Abstract
Hate crimes have been a longtime surviving problem and challenge in America. In the early 19th century, lynching was a common crime, and mostly based on racial segregation. By the early 1950’s hate crimes had advanced from purely racial to include crimes and violence against the gay members of society and gender based hate crimes. Hate crimes are born out of prejudice which comes across in the form of scape goating and stereotyping. For decades now, the focus has been on understanding the effects of such hate crimes, and therefore providing recommendations based on the emergency nature of the problem. Today, hate crimes affect and have effect not on a singular group, race or ethnicity but rather on a diverse range of people. This paper sets itself to examine the main drivers for hate crime offenders. Different forms of hate crime have different drivers. Understanding such drivers provides a basis for providing substantial and sustainable solutions to the problem of hate crimes in America.
People Also Read
Introduction
In every society, there exists a foundation of prejudice and subsequent differences between people living in the society; this is often the foundation of hate crimes. According to Perry (2002) hate crimes are violent crimes that are born out of perceived privilege and intolerance to people who are perceived not to enjoy such privileges. The perpetrator often feels they are privileged by virtue of their choices, membership to particular groups and natural abilities over others. The victim on the other hand, has membership to what is considered lower groups, different natural abilities and lacks the ability to make similar choices to the perpetrator. Levin and McDevitt (2013) cautions that by definition, most people make the assumption that there must be proof of hate for the crime to be considered a hate crime. However, the existence of hate is not a pre-requisite to the action being considered hate crime, rather there must be existence of a bias attitude which propagated the crime thus giving birth to the action.
Hate crimes have become so common that it is difficult to keep track of the rising occurrences across the globe and the country. Today, the pursuit to end hate crimes has become a matter of emergency for governments and human rights organizations worldwide. Herek et al.(2013) estimates that since the year 2013, more than 1300 lies have been lost to hate crimes; and these are only those that were reported and recorded as hate crimes. Even more deaths are estimated to have occurred under this category. In addition, there have been many injuries, accidents and even property damages that are attributed to hate crimes. Even with a society that is considered to be fully modernized, the problem of hate crime seems to be interacted into our very existence.
Background to the problem
For the third consecutive year, hate crimes around the major cities in the USA have increased in prevalence, occurrence as well as seriousness of injury. This is despite growing efforts by many groups to address the growing level of hate crimes (Shively 2005). Both the policing communities as well as human rights organizations have increased the focus on the problem of hate crime following various vigorous responses to incidences. Each group involved in the law has been sensitized to severity and the need of addressing the problem of hate crimes. However, there is considerable disparity with how various organizations and institutions respond t hate crimes. This has led to some level of tolerance as the American society buries its head and ignores what is soon to become an emergency. In some cases, institutions including the police feel that the acts of crime that is hate crime in themselves are either justified or not serious enough to warrant the pursuit of justice. Hate is slowly transforming to a functional element of society, bringing people together instead of drawing them apart.
One of the difficulties in addressing the problem of hate crime is under reporting. Majority of the victims often feel that the crime is given little attention and exposes them to more danger. This leads to lower reporting of the same crimes. In fact even with the rising statistics reported by the FBI, it remains clear that even more cases of hate crime are not reported. Petrosino (1999) states that the American law requires proof of hate in the existence of the crime. Such proof is often difficult and in some cases immediately ignored and not directly pursued, the result is that individuals are unable to pursue justice and are less motivated to make reports of hate crimes. The sensitive nature of hate crimes also leads to fear among the victims for further victimization. Taking into account for example, gender violence or hate crimes based on gender, victims often feel that they are victimized once again when perpetrators are either let go, or when they have to prove that they did not invite or incite the attention that led to the criminal behavior. Victims of racially motivated hate crimes on the other hand, often fear the process of justice which in many cases is biased so that the punishment is not equal to the crime itself. It is important to note that in some states, hate crimes are not recognized in a special category but are rather tried as normal crimes making it difficult to prosecute, and seek justice for the victims. Such states include Indiana, Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina and Wyoming. Coupled with this is the fact that for many prosecutors in the state, hate crimes draw too much attention and are less attractive in comparison to other crimes.
Research has shown that among all other forms of hate crimes, race and sexual orientation crimes continue to remain higher within the country (Iganski 2001). Recent attacks against the country, and continued security measures which have been on the increase have resurrected the hate and emotional abuse that comes with fear. Majority of Americans often feel that the society itself is poorly protected and therefore with an increase of migrant populations comes an increase in crime. This disturbing perception has been made even more popular in the current political climate were policies and agendas have focused on segregating people based on their racial origin. With politicians taking advantage of the sensitivity of the matter, it is not surprising that the country has experienced a surge in hate crimes.
