Hatecrimes Final

Who are the victims of hate crimes?

• “Because of” is important language to remember because the victims identity makes them the target

• race and ethnicity make up 50% of bias causes

• sexual orientation and religion take uo the next 2-3 spots ranging around 20% per year

who is committing hate crimes?

• 50% of hate crime offenders were white

• most of them are committing violent offenses

• most have an education of high school or less and have a poor work history

• about half have some sort of criminal history

• substance abuse is also common

Problems with the Uniform crime Report (UCR)

• not all police agencies report data (only 75-80%)

• not all agencies report accurate data

• not all victims report the crime to police

why do people commit hate crimes?

continuum of internal and social contexts. family and individual on the internal side. group dynamics and influence of economic and culture on the social context

Individual pathologies causing hate crimes

• prejudicial attitudes

• narcissism and grandiosity

• authoritarian personalities: will not follow rules but expects adherence from others. uses scare tactics to stain obedience. advocates for hard punishments when rules are broke. have little regard for the truth. use shame and ridicule against their targets

family influence on hate crimes

• social learning theory:behaviors and values learned from our associations with others

• parenting style: neglectful and authoritarian

group dynamics influence on hate crimes

• crimes of obedience

• Deindividuation: when people feel anonymous or faceless they are more likely to act aggressively

• internalization of beliefs: embrace values and beliefs of a group that they admire or seek acceptance from

• group think: strive to maintain consensus so dissent is strongly discouraged

Influence of economics on hate crimes

• strain theory: increased competition for jobs and scarce resources from those perceived as outsiders threaten economic security and result in hate crimes

• scapegoat theory: when people feel alienated and/or angry, they strike out against a convenient target who is perceived as “taking over” their terriority or threatening their power

Influence of culture on hate crimes

• government-sponsored violence

• political discourse: inflammatory statements made by politicians seemingly supporting violence and/or discriminatory actions

  • ex. trump effect

• mainstay media perpetuating negative and/or false stereotypes

• influence of masculinity: being taught that violence is acceptable and that they must prove their manhood in order to be a “real man”

Why do we have hate crime laws?

• retribution: victims suffer more psychological and physical trauma. hate crimes have a wider impact due to victim interchangeability and they spark retaliation and conflict.

• deterrence: if people know they will be caught and punished, they re less likely to commit the offense. if consequences for committing the crime outweigh the benefits, they will be -

• symbolic effects: sends a message. used to teach moral and social norms of society. punishment repairs the tear in social fabric

What social movements have led to hate crime laws?

• Black civil rights movement

• women's movement

• LGBTQ+ movement

• crime victims movement

• strange bedfellows because they combine liberal and conservative movements

Hate crime statistics act (HCSA) (1900)

required the US department of justice toe to annually collect data on hate crimes from local law enforcement agencies and to publish the results. included identities of race, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation. disability added in 1994

Hate crime sentencing enhancement act (HCSEA) (1994)

ordered the US sentencing commission to revise sentencing requirements to increased penalties by three levels for federal offenses motivate day bias based on race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, disability, and gender.

Violence against women act (VAWA) (1994)

perceived as extending hate crime legislation to deal with he in adequacies in states’ statues addressing gender motivated violence

Church arson prevention act (1997)

primarily facilitates federal prosecution and increased penalties for damaging places of worship.

Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. hate crimes prevention act (HCPA) (2009)

expanded federal laws to include gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability. expanded federal jurisdiction for state-level offenses so that federal assistance could be provided in these cases

COVID-19 Hate crimes act (2021)

authorized grants to stimulate improved local and state hate crime training, prevention, best practices, and data collection initiatives. required department of justice to use guidance for state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies on establishing online hate crime reporting collection and process.

ADL Model statute (1981)

• four provisions

  • institutional vandalism: crimes against places of worship, cemeteries, community centers etc.

  • penalty enhancement: could be found of guilt of “intimidation” if violated existing criminal law and if the crime was because of a victims group or perceived groups

  • civil cause of action: victim may sue offenders in civil court

  • data collection and training: law enforcement data collection and specialized training for police officers

Main arguments for Hate crime laws being unconstitutional

• hate crime laws punish peoples thoughts thereby violating person’;s first amendment rights

• enhancing the punishment for an act because it is bigoted or hateful creates a slippery slope and can have a chilling effect

Main arguments for hate crimes being consititional

• motive is considered in other legal scenarios

• hate crime laws do not punish motive but rather the conduct involved in an incident

• hate crimes are qualitatively different than non nonbiased crime

• if there is compelling government interest involved (ex. national security or true threat) the limitation of our first amendment may be justifiable

R.A.V v. St. Paul (1992)

• group of white teens burned a cross in a black family’s yard. City of St. Paul charged them based on a city ordinance saying it was a hate crime

• Supreme Court declared this constitutional because it prohibited expressions protected under the first amendment right

• declared it was unconstitutional because the ordinance listed specific identities and the court viewed this as protecting some more than others

FBI Guidelines for deterring hate motivation 1-3

1. offender and the victim were of a different race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender, and/or gender identity

2. bias related oral comments, written statements, or gestures were made by the offender which indicates the offender’s bias

3. bias-related drawings, markings, symbols, or graffiti were left at the crime scene

FBI Guidelines for deterring hate motivation 4-6

4. certain objects, items, or things which indicate bias were used. ex. wearing white sheets with hoods, burning a cross, etc.

