In criminal law, a hate crime is a standard offence (such as assault or murder) with an added element of bias against a victim (individual or group of individuals) because of their physical appearance or perceived membership of a certain social group. Examples of such groups can include, and are almost exclusively limited to race/ethnicity, disability, language, nationality, physical appearance, political views, political affiliation, age, religion, sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation. "A hate crime or bias motivated crime occurs when the perpetrator of the crime intentionally selects the victim because of their membership in a certain group."Streissguth, Tom (2003). Hate Crimes (Library in a Book), p. 3. .
Hate crime should be distinguished from hate violence, or hate incidents, which might not necessarily be criminal offences. Incidents may involve physical assault, homicide, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, mate crime, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail). Non-criminal actions that are motivated by these reasons are often called "bias incidents".
For example, the criminal law of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines a hate crime as a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. Hate itself is not a hate crime, but committing a crime motivated by bias against one or more of the social groups listed above, or by bias against their derivatives constitutes a hate crime. A hate crime law is a law intended to deter bias-motivated violence. Hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech: hate crime laws enhance the penalties for conduct which is already criminal under other laws, while hate speech laws criminalize a category of speech. Hate speech is a factor for sentencing enhancement in the United States, distinct from laws that criminalize speech.
History of the term "hate crime"
Origins (1980s) The term "hate crime" emerged in the United States in the mid 1980s, "a product of increased race, gender, and sexual orientation consciousness", though the concept of bias-motivated violence has much deeper historical roots.
The term was used by U.S. Representatives Barbara Kennelly, John Conyers, and Mario Biaggi in 1985 via the "Hate Crime Statistics Act". Journalists and activists had used similar formulations earlier; The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) began using "hate crime" systematically around the same time in their advocacy work. The term gained prominence following a 1986 incident in Howard Beach, New York, where a Black man was killed in a racially motivated attack.
International spread (2000s-2010s) The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) has worked to standardize terminology across member states:
"Hate crime" is the preferred English term in OSCE documents. OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) has collected hate crime data since 2009, defining them as "criminal acts committed with a bias motive". The UN uses "hate crime" alongside "bias-motivated crime" and "crimes motivated by prejudice". Common law countries tend to use the terms "hate crime" or "bias crime", whereas civil law European countries use "aggravated discrimination".
Use in academia and sociology The term is often used retrospectively in order to describe events in history. From the Roman persecution of Christians to the Holocaust, hate crimes were committed by individuals as well as governments long before the term was commonly used. A major part of defining crimes as hate crimes is determining that they were committed against members of historically oppressed groups.
Some scholars prefer "bias crime" as more precise, since "hate" is subjective while "bias" indicates measurable prejudice. Others argue "hate crime" better captures the emotional severity and social impact.
Psychological effects Hate crimes can have significant and wide-ranging psychological consequences, not only for their direct victims but for others of the group as well. Moreover, victims of hate crimes often experience a sense of victimization that goes beyond the initial crime, forming a heightened sense of vulnerability towards future victimization.Iganski & Lagou, 2015 In many ways, hate crime victimization can be a reminder to victims of their marginalized status in society, and for immigrants or refugees, may also serve to make them relive the violence that drove them to seek refuge in another country. A 1999 U.S. study of homosexual victims of violent hate crimes documented that they experienced higher levels of psychological distress, including symptoms of depression and anxiety, than homosexual victims of comparable crimes which were not motivated by homophobic bias. A manual issued by the Attorney-General of the province of Ontario in Canada lists the following consequences:
Impact on the individual victim psychological and affective disturbances; repercussions on the victim's identity and self-esteem; both reinforced by a specific hate crime's degree of violence, which is usually stronger than that of a common crime. Effect on the targeted group generalized terror in the group to which the victim belongs, inspiring feelings of vulnerability among its other members, who could be the next hate crime victims. Effect on other vulnerable groups ominous effects on minority groups or on groups that identify themselves with the targeted group, especially when the referred hate is based on an ideology or a doctrine that preaches simultaneously against several groups. Effect on the community as a whole divisions and factionalism arising in response to hate crimes are particularly damaging to multicultural societies.
