An Analysis of Hate Crime Victimization Amongst Immigrants

We estimate the prevalence and characteristics of violent hate crime victimization of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the United States, and we compare them to non-LGBT hate crime victims and to LGBT victims of violent non-hate crime. We analyze pooled 2017-2019 data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (n persons = 553, 925;n incidents = 32, 470), the first nationally representative and comprehensive survey on crime that allows identification of LGBT persons aged 16 or older. Descriptive and bivariate analysis show that LGBT people experienced 6.6 violent hate crime victimizations per 1,000 persons compared with non-LGBT people's 0.6 per 1,000 persons (odds ratio = 8.30, 95% confidence interval = 1.94, 14.65). LGBT people were more likely to be hate crime victims of sexual orientation or gender bias crime and less likely to be victims of race or ethnicity bias crimes compared to non-LGBT hate crime victims. Compared to non-LGBT victims, LGBT victims of hate crime were more likely to be younger, have a relationship with their assailant, and have an assailant who is white. Compared to LGBT victims of non-hate violence, more LGBT hate crime victims reported experiencing problems in their social lives, negative emotional responses, and physical symptoms of distress. Our findings affirm claims that hate crimes have adverse physical and psychological effects on victims and highlight the need to ensure that LGBT persons who experience hate crime get necessary support and services in the aftermath of the 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.

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.

Violent crime victims often do not report their victimization to the police. While still infrequent, victims may instead (or also) contact non-police (i.e., informal) outlets like counselors, victim service providers, or friends and family. However, it is unclear if the decisions to seek police and/or non-police (“informal”) help differ among hate and non-hate crime victims. Given existing evidence that hate crime victims are more likely to experience greater psychological distress than other victims, it is important to understand how people targeted because of their identities request assistance to mitigate these unique consequences. Using the first wave of the Longitudinal Hate Crime Victimization Survey – Pilot (LHCVS-P), this study examines variation in (1) help-seeking among hate and non-hate crime victims and (2) reasons for reporting or not reporting to the police in tandem with other help-seeking decisions. Implications for improving connections to victim support resources to address unique post-victimization needs are discussed.

This chapter presents hate crime patterns and trends using data from the UCR Hate Crimes Statistics Program and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Comparisons are made between these two data collection systems, noting where the NCVS and UCR agree and differ in findings regarding the occurrence of hate crime. We observe overall and recent trends from the UCR data for all hate crime, and for hate crimes separated into bias motivation categories, bias types, and offense types. Using data from the NCVS, we show patterns among hate crime victims and offenders. We exhibit how the strengths of each of these data collection systems can be utilized to better understand the nature and scope of hate crime in the United States.

ABSTRACTHate crimes remain pressing traumatic events for sexual orientation minority adults. Previous literature documents patterns in which hate crime victimization is associated with elevated risk for poor mental health. The present paper held 2 aims to advance literature. First, we investigated the rates and types of hate crime victimization among sexual orientation minority adults. Second, adopting a mental health amplification risk model, we evaluated whether symptoms of depression, impulsivity, or post-traumatic stress exacerbated the hate crime victimization–suicide risk link. Participants were 521 adult sexual orientation minority-identifying members of the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom (i.e., a bondage and discipline, and sadomasochism-identifying sexuality special interest group). Participants completed demographic and mental health inventories via online administration. Results showed: (1) low rates of total lifetime hate crime victimization and (2) higher rates of interpersonal violence compared to property crime victimization within the sample. Regression results showed: (1) independent positive main effects of all 3 mental health symptom categories with suicide risk; (2) an interaction pattern in which impulsivity was positively associated with suicide risk for non-victims; and (3) an interaction pattern in which post-traumatic stress was positively associated with suicide risk for hate crime victims and non-victims. Results are discussed concerning implications for trauma-informed mental healthcare, mental health amplification models, and hate crime and suicide prevention policies.

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)

PurposeThird party reporting (TPR) services provide a route for victims of hate crime to report their experiences to an organisation other than the police. There is repeated evidence of under-reporting of hate crimes within the UK, and many victims of hate crime are unaware of the existence of TPR mechanisms. Little research attention has been given to understanding of the merits of TPR, beyond evaluating how often they are used. This study aims to explore the delivery of TPR from an advisor perspective.Design/methodology/approachThe research evaluated a small TPR centre based within a charitable organisation. The research, part of an undergraduate study, analysed the experiences of volunteer advisors working on the service through a semi-structured questionnaire.FindingsResults were mixed. Findings indicated the service contributed to an enhanced awareness of hate crimes in the community; however, greater promotion of the TPR centre was advocated. The results also indicated a significant lack of understanding and knowledge by trained volunteer advisors about hate crimes.Social implicationsA lack of informed awareness of what hate crimes are could result in victims of hate crime not being recognised or supported as such.Originality/valueMost hate crime research is victim centred, and this study is innovative in looking at those receiving hate crime reports. There is limited evidence on TPR service provision in the UK, particularly on service delivery staff, and this research contributes to the gap in knowledge.

Hate is a global phenomenon as evidenced by recent increases in hate crimes in both the United States and the United Kingdom; unfortunately, these crimes are also substantially underreported in both nations. Following this, this research presents an examination of racially motivated hate crimes and victim reporting to the police in both nations using data from the National Crime Victimization Survey and the Crime Survey of England and Wales from 2003 to 2015. Results indicate that, overall, victim reporting has been increasing in the United Kingdom and decreasing in the United States. Disaggregating by victim and offender race, however, reveals divergent trends such that anti-black hate crime victim reporting is increasing in the United States and decreasing in the United Kingdom. Policy and research implications are discussed.