Morality remains a concern for many Americans. There are many who feel that specific behaviors encourage immorality and render the society poor in terms of standing out morally. These includes the increased perceptions and attitudes against the gays and LGBT community. For many, the society does not represent a choice but rather a planting of immoral behavior which in turn infests society. This is why majority of the victims are often figures of authority as well as influential persons in the country. They are often subjected to the situations where they have to justify their choices. The LGBT community often fail to report the cases because they fear further victimization in the legal process which has done little to protect victims and pursue justice on their behalf.
As terrorist attacks increase, concern has been raised over propaganda spread with regard to particular religions especially Muslims. Due to their outstanding dressing and mannerisms, majority of Americans are likely to react in fear when they encounter or come across a Muslim or person of other religion. It is assumed that simply because of their religious choices, they have become radicalized. This is despite the fact that Muslim societies, human rights organization and American Muslims have stood out and spoken against such prejudice (Welch 2006). Muslims are most likely to face hate crime, since perpetrators often feel that society would support their actions and they are justified in the choices that they make. Every time an attack occurs, despite the number of people affected and the distance from the area where the attack occurred, Muslims are likely to face increasing threats, continued harassment and even assault or murder. The problem is that even where they report cases such as this, they are often left to fend for themselves. Police and legal institutions are less inclined to protect them and their beliefs. They may even face further victimization as they are forced to prove their case, endure further questioning and justify their desire to pursue justice. They find that they are often treated as “less American” than others including their perpetrators.
Forms of hate crimes
Religious hate crimes: Jeness and Grattet (2001) states that religious hate crimes have increased by more than 23% in the past decade in the united states alone. Religious hate crimes are crimes that are propagated by differences in religion and faith alone. They are crimes against other people, their property and threats against their own wellbeing based on the fact that they come from different faiths. Recent increase in religious hate crimes can be attributed to the continued popularity and belief that particular faiths emphasize and teach their faithful to engage in violence. In a country where freedom of religion is touted a right for citizens, the concern over growing intolerance for minority religions is alarming. Religious hate crimes are born out of perceived notions with regard to other religions, whether such perceptions are true or not. They also include crimes against religious institutions and organizations such as churches, mosques and centers of worship.
Disability hate crime: this is behavior and hostility that guided to an individual because of their disability or connection to the disability. It remains the most under recorded type of hate crime, since police officers do not take it seriously and often ignore the seriousness of the crime. Because of the nature and ability of the victim, disability hate crimes may take place over a long period of time, covering months and even weeks (Craig 2002). It is simply prejudice that takes advantage of what the victim is unable to do for themselves, so that the perpetrator develops the perception that the victim is particularly or fully to blame for the crime and actions directed towards them.
Racial hate crimes: Race is the most common form of hate crime. For decades now civil societies have addressed the problem of race and racial prejudice. Even in the formal workplaces, the problem of race prejudice is one which cannot be ignored. In fact King et al. (2009) state that racial hate crimes have formed the foundation for all policies directed at hate crimes. Hate crimes are born from the perception that a particular race and color of people are better than others. They therefore have the right to treat or mistreat others as part of exercising their privilege. Racial hate crimes have developed far from individual victims and perpetrators to established institutions that hold particular people higher simply because of their race. Under the law, the actions of the perpetrator must be motivated by the desire to belittle to engage the victim on the basis of their race alone. Secondly, such actions must be deemed under the law to be criminal. Because of the prevalence of racial hate crimes, much has been recorded and recommended in pursuit of ending the centuries old form of criminal behavior.
Sexual orientated hate crimes: The immediate victims of sexual orientation propagated hate crimes include individuals who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered. What is concerning however is that despite the existence of third form of crime, since the early 1960’s, there are states which are yet to categories and rate policies surrounding this particular form of hate crime. According to the FBI statistics as quoted by Dunbar (2006), 60.4% of the sexual orientation hate crimes were directed at individuals and mostly involved rape , sexual assault, verbal abuse, assault and murder. Many of the perpetrators engage in such behavior following beliefs and perceptions that come from society with regard to the LGBT society. The foundation of sexual orientation hate crime is gender binary. Gender binary is the societal belief that there are only two genders, i.e. male and female and that all members of society need to embrace their roles as defined by their gender. Those who seek out alternative forms of roles and definitions of their gender are therefore considered to be morally wrong and their behavior remains unacceptable in society. Transgender are often the most easily spotted and targeted group, because of their behavior, mannerisms and dressings which may not particularly fit the boundaries of gender descriptions in society.
