Blame Attribution in the Punishment of Hate Crime Perpetrators

Blame attribution is a valuable mechanism explaining decision making. However, present literature mainly employs blame attribution as a dependent variable. The shortcoming of this fact is that blame attribution offers a potentially valuable explanatory mechanism for decision making. The authors designed two studies to investigate blame attribution as a moderator of sentencing decisions in sexual orientation-based hate crimes. Study 1 showed that mock jurors punished perpetrators of hate crimes more severely than a control condition. Also, degree of victim blame influenced punitive decision making. In Study 2, mock jurors extended findings that perpetrators of hate crimes are more harshly punished than those of other types of crimes. Victim and perpetrator blame failed to moderate decision making in this more complex scenario. Results are discussed in relation to hate crimes definitions and attribution theory.

A mock juror investigation of blame attribution in the punishment of hate crime perpetrators

Several constructs have been identified as relevant to the juror decision-making process in hate crime cases. However, there is a lack of research on the relationships between these constructs and their variable influence across victim group. The purpose of the current study was to reexamine factors relevant to the juror decision-making process in hate crime cases within a structural model, and across victim group, to gauge the relative strength and explanatory power of various predictors. In the current study, 313 participants sentenced a perpetrator found guilty of a hate crime committed against either a Black man or a gay man; participants also responded to individual difference measures relevant to mock juror hate crime decision making, including prejudice toward the victim's social group. Using path analysis, we explored the role of juror prejudice on sentencing decisions in hate crime cases as well as similarities and differences based on the victimized group. Results indicated that, when the victim was a Black man, modern racism influenced sentencing both directly and indirectly through perpetrator blame attributions, explaining 18% of the variance in sentencing. In contrast, when the victim was a gay man, modern homophobia did not directly predict sentencing, and the overall model explained only 4% of the variance in sentencing, suggesting variables beyond juror prejudice may be better suited to explain juror decision making in sexual orientation-based hate crimes. The current study suggests that the role of juror prejudice in hate crime cases varies as a function of the victimized group and raises questions about the importance of juror prejudice in the sentencing of hate crime cases, particularly antigay prejudice. The importance of blame attributions, social dominance orientation, and juror beliefs regarding penalty enhancements for hate crime cases, as well as policy implications, are also addressed.

A jury simulation paradigm was employed for two studies exploring levels of victim blame in a case of bias-motivated assault based on sexual orientation. In the first study, participants were grouped according to their score on the Index of Homophobia (IHP) scale as either reporting high or low support for gay and lesbian community members. The label of the crime (i.e., bias-motivated assault versus first-degree assault) as well as the gender of the victim were systematically varied. Results indicated that attributions of blame against the victim varied as a function of participants' attitudes toward minority sexual orientation. As extra-legal factors likely contribute to victim blame in these cases, the second study explored such factors as location and “provocation.” Jurors in the second study read a transcript depicting an attack on a gay man by a man in either a local bar (i.e., not a gay bar) or a gay bar. Within location conditions, jurors were presented with either “provocation” by the victim (i.e., asking the perpetrator to dance and putting his arm around him) or alternatively no provocation was presented. Results revealed significant differences of victim blame depending on condition. Participants in both the local bar and provocation present conditions were more likely to blame the victim for the attack than those in the gay bar or provocation-absent conditions. Implications for hate crime law and attribution theory within the courtroom are discussed.

This study investigates the influence of social status on attributions of blame in specific instances of hate crime. Two theoretical explanations for the impact of offender's and victim's social status characteristics on evaluations of hate crimes are examined. The stigma perspective suggests that the public will deride minority-status individuals, whereas the sympathy perspective implies that the public will be sympathetic to members of minorities. Results from a factorial survey reveal mixed support for both perspectives, depending on the victim's status (race, gender, or sexual orientation). Respondents appear especially sensitive to racial status asymmetry, blaming white offenders more than black offenders and black victims less than white victims, but sympathy is not evident for gay and lesbian victims. Results also suggest that gay and lesbian victims are held more accountable for their actions than heterosexual victims and that respondent's attitudes shape attributions of blame.

