Hate crimes against LGBT in Russia: legal status and research problems

Hate crime is a prejudice-motivated crime against an unprivileged group. This article provides an overview of hate crimes against LGBT in Russia. Emphasis is placed on several aspects: (1) legal status of hate crimes in Russia, (2) available data sources and statistical analysis of anti-LGBT crimes, (3) number of such crimes and general tendency (4) problems of collection and interpretation of data. To answer these questions, the article employs previous research on the topic, reports of the local and international organizations, and law enforcement practice. Russian courts recognize motive of hate towards LGBT  as a direct “hate motive against a social group” (consisting of two or more people who regularly interact based on mutual expectations and share common identity). However, the judges often avoid the direct application of such norm, replacing the motive of hat3 with the concept of “personal antagonism” or prejudice that affected the motives of the perpetrators. This leads to a misinterpretation of anti-LGBT crime statistics, since “personal antagonism” does not entail legal consequences of hate crimes. Therefore, the absence of the official data on such crimes encourages the researchers to search for the alternative sources of statistical data. For assessing the degree of hate crimes against LGBT in Russia, the author explores various research approaches and reports, which testify to the fact that the number of such crimes has increased since 2013. The author outlines a range of challenges faced by the researchers dealing with this topic, as well as potential vectors for further research.

Hate crime and hate speech are extreme examples of negative intergroup relations. It is thought that it would be very useful to analyze the variables that lead up to for dealing with hate speech and crimes that have many physical and psychological destructive consequences for the exposed group members. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to address some of the social psychological variables associated with hate speech and hate crimes and to suggest solutions to reduce hate speech and hate crimes in this context. For this purpose, first of all, hate speech and hate crimes were defined and various examples were presented in this direction. Later, hate crimes and hate speech were examined in terms of social identity identification, social dominance orientation, system justification, realistic and symbolic threat perception, frustration and scapegoat concepts. The relationship between hate speech and crimes of this concept has been embodied with research findings and examples from various regions in Turkey and the world. Finally, some solution suggestions have been presented by making use of this theoretical knowledge in terms of combating hate crimes and hate speeches. Keywords: Hate crime, hate speech, intergroup relations, social psychology

Any analysis of hate crime that attempts to separate speech from action, language from violence, faces epistemological difficulties that limit the range of conversations about laws responding to identity-based injury in the United States. Active debates have raged over the implications of bias crime sentence enhancement laws for the protection of ‘free speech,' thus addressing the inextricability of language and meaning from hate crime. Those in favor of legal responses to identity-based injury tend toward essentialist claims which assume the stability of identity and of meanings inherent in words or actions. Those opposed assert the impossibility of codifying the meaning of words or actions in the law, and/or they worry about the reification of (victimized) identities accompanying bias crime statutes. This article argues that the focus on language and speech in these debates simultaneously enables an evasion of discussion about the law’s response to bias-related violence, and misleadingly assumes too much stability in the functions of law and the nature of state power. Interviews conducted by the author with individuals involved in a 1992 racist hate crime are used to show the diverse elements of state power suffusing the incident and its aftermath. An analysis of the crime’s investigation and prosecution under a Maryland hate crime statute suggests that law enforcement officers are primarily using hate crime laws as public relations tools in a fight against community perceptions that they are themselves bigots.

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.

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.

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.

