The Difference “Hate” Makes in Clearing Crime

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.

One of the primary motivations for hate crime laws is that hate crimes “hurt more.” But hate crimes are often committed by groups, and research indicates that crimes committed by groups are also more violent than other crimes. This research focuses on one type of harm, physical injury, asking, are hate crimes more violent because they involve co-offenders or because of the bias motivation behind the incident? Results using data from the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) indicate that hate crimes are positively associated with serious injury, but that this association is partially driven by co-offenders. More importantly, co-offending moderates this relationship: Incidents involving bias and co-offending are especially violent. Anti-sexual orientation incidents were an exception to this pattern, however, and are likely to be violent regardless of co-offending. These results suggest that hate crimes do hurt more, but that this relationship is partially attributable to the influence of co-offenders.

Many hate crimes are not reported and even fewer hate crimes result in an arrest. This study investigates patterns of victim reporting and arrest for hate crimes in two parts. First, using data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, we find that, controlling for offense severity, hate crimes are less likely than non-bias crimes to be reported to the police and that the police are less likely to take further action for hate crimes, compared to non-hate crimes. Second, we use data from the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission and the National Incident-Based Reporting System to compare differences between types of hate crimes in the likelihood of crime clearance. We find that those hate crimes most likely to result in arrest are those that fit the profile of a “stereotypical” hate crime: violent incidents, incidents committed by hate groups, and incidents involving white offenders and black victims.

Prior research has suggested that hate crimes hurt more, in that they are more physically severe than other crimes. A separate body of research has focused on the role of weapons in exacerbating violence; yet, no research has considered the role of weapon use in bias crime victimization. Following this, this research examines the relationship between weapon use, bias motivation, and victimization in the United States. On one hand, weapons may play an important role in hate crime by exacerbating violence. On the other hand, weapons may be unnecessary for facilitating hate crime violence, given the animus associated with bias motivation. Using data from the National Incident-Based Reporting System, we find that bias crimes are both (a) less likely than nonbias crimes to involve weapons and (b) more likely than nonbias crimes to involve serious or lethal victim injury. These patterns are particularly pronounced for antisexual orientation hate crimes.

Despite increased attention in the area of hate crime research in the past 20 years, sexual orientation bias crimes have rarely been singled out for study. When these types of crimes are looked at, the studies are typically descriptive in nature. This article seeks to increase our knowledge of sexual orientation bias by answering the question: What are the differences between sexual orientation motivated bias crimes and racial bias crimes? This question is examined using data from the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) and multiple regression techniques. This analysis draws on the strengths of NIBRS to look at the incident characteristics of hate crimes and distinguishing characteristics of sexual orientation crimes. Specifically this analysis looks at the types and seriousness of offenses motivated by sexual orientation bias as opposed to race bias as well as victim and offender characteristics. The findings suggest that there are differences between these two types of bias crimes, suggesting a need for further separation of the bias types in policy and research.

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.

Despite significant public concern, previous research on hate crimes has been limited and inconclusive regarding whether police discriminate against racial minority victims when clearing hate crimes through arrests. To address this gap, we analyzed the 1992–2019 data from the National Incident-Based Reporting System, measuring victim race by both the actual and targeted races in anti-race offenses. When using the latter measure, our findings reveal significant results: the arrest rate was generally higher in inter-racial cases, where offenders targeted a race different from their own, than in intra-racial cases, where they targeted the same race as their own. However, the arrest rate was lower, not higher, when white offenders committed a non-index anti-black offense than when they committed a non-index anti-white offense, which may suggest the possibility of racial discrimination in police arrests that extends beyond mere racial disparities.

Although most crime in intraracial, studies suggest that interracial victimization is more injurious. This may be especially true for racially motivated offenses; however, studies of hate crime have not disaggregated which racial dyads are associated with injury, and whether they are more injurious than interracial victimizations generally. Likewise, studies of interracial violence often assume a theoretical framework grounded in racial animosity, but cannot test motivation directly. Using the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), this study compares injuries across intraracial, interracial, and bias-motivated offenses. We find differences across racial dyad and the presence of racial animosity, however, the results are largely driven by the race of the offender. Implications for racial animosity theory, adversary effect, and hate crime literatures are discussed.

Women who commit hate-motivated violence: Advancing a gendered understanding of hate crime

The subject of this study is the scientific and practical problems of defining the definition of "hate crime" in international, regional and domestic legal systems. General scientific, interdisciplinary and special scientific methods were used in the process of research. Thus, logical and systematic methods allowed us to select and analyze the information on the topic of research. Specific sociological method allowed to determine the social determinants of the existence of this type of crime. The formal-legal method allowed us to trace the level of institutionalization of hate crimes and formulate definitions of legal concepts and categories. The comparative legal method allowed for a comparison of international, regional and national legislation on combating intolerance and combating hate crimes. The purpose of this article is to identify the key areas for the formation of an active legal policy aimed at increasing the capacity to combat hate crimes. Analysis of experience in combating intolerance and discrimination and the development of proposals for improving domestic legislation. The main stages of the formation, development and legalization of hate crimes are highlighted. Such crimes in the modern world are considered to be the most dangerous type of criminal acts. Factors associated with the acquisition of the character of hate crime as an acute social problem since the second half of the 20th century are named. The main recommendations of modern human rights institutions regarding the fight against these crimes are considered. The most important guarantees of prevention of any human discrimination in the future, which are reflected in the international agreements on human rights and enshrined in the constitutions of modern states, are analyzed. The practice of the European Court of Human Rights in this direction is considered. The legal regulation of hate crimes in the national legislation of Ukraine is analyzed. It is emphasized that the main directions of implementation of domestic legal policy in the field of combating discrimination are carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine, sectoral legislation and international obligations of Ukraine. Statistical data characterizing the level of hate crimes in the national legal system is presented. The characteristics of hate crimes are studied. It is emphasized that the motive itself is of key importance in establishing the corpus delicti and the correct qualification of hate crimes. It was concluded that the list of aggravating circumstances for hate crimes should be clearly defined at the national legislative level, which would avoid ambiguous interpretations of the wording contained in the articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine providing for punishment for crimes committed on the grounds of intolerance. It was stressed that an effective response to hate crimes is necessary in order to prevent such crimes from becoming a serious public threat. In the opinion of the authors, such a problem can be solved through legal education of Ukrainian society and the formation of a culture of tolerant and respectful attitudes toward all people. It is the duty of a modern state to ensure the adoption of appropriate national legislation, the collection of statistical data, and the thorough investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.

