Hate Crime Reporting: Understanding Police Officer Perceptions, Departmental Protocol, and the Role of the Victim is There Such a Thing as a “Love” Crime?

Making disablist hate crime visible: addressing the challenges of improving reporting: Chih Hoong Sin

The subject of the research is criminal law rules that provide for criminal liability for hate crimes and the judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights on hate crimes. The purpose of the article is to confirm or refute the hypothesis that a unified approach to the definition of the legal concept of hate speech and the limits of its application is nec-essary. This approach must be based on the legal positions of the European Court of Hu-man Rights The research methodology includes analysis and interpretation of court decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as a dialectical approach to the analysis of vari-ous points of view to the definition of extremist activity. The main results and scope of their application. The relevance of the research proposed for publication is due to the lack of uniform practice of applying the articles of the Russian Criminal Code on so-called "hate crimes" by Russian courts and the presence of signifi-cant contradictions in the positions of the European Court of Human Rights and the state position of the Russian Federation in defining key concepts in this area that are extremely important for criminal procedure and administrative activities. The paper considers scien-tific and practical attempts to define "hate crimes" in the global and regional human rights systems, basic recommendations of the UN on countering such crimes, and offers an interpretation of the term hate speech in relation to the related criminological concept of hate crime. The text provides statistical data describing the level of such crime and the practice of the ECHR in this area, mentions a list of criteria according to which "hate crimes" can be motivated by language differences, gender, sexual orientation and other characteristics, as well as criteria that distinguish hate speech from freedom of expres-sion, and suggests decriminalization of part 1 of article 282 of the Russian Criminal Code. Conclusions. It is necessary to unify the concepts of "hate crimes" (and the practice of their application) in the direction of, in particular, reducing the number of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights against the Russian Federation and increasing the level of legal protection of both the individual citizen of the Russian Federation and freedom of speech and expression.

The events of September 11, 2001 reverberated through many Arab American communities across the country in ways that other Americans have not experienced. During the period directly following the attacks, people of Arab descent were harassed; churches and mosques were damaged, and in a few instances people were physically attacked, shot, or killed. In cities and towns with high concentrations of Arab Americans, public hostility and suspicion grew due to outside pressures. Utilizing interview data from a current national study of relations between Arab American communities and law enforcement, we explore issues of victimization, the perceived prevalence of hate and bias crimes among immigrants of Arab descent and law enforcement, and community-level feelings of vulnerability and fear in a post-September 11 environment. In addition, we examine the degree to which federal policies, media attention and law enforcement practices have led to a sense of community-wide victimization, which we label as a type of cultural trauma. Bearing the brunt of enforcement actions, Arab American communities are grappling with the insecurity and fear that has come from increased scrutiny in the name of security for others.

Drawing on Jenness and Grattet’s (2001) typology of hate crime law as well as theories about the relationship between minority group status and victimization, this analysis examines how different definitions of hate crime produce variation in the reported prevalence of anti-racial and anti-ethnic hate crime. This study uses data from the Uniform Crime Reports and a panel modeling structure to examine the factors that contribute to reported anti-Black and anti-Hispanic hate crime levels. It was hypothesized that broader hate crime definitions would result in greater levels of reported hate crime; however, the results suggest that the definition of hate crime influences the reported prevalence of anti-Hispanic hate crime, but that variation in law does not affect anti-Black hate crime once demographic and other structural characteristics are taken into account. Future research and policy should consider how these differences in definition could influence the handling of hate crime cases at all levels.

The decentralized nature of American policing largely allows agencies to define crime, and the requisite severity of that crime, at the institutional level. As a result, local hate crime statistics are differentially constructed across space. The current research posits that official hate crime statistics most accurately reflect a rate-producing, rather than a behavior-producing, process. Focusing on anti-Muslim hate crime, a particularly understudied form of hate crime, we examine reporting differences across community factors, using the media reports as a comparison point. We analyze official FBI hate crime reports, and news reports collected by Mapping Islamophobia, employing a logistic regression to predict anti-Muslim hate crime reporting. Our findings suggest significant variation in the social construction of anti-Muslim hate crime, both across institutions and across space.

