Hate Crime
Hate Crime
Defining the Problem. The term "hate crime" was coined in the 1980s by journalists and policy advocates who were attempting to describe a series of incidents directed at Jews, Asians, and African-Americans. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines hate crime (also known as bias crime) as "a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin" (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2007). Washington and Oregon were the first states to pass hate crime legislation in 1981; today, 49 states have hate crime statutes. States vary with regard to the groups protected under hate crime laws (e.g., religion, race or ethnicity, and sexual orientation), the range of crimes covered, and the penalty enhancements for offenders. Most states and large cities now have hate crime task forces coordinating across several levels of government and working with community organizations.
Uneven Data Collection Makes Estimating Prevalence Difficult
Accurate estimates of the prevalence of hate crime remain elusive because of differences in data collection efforts across jurisdictions. In addition to varying state definitions, differences in law enforcement training, statistical reporting provisions, and attitudes toward hate crime as a legitimately separate class of crime all make it harder for law enforcement and researchers to establish the scope of the problem. In 1990, Congress passed the Hate Crime Statistics Act, which required the U.S. Department of Justice to acquire crime data from law enforcement agencies and publish an annual summary of findings. The FBI led a coordinated effort to collect hate crime data via the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) system.
In 2006, law enforcement agencies voluntarily reported 7,720 single-bias hate crime incidents (involving 9,076 offenses, 9,642 victims, and 7,324 known offenders) to the FBI. Almost 52 percent were racially motivated and 19 percent were motivated by religious bias. Bias against sexual orientation and ethnicity or national origin accounted for another 16 percent and 13 percent, respectively (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2007).
Estimates from victim interviews reported as part of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) far exceed these numbers. NCVS indicates that approximately 191,000 hate crime incidents occur annually. Results from victim interviews indicate that only 44 percent of victimizations were reported to the police (Harlow, 2005). Only about 20 percent of these were validated by law enforcement as bias related.
source:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/crime/hate-crime/welcome.htm
What Motivates Hate Offenders?
One study classified hate crime offenders into four categories that differ with respect to the psychological and situational factors that lead to hate crime offending (McDevitt, Levin, and Bennett, 2002). This typology is widely used by law enforcement for training officers in the investigation and identification of hate crime.
Exhibit 1. Hate Crime Offender Typology
Offender Type/Characterization
Thrill-seeking. Motivated by the desire for excitement.
Defensive. Commit hate crimes to protect their neighborhood from perceived outsiders.
Retaliatory. Acting in response to a hate crime—either real or perceived.
Mission. So strongly committed to bigotry that they make hate a career.
source:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/crime/hate-crime/motivation.htm
Research Findings on Hate Crimes
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, race is the most common motivating factor in hate crime offending reported to the police (61 percent), followed by religion (14 percent), sexual orientation (13 percent), ethnicity (11 percent), and victim disability (1 percent). In racially motivated offenses, 60 percent targeted blacks and 30 percent targeted whites. [1]
Responses to hate crime range from changes in legislation to law enforcement training aimed at improving responses to these crimes; to investigation, prosecution, and prevention of hate crimes; to victim support programs; to diversity and tolerance education programs. [2] Most States and metropolitan areas have some form of government-sponsored hate crime initiative involving criminal justice agencies. Municipal police departments in many large urban areas have hate crime units within their department, and police departments are often involved as members of State or regional hate crime task forces.
