Ethnic Hate Crime in Australia: Diversity and Change in the Neighbourhood Context

Hate/bias crime against racial/ethnic minorities in the United States: A systematic review of empirical research and assessment of next steps

Teaching and Learning Guide for: Racial Residential Segregation in Urban America

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

COVID-19, originally reported in China, has brought an increase in anti-Asian and Asian American hate incidents and crimes in the United States. However, research on hate incidents and crimes are relatively new in the field of geography. To provide better ways to investigate hate crime incidents against Asians and Asian Americans during COVID-19, this article draws on various research methods from existing studies on hate crimes. Geographers have focused attention on minority groups linked to different geographic scales, and non-geographic studies have focused mainly on psychological symptoms and impacts on health. Even though existing studies have helped broaden the knowledge of the subject, the geographic aspects of the issue require further examination. This article suggests that geographers should pay more attention to four aspects of research in hate crimes and incidents for future research: avoiding oversimplified concepts, reconsidering relational aspects within the local community, identifying intersectionality and everydayness of people, and engaging more with the practice of the law enforcement and the local communities.

violation of the equality ideal. At most, this latter conception of bias crime statutes can assert that crimes based on the protected characteristics threaten the equality ideal because these characteristics have generally been the basis of past discrimination—but they cannot locate either the harm risked by the perpetrator or his individual culpability more precisely. 2. The Potential Underinclusiveness Problem This proposed solution to the overinclusiveness problem of bias crimes does not address the potential underinclusiveness question. Why, for example, are the elderly and the disabled typically not included within bias crime statutes? Formulating the list of protected characteristics that should be included within bias crimes statutes is a complex question without a single solution whose full elaboration is beyond the scope of this article. A few points, however, follow naturally from the above analysis. Clearly, political factors influence the calculation of the proper scope of bias crime laws, as debates over the inclusion of gender and sexual orientation as protected characteristics demonstrate. In response to political pressure, the scope of bias crimes has been rapidly increasing. This phenomenon threatens to seriously weaken bias crime laws. Legislative judgment about which characteristics are likely to make their bearers targets of violent discrimination helps sharpen the focus of bias crimes, feeding more clearly into the historical experience that justifies the penalty enhancement associated with these crimes. Having too many groups including within 149. See, e.g., Julie Goldscheid, Gender-Motivated Violence: Developing A Meaningful Paradigm for Civil Rights Enforcement, 22 Harv. Women’s L.J. 123 (1999). 150. Martin S. Zwerling, Legislating Against Hate in New York: Bias Crimes and the Lesbian and Gay Community, 11 Touro L. Rev. 529 (1995); Anthony S. Winer, Hate Crimes, Homosexuals, and the Constitution, 29 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 387 (1994). 151. Historical and contemporary social contexts suggest why certain aspects of peoples’ identity provoke a strong sense of solidarity with other members of the This content downloaded from 157.55.39.177 on Tue, 15 Nov 2016 03:56:32 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms DANNERMACRO 5/5/2003 4:42 PM 2002] CULPABILITY IN CONTEXT 447 the definition of bias crimes risks reducing the higher stigma associated with this kind of crime. Generally rejecting the expansion of bias crime statutes, however, does not resolve the question of which groups should properly be included within their reach. Whether gender should be considered a protected characteristic, for example, demonstrates the difficulty of the inquiry about which characteristics should be included and which should be excluded. Women have historically been subjected to discrimination in many facets of their lives, including voting and employment. Whether women are still subject to widespread discrimination is less obvious. The model of bias crime presented here focuses on the perpetrator’s choice of the victim as a representative of a group of which he is a member. The victim’s group affiliation has more importance than any individual characteristics of the victim; indeed, this is what distinguishes bias crimes from general vulnerable victim statutes. Thus, some crimes typically committed against women, like acquaintance rape, fit uncomfortably within the bias crimes model. The question of whether gender group. For these reasons, vulnerability can and should be seen as especially salient along the dimensions of the protected characteristics currently articulated in existing bias crimes. Thus, I believe that Kenneth Simons’s response to Harel & Parchomovsky’s article is misguided. See Simons, supra note 21, at 241 (arguing that race, religion, and the other characteristics protected by bias crimes are less important predictors of victims’ vulnerability due to other factors, like “geography, wealth, class, and similar factors”). Vulnerability generally might be more dependent on the factors that Simon mentions, but these characteristics are less likely to constitute the basis of widespread harm to other members of the “group,” precisely because the relevant characteristics are less salient to their members. 152. Cf. William A. Schabas, Genocide in International Law 114 (2000) (arguing for a narrow definition of the crime of genocide: “for society to define a crime so heinous that it will occur only rarely is testimony to the value of such a precise formulation. Diluting the definition, either by formal amendment or its terms or by extravagant interpretation of the existing text, risks trivializing the horror of the real crime when it is committed”). 