Stigma or Sympathy? Attributions of Fault to Hate Crime Victims and Offenders

This study examined the impact of hate crimes upon gay and lesbian victims, reviewing 1538 hate crimes committed in Los Angeles County. Differences between sexual orientation and other hate crime categories were considered for offense severity, reportage to law enforcement, and victim impact. The type of offense varied between crimes classified for sexual orientation (n=551) and other bias-motivated crimes (n=987). Assault, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and stalking were predictive of sexual orientation hate crimes. Sexual orientation bias crimes evidenced greater severity of violence to the person and impact upon victim level of functioning. More violent forms of aggression were predictive of gay and lesbian victim's underreportage to law enforcement. For sexual orientation offenses, victim gender and race/ethnicity differences were predictive of the base rates of crime reportage as well. These findings are considered in terms of a group-risk hypothesis, encountered by multiple outgroup persons, that influences help-seeking behavior and ingroup identity.

Reevaluation of published research on racial bias in criminal sentencing and of data on execution rates by race from 1930 to 1967 and on death-sentencing rates from 1967 to 1978 indicates that, except in the South, black homicide offenders have been less likely than whites to receive a death sentence or be executed. For the 11% of executions imposed for rape, discrimination against black defendants who had raped white victims was substantial, but only in the South. Evidence for noncapital sentencing also largely contradicts a hypothesis of overt discrimination against black defendants. Although black offender--white victim crimes are generally punished more severely than crimes involving other racial combinations, this appears to be due to legally relevant factors related to such offenses. Crimes with black victims, however, are less likely than those with white victims to result in imposition of the death penalty. The devalued status of black crime victims is one of several hypothetical explanations of the more lenient sentencing of black defendants. (abstract Adapted from Source: American Sociological Review, 1981. Copyright © 1981 by the American Sociological Association) VioLit keywords: Racial Differences Racial Factors Racial Discrimination Correctional Decision Making Sentencing Criminal Justice System Capital Punishment Death Penalty Black-White Comparison Caucasian Adult Caucasian Offender Caucasian Violence African American Adult African American Offender African American Violence 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s

ABSTRACTPrevious research has indicated that the sexual orientation of a sexual assault victim influences perceptions of blame. Although researchers have studied perceptions of blame toward straight and lesbian sexual assault victims, none have yet assessed perceptions of blame toward bisexual victims. The purpose of the current study is to examine perceptions of blame toward a female sexual assault victim and to determine whether the victim’s sexual orientation impacts the level of attributed blame. Despite no previous research examining the impact of bisexuality on victim blaming, misconceptions that bisexual females are highly sexual, promiscuous, and untrustworthy make it likely that this population would be subject to greater levels of blame than either straight or lesbian victims. After random assignment to a vignette description of a sexual assault and completion of a victim-blaming questionnaire, results failed to support our hypotheses; participants did not blame the bisexual victim of sexual assault more than either the straight or lesbian victims. Further contrary to expected findings, males did not hold more blaming attitudes than females across conditions. Nonetheless, this study is important given the finding that attributions of blame influence whether sexual assault victims choose to disclose their assault, the failure of which can lead to negative mental health outcomes. Ultimately, the current study was a first step in understanding whether bisexual assault victims are evaluated differently than their straight and lesbian counterparts.

This research explored the content of hate crime prototypes in a North American context, with particular attention to how such prototypes might influence blame attributions. In Study 1a, participants were recruited from a blended sample of universities (n = 110) and community members (n = 102) and asked to report their thoughts about typical hate crime offenses, victims, and offenders. These open-ended responses were coded, and common themes were identified. In Study 1b, a new group of participants (n = 290) were presented with these themes and asked to rate each for their characteristics of hate crimes. Studies 1a and 1b confirmed the presence of a clear prototype of hate crimes, such that (a) perpetrators were believed to be lower status White men with clear expressions of bias, (b) hate crime offenses were believed to be acts of interpersonal violence accompanied by slurs or verbal abuse, and (c) hate crime victims were thought to be members of a marginalized group who remain passive during the offense. Study 2 explored the consequences of victim prototypes on assessments of victim blame. Participants (n = 296) were recruited from York University and presented with a case vignette that varied the prototypicality of a victim of hate, depicting him as either Black or White and either passive, verbally responsive, or physically confrontational in the context of an assault. Participants showed greatest sympathy for the Black victim who passively ignored verbal harassment but increasingly assigned blame when the Black victim spoke or reacted physically. When the victim was White, participants showed little variation in their assessment of blame as a function of the victim's behavior. These results suggest that Black victims are subjected to greater behavioral scrutiny than White victims and that sympathy for victims of hate may be contingent on their passivity in the face of harassment.

