Jump to Content Jump to Main Navigation

Criminology Hate Crime
by
Lynn A. Addington

Introduction

The term “hate crime” is relatively new; it was coined in the mid-1980s to identify crimes motivated by bias against the victim’s actual or perceived membership in a status group such as a particular race or religion (Jacobs and Potter 1998, in Issues with Criminalizing Hate Crime). Although the term itself is new, the fact that some crimes are motivated by bias against a particular group is not (Petrosino 1999, in Issues with Criminalizing Hate Crime). Initial research on this modern categorization of hate crimes focused on the difficulty in defining hate crimes and the criminal justice response to these new crimes, a smaller body of research has examined those who commit hate crimes as well as hate crimes in a comparative or international context. In this area, some researchers prefer the term “bias crime” as they believe it more accurately captures the motivations of the offender. Both terms are used interchangeably in this entry.

General Overviews

Although the systematic study of hate crimes constitutes a fairly recent topic, several good overviews exist. Perry 2003 compiles many excellent articles and studies. The readings cover topics that include defining and measuring hate crime, possible causes, victims of hate crime, hate groups, and interventions. The volume is accessible for undergraduates as well as graduate students and researchers new to the topic. Hall 2005 provides a comparative look at hate crimes in both the United States and UK. It is particularly helpful for researchers interested in an international perspective. Levin and McDevitt 2002 update their earlier work on hate crimes. Their book is a useful resource for undergraduates and those interested in the larger issues concerning hate crimes, examples of hate crimes, and policy responses. Gerstenfeld 2004 provides a useful overview that addresses many of the issues arising in the study of hate crimes. This text is well suited for an undergraduate course or as a quick reference for a researcher new to the topic.

  • Gerstenfeld, Phyllis B. 2004. Hate crimes: Causes, controls, and controversies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Provides a comprehensive overview. Covers issues including challenges to hate crime legislation, who commits hate crimes, who are victims of hate crime, policy responses to hate crimes, and international hate crimes. Useful as an undergraduate text as well as accessible reference to researchers new to the topic.

    Find this resource:

  • Hall, Nathan. 2005. Hate crime. Devon, UK: Willan.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    A solid overview of issues surrounding hate crime in the United States and United Kingdom including the extent of the problem, legislative initiatives, policing responses and community responses. Recommended for graduate students and researchers looking for an international perspective.

    Find this resource:

  • Levin, Jack, and McDevitt, Jack. 2002. Hate crimes revisited: America’s war on those who are different. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    An accessible overview of the issues surrounding hate crimes, including motivations and causes of hate crime. Recommended for undergraduate students.

    Find this resource:

  • Perry, Barbara. 2003. Hate and bias crime: A reader. New York: Routledge.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Edited volume that contains a variety of articles and studies across a range of topics. Useful introduction and overview of hate crime issues. Recommended for undergraduate and graduate students as well as researchers.

    Find this resource:

Data Sources

In the United States, the federal government collects hate crime data through police records and victimization surveys. Pursuant to the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990, the FBI compiles hate crime reported to local and state police agencies as part of its Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Since 1992, these data have been published and publicly disseminated as the UCR Hate Crime Statistics. Another source of federal hate crime data is collected by the Bureau of Justice Statistics as part of its National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The NCVS is a nationally representative sample of households that asks household members age twelve and older about their victimization experiences. Since 1999 the NCVS has included questions that ask respondents whether their victimization was a bias-motivated crime. Harlow 2005 provides an accessible analysis of UCR and NCVS hate crime data. Both the UCR Hate Crime Statistics and the NCVS hate crime data are publicly available through the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data. In addition to data collected by the federal government, individual advocacy groups such as the Anti-Defamation League, Southern Poverty Law Center, and Human Rights Watch collect data on hate crimes targeting specific religious and racial minorities. These organizations publish reports based on their data collection efforts. In addition to hate crime data from the United States, international sources of hate crime data are available. Since 2002–2003, the Crime Survey for England and Wales has asked about racially motivated crimes to all respondents (Jansson 2006). Another source is a 2004 survey of the twenty-five European Union Member States. This survey collected information on policing racist crime and violence (Oakley and European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia 2005) and provides a comparative look at the issue of hate crime at the national level. Some caution is required in using these data, since not all EU Member States collect hate crime information. The 2005 European Crime and Safety Survey (EU ICS) asked a sample of EU residents about their experiences with crime and law enforcement (van Dijk, et al. 2007). These questions also included reports of possible hate crime victimizations.