153. Perhaps the problem can be resolved through the statutory formulation of bias crimes. In a bias crime, the perpetrator must select the victim in at least substantial part because of his or her membership in a protected group. The acquaintance rapist might not primarily select his victim because she is a woman but instead because of some other characteristic. If that characteristic is not This content downloaded from 157.55.39.177 on Tue, 15 Nov 2016 03:56:32 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms DANNERMACRO 5/5/2003 4:42 PM 448 BUFFALO CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 6:389 should be included in bias crimes statutes should turn on the pervasiveness of discrimination against women, and how many of the crimes committed against women reflect perpetration because of their identity as women, rather than other factors less central to the purpose of bias crime statutes. The discussion of bias crimes in this article also provides legislators with other criteria they might use when evaluating the propriety of expanding the scope of characteristics protected by bias crimes. History is clearly an important factor. Has the characteristic historically been the basis for discrimination? Race, ethnicity, national origin, and religion easily qualify here, as would sexual orientation. Contemporary circumstances must also be considered. Prejudices that were vivid hundreds of years ago but have no contemporary currency clearly should not be included within these statutes. Legislators should also consider the particular characteristics of discrimination within their jurisdiction. Some groups, one could imagine, would be likely targets of discrimination across the United States and thus would be included in all bias crime statutes, while others might be particularly vulnerable only in particular regions. specifically included within the reach of the bias crime statute, the acquaintance rape should not be considered a bias crime. Even assuming, however, that the “because of” formula helps distinguish between crimes that fit within the bias crimes model and those that do not, this resolution does not identify which characteristics should be included within the statute generally. 154. Cf. United States v. McCall, 174 F.3d 47, 50 (2d Cir. 1998) (construing the federal vulnerable victim enhancement and stating “broad generalizations about victims based upon their membership in a class are disfavored where a very substantial portion of the class is not in fact particularly vulnerable to the crime in question. In such cases, courts have required that the enhancement be based on individualized findings as to the vulnerability of particular victims”). While individualized findings as to particular victims would not be appropriate for bias crimes statutes because of the relative importance of the group over the individual, considering the proportion of crimes committed against members of a group that are likely to be considered bias crimes might prove a useful way of determining whether or not the characteristic should be included within the bias crime statute. 155. Gays and lesbians, for example, might fit this description. See Herek, supra note 14, at 945 (noting that “sexual prejudice is still acceptable in many quarters of American society”). I imagine that African Americans, Latinos, and other minority racial groups would also likely be considered vulnerable groups This content downloaded from 157.55.39.177 on Tue, 15 Nov 2016 03:56:32 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms DANNERMACRO 5/5/2003 4:42 PM 2002] CULPABILITY IN CONTEXT 449 Legislators also might consider whether the characteristic is likely to make the victims subject to attack because of social discrimination against this group or because it is a proxy for some other quality, such as physical helplessness. This type of inquiry makes some characteristics, like age and disability, problematic for inclusion within the reach of bias crime statutes. While crimes against the elderly should certainly be seen as crimes targeting vulnerable victims, they should not be defined as bias crimes. Discrimination—not opportunism— is the foundation of the bias crime perpetrator’s culpability. If one believes, as I do, that the category of bias crimes should be narrow, inevitably groups that resemble those already included within the reach of bias crime statues will feel unfairly excluded. As Jacobs and Potter point out in their comprehensive critique of bias crimes, the judgment about the proper scope of these statutes is inescapably political. While the legislative crafting of bias crime statutes should be informed by clear questions and criteria, the difficulty of the inquiry is unavoidable.

This article investigates the effects of ethnic acceptance and prejudice on English language learning among immigrant nonnative speakers. During 2004 and 2005, the author conducted participatory dialogues among six Vietnamese and Mexican adult immigrant English language learners. The researcher sought to answer five questions: (1) What are some nonnative English speakers’ experience regarding the way native speakers treat them? (2) How have nonnative English speakers’ experiences of ethnic acceptance or ethnic prejudice affected their learning of English? (3) What do nonnative English speakers think they need in order to lower their anxiety as they learn a new language? (4) What can native English speakers do to lower nonnative speakers’ anxiety? (5) What can nonnative English speakers do to lower their anxiety with native English speakers? Even though many of the adult immigrant participants experienced ethnic prejudice, they developed strategies to overcome anxiety, frustration, and fear. The dialogues generated themes of acceptance, prejudice, power, motivation, belonging, and perseverance, all factors essential to consider when developing English language learning programs for adult immigrants.