Hate crime is more than a legal category. It is also a moral category that promotes tolerance and respect over prejudice. In so doing, the concept of hate crime makes a claim for social justice on behalf of those groups disadvantaged by racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism and so on. This article argues that one of the means via which the concept of hate crime does this is to generate certain forms of ‘emotional thinking’ among the general public, such as compassion for victims and contempt or disgust for perpetrators. The question of whether a given criminal event will be labelled and constructed as a hate crime is thus not simply a matter of whether it meets the minimal definitional requirements. It is also dependent upon the capacity of those who claim victim status to engender forms of emotional thinking that encourage others to see them as the undeserving victims of prejudice, that is, as ‘ideal’ victims. This argument is grounded in a recent empirical study of the Snowtown murders in South Australia. Despite the emergence of a strong ‘hatred as motive’ theme in the legal arena, the murders have never been publicly labelled as hate crime. The article argues that images of deep moral failure on the part of the victims (not just the perpetrators) precluded them from engendering forms of emotional thinking that are essential if the concept of hate crime is to function as a moral category.

A general theoretical analysis of the concepts of “crimes motivated by intolerance”, “hate crimes” and related concepts (such as “genocide”, “prejudice”, “xenophobia”) is provided in the article. The origin and meaning of the mentioned terms, their normative consolidation and practice of use in national legislation and international legal acts are analyzed. It has been proven that the concepts of “crimes motivated by intolerance” and “hate crimes” are close in meaning. As a legal category, crimes based on intolerance are a classification of a special type of crimes against a person caused by the feeling of intolerance felt by the subject of the crime towards a victim, a representative of another race, nationality, sex, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc. It was found out that the basic structure of crimes motivated by impatience consists of two mandatory points: 1) the specified action is a crime according to the criminal law; 2) the motive for such an action is prejudice, that is, a false opinion formed about someone in advance, without familiarization, and the associated corresponding attitude. The signs of hate crimes have been substantiated and revealed: a) it is an action caused by prejudice, which is recognized as a crime according to international and national criminal legislation; b) such crimes have a significant public danger, are an extreme form of discrimination; c) these are crimes in which the victim, the object or the target of the crime were chosen based on their real or imagined belonging to a certain vulnerable group, connection with it; d) such imaginary or real grouping can be based on any socially relevant features or characteristics. It has been found out that the unifying feature of crimes motivated by intolerance is always a motive – a prejudiced or real feeling of hatred, hostility, intolerance towards the “other”, a representative of an imaginary or real “not their” social group. The need to bring the national legislation in line with international legal norms regarding the use of the term “hate crime” and the need to legislate the specified definition are substantiated. Key words: crimes motivated by intolerance, hate crimes; genocide, prejudice, xenophobia, national, racial, religious enmity, criminal law qualification.

This research examines the ways in which assaults motivated by bias are similar to and different from other types of assault. Analyses are based on data from the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS), pooled across eleven states. We find evidence suggesting that offenders motivated by racial and ethnic bias are more likely to be versatile offenders than specialists: they are more (not less) likely to be using drugs and alcohol during the crime than conventional offenders. Bias offenders are also more likely to seriously injure the victim. Finally, we find that the risks of bias crime victimization (relative to the risk of assault victimization generally) are similar for blacks and other racial minorities.

Hate crimes have escalated significantly across the United States, with their frequency and targets varying according to shifting social dynamics and political ideologies. The importance of studying hate crimes stems from the growth of hate crimes and the destructive, lasting impacts even beyond the victim. With the Hispanic population accounting for 71% of the overall population growth in the United States between 2022 and 2023, there are over 65 million Hispanics, according to the most recent U.S. Census report. This indicator shows the need to focus on Hispanic victims of hate crimes and their unique characteristics. This study aims to use the 2020 National Incident-Based Reporting System to investigate the prevalence and characteristics of Hispanic hate crimes versus other racial/ethnic groups. We conducted standard inferential statistics to see significant differences in our findings. This study contributed to the limited body of hate crime literature by focusing on minority-targeted hate crimes.

Existing true raw for Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Hate Crime Data is available in ASCII, with each year as a separate file, or on the FBI website, where the abridged summary information omits most of the additional demographic information obtained from the switch to a National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS). The attached NIBRS information is critical, because it provides additional data for social science researchers, citizens, and law enforcement to most accurately assess at-risk groups and areas and determine the causes of hate crime offenses. The fully-detailed ASCII format data has been reformatted and recoded into a single unified Microsoft Excel database. The process to do so is described step-by-step.