Measurement Issues

Although most of the systematic research on measurement of hate crimes has been conducted in the United States, the examination of the underlying challenges to collecting these data likely have broader applications. After Congress mandated hate crime reporting in 1990, research attention focused on how best to collect these data as well as possible impediments and problems. The FBI was charged with collecting these data from local and state law enforcement agencies. To facilitate this practice, the FBI issued a guide to collecting hate crime data (Federal Bureau of Investigation 1999). Nolan, et al. 2002 documents the implementation of the UCR’s hate crime data collection program, and Nolan and Akiyama 1999 explores the FBI’s difficulty in collecting hate crime data from police departments. McDevitt, et al. 2000 examines ten years of the FBI’s hate crime data, assesses its quality, and recommends ways to improve it. In measuring any crime, police data are subject to critique because of the “dark figure of crime”—that is, undercounting due to crimes not reported to police. Hate crimes are believed to suffer from even greater nonreporting than non-bias-motivated crimes. Hate crime victims frequently fear prejudice by the criminal justice system and are concerned that the incident will not be taken seriously (Berrill and Herek 1992, Kuehnle and Sullivan 2003). As a result, researchers have recommended victimization surveys as an alternative to police data (Herek and Berrill 1992). No matter what data collection strategy is used, an initial obstacle has been how best to define hate crimes (Perry 2001). For official statistics, statutory language provides guidance. Researchers conducting their own studies and surveys need to address how they will define and operationalize this construct.

  • Berrill, Kevin T., and Gregory M. Herek. 1992. Primary and secondary victimization in anti-gay hate crimes: Official response and public policy. In Hate crimes: Confronting violence against lesbians and gay men. Edited by Gregory M. Herek and Kevin T. Berrill, 289–305. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Discusses “secondary victimization” by the criminal justice system as a reason that many lesbians and gay men fail to report hate crimes. Provides policy recommendations to make system more responsive to these victims. Accessible to researchers of all levels.

    Find this resource:

  • Federal Bureau of Investigation. 1999. Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    A useful resource for researchers planning to work with the UCR Hate Crime Statistics data. Accessible, if highly detailed, guide. Available online.

    Find this resource:

  • Herek, Gregory M., and Kevin T. Berrill. 1992. Documenting the victimization of lesbians and gay men: Methodological issues. In Hate crimes: Confronting violence against lesbians and gay men. Edited by Gregory M. Herek, and Kevin T. Berrill, 270–288. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Explores limitations with data existing at the time and suggests best practices for obtaining victimization data at the community level through surveys. Provides suggested survey questions. Useful source for those considering data collection efforts.

    Find this resource:

  • Kuehnle, Kristen, and Anne Sullivan. 2003. Gay and lesbian victimization: Reporting factors in domestic violence and bias incidents. Criminal Justice and Behavior 30:85–96.

    DOI: 10.1177/0093854802239164Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Summarizes research with regard to underreporting of bias crimes in general but especially for lesbians and gay men. Accessible to researchers of all levels.

    Find this resource:

  • McDevitt, Jack, Jennifer M. Balboni, Susan Bennett, Joan C. Weiss, Stan Orchowsky, and Lisa Walbolt. 2000. Improving the quality and accuracy of bias crime statistics nationally: An assessment of the first ten years of bias crime data collection. Boston, MA: Center for Criminal Justice Policy Research, Northeastern Univ.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Assessment of current status of hate crime reporting. Studies ways to improve data collection through surveys of law enforcement personnel, surveys of advocacy groups, and examination of law enforcement hate crime training practices. Useful source for researchers using UCR Hate Crime Statistics. Available online.

    Find this resource:

  • Nolan III, James J., and Yoshio Akiyama. 1999. An analysis of factors that affect law enforcement participation in hate crime reporting. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 15:111–127.