ObjectiveCombining insights from socio‐criminological theories of (hate) crimes and the moral communities perspective, this article examines how the religious makeup of a county—evangelical Protestant, mainline Protestant, and Catholic adherence rates—affects county‐level hate crime patterns.MethodsZero‐inflated negative binomial regressions were conducted on a unique county‐level data set that included reported hate crimes, religious adherence rates, and related correlates of hate crimes for three distinct temporal periods: 2003–2007, 2008–2012, and 2013–2017.ResultsResults demonstrate that a county's total adherence rate, mainline Protestant rate and, to a lesser degree, Catholic adherence rate are associated with fewer hate crimes. We find no evidence that the evangelical Protestant adherence rate is associated with the number of hate crimes.ConclusionThese results support the moral communities hypothesis, extend research on the religion–crime nexus, and highlight the distinction between religious and secular organizations in community‐level crime patterns, particularly hate crimes.

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.

PurposeThe paper aims to provide a critical review of how variations in the conceptualization and contextualization of hate crime across US cities might impact how their individual law enforcement agencies collect hate crime data. Media reports and political discourses present hate crime as a prevalent problem in the USA. However, this representation of hate crime in the public sphere is not reflected in the relatively low national numbers of hate crimes published annually by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.Design/methodology/approachDrawing primarily on the national hate crime data for the period 2008–2018, this author conducted a secondary research study of the concept, context, extent and law enforcement collection of hate crime data in five cities in the USA.FindingsThis paper is a product of some of the findings of the study, which include the definition of hate crime at the federal, state and city levels and the contextualization of hate crimes at these levels. The findings show inconsistencies in how the five cities and associated law enforcement agencies conceptualize hate crime and in how they collect and report hate crime data at local and national levels.Originality/valueThrough its analysis of how five US cities and the associated law enforcement agencies interpret and respond to hate crime data collection, with recommendations of best practices for hate crime data collection by law enforcement agencies, the paper contributes to the academic and nonacademic debate on hate crime.

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.

Mental health care among marginalized populations in the United States

In this three-volume set, an international team of experts involved in the research, management, and mitigation of hate-motivated violence examines and explains hate crimes in the United States and around the globe, drawing comparisons between countries as well as between hate crimes overall and domestic terrorism. The Psychology of Hate Crimes as Domestic Terrorism: U.S. and Global Issuestakes a hard look at hate crimes both domestically and internationally, enabling readers to see similarities and disparities as well as to make the connections between hate crimes and domestic terrorism. The entries in this three-volume set discuss subjects such as the psychology and motivation in hate crimes, the cultural norms that shape tolerance of outgroups or tolerance of hate, and the fact that hate crimes are a pervasive form of domestic terrorism, as well as myriad issues of proliferation, public policy, policing, law and punishment, and prevention. The set opens with an introduction that discusses hate crime research and examines issues of identification of the bias element of hate crimes via empirical and case vignettes. The subsequent chapters discuss subjects such as the socio-demographic profiles of hate crime offenders; hate crime legislation and policy in the United States; the effects of hate crime on their victims as well as society; the incidence of hate crime in specific regions, such as Europe, the Middle East, and South America; and programs and therapeutic interventions to heal victims. Readers will also learn how specific educational approaches in communities, schools, and universities can be implemented to help prevent future escalation of hate-motivated violence.

In this three-volume set, an international team of experts involved in the research, management, and mitigation of hate-motivated violence examines and explains hate crimes in the United States and around the globe, drawing comparisons between countries as well as between hate crimes overall and domestic terrorism. The Psychology of Hate Crimes as Domestic Terrorism: U.S. and Global Issuestakes a hard look at hate crimes both domestically and internationally, enabling readers to see similarities and disparities as well as to make the connections between hate crimes and domestic terrorism. The entries in this three-volume set discuss subjects such as the psychology and motivation in hate crimes, the cultural norms that shape tolerance of outgroups or tolerance of hate, and the fact that hate crimes are a pervasive form of domestic terrorism, as well as myriad issues of proliferation, public policy, policing, law and punishment, and prevention. The set opens with an introduction that discusses hate crime research and examines issues of identification of the bias element of hate crimes via empirical and case vignettes. The subsequent chapters discuss subjects such as the socio-demographic profiles of hate crime offenders; hate crime legislation and policy in the United States; the effects of hate crime on their victims as well as society; the incidence of hate crime in specific regions, such as Europe, the Middle East, and South America; and programs and therapeutic interventions to heal victims. Readers will also learn how specific educational approaches in communities, schools, and universities can be implemented to help prevent future escalation of hate-motivated violence.

