Examining the Boundaries of Hate Crime Policy

Hate crime policy has developed from the early legislation of the 1968 Civil Rights Act to the 2009 Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crime Prevention Act, to be increasingly inclusive in terms of identity and comprehensive in terms of ramifications. Hence a body of scholarship around the trajectory and implications of hate crime laws has developed, as has a robust discourse on the definitions of hate crime itself and theories on who perpetrates bias-motivated violence and why it occurs. Between definitions of hate crime, a tension exists between legal definitions and those of theorists who are attempting incorporate understanding of context into the definition. Similarly, the theories on who perpetrates hate crimes and why they occur exhibit tensions between strain-based theories. While some scholars have deployed Merton’s (1938) strain theory associated with societal anomie, others point to changing norms. As hate crime laws have become more inclusive of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression, avenues of research into the disparities in experience of bias-motivated crimes between enumerated categories has increased. Persistent in the research on hate crime is the deficiency of data on victimization and ramifications beyond direct victims. While data on the scope of the policies is clear, inconsistencies in data collection around victimization render available resources insufficient. Most recently, research on hate crime policy has intersected with queer theory to question whether hate crime laws are positive for the LGBTQ community or society at large. Organizations such as the Silvia Rivera Law Project, for example, have pushed back on calls for inclusive hate crime laws via challenging the propensity to provide additional resources to the prison-industrial complex. Furthermore, queer scholars of history find a disconnect between the origins of the LGBTI movement in resisting police powers to be antithetical to promoting increased police powers in the form of hate crime legislation.

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.

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.

This chapter examines the future challenges facing hate crime policy by reviewing the efforts of campaigners and criminal justice practitioners who have been involved with shaping the policy domain so far. It looks at the usefulness of the concept of hate crime and its future potential. Importantly, as hate crime legislation has been defined by what victim groups are included within it, future policy complications in this area are examined with a particular focus on the categories of age and gender. The chapter demonstrates how past developments in hate crime policy might shape its future. It explores why provisions for racially aggravated offences were established in 1998 and to explain their subsequent expansion to include religion, sexual orientation and disability. The chapter examines the issue of hate crime victimisation and policy – it has been suggested that initiatives in this field have created the appearance of a hierarchy of victims and that notions of victimhood appear to be simplistic.

Research suggests there has been a rise in the number of hate crimes since 1985. At the same time, legislatures at the local, state, and national level have enacted policies that both track and regulate hate crime. This article is an effort to determine the factors influencing hate crime policy and implementation efforts. The project is divided into three sections: In the first section, the characteristics and extent of hate crime are discussed. Section two describes hate crime policy as social regulatory policy and uses this theoretical framework to explain state variation in laws con cerning hate crimes. In section three, I present a model of policy imple mentation to predict state implementation efforts of federal hate crime policy Based on the variables suggested by these theoretical frameworks, I present hypotheses and conduct a multiple regression analysis using a fifty-state data set. The results indicate hate crime policies and imple mentation efforts are largely attempts by politicians to satisfy organized interests in competitive political systems. I discuss the implications of these findings and suggest avenues for future research.

This paper examines the conditions under which states include sexual orientation as a protected status in hate crime policy over the course of 25 years. Previous research in this area has generally focused on the passage of either general hate crime statutes longitudinally or the inclusion of sexual orientation in hate crime legislation via cross-sectional analysis. Moreover, previous work in this area tends to concentrate on two types of factors affecting policy passage: (1) structural factors such as social disorganization and economic vitality, and (2) political characteristics including governor’s political party and the makeup of the state legislature. We argue that a strong LGBT social movement organizational presence may also influence LGBT hate crime policy passage. Using an event history analysis, we test how state-level social movement organizational mobilization, as well as the state-level political context, affect policy passage from 1983 to 2008. Our findings indicate that political opportunities, including political instability and government ideology, matter for the passage of anti-gay hate crime policy. We also find evidence to support political mediation, as the interaction between social movement organizational presence and Democrats in the state legislature affect policy passage.

Local police are responsible for implementing a patchwork of federal, state, and local policies addressing crimes motivated by bias or hate toward particular groups. The research presented here examines police department activity on implementing hate crime policy, with particular attention to hate crime policies related to lesbians and gays, by using survey and demographic data from a sample of American cities. The results suggest that many police departments are trying to implement hate crime policies and improve relations with minority communities. Hate crime policy implementation is shaped by the support and efforts of officers, the tractability of the problem, the support of police leaders, the presence of state hate crime policies, police resources, and public opinion. Interestingly, implementation efforts do not appear to be influenced by the preferences of elected officials, local hate crime policies, or a series of administrative procedures for hate crime cases.