A study of practice shows that law enforcers in Russia do not always follow the so-called “spirit of the law”, often giving priority just to its formal interpretations. In order to understand why this happens, it is necessary to examine the narrative stories behind such enforcement practices. Narratives can not only explain the existing law enforcement, but also create a new law enforcement practice and legal reasoning. Thus, narrative research is a useful tool for studying both lawmaking process and law enforcement practices. The aim of the study is to assess the impact of narratives on lawmaking process and law enforcement practices, as well as the development of the basics of the methodology for using narratives in legal research. The study used hermeneutic methods, as well as analysis of the results of empirical studies of law enforcement practices, comparative legal research, which together made it possible to propose goals, objectives, sources for obtaining narrative stories and data processing methods for conducting law enforcement research carried out using a narrative approach and narrative methods. The study resulted in the following. (1) Two functions of narrative methods and approaches in legal research have been identified: (i) cognitive (heuristic), which can be used to identify narratives that determine law enforcement, to explore them in order to understand how they are formed and how they can influence the legal reality, law enforcement practices, legal reasoning and lawmaking; (ii) prognostic-and-transformative, which makes it possible to identify the necessity for reforming legal regulations and to offer structural, organizational, legal means designed to eliminate the identified problems of law enforcement. (2) A classification of narratives has been invented. It includes four groups of narratives depending on the coverage: personal, professional, regional, national, international. (3) The possibility of using the following linguistic and special-legal methods has been proved: (a) a structural and linguistic study of narrative stories. The study of plot repetitions, of the word’s usage, etc.; (b) a study of words (and their omissions) in official documents; (c) a focused research of narrative stories in regions where practices that are not in accordance with the law are repeated; (d) identification of the relationship between the collected number of narrative stories and the results of statistical processing of the studied empirical materials; (e) analysis of the correlation of narrative stories and legislation, data on the organization of judicial activities.

PurposeThe purpose of the research is to identify and analyze the cases of dating violence among the hate crimes against LGBTQ people in Russia. Dating violence (attacks on LGBTQ people with the use of dating services) became a common method of committing hate crimes in Russia in the late 2010s and was enabled by the discriminatory policies of the state.MethodThis research is part of a bigger project on anti-LGBTQ violence. The project generated a database of more than 1000 cases of such violence between 2010 and 2020 using court rulings as a primary source of data The current research is a continuation of this effort, it is looking into a specific category of hate crime – premeditated attacks in order to analyze the cases of dating violence.ResultsThe research established that most of the cases in the category of premeditated attacks are cases of dating violence (239 out of 347). Most of those crimes (209) are cases of collective violence (committed by different anti-LGBTQ hate groups). There is evidence of the community impact in the incidents and in the agendas of the hate groups.ConclusionsThe research adds to the theoretical model of the progression of prejudice and argues that dating violence represents a more developed form of violence against LGBTQ people. This is due to the three distinguishing features (premeditation, collective form, and community impact) that are present in the cases.

Research shows that the LGBTQ population is disproportionately affected by hate crimes and those against transgender individuals are especially violent. Given the considerable underreporting of these crimes, better insight into the victimization experiences and reasons for underreporting is necessary to improve the safety of the transgender community and secure necessary services for these victims. The current study takes a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach by creating and utilizing an Advisory Board made up of service providers in the transgender community in Los Angeles, to assist in the development of a survey instrument and focus group questions and provide venues for the focus groups. The study examines results from a short survey and five focus groups with transgender individuals on their experiences of hate crimes and reporting activities. Results indicate nearly all participants experienced some type of hate incident or crime based on their gender identity and/or expression. Almost half of the respondents did not report these crimes to the police because they did not think police would do anything, were afraid of being arrested, or were afraid of being victimized by the police. Narrative accounts describe mostly, though not entirely, negative encounters with the police and how participants take preventative measures to reduce their potential for hate-based victimization. Based on our findings several recommendations have been made to help improve relations between transgender communities and law enforcement with the goal of creating a safer environment for transgender individuals and increasing the reporting of hate crimes.