5. victim is a member of a specific group which is overwhelming outnumbered by other residents in the nieghborhood where the victim lives and the incident took place

6. victim was visiting a neighbor where previous hate crimes had been committed where tensions remained high against the victim group

FBI Guidelines for deterring hate motivation 7-9

7. several incidents occurred in the same locality or at about the same time and the victims were all of the same biased identity

8. substantial portion of the community where the crime occurred perceived that the incident was motivated by bias

9. victim was engaged related to their identity. ex. member of pride celebration or NAACP

FBI Guidelines for deterring hate motivation 10-12

10. incident coincided with a holiday or date of particular significance relation to the victims identity

11. offender was previously involved in a similar hate crime or hate group

12. indications a hate group was involved.

FBI Guidelines for deterring hate motivation 13-14

13. historically established animosity existed between the victims and the offender’s groups

14. victim, although not a member of the target identity, was a member of an advocacy group supporting the victim group.

Why victim may not report a hate crime

• lack of knowledge regarding hate crime laws

• shame or denial by the victims that a hate crime was committed perpetrated

• fear of retaliation by the perpetrator

• fear of being re-victimized by law enforcement

• fear of being outted

• inability to articulate when they have been victims of hate crimes

Why police may not report a hate crime

• may not view the crime as hate-motivated

• may be biased against the victim

• have not received training on identifying hate crimes

• want to avoid the added bureaucratic requirements

• may be pressured to underplay the prevalence of bias in their jurisdiction

why hate crimes may not have been prosecuted

• may not view the crime as hate-motivated

• may be biased against the victim

• have not received training on identifying hate crimes

• want to avoid the added bureaucratic requirements

• may be pressured to underplay the prevalence of bias in their jurisdiction

• want to avoid the added evidentiary standard

  • risk of jury conviction, hard to gather evidence, may not seem like it’s worth the slight extra sentencing

Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993)

• group of Black men attacked a white man.

• defendant’s discriminatory motive played the same role under Wisconsin statute as it does under both federal and state anti-discrimination laws.

• determined this was constitutional because it moved beyond punishing beliefs to punishing conduct motivated by belief

• increased penalty law

• showed that speech can be used as evidence

• no chilling effect on free speech

Virginia v. Black (2003)

• Klu Klux Klan burned a cross at a rally and then a cross was burned in a Black family’s yard

• states can outlaw cross burnings done with the intent to intimidate because burning a cross is a “particularly virulent form of intimidation”.

• instead of prohibiting all intimidating messages, the state can regulate this form for intimidating message considering cross burnings long and malicious history showed a true threat

• unlike RAV v St. Paul, no specific groups were mentioned, which made it constitutional

Ku Klux Klan

• three main waves

  • founded in 1865 in TN. White resistance to reconstruction-era policies. Spread across the south quickly which was unique because no mass media tools existed.

  • early 1900s. resurgence due to the film “Birth of a nation” and influx of immigrants from Europe

  • 1960s: surge in Clan activity due to Civil Rights Movement

  • estimates 6000 people in Klan amongst 10 groups

hate group

organization or collection of individuals that based on its official statements or principles, the statement of its leaders, or its activities, has beliefs of practices that attach of malign an entire class or people, typically for their immutable characteristics. does not need to engage in criminal conduct.

Ideologies: power

want to maintain power socially, financially, and politically. activity increases during times when they feel power is threatened by some other.

Ideology: common antipathy for the same group

most prioritize and claim their identities as superior and argue that the other is sinful or criminal, lacks intelligence, brings disease, and/or is a danger/threat to society. they focus on groups that are often less privileged and/or hold less power.

ideology: common antipathy for particular beliefs or actions

view groups that are promoting equity and inclusion as harming or threatening to the superior race or culture

Characteristics of hate groups

typically rooted in white supremacy, male supremacy, and right wing-extremism.

Hate groups and anti-government group

• converge on the willingness to engage in political violence and deny legally establish rights to historically oppressed groups of people.

• seek to advance their own interests at the expense of those they oppose

• organize, leadership, membership, etc.

• use symbols, words, phrases to reinforce group solidarity and to instill fear in others

• both reject ideas of pluralism and equity

minority threat hypothesis

belief that a minority group who historically hasn’t had power can’t rise to a position of power without taking away power from the majority group.

women in hate groups

• traditionally hold subordinate statuses within groups

• changing roles and assuming higher positions.

types of gender-based violence

• sexual violence

• relationship violence

• stalking

• sexual harrasment

gender hate crime legislation

• gender included in mid 1990s.

• Matthew Shepard and James Bryd. Jr. (2009) included gender and allowed federal jurisdiction to take over if state doesn’t have hate crime laws.

• in 2001, 19 states included gender

• in 2025, 35 states included gender

should gender be a hate crime category: no

• crimes do not fit typical hate crime because victims are often not interchangeable

• already legislation that address violence against women

• too cumbersome to collect data

• would overshadow the importance of other status categories

should gender be a hate crime category: yes

• gender does fit the typical hate crime

• already have laws that address bias

• offers another tool for criminal justice professionals and victims

• would redefine such crimes as a political and public issue.

4 factors that consistency predict or drive GMV

• condoning violence against women

• men’s control of decision making limiting women’s independence in public and private life

• rigid gender stereotypes and dominant forms of masuclinty

• male peer relations and cultures of toxic masuclinity

Status of LGBTQ+ community and hate crimes

• 34 states include category of sexual orientation

• 21 states include category of gender identity

• in 2023, human rights campagin declared a national state of emergency for LGTBQ a=Americans

• when a member of the LGTQ is targeted, the crime is likely to be violet and these victims report experiencing greater emotional and psychological distress.