Gender based hate crime: Traditional culture was built around the belief of specific gender roles. This culture has been taught and passed down in society for centuries. However s more people begin to challenge their gender roles and gender definition, they find themselves as victims of hate crimes based on their specific gender. Sexual assault is only one of the methods that is used to propagate violence and criminal behavior agonist people of specific gender. McPhail (2002) states that when it comes to gender hate crimes, perpetrators are often and more uniquely people who are close to the victim. They believe that the victim is stepping out of the boundaries and legalities of their gender by pursuing particular interests or engaging in different behaviors. Majority of the people who are victims of gender based hate crimes, therefore fail to report the same leading to low records of a behavior that is quite prevalent in society. For majority of the policies, the burden of proof that indeed the motivation was based on gender and the behavior itself was criminal lies with the victim, making prosecution difficult. Below is a chart showing the FBI statistics on the various forms of hate crimes reported:
Drivers of hate crimes
Social environment: The manifestations of hate are plentiful, yet the study into what causes the development of hate itself is quite limited. Morsch (2001) lays his reasoning on social behavioral theories. He determines that the nature of an individual is often crucially determined by the social environment in which they grow. An environment which enhances the differences between people, for example emphasizing the importance of a particular race is likely to lead to privileged thoughts. Jackson and Heckman (2002) agree indicating that children who have grown up in high income families. Are likely to frown upon the behavior and nature of others. They are also more likely to justify their tendency to engage in criminal behavior and tendencies. Families that promote and segregate their children from people of a particular group are most likely to raise children filled with hate. Constant exposure to particular behavior, subjects of discussion and beliefs immediately leads to development of the same behavior.
Thrill seeking: Young people involved in hate crime, have no particular reason for engaging in such behavior rather the behavior is a result of immature pursuit for excitement. The victims themselves are chosen based simply on the fact that their gender, religion and ethnicity differs from that f perpetrators. In the current age of social media fame, thrill seekers tend to think that violence and crimes against their victims provide a one way ticket to stardom. It is important to note that for thrill seekers, their victims are not of concern to society and society applauds their behavior towards the same victims. Although thrill seekers are often young in age, they are also the most dangerous group of criminals, since they lack emotional control, conscience and have a skewed perception of morality.
Intolerance: Intolerance according to Ferber (2004), intolerance is the unwillingness to adapt, and accept the views and beliefs of others who are considered “different” .Unlike thrill seekers who attack people and groups without any reason or ample warning, intolerance leads to targeting of specific groups. It justifies the crime and behavior e.g. assault, destruction of property and threats as a necessary tool to keep invasive ideas and behavior at bay. Intolerance is often difficult to identity and thus correct, rather it seems to crop up during a major shift or event in the perpetrators life e.g. immediately after a Muslim or black family moves into what the person may consider a fully Christian and white community. Perpetrators believe that it is their duty to maintain the purity of society and therefore part if not all of the society supports their behavior and even encourages them to pursue such behavior according to their thoughts. Intolerant individuals are unable to accept that others can exist who are different in terms of belief and behavior to themselves. Intolerance is the most difficult cause of hate crime to address, because it is quite difficult to change the beliefs of people even when they are faced with overwhelming contrary evidence. It is born out of prejudicial information that is often misconstrued and misinterpreted leading to false beliefs.
Revenge: Hate crimes can also be caused by the pursuit of revenge over imagined mistakes and slights over an individual, society or group or in response to other hate crimes and criminal behavior. Avengers are likely to act in small groups or as individuals, since it is based on the fact that all members faced the same situation or were caused to endure the same challenges. They target embers of specific groups based on race, religion or ethnicity, who are believed to have been engaged or caused the original crime even though they may have had nothing to do with it. Gerstenfeld (2017) suggest that most of the revenge hate crimes in modern times are likely to occur immediately after an act of terrorism. Facing security challenges and experiencing raw emotions, perpetrators may seek out Muslim Americans and other races . He provides an example, where hate crimes against the Muslims and people of Arabic origin increased by more than 1600% immediately following the 9/11 attacks. Surprisingly, the attacks have been hard to resolve and bring to an end especially as more young people become converted to join the ISIS movement.
Fear: Sometimes hate crimes are born out of simple fear that people who are different or who hold different beliefs are a cause of danger. The perpetrators believe that they are in turn defending themselves from the possibility of harm from others. Fear is a complex emotion that immediately leads an individual to become defensive. The stronger the fear, the more likely that the response will be violent as well as fatal. There is likelihood that cases of increased fear can be traced to media reports and sensalisation of crimes by people of specific sexual orientation, race and ethnicity. For example, in the past decade there has been unwanted attention to crimes committed by Mexican, African American and other races. It is therefore not surprising for simple actions such as reaching into the pocket become misconstrued as actions that are likely to endanger others. The perpetrators therefore feel it is their duty to protect themselves as well as the community which they live in. they may take actions that prevent the comfort and socio-wellbeing, threaten or assault the victims in an attempt to insure their own security and wellbeing. Hate in this case can be reassuring and self projection because it is based on confirming and assuring the belief in a world where justice prevails as per the perpetrator’s image.