For certain crimes there is a tendency in the United States to blame individuals for their victimization. Previous work has shown that affective states can impact blame attribution. Drawing upon this work, the purpose of the current pre‐registered research was to examine the relation between affective disgust and victim blame attribution. In Study 1, as participants’ (N = 203) level of implicit disgust associations with gay men increased, their tendency to blame a gay male homicide victim also increased, whereas their agreement that the homicide qualified as a hate crime decreased. In Study 2, disgust was experimentally induced by exposing participants (N = 431) to disgusting (e.g., vomit, insects) or neutral images (e.g., mug, stapler). Inducing disgust increased victim blame and decreased perceptions that the homicide constituted a hate crime. However, exploratory mediation analyses in both studies showed that the impact of disgust on hate crime applications is best explained as an indirect effect of victim blame. Taken together, these findings suggest that both individual differences in implicit gay‐disgust and situational feelings of disgust may underlie people’s perceptions of how blameworthy a victim is for the crime committed against them.

Employing the federal Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA) of 2009 and other such legislation as a backdrop, the present study evaluated the nature of beliefs about hate-crime legislation, offenders, and victims. In addition, it investigated construct validity (i.e., political beliefs and prejudice) and predictive validity (i.e., blame attribution and sentencing recommendations). A total of 403 U.S. adults completed measures of prejudice and an initial pool of 50 items forming the proposed Hate Crime Beliefs Scale (HCBS). Participants were randomly assigned to read one of four hate-crime vignettes, which varied in regard to type of prejudice (racial-, sexual orientation-, transgender-, and religion-based prejudices) and then responded to blame and sentencing questions. Factor analyses of the HCBS resulted in four sub-scales: Negative Views (i.e., higher scores reflect negative views of legislation and minority group protection), Offender Punishment (i.e., higher scores suggest endorsement of greater punishment), Deterrence (i.e., greater scores denote support for hate-crime legislation as a deterrent of more violence), and Victim Harm (i.e., higher scores reflect pro-victim attitudes). Greater pro-legislation and pro-victim beliefs were related to liberal political beliefs and less prejudicial attitudes, with some exceptions. Controlling for a number of demographic, situational, and attitudinal covariates, the Negative Views sub-scale displayed predictive utility, such that more negative views of legislation/minority group protection were associated with elevated victim blame, as well as lower perpetrator blame and sentencing recommendations. Results are discussed in the context of hate-crime research and policy, with additional implications considered for trial strategy, modern prejudice, and blame attribution theory.

Victimology research often hinges on attribution of blame toward victims despite a lack of conceptual agreement on the definition and measure of the construct. Drawing on established blame attribution and intent literature, the present study evaluates psychometric properties of the Perceptions of Victim Blame Scale (PVBS) using mock jury samples in a vignette-based capital murder antigay hate crime context. Factor analyses show support for a three-factor structure with the following perceptions of victim blame subscales: Malice, Recklessness, and Unreliability. All factors displayed expected positive associations with homonegativity and authoritarianism. Likewise, all factors displayed null relations with trait aggression and social desirability. Only the Malice factor predicted sentencing decisions after controlling for crime condition and support for the death penalty. Results are reviewed with respect to blame attribution theory and practical application of a revised PVBS.

The current study explored hate crime in a nontypical scenario. Label of the crime (first‐degree assault vs. bias‐motivated assault) and gender of the victim were varied within the context of an attack perpetrated within other gender dyads (i.e., when the victim was female, the perpetrator was male, and vice versa). Results indicated that participants in the assault condition were more likely to find the defendant guilty than those in the hate crime condition. Participants also made differential attributions of victim blame, such that those in the assault condition found the victim to be more mentally unstable than those in the hate crime condition.

Drawing on legal and psychological theory of blame, the present study evaluates psychometric properties of the Perceptions of Blame Scale (PBS; Rayburn, Mendoza, & Davison, 2003) across crimes of varying severity (i.e., misdemeanor assault, felony assault, and murder) and motivation (gay hate crime victim versus heterosexual victim perceived as gay). Results revealed support for a single-factor model of perceptions of perpetrator blame in a panel of jury-eligible community members. Perceptions of blame in this study moderated the impact of crime motivation on the sentencing decision. Results are discussed with regard to legal and psychological perspectives of blame in a jury research paradigm.