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

Apostasy, or leaving religion, is protected within international human rights law, however apostates face widespread abuses. In England and Wales, the right to change religion or belief is protected by the Human Rights Act. Evidence from campaigners suggests that this right is not enjoyed in practice, particularly by those leaving high control minority religious groups. Abuse and discrimination against apostates fall within the definition of religiously aggravated hate crime, however, apostasy is not included in government statistics or policy, and has not been addressed within academic research. The aim of this study is to understand the experiences of apostates in the context of human rights, and in regard to hate crime law and policy. A mixed methods approach was used, with quantitative data collected via an online victimisation survey, followed by semi-structured interviews with a number of respondents. The study was supported via social media by five NGOs that support apostates in order to access a diverse range of ex-religious groups. The study found that hate crime is a significant issue, particularly for apostates from high control religious backgrounds, and additionally many suffer abuses that would fall within definitions of domestic abuse and coercive control. These abuses have a significant impact on freedom of religion or belief and therefore represent a violation of article 9 ECHR. The study concludes that current legislation provides adequate protection for apostates, however this is not effective in practice due to a lack of recognition. The government in England and Wales have an obligation under human rights law to address the issues faced by apostates, and to include apostasy within hate crime statistics and policy action planning.

The current study introduces a method to assess hate crime classification error in a state Incident-Based Reporting System. The study identifies and quantifies the “statistical accuracy” of aggregate hate crime data and provides insight from frontline officers about thought processes involved with classifying bias offenses. Random samples of records from two city and two county agencies provided data for the study. A systematic review of official case narratives determined hate crime classification error using state and federal definitions. A focus group sought to inquire about officers’ handling of hate crimes. Undercounting of hate crimes in official data was evident. When error rates were extrapolated, National Incident-Based Reporting System Group A hate crimes were undercounted by 67%. Officers’ responses validated complications involved with classifying hate crimes, particularly, incidents motivated “in part” by bias. Classification errors in reporting hate crimes have an impact on the statistical accuracy of official hate crime statistics. Officers’ offense descriptions provided greater awareness to issues with accurately interpreting and classifying hate crimes. The results yield useful information for officer training, understanding the true magnitude of these crimes, and a precursor for adjusting crime statistics to better estimate the “true” number of hate crimes in the population.

This chapter looks at the reasons the law enforcement response to hate crimes has been largely ineffective and the impact this has on the capacity for researchers to accurately measure hate crime. The chapter begins by looking at the magnitude of evidence of law enforcement underreporting. Moreover, the burgeoning number of police agencies that voluntarily participate in the UCR Hate Crime Statistics program is contrasted against the negligible increase in police reported hate crimes over the three decades of the program. The chapter reviews the sequential steps involved in reporting beginning with the victim’s decision to report and the first responding police officer’s inclination and ability to accurate classify hate crimes. Explanations for law enforcement underreporting including the inability to accurate classify hate crimes at the moment of the criminal incident are covered. Lastly, chapter 8 reviews research that found that police agencies with written hate crime enforcement and reporting policies and formal hate crime training are more likely to report hate crimes.

In the months after the 2016 Presidential election, many institutions began to focus on deepening their ability to track and report hate crimes. Accurate data on hate crimes allow these organizations — including nonprofits — to advocate both for better prevention efforts and for more support to individual victims and victimized communities. Collecting robust data on hate crimes is one of the most important steps for creating policy responses to the problem. But tracking hate crimes remains difficult for a number of reasons. This report identifies the major challenges that victims, nonprofits, and government stakeholders face in their efforts to define, track, and report on hate crimes in America. These include the difficulties of data collection and pitfalls in drawing inferences from incomplete data. Based on a careful and considered analysis of these hurdles, this report proposes six recommendations tailored to nonprofits seeking to deepen their hate crime tracking efforts: 1. Collaborate with other nonprofits to reach victims and share the burden of collection efforts. 2. Consider adopting a uniform definition of a hate crime, separate from (and broader than) that used by the Uniform Crime Reporting system, to serve as a baseline for data comparison. 3. Review victim outreach strategy. With pooled resources, consider increasing outreach to and support of victims. 4. Be upfront about the shortcomings of data and cautious when making claims about trends over time. 5. If and where resources are available, consider a mixed methods approach for hate crime data collection. 6. Whatever the scope of the study, tailor data collection and analysis to fit its goals and resources. In developing these recommendations, this report’s primary audiences are nonprofit organizations that collect data on hate crimes. At the same time, this report aims to serve as a resource for collaboration between nonprofits, law enforcement, policymakers, and funding partners interested in supporting more robust hate crime data collection efforts. At its core, this report draws attention to the centrality of victims’ experiences, which are crucial to understanding and responding to hate crimes. It does so with the hope that improved reporting efforts will yield support for victims and prevent future hate crimes.

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.

‘Hate crimes’ hurt more than similar, but otherwise motivated crimes. This has increasingly been acknowledged and understood by criminal justice agencies in a number of countries, by supra-national policy bodies and civil society organisations concerned with fundamental human rights, and by those in the civil and public sectors working to support victims of ‘hate crime’. A substantial body of evidence about the personal injuries of ‘hate crime’ has now accumulated to support the notion that ‘hate crimes hurt more’. This chapter extends the evidence base further by unfolding some new data on the physical, emotional, and behavioural injuries of ‘hate crime’. It also suggests that understanding the particular impacts of ‘hate crime’ can serve to inform appropriate and effective support for victims and inform the training of those working with victims.