This paper analyzes data on the annual incidence of aggressive crime (homicide, sexual assault, aggravated assault) in relation to race, contrasting proportional distribution of Blacks and whites among victims and offenders in relation to their representation in the general U.S. population. Blacks are over-represented among offenders in each category of aggressive crime: in homicide at a level 315% greater than their representation in the general population, in sexual assault at a level 404% as great, in aggravated assault at 274% greater than their representation in the general population. Whites and “others” are under-represented among offenders. Blacks are at highly increased risk, relative to their representation in the nation's population, for victimization in homicide and at some disadvantage (although not at a level appropriately denominated as risk in a statistical sense) for victimization in both sexual and aggravated assault. Episodes of criminal aggression initiated by white offenders account for slightly more than 73% of all single-offender episodes of aggressive crime, while episodes initiated by Black offenders account for approximately 27%, so that white-perpetrated criminal aggression exceeds Black-initiated criminal aggression at a ratio of 2.7:1. Blacks are represented among offenders in aggressive crime slightly more than twice their representation in the nation's population. It is more than five times as likely that a white victim has been set upon by a white offender than by a Black offender and nearly seven times as likely that a Black victim has been set upon by a Black offender as by a white offender. It is 32 times as likely that a white offender will victimize another white as it is that he or she will victimize a Black. But Black offenders victimize whites as frequently as they victimize other Blacks. When gender and age are considered interactively with race, it is seen that Black males in adolescence and adulthood are at astronomically enhanced risk both for homicide offending and for victimization in homicide, such that Black males aged 18-24 are at a risk level for offending nearly 28 times greater and for victimization nearly 17 times greater than their representation in the national population. Data on divergence in “choice” of victim by Black offenders not inflected by age and on the astronomical risk for homicide offending by young Black men likely anchor a phenomenology of fear among whites.

The Hate Crime Statistics Act (1990) in the US requires that the Attorney General collect and publish annually the incidence of hate crimes in the US based on a victim's race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.With almost 220,000 hate crimes committed from 1991-2020, the present study tracked changes in the incidence of 163,375 racially-motivated hate crimes, as perpetrated against each of the following groups: Arabs, Asians, Blacks, Hispanic, Indigenous, Jews, and Whites.Crimes ranged from intimidation to homicide.Legislative markers included both widely publicized incidents (viz.James Byrd and Matthew Shepard, 1998), as well as significant changes to law enforcement and criminal punishment including the Violent Crime Control Act (1994), Church Arson Prevention Act (1996), Hate Crimes Prevention Act (2009); and most recently the Emmett Till Antilynching Act (2022).We tracked changes in crime rates by six 5-year time periods and region in the US.Initial analysis indicated changes in hate crime rates over time, but with a unique pattern for each racial group.For instance, hate crimes against both Asian and White victims were at their highest in 1991-1995, but steadily decreased despite a rise in 2016-2020.Crimes against Indigenous were lower in the first two decades only to increase in 2011-2020.Black victims (routinely with the highest incidence) saw a zigzag pattern: low in the early 90s, then high; low again in the early 2000s, then high; but lower from 2011-2020 (likely due to wider news coverage).Hispanics saw a steady rise in incidence over time, whereas Arabs were targeted more following Sept.11/2001.Crimes against Jews were largely invariant across the 30 years.Implications of these data to the wider social arena are discussed, as are directions for future research.

The commonly accepted view that violent crime is intraracial as opposed to interracial is reexamined. Victim survey data on perceived race of offender are used to suggest that the issue of intraracial versus interracial crime should be examined from four perspectives: white offender's choice of victim (e.g., white or black); black offender's choice of victim; white victim's perception of race of offender; and black victim's perception of race of offender. A Detailed analysis of victimization survey data indicates that violent crime in the United States (robbery, assault, and rape) is intraracial from three perspectives (whites chose other whites as victims, whites were largely victimized by other whites, and blacks were largely victimized by other blacks). However, black offenders were more likely to choose white victims in robberies, assaults, and rapes. Tentative and alternative explanations for this previously unexamined fact of interracial crime are suggested.