Background: The perceived culpability of a sexual crime perpetrator may be attributed as a function of both the legality of the substance used when committing the crime and the severity of the sex crime. Objectives: The experiment applied attribution theory to examine the simultaneous impact of substance use legality and sexual crime severity on participants’ perceptions of responsibility, blame, and punishment toward sexual crime perpetrators. Methods: Participants (N = 461) in this 4 (substance legality) × 2 (sexual crime severity) experimental design were randomly assigned to one of eight conditions to read a police report depicting a sexual offense. The independent variable of substance legality was manipulated as the perpetrator’s usage of no substance (sober), alcohol (legal), marijuana (partially legal), or cocaine (illegal) at the time of the crime. The second independent variable of sexual crime severity was manipulated as the offense of indecent exposure (mild offense) or rape (severe offense) committed by the perpetrator. After reading the manipulated vignette, participants rated outcome measures involving the perpetrator’s responsibility, blame (guilt attributions, external attributions, and mental element attributions), and punishment (punishment attitudes and punishment severity). Results: Factorial MANCOVA and ANCOVAs were performed. Participants tended to attribute greater responsibility and blame, but not punishment, toward the sober perpetrator compared to the perpetrator intoxicated with alcohol, marijuana, or cocaine. Additionally, participants attributed significantly greater responsibility, blame, and punishment toward the perpetrator of rape compared to indecent exposure. Conclusions: The experiment supported that both substance legality and sexual crime severity uniquely served as contextual factors that played roles in people’s judgments about crimes. Findings offer drug policy information regarding how substance intoxication is perceived as a mitigating excuse in criminal justice systems for committing sexual offenses.

Recent state and federal legislation such as the Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA) addresses hate crime prevention and punishment. Two pivotal questions that arise in the development of such legislation are (a) should hate crime perpetrators be subject to penalty enhancements? and (b) should protections be extended to sexual and transgender minority individuals? This article presents two studies addressing these questions employing a two-step vignette methodology. Jury-eligible community members provided sentencing and blame attribution ratings for one of three hate crime scenarios (i.e., anti-African American, antigay, or antitransgender), as well as penalty enhancement agreement (i.e., yes/no) and measures of need for affect (Study 1) and need for cognition (Study 2). Patterns of findings across studies suggest that participants comply with hate crime legislation instructions in general, but sentencing decisions are consistently moderated by whether a participant agrees with the penalty enhancement aspect of hate crime legislation. Moreover, need for affect and need for cognition differentially impact perceptions of hate crimes; need for affect demonstrated predictive associations with victim blame, whereas need for cognition moderated relations with perpetrator sentence and blame judgments. Results are discussed with emphasis on the state of federal hate crime legislation, antigay and antitransgender prejudice, and future directions in research and policy.

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.

Globally, there has been a trend in rising levels of hate crime that scholars have argued is reflective of significant social problems within society. Research into hate crime has typically focused on the police and their subsequent response to this crime type, with many findings reporting that the police are racist, homophobic and Islamophobic, to name but a few. However, existing research seldom captures the insights and experiences of sworn police officers, as much of the data is gathered from third parties. This paper presents the empirical findings from a Delphi study conducted with one police force in Australia, sampling sworn New South Wales (NSW) police officers between October 2020 and October 2021. The findings focus on four overarching areas: defining hate crime, perpetrators of hate crime, victims of hate crime, and responses to hate crime. These themes capture the perspectives of NSW police officers in relation to operational and organisational practice in respect of hate crime. Drawing on a Delphi method, the research outlines police perceptions of the nature of hate crime, as well as capturing how hate crime can be effectively reported, recorded, and responded to. Conclusions and implications are considered. These include the requirement for a clearer definition and targeted education strategies aimed at improving knowledge and understanding relating to hate crime. Future directions include the development of a standardised approach to reporting, recording, and responding to hate crime.

This article focuses on individuals suspected of hate crimes with xenophobic, Islamophobic, and homophobic motives. The objective is to fill a gap in the knowledge left by existing research, which has primarily focused on victims and definitional problems. This article's genuine contribution to new research is the comparative perspective and the study of co-offending and specialization in offences for persons suspected for hate crimes. To find persons suspected for hate crimes, register data relating to hate-crime-motivated assault and unlawful threats/molestation offences from 2006 have been used. The study is based on a total of 1,910 offence reports together with information from the Registers of Suspected and Convicted Offenders for 558 persons suspected for hate crimes. Xenophobic hate crimes are over-represented in the material by comparison with homophobic and Islamophobic hate crimes. In the reports that have information about the relation between victim and perpetrators, it is more common for the perpetrators to be known than unknown to the victims. In cases where a suspected person has been identified, males are in a clear majority. Those suspected of homophobic hate crimes have the lowest mean age. Only a small number of offence reports include information on suspected co-offenders. Fifty-five per cent of the suspected people have prior registered convictions. It is very uncommon for them to be specialized in violent offences or unlawful threats/molestation, however. It is not possible to generalize the results to perpetrators of hate crimes, because 70% of the offence reports did not have information of suspected persons.