Combating hate crimes
It is not a secret that the government has been struggling with dealing with hate crimes. Many recommendations have been made, but few see to take root and work within the society. This is despite much research and resources being directed towards resolution of hate crimes across the board. Having noted that the problem is not local community one, but on which is encountered across the country as well as globally. Haider-Markel (2008) notes that this is simply because there is little collaboration between agencies which are directed towards addressing the problem of hate crimes. The human rights organizations are often bent on working independently as well as showing the government that there is little they are doing to combat the problem. The communities themselves are directed towards even more towards shaming the government and other institutions. A hate crime provides a unique opportunity for society to bring together all its institutions to work together towards resolving the problem from the root.. independent resolutions often lead to band aid kind of solutions, which are not only temporary in nature but in fact cause festering of a situation which is already sensitive in nature and which then is likely to blow up and out. Local law enforcement agencies can work hand in hand with humanitarian organizations to bring about awareness of hate crimes, encourage victims to record and bring forth cases of hate crimes and finally ensure proper follow up of such cases. This not only discourages future perpetrators but also allows the victims to gain confidence in the legal system.
The traditional legal system when it comes to hate crimes has unfairly focused on the perpetrators of the crime. They often receive much more attention and in some cases may even be considered more valuable than the victims. According to Beale (2000) government research and attention is often focused on reducing the desire of the perpetrator to commit the same crime. Despite the legalities and the law statutes on hate crime, it is likely that the same criminals will face minimum punishment if any. Prosecutors are not motivated by the legal process to pursue cases against perpetrators of the hate crime. Victims of hate crimes are often left alone in a situation which they barely understand and which causes emotional harm to them. They have been attacked and put in a susceptible situation simply because of something which they can change: their sexual orientation, race, ethnicity and disability, yet the burden of proof still remains with them. They must prove that first a crime was committed, a crime which is defined under law and from which they must be protected. Secondly, they must prove that the crime itself was hate motivated, and that such hate was brought on by their unique behavior and natural abilities. It is important for the legal system to restructure so that maximum support is given to victims. From local courts, police departments even to the national level, support for victims allows for cases to be addressed, perpetrators discouraged and support granted to the victims appropriately. Victims need to know that the legal system supports their very lives and seeks to give them justice.
Hate continues to thrive because it remains hidden. Even when exposed, it is often hidden in code and unfathomable systems. Majority of the time, hate crimes are rarely reported. Even where they are reported victims are discouraged against exposing the nature of the crime. Society in itself has become dependent on the nature of hate, to hide it. Most people behave as if hate itself does not exist. Even victims being victimized publicly rarely if ever get support from the public. Individuals who have been killed because of hate, even where evidence exists continue to be hidden under the cover of other crimes that are not driven by hate. We, as a society rarely have the time and energy to pursue cases of crime against others that are driven by hate. Politicians and other major influencers rarely want to talk about hate crime even when seeking votes. Those who speak out tend to face major challenges in completing their duties and seeking re-election. As such, society encourages all members to shy away from speaking against hate crime, which in turn accuses it to fester and grow under the cover of other crimes. It is important to expose the hate crime, speak against it in major forums and expose the filth that lies underneath. This will allow the society to address the problem and force the government to face the problem directly. When people are aware that the nature of their behavior has been exposed, they are more likely to change and alter such behavior in favor of what society deems acceptable.
Exposure also means education. From schools and institutions, it is important to educate people first on what exactly entails a hate crime. There are those who believe that that is hate crime is indeed just normal behavior that is justified by their privilege. Education gives boundaries of what is considered normal behavior, and what is morally wrong as per societal standards. Media houses which are known for sensationalizing stories should be more focused and directed towards educating the public on the nature of hate crimes. Further education should be done for the victims, to understand their rights and what the law covers in terms of hate crimes .
Conclusion
Media and especially social media is a tool that reaches thousands of people at the same time with the same message. In the past, media has been considered the enemy. This is because of the nature of information that they report. To the victims, the news often seem to make the situation much worse than what they are experiencing. In turn , they may also feel that the media houses are favoring and reporting more favorably about the perpetrators. To the community and even the government the news often seems over sensationalized. What is ignored is the value of the media houses when it comes to spreading the right information. The media can be an ideal tool for education and teaching others the value of acceptance and lack of prejudice. The more people become aware, the more tolerant they become thus reducing the hate crimes.