This research explored the content of hate crime prototypes in a North American context, with particular attention to how such prototypes might influence blame attributions. In Study 1a, participants were recruited from a blended sample of universities (n = 110) and community members (n = 102) and asked to report their thoughts about typical hate crime offenses, victims, and offenders. These open-ended responses were coded, and common themes were identified. In Study 1b, a new group of participants (n = 290) were presented with these themes and asked to rate each for their characteristics of hate crimes. Studies 1a and 1b confirmed the presence of a clear prototype of hate crimes, such that (a) perpetrators were believed to be lower status White men with clear expressions of bias, (b) hate crime offenses were believed to be acts of interpersonal violence accompanied by slurs or verbal abuse, and (c) hate crime victims were thought to be members of a marginalized group who remain passive during the offense. Study 2 explored the consequences of victim prototypes on assessments of victim blame. Participants (n = 296) were recruited from York University and presented with a case vignette that varied the prototypicality of a victim of hate, depicting him as either Black or White and either passive, verbally responsive, or physically confrontational in the context of an assault. Participants showed greatest sympathy for the Black victim who passively ignored verbal harassment but increasingly assigned blame when the Black victim spoke or reacted physically. When the victim was White, participants showed little variation in their assessment of blame as a function of the victim's behavior. These results suggest that Black victims are subjected to greater behavioral scrutiny than White victims and that sympathy for victims of hate may be contingent on their passivity in the face of harassment.

In October 1998, Matthew Shepard, a young gay student at the University of Wyoming, was brutally murdered. Upon hearing the news, many Americans described him as a victim of a hate crime. Others, however, proclaimed Shepard a gay martyr. This declaration was not simply political rhetoric. Despite long-standing conservative religious opposition to homosexuality, they believed that Shepard had been granted salvation and a place among the saints in heaven. This article addresses the questions, “How and why was Matthew Shepard declared a popular martyr?” More specifically, how does this popular martyrdom relate to contemporary debates surrounding civil rights for gays and lesbians in America? As part of a series of social movements that followed the Second World War, sexual minorities have struggled to claim legitimate space in American society, leaving dramatic social changes in their wake. Noting this, while contrasting the news media’s construction of Shepard with the simultaneous popular discussion on the Internet, this article argues that a long tradition of popular martyr-making came together with social and political circumstances at a certain historical moment to transform the obscure victim of a hate crime into a popular martyr residing in heaven. That is, although the news media constructed Shepard as simply the affable young victim of a fatal hate crime, these contingencies allowed many Americans to reconstruct Shepard as a popular martyr. They expressed this belief in political, cultural, and social action. In time, Shepard's popular martyrdom helped further a growing acceptance of gays and lesbians into America's mainstream.

The present study examined factors that could be associated with bias victimization according to intergroup threat theory, namely socioeconomic status (SES), acculturation (Anglo orientation and Latino orientation), immigrant status, and their interactions. Self-identified Latino participants (N = 910) from three cities in the United States were queried about experiences with bias victimization, specifically hate crime and noncriminal bias victimization. Findings revealed that levels of bias victimization, hate crime, and noncriminal bias victimization were associated with SES, Anglo orientation, immigrant status, and their interactions, although in some unpredicted ways. Interactions among key variables helped clarify the roles of these factors in concert on bias victimization. The hate crimes against U.S.-born Latinos and the victimization risk associated with increasing Anglo orientations among immigrants contradicts predictions of intergroup threat theory. More nuanced analyses of social locations are needed to examine bias victimization.

This study employed the articulated thoughts in simulated situations (ATSS) paradigm in the investigation of college students' thoughts upon confrontation with a conspiracy to commit a sexual-orientation-based hate crime versus a nonbias crime. In a between-subjects experimental design, participants were exposed to an audiotaped scenario depicting either the planning of a hate crime or a comparable nonhate crime. Content analysis of participants' articulated thoughts in response to these stimuli revealed that the hate crime resulted in more intentions to physically aggress against the perpetrator. This supports the notion that hate crimes have a greater potential than other crimes to lead to future violence. More people were also willing to intervene and help the hate crime victim than the nonhate crime victim. In addition, antigay attitudes turned out to be predictive of anger against the hate crime victim, disapproval of the hate crime victim, and support of the hate crime perpetrators. Implications of these findings, as well as suggestions for future research, are discussed.

The rights of victims of hate speech and hate crimes are part of the rights in the system of support for victims and witnesses of criminal acts according to domestic legislation and international and European standards. Directive 2012/29/EU foresees an obligation for member states (and candidates) to take measures to establish a protection system. Effective protection implies not only a normative framework but also real protection. The specifics of hate speech and hate crimes also conditioned the adoption of Directive CM/Rec (2022) 16, which foresees measures to combat hate speech. Some expressions of hate speech require a criminal law response, including obligations of a preventive nature on the part of public authorities. That is why encouraging individuals and groups to report hate speech and hate crimes and providing protection is part of an evolving legal culture. Victims should also be supported by the media, which in modern society often has a decisive role, through compliance with legal regulations and reporting in accordance with the rules of the profession. Social networks are an indispensable element in the policy of preventing and fighting against hate speech and hate crimes, and their role is becoming increasingly important.

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.