Misogyny is often evident in women’s experiences of (hate) victimisation. Debates are ongoing about whether to extend legal protections to recognise this accordingly in hate crime legislation. If successful, this would emulate feminist efforts to criminalise violence in which men disproportionately target women, such as sexual assault, domestic violence and female genital mutilation. However, as with these laws, the prevention or prosecution of such gendered violence may be impeded by cultural and structural patriarchy. Including misogyny in hate crime policy and legislation may help evidence the myriad ways in which men harm women, but it would be disingenuous to extol it as a preventative or prosecutory measure within this pre-existing patriarchal framework. In this chapter, we offer a critical feminist perspective on misogyny and its positionality with the contemporary hate crime paradigm. We revisit core feminist theorising on men’s violence towards women which highlighted the importance of a gendered analysis which demarcated the agentic male in women’s victimisation. Using this analytical framework, we explore a crucial victimisation paradox: misogyny both manifests in and is often integral to women’s experiences of hate crime, yet gender remains curiously overlooked in hate crime analyses. Offering new insight, we suggest that while male violence towards women is the original and most long-standing ‘hate crime’, the masculinisation of hate crime ideology foregrounds male experiences in a way that renders (women’s) gender insignificant. Our examination of women’s experiences of hate crime highlights the importance of an intersectional focus that also centres on misogyny.

Hate crimes are receiving increased attention in both the media and policy arenas. Legislation to document and punish hate crimes has been enacted at the federal, state, and local levels. A thorough analysis of these social regulatory policies is essential. Hate crime policy has engendered controversies and unintended consequences. Two sides of the debate have emerged, with one side arguing that hate crimes are a socially constructed category leading to the “Balkanization” of America and the other responding that hate crime policy is necessary to promote racial and religious harmony and equality. Criminalizing hate is a complex issue that social workers must become knowledgeable about in order to be active participants in shaping policy and conducting research.

For decades sociologists, criminologists, political scientists and socio-legal scholars alike have focused on the symbolic and instrumental dimensions of law in examinations of the effects of social reform and policy implementation. Following in this tradition, we focus on the relationship between hate crime policy and hate crime reporting to identify the conditions under which a symbolic law is accompanied by instrumental effects at the initial phase of the law enforcement process —the official recording of a hate crime event. Using data on California police and sheriff's agencies we estimate hierarchical Poisson models to determine how agency-level enforcement efforts, chiefly the creation of a formal policy on hate crime, affect official hate crime reporting. We also examine how community and agency attributes influence the effects of policy on the reporting of hate crime. We find that agency characteristics, in this case measures of the integration of the local agency within the community, shape the degree to which agency policies affect the official reporting of hate crime. Our findings reveal that while symbolic law is not intrinsically incapable of producing changes in enforcement patterns, such effects are contingent upon agency and community processes. Thus, we conclude by conceptualizing the varied enforcement contexts within which a body of symbolic law is rendered instrumental.

This chapter discusses how legislators have responded to hate crimes. It considers how hate crime policy development is influenced by homophobia. The chapter finds out why specific policy responses to hate crimes are important. It begins to advocate for the inclusion of sexual orientation in hate crime policies. Activists worked with police agencies to familiarize them with the dynamics of hate crimes and to encourage appropriate responses to various communities. A general justification for hate crimes legislation is that crimes are more socially disruptive and harmful when motivated by bigotry. The fact that sexual orientation was included in the first federal hate crimes bill was an important and hard-fought victory for the LGB community. The second federal law addressing hate crimes to pass Congress was the Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act of 1994. Having sexual orientation included in the definition of hate crimes was a success for gay activists.

This chapter describes the way in which hate crime policy has become increasingly relevant to many Western states and highlights the value of these developments in terms of facilitating access to justice, embodying the values of a state and deterring prejudicial and hostile sentiment. It begins by considering how hate crime has ‘translated’ across national boundaries, comparing the implementation of different policy frameworks designed to combat hate crime. It is argued that while there have been some successes in dealing with hate crime in certain individual countries, in others much work still needs to be done in developing effective policies and practices which offer meaningful protection from 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.

This chapter suggests that problems over the perception of the nature of hate crime mean that often victims of disablist hate crime are overlooked. Developed partly through campaign group activism and high profile cases, hate crime has become a solid part of criminal justice policy and practice. The legal framework recognises different forms of crime motivated by prejudice or hostility towards victims based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity and/or disability. However, this chapter demonstrates that there are particular problems with the implementation of provisions related to disablist hate crime which can be understood by utilising Christie’s ‘ideal victim’ typology. Born out of an identity politics which sought recognition for the specific harms of hate crime, the development of policy has been shaped by sometimes simplistic perceptions of what it is to be victimised, often framed around issues of stranger danger and attributing recognition to ‘deserving victims’. This reliance on identity politics often means that victims of disablist hate crime are portrayed as weak and vulnerable, which can contribute to anxiety. This chapter shows the relevance of Christie’s ideal victim thesis due to an increasing emphasis on identity politics being used to determine ‘deserving’ and ‘legitimate’ victims.

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.