Hate and Bias Crime: Criminologically Congruent Law? A Review of Barbara Perry's Hate and Bias Crime: A Reader

Barbara Perry (2003) Hate and Bias Crime:A Reader Routledge: New York, 520 pp., ISBN 0415944082.The last decade of the 20th century has seen a flurry of hate crime legislation and other state activities, none of which have had an appreciable effect on the frequency or certainly the severity of hate crime. Such initiatives are insufficient responses to bias-motivated violence, in that they do not touch the underlying structures that support hate crime. Abdicating responsibility for countering such violence to the state, then, will not be a sufficiently effective long-term strategy. Rather, the responsibility must be shared and distributed across institutional and interactional levels. Moreover, the ultimate goal is not only to attack hate crime, but to disrupt the institutional and cultural assumptions about difference that condition hate crime. To the extent that difference is socially constructed, it can also be reconstructed (Perry, 2003, p. 387)

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

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.

This article focuses on political crimes, specifically terrorism and hate crime. Both terrorism and hate crime are criminal activities that are often committed to further a political objective, as opposed to typical or regular crimes that are usually committed for personal reasons such as greed, revenge, or other personal motivations. Political motivations encompass ideological, social, and religious objectives. Several works (e.g., Bruce Hoffman’s Inside Terrorism; see Hoffman 2006, cited under Defining Terrorism and Hate Crime) examine the evolution of terrorism from ancient to modern times. While bias-motivated violence and hate crimes are just as old as terrorism, the United States did not formally adopt hate crime legislation, through the passage of a variety of substantive penalty enhancement and data collection laws, until the late 20th century. Making Hate a Crime (Jenness and Grattet 2004, cited under Defining Terrorism and Hate Crime) explores the history of hate crime legislation, highlighting how various civil rights and victims’ rights movements played a role in the passage of hate crime legislation. In the classic text Hate Crimes Revisited, Jack Levin and Jack McDevitt outline the history of hate crimes, explain why some persons are motivated to commit these crimes, and discuss efforts to combat them (Levin and McDevitt 2002, cited under Defining Terrorism and Hate Crime).

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

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.

ABSTRACTMinimal studies have investigated individuals’ evaluations of antigay hate crimes and hate crime legislation simultaneously, with most research focusing on one or the other. In a sample of 246 heterosexual undergraduates, the present study found that evaluations of antigay hate crimes and hate crime legislation were unrelated. Higher social dominance orientation (SDO) and crime control orientation scores were associated with more positive evaluations of antigay hate crimes. Positive evaluations of hate crime legislation were associated with more positive attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. We also found that the relationship between SDO and evaluations were mediated by crime control beliefs (for hate crimes evaluations) and antigay attitudes (for hate crime legislation evaluations). The present findings have possible implications for the manner in which organizations advocate for the extension of hate crime legislation to include sexual orientation.

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.

In the UK and USA ‘Hate crime’ has become a topic of public controversy and social mobilization around issues of violence and harassment. This has largely but not exclusively addressed racism, homophobia and gender based violence. This article has three objectives. First, to situate hate crime legislation within a broad theory of modernity;secondly to examine the politics of its emergence as a public issue; thirdly to use data from the authors' recent research in Greater Manchester to illuminate the complexity of the concept of ‘hate crime’. The centrality of ‘hate crime’ to current debates derives from the importance of rights-based regulation of complex societies and the juridical management of emotional life. Hatred and violence have become problematic behaviour thrown into relief by a long term civilizing process. Hate crimes have thus acquired powerful rhetorical focus for mobilization of victim and identity politics. With reference to racist violence in Oldham and elsewhere in Greater Manchester, we argue that in its application and construction, however, ‘hate crime’ is a complex phenomenon that might dramatize rather than regulate the problems it seeks to address.

If the enactment of hate crime legislation serves to address social injustice, what social groups are deserving of its special protection? This question continues to challenge policy makers and legislatures globally. In the US, where modern hate crime statutes were first enacted, different group characteristics have been included at both state- and federal-level legislation. The Hate Crime Statistics Act 1990 was the first piece of federal legislation that required the Attorney General to collect data on hate crimes motivated by race, ethnicity, religion, disability and sexual orientation bias. In 1994 Congress enacted the Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act, which required the US Sentencing Guidelines Commission to enhance penalties for crimes motivated by bias against a victim’s race, colour, national origin, ethnicity, religion, gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation. However, federal jurisdiction initially extended only to race, colour, national origin and religion, meaning that crimes motivated by bias towards a victim’s sexual orientation, gender or disability could only be pursued if the federal government obtained jurisdiction in some other way. This limitation of jurisdiction was changed by the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act 2009, which extended the reach of federal law to cover sexual orientation, gender or disability. State legislators have also taken diverging approaches to legislating for hate crime, using different models of legislation and including different protected characteristics. There are currently 47 States in the USA with hate crime statutes. All of these states include hate based on race, religion, and ethnicity, while 34 cover disability, 34 sexual orientation, 30 gender, 22 transgender/gender identity, 14 age; 6 political affiliation and 3 (and additionally Washington, D.C.) protect homelessness.

Hate crime is a disturbing phenomenon that is the subject of constant debate, discussion, and legislation. This book helps readers understand the complex issue and see how the government and activists are proactively combating hate crime. With the first two editions widely praised by reviewers, Hate Crimes: A Reference Handbook, Third Edition remains the most comprehensive reference source on bias-motivated violence committed in the United States. The book contains vital history on hate crime legislation, provides a detailed chronology of recent events, and offers the most up-to-date information on its prevalence and the affected religious, racial, and other targeted communities, such as Jewish Americans and Sikh Americans. Dozens of expert contributors—such as Kenneth L. Marcus, president and general counsel of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law—present a balanced range of perspectives on the growing phenomenon, enabling readers to fully comprehend the widespread problem and develop their own informed opinion. Written in an accessible style suited to high school and undergraduate-level students as well as general readers, this book provides an essential, current, and easy-to-read ready reference on the timely and evolving issue of hate crime in the United States. The material provides an introductory overview of the topic of hate crime as well as insightful discussion of specific subjects, such as U.S. Supreme Court decisions and federal and state legislation regarding hate crimes, the incidence of hate crimes committed on America's college campuses, and governmental and citizen efforts to combat this disturbing phenomenon.

Hate crimes have increased in frequency and types of crimes covered, drawing attention to state hate crime statutes. However, hate crime statutes are vague and inconsistent throughout the United States. Variation causes many Americans to no have legal protection against hate crimes and leads to underreporting of hate crimes. Due to this, victims differ in their legal protections, which causes arbitrary outcomes of justice. To evaluate the state of hate crime legislation, this study is a content analysis of all applicable hate crime statutes in the 50 states in the United States, and relevant themes were identified. The general theme of inconsistency was found in conceptualization, protected class and locations, official justice system responses, and victims’ services. Hate crime statutes need improvement which can be accomplished by states mirroring other effective statutes and by legislative action from the federal government.

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.