Hate Crime Police Intervention and Neighborhood Context: A Multilevel Analysis

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.

The horrific stories of James Byrd Jr., Matthew Shepard and Stephen Lawrence are forever etched in criminal law. In each of these cases, activists, family members, politicians, academics, the public and media all reacted in their unique way to bring the problem of ‘hate crime’ onto the agenda. There are many other cases that have activated such a public imagination, or what we call ‘figurehead’ cases, yet the factors pertinent to figurehead recognition remain under-explored within hate crime scholarship. Using a case study analysis, three racist and heterosexist hate crime cases are examined in order to assess the individual and collective conditions that facilitated their place on the public agenda. This analysis has important implications for the category of ‘disability’, and highlights several shortcomings that forestall the recognition of ‘disablist hate crime’ publicly, legislatively and judicially. It is argued that the positioning of disability as ‘abject’ has inhibited the operationalization of disablist violence within the hate crime framework, and within criminal justice systems more generally.

Accurate and detailed information on the nature of hate crimes in the United States has been hindered by limitations in the compiling of hate crime statistics. The National Hate Crime Investigation Study (NHCIS) collected data from a nationally representative sample of law enforcement agencies across the U.S. about the numbers of hate crimes investigated during 2018. Results show differences in a variety of case characteristics across four major categories of bias motivation (race/ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation/gender identity, and disability). Results suggest that police may miss hate crimes with bias motivations that are not clearly connected to common culturally recognized indicators. Training around non-stereotypical hate crime cases may help to identify and strengthen hate crime evidence.

1 Introduction 2 The Framework of Police Decision-Making in Hate Crime Cases 3 Integration and Hate Crime: The Institutionalization of Civil Rights Law 4 Investigation: Detectives and the Making of Hate Crime 5 The Difficulty of Hate Crime Investigation 6 Police Culture and Hate Crime 7 The Decision to Seek Charges 8 Prosecutors and the Courts 9 Conclusion

This study aimed to analyse the emergence and development of Disability Hate Crime as a policy area in the criminal justice system in England and Wales. It did this through building an understanding of the contributory factors including the challenges within the criminal justice system, wider government and politics, the independent statutory sector and disabled peoples organisations that led to the emergence and development of Disability Hate Crime policy and practice. This study contributes the first comprehensive analysis of the emergence and development of Disability Hate Crime in England and Wales to hate crime studies. Using a case study approach the thesis triangulates evidence from interviews in activist, policy and political streams, from hate crime cases and analysis of policy documents to chart this policy journey. It analyses the journey from agenda invisibility through agenda triggering to significant institutionalised actions on Disability Hate Crime in the criminal justice system, showing the roles of activism, politics and policy making in shaping this policy process. It underscores the analysis of this policy journey with a key focus on problematisation in policy making on Disability Hate Crime. This study found that Disability Hate Crime has faced challenges in its emergence and development as a policy area in the criminal justice system. It has faced challenges at each stage of the policy journey from initial agenda triggering, through agenda setting and onto agenda institutionalisation. This study concludes that Disability Hate Crime is an unsettled and unsettling policy agenda with agenda institutionalisation, as an established predictable area of policy and practice, some way off, despite legislation in 2003. The study found that: - Disability Hate Crime remains an unsettled policy agenda in that it displays an unsettled discourse, varied ways of responding, a need for ongoing national strategic action, and limited transition into day-to-day routine business. - Disability Hate Crime is an unsettling policy agenda in that it challenges understandings of hostility and prejudice beyond direct manifestations of hostility. It is also unsettling in that it raises a dual problematisation of targeted crimes against disabled people as either hostility targeting or vulnerability targeting. This reflects a wider dual problematisation of disability as either an issue of welfare or as an issue of rights. - Current understandings of disability hostility reflect under recognition of disability discrimination and linked ideologies of ableism and disablism. This under recognition of disability hostility lead to justice failures in Disability Hate Crime cases. Constructions of the targeting of disabled people in crime as based on vulnerability lacks recognition of such targeting as biased, hostile targeting of disabled people. This study reconceptualises disability hostility as hostility including vulnerability targeting. Arising from these conclusions, on an optimistic note, this study recommends a change to hate crime law which recognises that disability hostility can be based on hostility demonstration, a hostility motivation or hostile targeting because of disability. This study concludes that rather than institutionalisation of Disability Hate Crime as day-to-day hate crime business, it still remains unusual business. This study contributes a reconceptualization of the concept of disability hostility to include targeting because of disability – ‘disability vulnerability’. It makes the case for varied legal provisions to reflect the protection requirements of different hate crime strands. It adds to the body of case studies on public policy making. Finally, it illuminates the influence of equality law on Disability Hate Crime policy making.