In this three-volume set, an international team of experts involved in the research, management, and mitigation of hate-motivated violence examines and explains hate crimes in the United States and around the globe, drawing comparisons between countries as well as between hate crimes overall and domestic terrorism. The Psychology of Hate Crimes as Domestic Terrorism: U.S. and Global Issuestakes a hard look at hate crimes both domestically and internationally, enabling readers to see similarities and disparities as well as to make the connections between hate crimes and domestic terrorism. The entries in this three-volume set discuss subjects such as the psychology and motivation in hate crimes, the cultural norms that shape tolerance of outgroups or tolerance of hate, and the fact that hate crimes are a pervasive form of domestic terrorism, as well as myriad issues of proliferation, public policy, policing, law and punishment, and prevention. The set opens with an introduction that discusses hate crime research and examines issues of identification of the bias element of hate crimes via empirical and case vignettes. The subsequent chapters discuss subjects such as the socio-demographic profiles of hate crime offenders; hate crime legislation and policy in the United States; the effects of hate crime on their victims as well as society; the incidence of hate crime in specific regions, such as Europe, the Middle East, and South America; and programs and therapeutic interventions to heal victims. Readers will also learn how specific educational approaches in communities, schools, and universities can be implemented to help prevent future escalation of hate-motivated violence.

crime in context and place: perspectives on regional, and remote Australia, edited by A. Harkness, B. Harris and D. Barker, Sydney, The Federation Press, 2016, 223 pp., $31.43 (paperback), ISBN 978-1760020477In many ways, Australia is a living laboratory for the study of crime. Physically, the country is enormous, but, as the book's introduction notes ... 90.5 per cent of the population resides on 0.22 percent of Australia's land area (p. 6). As is true in the United States (US) and Canada, Australia's areas are also home to a substantial number of native/Aboriginal people who receive fewer social services than urban residents, but attract higher attention from criminal justice authorities. Although many issues raised in this book match research in other countries, particularly the US, Canada and Great Britain, several authors take pain to describe the importance of Australia' s unique history and remind readers of differences among areas in Australia.Each of the 20 authors or co-authors works in Australia and, as such, provide insights that might be missed by outsiders. Many ofthe authors they cite are also Australian. Thus, the book reminds the reader of the volume of research on crime in Australia and the number of individuals who have taken up the study of this subject. The book comes on the heels of three fine edited books on crime (Barclay, Donnermeyer, Scott, & Hogg, 2007; Donnermeyer, 2016; Mawby & Yarwood, 2011) which include chapters specifically focused on Australia, while Barclay et al. exclusively addresses crime and justice in Australia. One unique feature of the book is the closing section where criminal justice practitioners who have worked in Australia do a splendid job sharing observations about the challenges and unique opportunities afforded by settings and articulating issues, putting a human face on the broader issues described by academics in previous chapters.The book is divided into three major sections. The first section Locating Crime, includes four chapters that provide a context for understanding crime in Australia. These are the most general chapters covering crime. Chapter 1 tackles the difficult issue of defining rural. While not providing a specific answer, the authors remind readers that rural is about more than simply population density. Rural is also about cultural identities and is a complex phenomenon. The chapter highlights, but does not detail, the kinds of issues that might not be familiar to those learning about crime, including the influence of population growth and mobility, domestic violence (DV), illicit drugs, race, environmental crimes and the treatment of outsiders. The authors situate these issues within Australian outback stereotypes, sometimes portraying Australia as bucolic and crime free, and sometimes emphasising the horror of as a dark or alien environment. This chapter takes many concerns raised by researchers in other countries and places them within the historical, cultural and physical context of Australia. Though much of what is presented will be familiar to experienced crime researchers globally, the material lays the groundwork for chapters that follow.Chapter 2 disabuses readers of the notion that areas are relatively crime free, noting crime rates vary from among areas and some types occur at higher rates in areas. Declines in crime reported in other western countries are limited primarily to property crime. Declines are also larger in cities than the countryside. The utility of various crime and crime prevention theories, including environmental design, rational choice and defensible space, are considered and application of urban-based theories to settings is noted to have limitations. For example, while some areas are experiencing population growth, others see population decline, and the link between population shifts and crime, as varying across jurisdictions. …