Although research has found that between 5% to 20% of adult men in non-institutionalized and non-military populations have been the victimes of a sexual assault, these victims are largely ignored by society and mental health professionals. Factos that may account for this lack of attention may be due to the small number of victims (as compared to female victims) and rape myths that promote the denial that male rape can occur. The psychological literature also reflects this neglect as the majority of this literature has focused on female and child victims, largely ignoring adult male victims. The purpose of the present research was to address some of the limitations of the literature regarding the attribution of victim blame towards male victims of sexual assault. The study investigated how the independent variables of 1.) victim gender, 2.) victim sexual orientation, and 3.) participant sexual orientation influence the dependent variables of attribution of blame and participant's perceived similarity to the victim. The results indicated that the participants' sexual orientation, the victims' sexual orientation, and the victims' gender were found to be related to the particpant perceived similarity to the victim. However, participants' perceived similarity to the victim did not influence their attribution of blame towards the victims. The results were not consistent with Defensive Attribution Theory (Shaver, 1970; Walster, 1966).

Blame attribution is a valuable mechanism explaining decision making. However, present literature mainly employs blame attribution as a dependent variable. The shortcoming of this fact is that blame attribution offers a potentially valuable explanatory mechanism for decision making. The authors designed two studies to investigate blame attribution as a moderator of sentencing decisions in sexual orientation-based hate crimes. Study 1 showed that mock jurors punished perpetrators of hate crimes more severely than a control condition. Also, degree of victim blame influenced punitive decision making. In Study 2, mock jurors extended findings that perpetrators of hate crimes are more harshly punished than those of other types of crimes. Victim and perpetrator blame failed to moderate decision making in this more complex scenario. Results are discussed in relation to hate crimes definitions and attribution theory.

This study investigated the relationships between blame, victim and offender status, and the pursuit of revenge or reconciliation after a personal offense. Results from a sample of 141 government agency employees showed that blame is positively related to revenge and negatively related to reconciliation. In addition, victim-offender relative status moderated the relation between blame and revenge such that victims who blamed sought revenge more often when the offender's status was lower than their own. The victims' own absolute hierarchical status also moderated this relation such that lower, not higher, status employees who blamed sought revenge more often.

Previous research has noted contradictory findings regarding race and police notification, such that Black people indicate higher levels of distrust in the police yet report victimization to the police at rates similar to or higher than others. We investigated the role of offense severity in accounting for these discrepancies. We hypothesized that severity would moderate racial differences in reporting, such that Black victims would be less likely to report less severe victimization but more likely to report more severe victimization. We expected that these differences would be less pronounced for bias-motivated crime, regardless of other markers of severity. We used data from the 2003-2016 National Crime Victimization Survey, including information on 21,510 victimization incidents, 1,105 of which were hate crimes. We conducted logistic regression analyses in which reporting was regressed on victim race, offense severity, hate crime status, and control variables. We also examined interactive effects to disentangle whether severity moderated racial differences in notification. We observed a three-way interaction of Black victims, offense severity, and hate crime status. Specifically, for nonbias incidents, Black victims were more likely than White victims to report severe incidents, but there was no racial difference in reporting nonsevere incidents. Additionally, for nonsevere incidents, Black victims were more likely than White victims to report hate crimes, but there was no racial difference in reporting nonhate crimes. Offense severity plays an important role in the victim decision-making process. These patterns are different, however, by race and for hate crime victims, suggesting that people perceive hate crimes as important to report, regardless of their severity. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

A number of researchers have recently challenged the long-held notion among criminologists that rape, along with most other violent crimes, is an intraracial crime. Based on analysis of survey data they concluded that black rapists “prefer” or “seek out” white victims and that the likelihood of a black offender selecting a white victim has been increasing during recent years. Data presented here (1977–88 National Crime Surveys) refute the notion that black rapists “prefer” white victims. Moreover these same data fail to support the contention that rapes involving black offenders and white victims have been increasing. According to National Crime Survey estimates, the proportion of black offenders that victimize whites has been declining.