Hate crime victims can also develop depression and psychological trauma. They suffer from typical symptoms of trauma: lack of concentration, fear, unintentional rethinking of the incident and feeling vulnerable or unsafe. These symptoms may be severe enough to qualify as PTSD. In the United States, the Supreme Court has accepted the claim that hate crimes cause 'distinct emotional harm' to victims. People who have been victims of hate crimes avoid spaces where they feel unsafe which can make communities less functional when ties with police are strained by persistent group fears and feelings of insecurity. In the United States, hate crime has been shown to reduce educational attainment among affected groups—particularly among black, non-Hispanic victims.
A review of European and American research indicates that terrorist bombings cause Islamophobia and hate crimes to flare up, but in calmer times, they subside again, although to a relatively high level. Terrorists' most persuasive message is that of fear; a primary and strong emotion, fear increases risk estimates and has distortive effects on the perception of ordinary Muslims. Widespread Islamophobia seems to contribute to anti-Muslim hate crimes, but indirectly; terrorist attacks and intensified Islamophobia serve as a window of opportunity for extremist groups and networks.
Typology of hate crime offenders
Sociologists Jack McDevitt and Jack Levin's 2002 study into the motives for hate crimes found four motives, and reported that "thrill-seeking" accounted for 66% of all hate crimes overall in the United States:
Thrill-seeking – perpetrators engage in hate crimes for excitement and drama. Often, there is no greater purpose behind the crimes, with victims being vulnerable because they have an ethnic, religious, sexual or gender background that differs from their attackers. While the actual animosity present in such a crime can be quite low, thrill-seeking crimes were determined to often be dangerous, with 70 percent of thrill-seeking hate crimes studied involving physical attacks. Typically, these attacks are perpetrated by groups of young teenagers or adults seeking excitement. Defensive – perpetrators engage in hate crimes out of a belief they are protecting their communities. Often, these are triggered by a certain background event. Perpetrators believe society supports their actions but is too afraid to act and thus they believe they have communal assent in their actions. Retaliatory – perpetrators engage in hate crimes out of a desire for revenge. This can be in response to perceived personal slights, other hate crimes or terrorism. The "avengers" target members of a group whom they believe committed the original crime, even if the victims had nothing to do with it. These kinds of hate crimes are a common occurrence after terrorist attacks. Mission offenders – persons commit hate crimes out of ideological reasons. They consider themselves to be crusaders, often for a religious or racial cause. They may write complex explanations for their views and target symbolically important sites, trying to maximize damage. They believe that there is no other way to accomplish their goals, which they consider to be justification for excessive violence against innocents. This kind of hate crime often overlaps with terrorism, and is considered by the FBI to be both the rarest and deadliest form of hate crime.
In a later article, Levin and fellow sociologist Ashley Reichelmann found that following the September 11 attacks, thrill motivated hate crimes tended to decrease as the overall rate of violent crime decreased while defensive hate crimes increased substantially. Specifically, they found that 60% of all hate motivated assaults in 2001 were perpetrated against those the offenders perceived to be Middle Eastern and were motivated mainly by a desire for revenge. Levin and McDevitt also argued that while thrill crimes made up the majority of hate crimes in the 1990s, after September 11, 2001, hate crimes in the United States shifted from thrill offenses by young groups to more defensive oriented and more often perpetrated by older individuals respond to a precipitating event.
The motivations of hate-crime offenders are complex. Therefore, there is no one theory that can completely account for hate-motived crimes.Walters, 2010 However, Mark Austin Walters previously attempted to synthesize three interdisciplinary theories to account for the behavior of hate-crime offenders:
1. Strain Theory: suggests that hate crimes are motivated by perceived economic and material inequality, which results in differential attitudes towards outsiders who may be viewed as "straining" already scarce resources. An example of this can be seen in the discourse surrounding some people's apprehension towards immigrants, who feel as though immigrants and/or refugees receive extra benefits from government and strain social systems.
2. Doing Difference Theory: suggests that some individuals fear groups other than their own and, as a result of this, seek to suppress different cultures.
3. Self-Control Theory: suggests that a person's upbringing determines their tolerance threshold towards others, here individuals with low self-esteem are often impulsive, have poor employment prospects, and have little academic success.
Walters argues that a synthesis of these theories provides a more well-rounded scope of the motivations behind hate crimes, where he explains that social, cultural, and individual factors interact to elicit the violence behavior of individuals with low self-control.