With many policies in place, what remains is the action on the basis of the policies. Several commissions have brought out recommendations for addressing the problem of hate crime. Yet, the actions which have been recommended including education and training of legal officers and police officers to support victims of hate crimes have rarely been implemented. During sensational periods, the community outcry often leads to formulation of great policies. But such policies are rarely implemented in the long run. Resources and individuals are rarely put in place to address the problem of hate crime.
Solutions of hate crime are no longer short term but rather long term. The various forms of hate crime need to be defined within the confines of the law, with specific processes and punishments to be meted out for each.
Hate crimes have garnered much attention in the last year. What looked like a problem that identified and focused on a generation stuck in the 60’s is now drawing the interest and focus of millenials. While attempting to understand the prognosis of hate crimes, an important element is gaining knowledge on the root causes of hate crimes. Hate crimes are designed to act as a message to two groups: the first being the group who which the perpetrator is a member, a message that there are those who are not similar and thus must be dealt with. And secondly, a message to the victim’s group, a message that is meant to cause discomfort, fear and threats. It is built on the premise that victims will understand that they do not belong to the neighborhood, school or other social amenity that they share with perpetrators.
The effects of a hate crime are more long lasting in comparison to other forms of crimes. This is because, they are likely to cause psychological trauma which lasts for years sometimes even decades for the victim. In order to generate policies that effectively address the problem of hate crimes, it is vital that the underlying causes of the crime are understood. It is only when the root causes of hate crime are openly addressed that the solutions being offered will be effective rather than seemingly band aid solutions. Not all perpetrators of hate crime are driven by the same desire. Discouraging hate crime therefore means removing any sort of pleasure that may arise from engaging in such crime and making the punishments so severe that they outweigh the benefits of considering such crime.
References
Beale, S. S. (2000). Federalizing Hate Crimes: Symbolic Politics, Expressive Law, Or Tool For Criminal Enforcement. BUL Rev., 80, 1227.
Craig, K. 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(1), 85-101.
Dunbar, E. (2006). Race, Gender, And Sexual Orientation In Hate Crime Victimization: Identity Politics Or Identity Risk?. Violence And Victims, 21(3), 323-337.
Ferber, A. L. (Ed.). (2004). Home-Grown Hate: Gender And Organized Racism. Psychology Press.
Gerstenfeld, P. B. (2017). Hate Crimes: Causes, Controls, And Controversies. Sage Publications.
Haider-Markel, D. P. (2008). The Politics Of Social Regulatory Policy: State And Federal Hate Crime Policy And Implementation Effort. Political Research Quarterly, 51(1), 69-88.
Herek, G. M., Cogan, J. C., & Gillis, J. R. (2002). Victim Experiences In Hate Crimes Based On Sexual Orientation. Journal Of Social Issues, 58(2), 319-339.
Iganski, P. (2001). Hate Crimes Hurt More. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(4), 626-638.
Jackson, R. L., & Heckman, S. M. (2002). Perceptions Of White Identity And White Liability: An Analysis Of White Student Responses To A College Campus Racial Hate Crime. Journal Of Communication, 52(2), 434-450.
Jenness, V., & Grattet, R. (2001). Making Hate A Crime: From Social Movement To Law Enforcement. Russell Sage Foundation.
King, R. D., Messner, S. F., & Baller, R. D. (2009). Contemporary Hate Crimes, Law Enforcement, And The Legacy Of Racial Violence. American Sociological Review, 74(2), 291-315.
Levin, J., & MacDevitt, J. (2013). Hate crimes: The rising tide of bigotry and bloodshed. Springer.
McPhail, B. A. (2002). Gender-bias hate crimes: A review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 3(2), 125-143.
Morsch, J. (2001). The problem of motive in hate crimes: The argument against presumptions of racial motivation. J. Crim. L. & Criminology, 82, 659.
Perry, B. (2002). In the name of hate: Understanding hate crimes. Routledge.
Petrosino, C. (1999). Connecting the past to the future: Hate crime in America. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 15(1), 22-47.
Shively, M., & Abt Associates, Inc. (2005). Study of literature and legislation on hate crime in America: Final report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Welch, M. (2006). Scapegoats of September 11th: Hate crimes & state crimes in the war on terror. Rutgers University Press.
With a student-centered approach, I create engaging and informative blog posts that tackle relevant topics for students. My content aims to equip students with the knowledge and tools they need to succeed academically and beyond.