    DOI: 10.1177/1043986299015001008Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Examines a variety of factors that may affect the participation of law enforcement agencies in the collection of hate crime data. Provides extensive suggestions for ways to improve reporting of these data. Useful source for researchers using UCR Hate Crime Statistics.

    Find this resource:

  • Nolan III, James J., Yoshio Akiyama, and Samuel Berhanu. 2002. The Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990: Developing a method for measuring the occurrence of hate violence. American Behavioral Scientist 46:136–153.

    DOI: 10.1177/0002764202046001009Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Provides insight into the FBI’s hate crime data collection program and issues with limited participation by law enforcement agencies. Useful source for researchers using UCR Hate Crime Statistics.

    Find this resource:

  • Perry, Barbara. 2001. In the name of hate: Understanding hate crimes. New York: Routledge.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Includes a chapter addressing the difficulties in defining hate crime and provides an accessible overview of these issues. Accessible to researchers of all levels.

    Find this resource:

Issues with Criminalizing Hate Crime

Violence motivated by bias against a particular group is not a new phenomenon (Petrosino 1999). Only in the 1980s, however, was the term “hate crime” created and growing attention given to the issue. In the 1990s a significant amount of debate focused on whether hate crimes should be classified as a separate type of crime and whether hate crime legislation should be enacted. Jacobs and Potter 1998 challenges the need for hate crime legislation. They also question whether criminal law is the appropriate vehicle for eliminating prejudice against particular groups. Other concerns to hate crime legislation focused on the enhancement of penalties for behavior that was already a crime as well as the constitutionality of possibly punishing speech and beliefs (Jacobs and Potter 1998; Gerstenfeld 1992). On the other side of the issue, Jenness and Grattet 2001 supports the enactment of hate crime legislation. They view these laws as serving an important purpose to signal societal intolerance to this form of bias-motivated behavior. Others argued that hate crimes should be punished more severely because of the greater injury inflicted to the victims. McDevitt, et al. 2001 finds support for this argument in comparing victims of both hate crimes and non-bias-motivated offenses. Even more than a decade after the enactment of federal hate crime legislation, the policy implications are still a concern. Recent studies also raise questions with regard to public support for harsher penalties for offenders who commit hate crimes (Steen and Cohen 2004). The enacting of hate crime legislation evokes a controversial issue concerning what groups should be protected. For purposes of the federal Hate Crimes Statistics Act, the FBI only counts hate crimes motivated by race, religion, ethnicity/national origin, sexual orientation, and disability (physical or mental). While all state hate crime laws include bias based on race, religion and ethnicity/national origin, states vary on what other groups are included. A divisive issue is whether gender/sex should be included. McPhail 2002 provides an accessible overview to the arguments for and against including women as a protected status group in hate crime legislation.

  • Gerstenfeld, Phyllis B. 1992. Smile when you call me that!: The problems with punishing hate motivated behavior. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 10:259–285.

    DOI: 10.1002/bsl.2370100209Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Early examination of the issues with enacting hate crime legislation. Includes motivations for enacting laws to punish bias-motivated offenses but also difficulty in defining the concept, possible Constitutional issues, and difficulty in assessing motive. Slightly dated but good for those seeking a quick and accessible overview.

    Find this resource:

  • Jacobs, James B., and Kimberly Potter. 1998. Hate crimes: Criminal law & identity politics. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Challenges the need for hate crime legislation. Suggests hate crime laws may increase bias-related violence rather than mitigate the problem. Questions the presumption of a hate crime epidemic in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Important resource for researchers looking for a more in-depth examination of hate crime laws.

    Find this resource:

  • Jenness, Valerie, and Ryken Grattet. 2001. Making hate a crime: From social movement to law enforcement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Takes a social constructionist and social movement perspective in examining the creation of hate crime legislation. Highlights the symbolic importance of enacting hate crime laws as one part of addressing violence against particular minority groups. Important resource for researchers looking for a more in-depth examination of hate crime laws.

    Find this resource:

  • McDevitt, Jack, Jennifer Balboni, Luis Garcia, Joanne Gu. 2001. Consequences for victims: A comparison of bias- and non-bias-motivated assaults. American Behavioral Scientist 45:697–713.