Relatively little empirical research has been conducted on hate crimes. An issue that has previously remained almost entirely unexplored is what factors are likely to influence jurors' guilt determinations in hate crime cases. This article describes a mockjuror study that was conducted with 190 participants. Participants were given a hate crime vignette in which the ethnicity of the victim and offender were varied. Contrary to the original hypotheses, it was found that at least with this particular vignette, the offender's and victim's ethnicity did not usually affect the juror decisions. Furthermore, participants' level of racism was not related to their decisions on the juror task. The implications of the results are discussed, and suggestions are made for future research in this area.

Mental health care among marginalized populations in the United States

PurposeWhile the significance of public cooperation for police effectiveness is widely acknowledged, less is known about factors associated with cooperation in hate crime cases. The current study aims to explore how individuals’ perspectives on police legitimacy, contact experience with police and race/ethnicity shape their willingness to cooperate with police in hate crime incidents.Design/methodology/approachThis study used a sample of 693 college students and was conducted at a public university in the south-central region of the southern United States of America. Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models were used to examine factors related to willingness to cooperate with police.FindingsFindings show that those who have a high level of positive perceptions of police legitimacy and those who have a low level of negative personal experience with police reported more willingness to cooperate. Asian respondents were less likely to report that they would cooperate with police compared to white respondents.Originality/valueThis study, emphasizing the relationships between perceived police legitimacy and positive personal experiences with a willingness to cooperate in hate crime cases, has practical implications. The identification of racial/ethnic differences in cooperation attitudes, particularly the lower likelihood of cooperation among Asian respondents, contributed to the current literature and underscores the importance of considering diverse perspectives and outreach efforts.

The purpose of this article is to consider the possibilities and the legitimacy of using various forms of restorative justice in hate crime cases. Advantages of restorative justice programs as ways of responding hate crimes were especially explored and difficulties in implementing them for this category of acts were outlined. The conclusions drawn from the analysis might contribute to increased interest in the issue of combating hate crimes.

This interview with writer and activist Harsh Mander was conducted on 21 and 23 April 2020 while numerous instances of hate crime, during the severe COVID-19 lockdown, were coming to light. This came on the heels of the popular protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, and the February 2020 violence in Delhi. The interview situates the present moment, tying together history, socio-legal assessments of sectarian violence, evaluation of legal reform, and the ethics of anti-hate activism. First, Mander draws from his extensive experience — as a former bureaucrat, anti-hate advocate, and legal activist — to offer the larger historical trajectory of sectarian violence in India. His account highlights the role of the rising majoritarian state ideology in facilitating and celebrating sectarian hostilities. He also develops an account of how we should understand the social and personal harms of mass violence and the phenomenon of lynching. Second, he discusses the contentious question of legal reform for ending impunity in hate crime cases. Specifically, he notes the problem of state complicity in violence and the failed attempts to legislate an anti-communal violence law. Third, he elaborates on the protracted challenges of building viable strategies of litigation in the aftermath of sectarian violence. He evaluates Nyayagraha (literally meaning struggle for justice), his unique experiment after the 2002 Gujarat pogrom based on an ethical practice for legal justice.