The Federal Government has also supported several initiatives to address hate crime. The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), for example, has provided funding for the Center for the Prevention of Hate Violence at the University of Southern Maine to produce a series of reports on BJA-supported initiatives and State and local demonstration projects. Many recommendations and "best practice" suggestions for how to effectively address, prevent, and respond to hate crime have emerged over the past 15 years. Although these recommendations are derived from practical experience and expert opinion and appear well-conceived, none of the myriad criminal justice responses has been subjected to rigorous empirical evaluation.
source:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/crime/hate-crime/research-findings.htm
Defining the Problem. The term "hate crime" was coined in the 1980s by journalists and policy advocates who were attempting to describe a series of incidents directed at Jews, Asians, and African-Americans. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines hate crime (also known as bias crime) as "a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin" (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2007). Washington and Oregon were the first states to pass hate crime legislation in 1981; today, 49 states have hate crime statutes. States vary with regard to the groups protected under hate crime laws (e.g., religion, race or ethnicity, and sexual orientation), the range of crimes covered, and the penalty enhancements for offenders. Most states and large cities now have hate crime task forces coordinating across several levels of government and working with community organizations.
Uneven Data Collection Makes Estimating Prevalence Difficult
Accurate estimates of the prevalence of hate crime remain elusive because of differences in data collection efforts across jurisdictions. In addition to varying state definitions, differences in law enforcement training, statistical reporting provisions, and attitudes toward hate crime as a legitimately separate class of crime all make it harder for law enforcement and researchers to establish the scope of the problem. In 1990, Congress passed the Hate Crime Statistics Act, which required the U.S. Department of Justice to acquire crime data from law enforcement agencies and publish an annual summary of findings. The FBI led a coordinated effort to collect hate crime data via the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) system.
In 2006, law enforcement agencies voluntarily reported 7,720 single-bias hate crime incidents (involving 9,076 offenses, 9,642 victims, and 7,324 known offenders) to the FBI. Almost 52 percent were racially motivated and 19 percent were motivated by religious bias. Bias against sexual orientation and ethnicity or national origin accounted for another 16 percent and 13 percent, respectively (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2007).
Estimates from victim interviews reported as part of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) far exceed these numbers. NCVS indicates that approximately 191,000 hate crime incidents occur annually. Results from victim interviews indicate that only 44 percent of victimizations were reported to the police (Harlow, 2005). Only about 20 percent of these were validated by law enforcement as bias related.
source:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/crime/hate-crime/welcome.htm
What Motivates Hate Offenders?
One study classified hate crime offenders into four categories that differ with respect to the psychological and situational factors that lead to hate crime offending (McDevitt, Levin, and Bennett, 2002). This typology is widely used by law enforcement for training officers in the investigation and identification of hate crime.
Exhibit 1. Hate Crime Offender Typology
Offender Type/Characterization
Thrill-seeking. Motivated by the desire for excitement.
Defensive. Commit hate crimes to protect their neighborhood from perceived outsiders.
Retaliatory. Acting in response to a hate crime—either real or perceived.
Mission. So strongly committed to bigotry that they make hate a career.
source:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/crime/hate-crime/motivation.htm
Research Findings on Hate Crimes
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, race is the most common motivating factor in hate crime offending reported to the police (61 percent), followed by religion (14 percent), sexual orientation (13 percent), ethnicity (11 percent), and victim disability (1 percent). In racially motivated offenses, 60 percent targeted blacks and 30 percent targeted whites. [1]
Responses to hate crime range from changes in legislation to law enforcement training aimed at improving responses to these crimes; to investigation, prosecution, and prevention of hate crimes; to victim support programs; to diversity and tolerance education programs. [2] Most States and metropolitan areas have some form of government-sponsored hate crime initiative involving criminal justice agencies. Municipal police departments in many large urban areas have hate crime units within their department, and police departments are often involved as members of State or regional hate crime task forces.
The Federal Government has also supported several initiatives to address hate crime. The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), for example, has provided funding for the Center for the Prevention of Hate Violence at the University of Southern Maine to produce a series of reports on BJA-supported initiatives and State and local demonstration projects. Many recommendations and "best practice" suggestions for how to effectively address, prevent, and respond to hate crime have emerged over the past 15 years. Although these recommendations are derived from practical experience and expert opinion and appear well-conceived, none of the myriad criminal justice responses has been subjected to rigorous empirical evaluation.
source:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/crime/hate-crime/research-findings.htm
Megjegyzések
Megjegyzés küldése