    DOI: 10.1177/00027640121957321Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Finds victims of bias-motivated assaults incurred more severe psychological injuries than those who experienced similar non-bias-motivated assaults. Accessible resource for researchers new to the issue.

    Find this resource:

  • McPhail, Beverly A. 2002. Gender-bias hate crimes. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 3:125–143.

    DOI: 10.1177/15248380020032003Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Provides an accessible overview that summarizes the issues and debate with regard to including gender as a status category for hate crime legislation. Accessible resource for researchers new to the issue.

    Find this resource:

  • Perry, Barbara. 2001. In the name of hate: Understanding hate crimes. New York: Routledge.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Takes an in-depth approach and focuses on particular issues including the difficulties in defining hate crime and the need for better theoretical explanations for hate crime. Recommended for graduate students and researchers.

    Find this resource:

  • Petrosino, Carolyn. 1999. Connecting the past to the future: Hate crime in America. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 15:22–47.

    DOI: 10.1177/1043986299015001003Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Provides a historical perspective to compare present hate crime patterns and past experiences with minority groups such as Native Americans, African Americans, and Asian Americans. Accessible resource for researchers new to the issue.

    Find this resource:

  • Steen, Sara, and Mark A. Cohen. 2004. Assessing the public’s demand for hate crime penalties. Justice Quarterly 21:91–124.

    DOI: 10.1080/07418820400095751Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Provides current perspective on the debate about hate crime legislation and policy implications of sentencing enhancements. Finds strong public support for hate crime legislation but only minimal support for enhanced penalties for offenders who commit hate crimes.

    Find this resource:

Police and Enforcement of Hate Crime Laws

With the enactment of hate crime legislation, an initial question focused on how police would respond to enforcing these laws. On the individual officer level, speculation arose that enforcement might be affected by factors such as the officers own biases as well as difficulty in ascertaining the requisite motive of the offender (Nolan and Akiyama 1999). On the department level, concerns included how best to investigate these crimes and resource allocation (Nolan and Akiyama 1999; Walker and Katz 1995). The actual manner in which police responded to hate crimes became the subject of extensive research. Martin 1995 studies how police in Baltimore County (Maryland) responded to hate crimes: as it was one of the first departments in the United States to develop hate crime policies. Martin 1999 finds in a follow-up study that officers still confronted difficulty in determining whether a hate crime occurred despite this long-standing history and departmental guidelines. Practices also vary across police departments. These variations can affect the classification of whether an incident is a hate crime and in turn data quality (Boyd, et al. 1996) as well as whether a crime is cleared and whether victims are provided with requisite services (Martin 1996). Cronin, et al. 2007 provides one of the more recent and extensive comparisons of police practices. This study suggests several of the best practices in police reporting of hate crimes.

  • Boyd, Elizabeth A., Richard A. Berk, and Karl M. Hamner. 1996. Motivated by hatred or prejudice: Categorization of hate-motivated crimes in two police divisions. Law & Society Review 30:819–850.

    DOI: 10.2307/3054119Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Examines the decision-making process of police detectives in investigating and classifying hate crimes. Discusses the implications for data quality and comparisons across departments. Suggests best practices.

    Find this resource:

  • Cronin, Shay W., Jack McDevitt, Amy Farrell, and James J. Nolan III. 2007. Bias-crime reporting: Organizational responses to ambiguity, uncertainty, and infrequency in eight police departments. American Behavioral Scientist 51:213–231.

    DOI: 10.1177/0002764207306054Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Examines how eight police departments categorize and report hate crimes. Recommends a two-part system of (1) training for responding officers to identify potential hate crime incidents and (2) establishing protocols for a secondary screening to validate reports.

    Find this resource:

  • Martin, Susan E. 1995. A cross-burning is not just an arson: Police social construction of hate crimes in Baltimore County. Criminology 33:303–326.

    DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1995.tb01180.xSave Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Early assessment of police responses to hate crimes. Examines the problems with defining, identifying, and verifying bias motivation. Explores reasons for a high percentage of failure to verify crimes initially classified as hate crimes.

