Hate Crimes

There are a variety of considerations related to the measurement of violence. Concerns regarding collection of primary data include the fact that violence is rare, and typical samples would yield very low variability. Self-report data may provide rich detail, but asking questions about violent behavior may result in social desirability biases. Techniques such as life history calendars have enhanced data collection in some studies. Children may be too young to respond to surveys; measuring their physical aggression can be done with ratings. Aggregate measures of violence are typically derived from government reports. The primary source of official crime data in the United States has been the summary Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), collected from police departments by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for many decades, but it has been replaced by the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), a change made nationwide as of 2021. Considerable gaps in the data are expected to be narrowed as local jurisdictions and states adapt to the new system. To complement UCR and NIBRS official estimates of reported crime, the Bureau of Justice Statistics also fields the annual National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) to understand victimization in more depth. Researchers wishing to use these sources of data should be aware of the many published discussions of limitations and caveats for each data set. Those interested in studying specific forms of violent crime, including homicide, rape, robbery, and assault, should be aware of idiosyncrasies in the measurement of those crime types. For homicide, there are a variety of additional sources of official data, such as the Supplemental Homicide Reports, the National Vital Statistics System, and the National Death Index. Changes in the collection of assault data, including a move away from the “aggravated assault” category commonly used in the past by UCR and NCVS, deserve particular attention. Cross-national data are limited, and most investigators rely on World Health Organization data for homicide or the International Crime Victimization Survey. These have limited reach and scope compared to Interpol reports that were available in the past. Researchers interested in individual-level data should also be aware that there are many large-scale, secondary data sets available for analysis. These are sometimes restricted and require approval of an application to access sensitive data. Data include those derived from longitudinal studies of children and teenagers such as AddHealth and the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, the Social Development Project, the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development, the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study, and the Pathways to Desistance study. There are several other categories of violence that deserve special attention. Because family violence is underreported to police, and official sources of data are thought to be inadequate, researchers have been systematically working to measure and track domestic violence for a long time. The data and reports generally come from noncriminal justice agencies. Many studies use the Conflict Tactics Scale and the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale(CTS2) to gauge intimate partner violence. This index includes subscales that account for severity of violence and context (e.g., fighting in self-defense). The CTS2 has been adapted for a variety of family and dating relationships. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention fields the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, and researchers may access those data. In the early 21st century, the public and researchers have expressed growing interest in violence by and against the police, and there are now several sources of data for researchers to use. These include the Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted data collection program and nongovernment sources such as The Washington Post’s police shootings database. Similarly, for those interested in gun violence, government sources are limited, and many investigators turn to nongovernment sources such as the Gun Violence Archive, which has no government or advocacy affiliation. Finally, those interested specifically in mass violence will also find the National Mass Violence Resource Center. The magazine Mother Jones publishes data on mass shooting events, by year, dating back to 1982, and The Washington Post and USA Today also publish an archive of mass violence events.

As the number of refugees rises across the world, anti‐refugee violence has become a pressing concern. What explains the incidence and support of such hate crime? We argue that fears among native men that refugees pose a threat in the competition for female partners are a critical but understudied factor driving hate crime. Employing a comprehensive data set on the incidence of hate crime across Germany, we first demonstrate that hate crime rises where men face disadvantages in local mating markets. Next, we complement this ecological evidence with original survey measures and confirm that individual‐level support for hate crime increases when men fear that the inflow of refugees makes it more difficult to find female partners. Mate competition concerns remain a robust predictor even when controlling for anti‐refugee views, perceived job competition, general frustration, and aggressiveness. We conclude that a more complete understanding of hate crime and immigrant conflict must incorporate marriage markets and mate competition.

