or victimized groups who will be protected while guaranteeing the freedom of expression enjoyed by individuals. This article focuses on the types of hate crimes contained in the <Hate Crimes and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021> by listing broadly and specifically the characteristics of victims or victimized groups who will be protected. Accordingly, this article examines elements defining hate crimes and the range of punishment for each type of hate crimes specified in the <Hate Crimes and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021>, as well as the legal validity of the provisions set out in the Act to guarantee individual freedom of expression. Finally, this article reviews the effectiveness of the <Hate Crimes and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021>.

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

Supporters of hate crime legislation suggest that the primary reason for the codification of hate crime laws is “to send a strong message of tolerance and equality, signaling to all members of society that hatred and prejudice on the basis of identity will be punished with extra severity.” However, hate crime laws may actually be accomplishing the opposite effect of tolerance and equality because they encourage U.S. citizens to view themselves, not as members of our society, but as members of a protected group. The enactment of hate crime legislation at the federal and state levels has led to unintended consequences and unfair practices. Today, the controversy regarding the effectiveness of hate crime laws is debated, and people question whether this type of legislation is beneficial to society. This article will candidly reevaluate hate crime legislation. Part II will provide the definition of the term “hate crime” and the theoretical justification for enhanced sentencing involving discrimination-based conduct. Focus will be placed on data that disproves the theory that hate crime laws reduce or deter future hate crimes. It will also explain the underlying reasons for the enactment of hate crime laws, such as the media’s role and political influences, and it will present several of the misconceptions associated with hate crime legislation. Part III will present the unintended consequences associated with the enactment of hate crime statutes, including constitutional violations. It will also explain why hate crimes are rarely prosecuted, and will focus on the inconsistency, redundancy, and arbitrary usage/application of hate crime legislation. Part III will also present an individual’s response to the negative, unintended effects of hate crime legislation. Part IV will determine that hate crime legislation is not cost-effective. Part V sets forth a recommendation on improving community efforts to educate or reeducate citizens on respecting diversity. Finally, the article analyzes hate crime laws from supporting and opposing viewpoints and concludes that there is no need to separate hate crimes from other types of crimes as a means to promote a more tolerant, equal, and stable society.

The Hate Crimes Project in the United States, the expanded use of criminal legislation creating enhanced punishment for bias-motivated crimes, is now over twenty-five years old. Today, virtually every state expressly criminalizes bias crimes. Over this quarter century, states have employed different forms of bias crime laws, some focusing on the animus exhibited by the perpetrator of a crime against a member (actual or perceived) of a racial, ethnic, religious, or other included Group, others focusing on the perpetrator's discriminatory selection of his or her victim. Now is therefore a propitious time to begin to evaluate the societal gains and risks associated with bias crime, law enforcement. This paper sets out a framework from which to understand bias crime law, and then considers and addresses many of the issues raised by opponents of the bias crime program. The paper considers four issues in particular. First, opponents have argued that the enhanced punishment of bias crime calls greater attention to racial and ethnic differences in society, therefore exacerbating, not helping, social divisions. Second, those opposed to expanded prosecution for bias-motivated crimes have argued that the bias crime enforcement unconstitutionally, or in any event unwisely, punishes thought and expression, not criminal acts. Third, bias crimes opponents have argued that the potential for selective enforcement of bias crime statutes exists, harming the most disadvantaged members of society and ironically those whom bias crime laws are intended to help. Fourth, opponents question one of the prime justifications for the enhanced punishment of bias crimes - that these crimes cause a greater harm than similar crime without bias motivation - claiming that the bias motivation of the perpetrator per se is not the cause of the harm. Bias crimes per se, the argument goes, should not receive enhanced punishment, rather only crimes, any crimes, that cause these great harms. Finally, the paper offers some observations as to the most general challenge that may be asserted against bias crimes laws: the argument that these laws don't work, that is, that these laws do not prevent or even appreciably reduce levels of bias in society, or even levels of bias crimes. The paper argues that in some ways there is no real answer to this question of whether bias crime laws work but I further argue, in the classic words of the late Alexander Bickel, that no answer is what the wrong question begets. Instead of asking questions about reduction of certain types of crime or ever more so, certain types of social attitudes, we do better to ask whether bias crime laws punish that which society rightly condemns. Taking that path, we are led toward the implications of using bias crime law as a window into a society's self-perception as a multi-cultural society. The extent to which this will end bigotry in society will inevitably be an inquiry that is more aspirational than empirical.

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.

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.

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.

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.

‘Hate crimes’ hurt more than similar, but otherwise motivated crimes. This has increasingly been acknowledged and understood by criminal justice agencies in a number of countries, by supra-national policy bodies and civil society organisations concerned with fundamental human rights, and by those in the civil and public sectors working to support victims of ‘hate crime’. A substantial body of evidence about the personal injuries of ‘hate crime’ has now accumulated to support the notion that ‘hate crimes hurt more’. This chapter extends the evidence base further by unfolding some new data on the physical, emotional, and behavioural injuries of ‘hate crime’. It also suggests that understanding the particular impacts of ‘hate crime’ can serve to inform appropriate and effective support for victims and inform the training of those working with victims.

Forgotten Friends. ODIHR and Civil Society in the Struggle to Counter Hate Crime in Poland

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.

Inspired by individual-level research on direct and indirect as well as reactive and proactive aggression, this article proposes to differentiate direct and indirect types of hate crime. We use the largest hate crime database in Poland (N = 3,153 incidents) to analyze: (1) temporal trends in the relative prevalence of two types of hate crime; (2) the involvement of hate group-affiliated and non-hate group-affiliated perpetrators; and (3) the targeting of victims that are perceived to pose more of a symbolic (vs. more of a realistic threat) to the majority group. Results indicate that direct hate crime was more likely than indirect hate crime to be perpetrated by members and affiliates of hate groups, was more likely to target outgroups seen as posing symbolic rather than realistic threat to the majority group, and was also positively related to societal levels of negative intergroup attitudes and negatively related to unemployment. The findings also show that the two types of hate crime are differently predicted by factors indicative of the social and political climate of the country (e.g., unemployment, political preferences, xenophobia). Although the results were only obtained in one cultural context and will benefit from further validation, they provide very promising initial evidence for the predictive utility of distinguishing direct and indirect hate-crime.