To compare law insight to the dimension of hidden intent in a hate crime. Therefore, if one is to consider a crime to be a hate crime, showing the intent of hatred is a fundamental part of this process. The study examines the proofs and legal challenges in establishing such intent, especially in the case of defendants whose misdeeds were previously referenced as using circumstantial evidence, like behaviors, racist discourse, and symbols of hatred. It further looks into the ethical and political influences on judicial processes, investigating how media, public opinion, and hate speech impact the reading of evidence. The study explores the comparison of the legal systems of the United States with those of the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. It ends by providing legal recommendations to improve mechanisms for demonstrating latent intent and guaranteeing the right to a fair trial in hate crime cases.

This paper discusses whether the methods of restorative justice (RJ), broadly interpreted as alternatives to criminal proceedings and sanctions, are applicable to hate crimes. It builds on the premises that RJ methods are appropriate tools to deal with hate crimes and conflicts that arise from them, as there are social conflicts behind these actions that can be resolved by a sensitive and empathetic approach that focuses on restoration. However, there are dilemmas and factors where caution and an in-depth reflection should be observed to understand how these techniques can work well without further harming either party.

This article analyses the institutional management of hate crimes in Spain from an intersectional perspective, focusing on the emerging problems related to obtaining victim status and avoiding re-victimization. The analysis is based on in-depth interviews with people who have experienced prejudice-based violence, as well as with professionals working in the field of hate crime and victim care. The study finds that Spanish public policies lack a full integration of an intersectional perspective and tend to approach hate crimes through a one-dimensional lens. In this context, difficulties are detected in converting intersectionality from an abstract concept to concrete policies and measures. In addition, multiple challenges are identified in the process of acquiring victim status, which unfolds along two dimensions: self-recognition as a victim and institutional recognition. Through this dual process of victimization, which is crucial for deciding whether to report and for accessing social assistance, intersectional discrimination plays a key role: some individuals do not recognize themselves as victims due to the internalization of symbolic violence, while others are more likely to be criminalized than recognized as victims. Finally, police and judicial authorities often contribute to re-victimization, fostering a climate of mistrust that hinders the reporting of hate crimes.

Why are hate crime cases so rarely prosecuted? Most states and the federal government have hate crime laws on their books, yet available data indicate few prosecutions in most jurisdictions. Drawing on case files and interviews with police and prosecutors in one jurisdiction, three institutional impediments to hate crime prosecution are identified: evidentiary inflation, by which law enforcement uses a higher burden of proof than what is required by statute; loose coupling between police departments and prosecutors' offices; and cultural distance between law enforcement and victims. Findings also reveal that advocacy groups and media can successfully increase the visibility of cases and draw the attention of prosecutors. The findings align with aspects of legal endogeneity theory and enhance our understanding of the role of organizations in constructing the meaning of law. The results also help explain why some laws are rarely enforced, even when they have support from key personnel in an organization.

A growing body of evidence shows that minorities are disproportionately targeted for hate crimes. However, few studies have examined how increasing the representation of minority officers in police departments can impact hate crime rates. Drawing on cross-section and longitudinal data from sources such as Law Enforcement Management and Administration Statistics (LEMAS), the U.S. Census, and Challengers from the Sidelines, the current study examines the relationship between police diversity and hate crimes. We hypothesize that high levels of police diversity will be associated with low hate crime rates. Moreover, we argue that the relationship between police diversity and hate crimes is moderated by police departments’ geographic location (urban, rural, and suburban), hate crime laws, and high-profile hate crime cases. The findings reveal that police diversity is associated with low hate crime rates in our longitudinal analyses. Also, the police diversity-hate crime nexus is moderated by geographic location, suggesting the effect of police diversity on hate crimes was stronger in urban police districts relative to suburban and rural districts. Our findings move beyond prior studies by proposing conditions under which police diversity may be most meaningful. Thus, police diversity can help reduce hate crimes, particularly in urban districts.