The relationship between traditional gender role ideology and homophobia has frequently been suggested in social science literature. Few studies, however, have empirically examined the relationship between these cultural conceptions, and far fewer studies have linked gender roles and homophobia to actual behaviors. This study fills a gap in the existing literature by incorporating attitudinal measures of gender role ideology and homophobia from the General Social Survey with macro level indicators of gender stratification when examining acts of gay and lesbian hate crime victimization. Specifically we estimate whether macro level indicators of attitudes toward gays and lesbians and gender views have direct and indirect effects on incidents of hate crime. We find that homophobia and gender stratification directly influence the incidents of hate crime victimization. Although we also find an empirical relationship between gender role ideology and homophobia, homophobia does not mediate the relationship between gender role ideology and incidents of hate crimes based on sexual orientation. Implications of our findings are discussed.

LGBT people in the United States continue to experience discrimination because of their sexual orientation and gender identity, despite increasing acceptance of LGBT people and legal recognition of marriage for same-sex couples nationwide. This ongoing discrimination can lead to under- and unemployment, resulting in socioeconomic disparities for LGBT people. In addition, empirical research has linked LGBT health disparities, including disparities in health-related risk factors, to experiences of stigma and discrimination. Currently, federal statutes in the United States do not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in employment, housing, or public accommodations, leaving regulation in this area primarily to state and local governments. This creates a limited and uneven patchwork of protections from discrimination against LGBT people across the country. Despite public support for LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination laws across the country, in 28 states there are no statewide statutory protections for LGBT people in employment, housing, or public accommodations. To date, only 20 states and the District of Columbia have enacted comprehensive non-discrimination statutes that expressly prohibit discrimination based on both sexual orientation and gender identity in all three of these areas. One additional state has statutes that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination, but not gender identity discrimination, in these areas. One other state prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment and housing, but not in public accommodations. In states without statutes that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity, there are other policies that afford LGBT people at least some limited protections from discrimination. In some of these states, state executive branch officials have expanded non-discrimination protections for LGBT people under their executive or agency powers. For example, in three states, state government agencies have expanded broad protections from sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination through administrative regulations. And, in 12 states without statutes prohibiting discrimination against LGBT people, governors have issued executive orders that protect state government employees (and sometimes employees of state government contractors) from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In addition, local government ordinances provide another source of protection from discrimination; however, these laws are generally unenforceable in court and provide much more limited remedies than statewide non-discrimination statutes. In recent years, lawmakers have increasingly attempted to limit the reach of state and local non-discrimination laws, which can leave LGBT people vulnerable to discrimination. For example, some states have passed laws allowing religiously motivated discrimination and others have passed laws prohibiting local governments from enacting their own non-discrimination ordinances that are broader than state non-discrimination laws. While most of these bills have not passed, the recent increase in the introduction of these measures suggests that state legislatures will continue to consider rolling back non-discrimination protections for LGBT people in the coming years. Continued efforts are required at both the state and federal levels to ensure that LGBT people are fully protected from discrimination based on their sexual orientation and gender identity throughout the United States, including federal legislation and statewide bills in over half the states.

A Systematic Review of Inflammatory Bowel Disease Epidemiology and Health Outcomes in Sexual and Gender Minority Individuals

Hate crimes continue to be a pervasive problem in the United States. The murder of Matthew Shepard, the lynching of James Byrd, the murderous rampage of Benjamin Smith, and anti-Muslim violence remind us that incidence of deadly bigotry is not only a recurring chapter in U.S. history, but also a part of our present-day world. Contrary to common belief, hate mongers who commit crimes are rarely members of the Ku Klux Klan or a skinhead group. In fact, fewer than 5 percent of identifiable offenders are members of organized hate groups. Yet rather than being an individual crime, hate crime represents an assault against all members of stigmatized and marginalized communities. To fully understand the phenomenon of hate crime and reduce its incidence, it is necessary to clearly define the term itself, to examine the victims and the offenders, and to evaluate the consequences and harms of hate crimes. This comprehensive five-volume set carefully addresses the disturbing variety and incidence of hate crimes, exposing their impacts on the broader realms of crime, punishment, individual communities, and society. The contributing authors and editors pay critical attention to cutting-edge topics such as online hate crimes, hate-based music, anti-Latino hostilities, Islamaphobia, hate crimes in the War on Terror, school-based anti-hate initiatives, and more. The final volume of Hate Crimes provides valuable food for thought on possible legislative, educational, social policy, or community organizational responses to the varied forms of hate crime.