In light of the Christchurch terror attack, a review of New Zealand’s hate crime laws is needed. This paper considers one potential reform option - the adoption of a separate hate crime offence. Firstly, I reconsider the question of whether hate crimes are the type of conduct that should be additionally criminalised. Additional criminalisation of hate crimes is necessary for a number of reasons. Hate crimes are a violation of the victim’s human rights and cause additional harm, to the victim and wider society. The increased moral reprehensibility of hate crimes makes deterring these crimes particularly important. I then critique the sentence enhancement approach, arguing that New Zealand’s current hate crime provision is inadequate. There is uncertainty in the weight that should be attributed to hate crime, the balancing exercise undertaken in sentencing gives insufficient recognition to the hate crime element and sentencing fails to deter hate crime offending. I also consider some issues with a separate hate crime offence: the limited nature of the provisions and the potential difficulties in prosecuting. I then consider the fair labelling principle. A separate offence is important for fair labelling of hate crime. The offence would more accurately communicate the nature of the wrongdoing to the offender, the public and other criminal justice agencies. It would also give more recognition to the victim. There are a number of issues that would need to be addressed if a separate offence were enacted. In particular, which underlying offences should be covered by the separate offence, which characteristics or grounds of hostility should be protected and the requisite motive or causation that should be required. This paper considers how these issues might be addressed. I conclude that New Zealand’s current approach to hate crimes is inadequate and change is needed. More consideration of the exact scope of any changes is required, particularly to determine whether to adopt a separate hate crime offence or a hybrid system.

‘Hate crimes’ hurt more than similar, but otherwise motivated crimes. This has increasingly been acknowledged and understood by criminal justice agencies in a number of countries, by supra-national policy bodies and civil society organisations concerned with fundamental human rights, and by those in the civil and public sectors working to support victims of ‘hate crime’. A substantial body of evidence about the personal injuries of ‘hate crime’ has now accumulated to support the notion that ‘hate crimes hurt more’. This chapter extends the evidence base further by unfolding some new data on the physical, emotional, and behavioural injuries of ‘hate crime’. It also suggests that understanding the particular impacts of ‘hate crime’ can serve to inform appropriate and effective support for victims and inform the training of those working with victims.

The Hate Crimes Project in the United States, the expanded use of criminal legislation creating enhanced punishment for bias-motivated crimes, is now over twenty-five years old. Today, virtually every state expressly criminalizes bias crimes. Over this quarter century, states have employed different forms of bias crime laws, some focusing on the animus exhibited by the perpetrator of a crime against a member (actual or perceived) of a racial, ethnic, religious, or other included Group, others focusing on the perpetrator's discriminatory selection of his or her victim. Now is therefore a propitious time to begin to evaluate the societal gains and risks associated with bias crime, law enforcement. This paper sets out a framework from which to understand bias crime law, and then considers and addresses many of the issues raised by opponents of the bias crime program. The paper considers four issues in particular. First, opponents have argued that the enhanced punishment of bias crime calls greater attention to racial and ethnic differences in society, therefore exacerbating, not helping, social divisions. Second, those opposed to expanded prosecution for bias-motivated crimes have argued that the bias crime enforcement unconstitutionally, or in any event unwisely, punishes thought and expression, not criminal acts. Third, bias crimes opponents have argued that the potential for selective enforcement of bias crime statutes exists, harming the most disadvantaged members of society and ironically those whom bias crime laws are intended to help. Fourth, opponents question one of the prime justifications for the enhanced punishment of bias crimes - that these crimes cause a greater harm than similar crime without bias motivation - claiming that the bias motivation of the perpetrator per se is not the cause of the harm. Bias crimes per se, the argument goes, should not receive enhanced punishment, rather only crimes, any crimes, that cause these great harms. Finally, the paper offers some observations as to the most general challenge that may be asserted against bias crimes laws: the argument that these laws don't work, that is, that these laws do not prevent or even appreciably reduce levels of bias in society, or even levels of bias crimes. The paper argues that in some ways there is no real answer to this question of whether bias crime laws work but I further argue, in the classic words of the late Alexander Bickel, that no answer is what the wrong question begets. Instead of asking questions about reduction of certain types of crime or ever more so, certain types of social attitudes, we do better to ask whether bias crime laws punish that which society rightly condemns. Taking that path, we are led toward the implications of using bias crime law as a window into a society's self-perception as a multi-cultural society. The extent to which this will end bigotry in society will inevitably be an inquiry that is more aspirational than empirical.