The term ‘disablist hate crime’ is contested; it is used as shorthand for myriad manifestations of hostility, violent attacks, including physical and sexual assault, rape, theft, murder, captivity and damage to property (Thomas, 2011). A common understanding of the term ‘hate crime’ is hostile actions against individuals with certain characteristics. The actions can involve opportunistic street crime, physical assault and damage to residences, including arson. The perpetrators do not usually have a relationship with their victims, but may be known to live within the same neighbourhood. They are generally considered to be motivated by hatred of a perceived group. There are similarities between these types of targeted attacks against disabled people and people in other identity groups, such as BME communities, lesbians and gay men, and transgender people (Macdonald, 2008). ‘Hate crime’ is officially recognised (Crown Prosecution Service, 2007). Earlier critical analysis of ‘hate crime’ has been developed from knowledgeof racist ‘hate crime’, forming a useful basis from which to develop, but the use of a ‘race model’ as the template for disablist hate crime policy is seen by some as misplaced (Roulstone, Thomas and Balderston, 2011). For example, a racist attack on an individual may be, or may be taken to be, an attack on a community, and where that community has the capacity there may be reprisals and events can escalate. This is not the case with disablist hostility, since disabled people are often isolated, not part of a community, and possibly even isolated from their own families. Iganski’s (2008) study highlighted the opportunistic nature of most racist ‘hate crime’, everyday conflicts aggravated by racist hostility, often committed by ordinary people going about their ordinary business. The person who is attacked may recognise their attackers as being local. There does not seem to be any attempt to feign friendship in order to carry out this type of attack, nor to steal cash or goods. In comparison there are few recorded incidents of this kind against disabled people. However, there is a growing body of evidence, and growing media interest raising the profile of disablist hostility. There are reports of disabled people being subjected to opportunistic hostility, and of disabled people being singled out and victimisedGrattet and Jenness (2001) question the usefulness of a concept of crime whichis motivated by perceived difference. They question the benefits of emphasising what could be seen as a ‘special needs’ approach, since this reinforces, rather than alleviates, cultural differences between individuals in different social and administrative groups. But they also realise that treating people as if they are all the same does not challenge stereotypes and does not equalise people’s situation, creating a ‘dilemma of difference’. Reducing the issue to an individual level does not convey the influences of cultures, which allow and perpetuate the oppression of certain groups. Acts of hostility against disabled people on the street or in neighbourhoods, bullying and harassment – such as name calling, throwing missiles at individuals, or at their homes, indicate similarities with incidents which are recognised as ‘hate crime’ against other groups. These acts of hostility against a disabled person may not amount to crime, but nevertheless hurt psychologically and emotionally. A disabled person who has been attacked knows that they are more likely to be targeted again than a person without that characteristic (Macdonald, 2008); the cumulative effect is demonstrated in the case of Fiona Pilkington.

Hate crime is a product of civil right, disabilities rights, and crime victims' movements. This article primarily focuses on criminal justice concerns related to hate crime. Assessments of hate crime-related criminal justice policy and law enforcement practices require an understanding of the emergence of hate crime. It presents a summary of early assessments of hate crime law and concerns about bias-motivated violence as “merely symbolic politics” with minimal enforcement effects. It conceptualizes this assessment and includes a brief summary of federal and state hate crime law. The next section details the organization of hate crime enforcement and the outcomes of law enforcement practices, including data on the policing and prosecution of hate crime. Finally, it discusses the development of hate crime law and law enforcement practices beyond the United States.

The report provides an overview and comparison of key developments in two areas of hate crime policy in Poland: data collection and criminal law. By doing so, it seeks to shed light on the role of international organizations in developing national hate crime measures. It is the first report of its kind with a particular focus on the role of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) – the most specialized of all international institutions dealing with hate crime. The purpose of this report is to develop concrete policy recommendations, based on an analysis of ongoing efforts, to key stakeholders involved in the work on advancing the response to hate crime in Poland.Key findings include: - International organizations, through periodic reviews and other mechanisms, have a significant influence on Poland’s response to hate crimes.- This influence is visible in the area of hate crime data collection. While a number of actors have been active in this domain, creating an effect of synergy, the influence of supranational bodies seems instrumental.- Despite on-going debates, the legal framework on hate crimes has not changed.- The lack of progress in this area can be linked with the fact that the bulk of the efforts was on the shoulders of civil society organizations, which lack the leverage that supranational bodies have.- Cooperation between Polish civil society organizations and supranational bodies, aimed at amplifying civil society demands with regard to hate crime, seems to be an effective strategy.- ODIHR had an instrumental role in improving Poland’s data collection mechanisms, but was absent from the debate on the amendment of the Criminal Code. Civil society organizations were not aware of ODIHR’s mandate in this area and the possible role it could play.The report suggests that through active cooperation with civil society, not limited to hate crime reporting only, ODIHR may be able to identify possible new ways to support the state in countering hate crime. For the moment, civil society organizations in Poland and ODIHR, while cooperating in some areas, “forget” about each other in other areas. For ODIHR, strengthening the cooperation may open channels of communication with political decision makers who are not aware of ODIHR’s mandate, for example in the area of legislative support. For civil society, this could mean receiving tangible support in the area where support is most needed.