Hate crimes continue to be a pervasive problem in the United States. The murder of Matthew Shepard, the lynching of James Byrd, the murderous rampage of Benjamin Smith, and anti-Muslim violence remind us that incidence of deadly bigotry is not only a recurring chapter in U.S. history, but also a part of our present-day world. Contrary to common belief, hate mongers who commit crimes are rarely members of the Ku Klux Klan or a skinhead group. In fact, fewer than 5 percent of identifiable offenders are members of organized hate groups. Yet rather than being an individual crime, hate crime represents an assault against all members of stigmatized and marginalized communities. To fully understand the phenomenon of hate crime and reduce its incidence, it is necessary to clearly define the term itself, to examine the victims and the offenders, and to evaluate the consequences and harms of hate crimes. This comprehensive five-volume set carefully addresses the disturbing variety and incidence of hate crimes, exposing their impacts on the broader realms of crime, punishment, individual communities, and society. The contributing authors and editors pay critical attention to cutting-edge topics such as online hate crimes, hate-based music, anti-Latino hostilities, Islamaphobia, hate crimes in the War on Terror, school-based anti-hate initiatives, and more. The final volume of Hate Crimes provides valuable food for thought on possible legislative, educational, social policy, or community organizational responses to the varied forms of hate crime.

Hate/bias crime against racial/ethnic minorities in the United States: A systematic review of empirical research and assessment of next steps

The legacy of slavery on hate crime in the United States

ABSTRACTSeveral studies have described and analyzed the development and diffusion of hate crime laws in the United States, but none specifically examined state-level differences in protected categories. Forty-five of the 50 states have a hate crime statute, but only 30 of those include sexual orientation. In this study the social construction framework is applied to the hate crime policy domain in order to determine whether or not variations in the social and political status of gays and lesbians are associated with the inclusion of sexual orientation in state hate crime laws. Content analysis of daily newspapers in six states revealed that a positive social construction is associated with groups seeking hate crime law protections, and that political influence may also be a key factor.

ABSTRACTLittle is understood about how sexual orientation and gender identity actually interconnect with transgender men. Eight transgender men were interviewed in depth, multiple times, and their perspectives gave insight into how sexual and gender identities are related, and how one informs the other. The present study found fluidity in gender and sexual identities among transgender men, but some trans men were more binary than others with regard to gender. These binary-leaning trans men also tended to be more binary in their sexual orientation. Fluidity in gender in pre-transition often reflected fluidity in sexual orientation. Mental health professionals may gain a better understanding of how the intersectionality of sexual and gender identities manifests in trans men. Implications for practitioners are included.

Nowadays, registered hate crimes are on the rise in many Western societies. What explains temporal variation in the incidence of hate crimes? Combining insights from the grievance model and the opportunity model, we study the role of three types of contextual factors: security (terrorism), media (news about terrorism and immigration), and political factors (speech by anti-immigration actors, hate speech prosecution, and high-profile anti-immigration victories). We apply time-series analysis to our original dataset of registered hate crimes in the Netherlands, 2015–2017 (N = 7,219). Findings indicate that terrorist attacks, (both print and online) news on refugees, immigration, and terrorism boost nonviolent hate crime. Similarly, news of the hate speech prosecution of Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders increases nonviolent crime as well. Tentative evidence points to a contagion effect of speech by anti-immigration actors. With regard to violent hate crime, only terrorist attacks had an effect. This effect was modest and only found in one of our models. Hence, the grievance and the opportunities model each partially explain nonviolent hate crime, although the security and media context seem most influential. Our findings help to identify the contextual factors contributing to a climate for hate and suggest that perceived threats play a key role.