A jury simulation paradigm was employed for two studies exploring levels of victim blame in a case of bias-motivated assault based on sexual orientation. In the first study, participants were grouped according to their score on the Index of Homophobia (IHP) scale as either reporting high or low support for gay and lesbian community members. The label of the crime (i.e., bias-motivated assault versus first-degree assault) as well as the gender of the victim were systematically varied. Results indicated that attributions of blame against the victim varied as a function of participants' attitudes toward minority sexual orientation. As extra-legal factors likely contribute to victim blame in these cases, the second study explored such factors as location and “provocation.” Jurors in the second study read a transcript depicting an attack on a gay man by a man in either a local bar (i.e., not a gay bar) or a gay bar. Within location conditions, jurors were presented with either “provocation” by the victim (i.e., asking the perpetrator to dance and putting his arm around him) or alternatively no provocation was presented. Results revealed significant differences of victim blame depending on condition. Participants in both the local bar and provocation present conditions were more likely to blame the victim for the attack than those in the gay bar or provocation-absent conditions. Implications for hate crime law and attribution theory within the courtroom are discussed.

The current study examined the longitudinal interplay between bullying, victimization, and social status (acceptance, rejection, and perceived popularity) over the course of 1 year. Cross‐lagged path models were estimated for two cohorts, covering grades 3–6 (N = 3904, M age = 11.2 years) and grades 7–9 (N = 4492, M age = 14.4 years). Comparisons between cohorts and by gender were conducted. The results of this study corroborate the complexity of the longitudinal interplay between bullying, victimization, and social status in showing that direction and strength of associations differ by type of peer status, age, and gender. Conclusions cannot be drawn without taking these differences into account. The findings are discussed according to these differences, and directions for future research are provided.