Changes in the international situation during the last decades have become the reason for new conflicts and aggravations at the national level. The 2015 European migrant crisis (Refugee crisis), 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine have become a catalyst for increase in hate crimes. In order to recognize the criminal offense as a hate crime in the sense of the Latvian regulatory framework, it is necessary to establish two criteria: (a) the composition of the criminal offence is included in the Criminal Law; (b) a motive of hatred against a particular protected group of society can be stated in the criminal offence. It is the motive – hate or prejudice – that distinguishes hate crimes from other types of crimes.Prejudice is a negative assessment of a social group and its members. These are objectively unfounded assumptions and erroneous generalizations that, in the opinion of the offender, separate the representatives of this group from the rest of society. Persistent prejudices are called stereotypes. Unlike prejudice, stereotypes are not necessarily negative in nature. However, stereotypes are not based on objective truth either. It follows from court practice that hate crimes were directed against several groups of Latvian society: against ethnic groups (Latvians, Russians, Ukrainians, Jews, Gypsies or Roma, etc.), against representatives of various religious denominations, against asylum seekers, against people from other countries, against sexual minorities as well as against other groups. Stereotypes are often based on personal or negative cultural experiences of previous generations.In this context, it can be mentioned that it is specifically culture that is the basic factor according to which it is possible to understand, identify and reduce hate speech. Professor Aleksandrs Krugļevskis believed that with a change in cultural understanding, expanding public participation in cultural processes, the level of legal awareness will rise and tendencies, intentions to commit a criminal offense will disappear. Criminal law as a cultural factor creates a system that corresponds to the level of education and culture of the people. The above also corresponds to the vision of Latvia’s cohesive society policy “Guidelines for Cohesive and Active Civil Society 2021–2027”: mutual trust, participation, and cooperation between different social groups have improved among Latvian residents, and the level of tolerance has increased, stereotypes and prejudices against different social group representatives have decreased.Statistical data show that since the start of the war in Ukraine, the number of registered hate crimes in Latvia has increased. These show the relevance of the chosen topic. The authors of the article offer their vision of the problem of hate crimes, studying hate crimes as a cultural phenomenon, paying special attention to the experience of Latvian society in this area.

Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to present an econometric analysis of hate crime against older people based on data for England and Wales for 2010-2011 disaggregated by Crown Prosecution Service area – a geographical unit which is co-terminus with local authorities.Design/methodology/approach– The authors ran different specifications of structural regression models including one latent variable and accounting for a number of interactions between the covariates.Findings– The paper suggests that the higher the level of other types of hate crime is in an area, the higher the level of hate crime against older people. Demographics are also significant: a higher concentration of older and young people partially explains hate crime levels against the former. Employment, income and educational deprivation are also associated with biased-crime against older people. Conviction rates seem to reduce hate crime against older people, and one indicator of intergenerational contact is not significant.Research limitations/implications– Due to data availability and quality, the paper only studies one years worth of data. Consequently, the research results may lack generalisability. Furthermore, the proxy variable for intergenerational contact may not be the most suitable indicator; however, there will not be any other indicators available until Census data come out.Practical implications– The paper suggests that factors underlying hate crime would also influence hate crime against older people. Besides, the results would not support the “generational clash” view. Tackling income, educational and employment deprivation would help significantly reduce the number of episodes of biased criminal activity against older people. Improving conviction rates of all types of hate crime would also contribute to the reduction of hate crime against older people.Originality/value– This paper presents the first econometric analysis of hate crime against older people.

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.