One of the advantages of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is that it is a large-scale data collection that allows data to be analyzed on various subpopulations. Since the survey’s inception, there have been changes to the population, law, and areas of public interest. In July of 2016, questions were added to the NCVS on citizenship, veteran status, sexual orientation, and gender identity. In addition, changes were made to existing questions on disability status and household income. This allowed for analysis of criminal victimization against more demographic groups. This article discusses these changes and provides estimates of violent victimization by these demographic characteristics.

The authors apply age standardization methods to the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) to assess the effects of age composition changes on long-term (1980 to 1996) and short-term trends (1992 to 1996) in index crimes. Key findings include large age composition effects on crime rates during the 1980s but diminishing effects by the mid-1990s; UCR and NCVS disagree somewhat about long-term trends but agree about short-term trends: UCR shows age-adjusted crime rates rising in the 1980s, with index crime at about the same level today as it was in 1980, whereas the NCVS shows steadily declining rates throughout the 1980 to 1996/1998 period. Both sources show across-the-board declines in crime rates during the Clinton years. The authors interpret the crime trends as due to varied changes in reporting programs as well as basic changes in society and extend the rate adjustment procedures to forecast crime trends into the next century.

Chief complaint: “I feel like I have the brain of a man. Am I crazy?” On her first visit to a psychiatrist ( J.M.B.), “Ms. C,” a 48year-old woman, asked this question about her confused gender identity. Having also discovered a primary sexual attraction to women, Ms. C was having difficulty reconciling her church’s injunctions against sinful homosexual activities with her sense of herself as fundamentally male. She was dressed in a subtly frilly blouse and leather jacket she called “my leather-and-lace look.” Encircling each wrist were tattooed bracelets, traceries of curlicues and rosebuds that gently contradicted pearl earrings and a delicate gold locket. Born in the early 1950s and raised resolutely as a girl, Ms. C did not learn until she was 23 and married the unusual circumstances of her birth. Her mother finally divulged that she had entered the world with strange-looking genitals—neither male nor female. Doctors told her parents it was best to remove the odd tissue, fashion what remained to look female, and raise her as if nothing unusual had happened. At 6 months, surgeons removed both external tissue and presumed intra-abdominal testicular tissue and fashioned labia around the vaginal entrance she had always had. In grade school, she was told her large abdominal scar resulted from herniorrhaphy. At 12, after starting daily estrogen pills to induce puberty, she developed breasts and feminine curves, although without menarche or an increase in height beyond 5 feet. Her mother said she could not have children but did not explain why. She recalls being a tomboy who preferred boys for playmates. Because of her small stature and feminine appearance, however, boys were not particularly comfortable hanging out with her. Then, as now, she identified with the way males think rather than a sense of being physically male. She dated boys in high school, had a sexual experience with a woman during college, and married a man with whom she enjoyed satisfying marital relations for nearly two decades until they experienced a menage a trois. Her husband fell in love with the other woman, and she kindled awareness of her greater attraction to women than men. The marriage ended, and she embarked upon two long-term lesbian relationships and a struggle with alcoholism. Ms. C found sobriety and her church while that second relationship was unraveling. Welcomed and spiritually nurtured by church members, she felt happy except for increasing discontent with her pastor’s insistence that homosexual desires were her “cross to bear” and her options were either heterosexual marriage or celibacy. On one hand, her personal theology concurred that homosexuality was against God’s plan. On the other, she struggled with identifying herself as either man or woman, a dilemma her pastor could not solve. Ms. C’s childhood medical records had been lost. The psychiatrist asked if she had been karyotyped, given her unusual birth. She did not know. When she was born, chromosome testing was not routinely available. Given medical advice to raise her unquestioningly as a girl, the issue had not resurfaced. The psychiatrist suggested the test, and when results revealed 45,X/ 46,XY chromosomes, 75% the latter, the fragments—the childhood operation, hormones, her short stature, “brain of a man”—fell into place. She immediately reported feeling “less of a freak” now that she had a name—“intersexual”—for her condition.