violation of the equality ideal. At most, this latter conception of bias crime statutes can assert that crimes based on the protected characteristics threaten the equality ideal because these characteristics have generally been the basis of past discrimination—but they cannot locate either the harm risked by the perpetrator or his individual culpability more precisely. 2. The Potential Underinclusiveness Problem This proposed solution to the overinclusiveness problem of bias crimes does not address the potential underinclusiveness question. Why, for example, are the elderly and the disabled typically not included within bias crime statutes? Formulating the list of protected characteristics that should be included within bias crimes statutes is a complex question without a single solution whose full elaboration is beyond the scope of this article. A few points, however, follow naturally from the above analysis. Clearly, political factors influence the calculation of the proper scope of bias crime laws, as debates over the inclusion of gender and sexual orientation as protected characteristics demonstrate. In response to political pressure, the scope of bias crimes has been rapidly increasing. This phenomenon threatens to seriously weaken bias crime laws. Legislative judgment about which characteristics are likely to make their bearers targets of violent discrimination helps sharpen the focus of bias crimes, feeding more clearly into the historical experience that justifies the penalty enhancement associated with these crimes. Having too many groups including within 149. See, e.g., Julie Goldscheid, Gender-Motivated Violence: Developing A Meaningful Paradigm for Civil Rights Enforcement, 22 Harv. Women’s L.J. 123 (1999). 150. Martin S. Zwerling, Legislating Against Hate in New York: Bias Crimes and the Lesbian and Gay Community, 11 Touro L. Rev. 529 (1995); Anthony S. Winer, Hate Crimes, Homosexuals, and the Constitution, 29 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 387 (1994). 151. Historical and contemporary social contexts suggest why certain aspects of peoples’ identity provoke a strong sense of solidarity with other members of the This content downloaded from 157.55.39.177 on Tue, 15 Nov 2016 03:56:32 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms DANNERMACRO 5/5/2003 4:42 PM 2002] CULPABILITY IN CONTEXT 447 the definition of bias crimes risks reducing the higher stigma associated with this kind of crime. Generally rejecting the expansion of bias crime statutes, however, does not resolve the question of which groups should properly be included within their reach. Whether gender should be considered a protected characteristic, for example, demonstrates the difficulty of the inquiry about which characteristics should be included and which should be excluded. Women have historically been subjected to discrimination in many facets of their lives, including voting and employment. Whether women are still subject to widespread discrimination is less obvious. The model of bias crime presented here focuses on the perpetrator’s choice of the victim as a representative of a group of which he is a member. The victim’s group affiliation has more importance than any individual characteristics of the victim; indeed, this is what distinguishes bias crimes from general vulnerable victim statutes. Thus, some crimes typically committed against women, like acquaintance rape, fit uncomfortably within the bias crimes model. The question of whether gender group. For these reasons, vulnerability can and should be seen as especially salient along the dimensions of the protected characteristics currently articulated in existing bias crimes. Thus, I believe that Kenneth Simons’s response to Harel & Parchomovsky’s article is misguided. See Simons, supra note 21, at 241 (arguing that race, religion, and the other characteristics protected by bias crimes are less important predictors of victims’ vulnerability due to other factors, like “geography, wealth, class, and similar factors”). Vulnerability generally might be more dependent on the factors that Simon mentions, but these characteristics are less likely to constitute the basis of widespread harm to other members of the “group,” precisely because the relevant characteristics are less salient to their members. 152. Cf. William A. Schabas, Genocide in International Law 114 (2000) (arguing for a narrow definition of the crime of genocide: “for society to define a crime so heinous that it will occur only rarely is testimony to the value of such a precise formulation. Diluting the definition, either by formal amendment or its terms or by extravagant interpretation of the existing text, risks trivializing the horror of the real crime when it is committed”). 153. Perhaps the problem can be resolved through the statutory formulation of bias crimes. In a bias crime, the perpetrator must select the victim in at least substantial part because of his or her membership in a protected group. The acquaintance rapist might not primarily select his victim because she is a woman but instead because of some other characteristic. If that characteristic is not This content downloaded from 157.55.39.177 on Tue, 15 Nov 2016 03:56:32 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms DANNERMACRO 5/5/2003 4:42 PM 448 BUFFALO CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 6:389 should be included in bias crimes statutes should turn on the pervasiveness of discrimination against women, and how many of the crimes committed against women reflect perpetration because of their identity as women, rather than other factors less central to the purpose of bias crime statutes. The discussion of bias crimes in this article also provides legislators with other criteria they might use when evaluating the propriety of expanding the scope of characteristics protected by bias crimes. History is clearly an important factor. Has the characteristic historically been the basis for discrimination? Race, ethnicity, national origin, and religion easily qualify here, as would sexual orientation. Contemporary circumstances must also be considered. Prejudices that were vivid hundreds of years ago but have no contemporary currency clearly should not be included within these statutes. Legislators should also consider the particular characteristics of discrimination within their jurisdiction. Some groups, one could imagine, would be likely targets of discrimination across the United States and thus would be included in all bias crime statutes, while others might be particularly vulnerable only in particular regions. specifically included within the reach of the bias crime statute, the acquaintance rape should not be considered a bias crime. Even assuming, however, that the “because of” formula helps distinguish between crimes that fit within the bias crimes model and those that do not, this resolution does not identify which characteristics should be included within the statute generally. 154. Cf. United States v. McCall, 174 F.3d 47, 50 (2d Cir. 1998) (construing the federal vulnerable victim enhancement and stating “broad generalizations about victims based upon their membership in a class are disfavored where a very substantial portion of the class is not in fact particularly vulnerable to the crime in question. In such cases, courts have required that the enhancement be based on individualized findings as to the vulnerability of particular victims”). While individualized findings as to particular victims would not be appropriate for bias crimes statutes because of the relative importance of the group over the individual, considering the proportion of crimes committed against members of a group that are likely to be considered bias crimes might prove a useful way of determining whether or not the characteristic should be included within the bias crime statute. 155. Gays and lesbians, for example, might fit this description. See Herek, supra note 14, at 945 (noting that “sexual prejudice is still acceptable in many quarters of American society”). I imagine that African Americans, Latinos, and other minority racial groups would also likely be considered vulnerable groups This content downloaded from 157.55.39.177 on Tue, 15 Nov 2016 03:56:32 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms DANNERMACRO 5/5/2003 4:42 PM 2002] CULPABILITY IN CONTEXT 449 Legislators also might consider whether the characteristic is likely to make the victims subject to attack because of social discrimination against this group or because it is a proxy for some other quality, such as physical helplessness. This type of inquiry makes some characteristics, like age and disability, problematic for inclusion within the reach of bias crime statutes. While crimes against the elderly should certainly be seen as crimes targeting vulnerable victims, they should not be defined as bias crimes. Discrimination—not opportunism— is the foundation of the bias crime perpetrator’s culpability. If one believes, as I do, that the category of bias crimes should be narrow, inevitably groups that resemble those already included within the reach of bias crime statues will feel unfairly excluded. As Jacobs and Potter point out in their comprehensive critique of bias crimes, the judgment about the proper scope of these statutes is inescapably political. While the legislative crafting of bias crime statutes should be informed by clear questions and criteria, the difficulty of the inquiry is unavoidable.