    Find this resource:

  • Martin, Susan E. 1996. Investigating hate crimes: Case characteristics and law enforcement responses. Justice Quarterly 13:455–480.

    DOI: 10.1080/07418829600093051Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Compares police responses to hate crime in New York City and Baltimore. New York City utilizes a specialized unit and focuses on arrests. Baltimore utilizes patrol officers to investigate hate crimes and focuses on victim services.

    Find this resource:

  • Martin, Susan E. 1999. Police and the production of hate crimes: Continuity and change in one jurisdiction. Police Quarterly 2:417–437.

    DOI: 10.1177/109861119900200402Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Examines Baltimore County (Maryland) police, which was one of the first departments to implement policies for handling hate crimes. Studies the effect of policy and citizen demographics on trends. Explores the difficulty in categorizing incidents and determining motive.

    Find this resource:

  • Nolan III, James J., and Yoshio Akiyama. 1999. An analysis of factors that affect law enforcement participation in hate crime reporting. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 15:111–127.

    DOI: 10.1177/1043986299015001008Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Examines factors that may affect the collection of hate crime data from police, including departmental and individual officer attitudes toward enforcement of hate crimes.

    Find this resource:

  • Walker, Samuel, and Charles M. Katz. 1995. Less than meets the eye: Police department bias-crime units. American Journal of Police 14:29–48.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Discusses the difficulty in interpreting hate crime laws for police officers. Provides an assessment of bias-crime units and a description of the variety of types of units created in response to hate crime laws.

    Find this resource:

Victims of Hate Crime

Perry 2001 provides a good overview of issues specific to hate crime victims as well as victimization targeting particular groups. Although the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990 was motivated in part because of a series of arsons in predominately African American churches, relatively little literature has examined racially motivated hate crimes. Torres 1999 uses police data to examine trends in hate crimes reported by African American victims. A relatively small amount of research attention has been given to religiously motivated hate crimes despite the attention groups such as the Anti-Defamation League have given to anti-Semitic violence. Since 9/11, some attention has been given to examining trends in anti-Islamic hate crimes (Kaplan 2006). A significant amount of research examines hate crimes targeting victims because of their sexual orientation (Herek and Berrill 1992; Herek, et al. 2002). Although most of this work focuses on the United States, Tiby 2001 examines hate crimes against gay men and lesbians in Stockholm. Although Herek, et al. 2002 studies hate crimes based on sexual orientation, this work applies to victims of other status groups, especially with regard to the markers victims use in determining that an incident was a hate crime.

  • Herek, Gregory M., and Kevin T. Berrill. 1992. Hate crimes: Confronting violence against lesbians and gay men. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Edited volume that includes chapters addressing the extent and context of the problem, motivation of offenders, and policy responses for victims. Includes first-person accounts from victims of these hate crimes. Early and extensive view of hate crimes based on sexual orientation.

    Find this resource:

  • Herek, Gregory M., Jeanine C. Cogan, and Roy J. Gillis. 2002. Victim experiences in hate crimes based on sexual orientation. Journal of Social Issues 58:319–339.

    DOI: 10.1111/1540-4560.00263Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Examines the varieties of hate crimes based on sexual orientation, how victims determine the incident was a hate crime, and whether victims report to the police.

    Find this resource:

  • Kaplan, Jeffrey. 2006. Islamophobia in America?: September 11 and Islamophobic hate crime. Terrorism and Political Violence 18:1–33.

    DOI: 10.1080/09546550500383209Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Examines sharp rise in hate crimes targeting Muslims immediately after 9/11 and provides explanations for the trend.

    Find this resource:

  • Perry, Barbara. 2001. In the name of hate: Understanding hate crimes. New York: Routledge.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Includes chapters that provide an overview of victimization issues and discusses victimization of members of particular status groups (such as racial minorities, women, and homosexuals). Helpful initial resource to those new to the topic.

    Find this resource:

  • Tiby, Eva. 2001. Victimization and fear among lesbians and gay men in Stockholm. International Review of Victimology 8:217–243.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Compares victims and nonvictims of hate crimes. Finds victimization differences vary based on openness in sexual identity and participation in nightlife activities. Prior victimization affects current levels of fear.

    Find this resource:

  • Torres, Sam. 1999. Hate crimes against African Americans: The extent of the problem. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 15:48–63.

    DOI: 10.1177/1043986299015001004Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Uses UCR Hate Crime Statistics data to explore patterns in hate crimes reported by African Americans. One of the few studies to explore racially motivated hate crimes.

    Find this resource:

Offenders Who Commit Hate Crimes

Relatively little attention has been given to studying offenders who commit hate crimes. Levin and McDevitt 2002 develops an initial typology to explain the motivation of hate crime offenders. McDevitt, et al. 2002 expands upon this typology of hate crime motivation. Phillips 2009 provides an initial test of this typology. In her examination of hate crime prosecutions, she found the majority of cases could not be classified into one of the categories. Craig 2002 synthesizes hate crime studies from social psychology, sociology, and criminal justice and provides an overview of the causes of these crimes and characteristics of the offenders. An example of research that focuses on one type of hate crime is Byers, et al. 2002. This work focuses on offenders who target Amish victims.

  • Byers, Bryan D., Benjamin W. Crider, and Gregory K. Biggers. 2002. Bias crime motivation: A study of hate crimes and offender neutralization techniques used against the Amish. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 15:78–96.

    DOI: 10.1177/1043986299015001006Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Studied the motivations of anti-Amish hate crime offenders. Offenders use various techniques to justify their actions, such as viewing offenses as low risk and victims as easy targets.

    Find this resource:

  • Craig, Kellina M. 2002. Examining hate-motivated aggression: A review of the social psychological literature on hate crimes as a distinct form of aggression. Aggression and Violent Behavior 7:86–101.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Summarizes current literature and provides a useful overview of the causes of hate crimes and characteristics of the offenders. Accessible source for researchers of all levels.

    Find this resource:

  • Levin, Jack, and McDevitt, Jack. 2002. Hate crimes revisited: America’s war on those who are different. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    An accessible explanation of motivations for hate crime offenders and underlying causes of hate crime.

    Find this resource:

  • McDevitt, Jack, Jack Levin, and Susan Bennett. 2002. Hate crime offenders: An expanded typology. Journal of Social Issues 58:303–317.

    DOI: 10.1111/1540-4560.00262Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Examines motivations for hate crime offenders, which include thrill seekers, those defending their “turf,” those on a mission to eliminate certain groups, and those who are retaliating. Argues that these underlying motives suggest different levels of culpability and varying sanctions.

    Find this resource:

  • Phillips, Nickie D. 2009. The prosecution of hate crimes: The limitations of hate crime typology. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 24:883–905.

    DOI: 10.1177/0886260508317190Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Tests Levin and McDevitt’s typology using cases prosecuted as hate crimes in a single New Jersey county. Finds one third of the cases cannot be readily classified, especially when bias is not the sole motivation.

    Find this resource:

International Issues

Two special issues of the journal American Behavioral Scientist examined hate crimes and included several articles that provide an international perspective. The 2001 special issue was devoted to examining hate crime and ethnic conflicts in a comparative perspective (Levin and Rabrenovic 2001). This issue included studies on persecution of gypsies in Europe, skinheads in Germany, and lessons from Rwanda. MacGinty 2001 provides a comparative look at the United States with other countries. He explores the paradox that the United States is not a deeply divided country (in contrast to Northern Ireland or South Africa); but unlike those countries, the United States has a significant level of hate crime. The 2007 special issue of the American Behavioral Scientist examines hate crimes more generally; but the issue includes articles examining hate crimes in individual countries, including crimes against immigrants in Sweden, hate crimes in London, and anti-Semitic crimes in the UK. Bleich 2007 takes a comparative look at hate crime policies in three European countries. In addition to these special issues, Jansson 2006 and van Dijk, et al. 2007 report on findings from international data collections. Jansson explores reports of racially motivated crime in the UK, and van Dijk, et al. compares hate crime across several EU Member States.

LAST MODIFIED: 06/25/2013

DOI: 10.1093/OBO/9780195396607-0022

back to top

Article

Up

Down