By Kaitlyn Sill and Paul A. Haskins.

This article originally appeared in Police Chief and is reposted here with permission from the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

Hate crimes harm whole communities. They are message crimes that tell all members of a group—not just the immediate victims—that they are unwelcome and at risk.

The damage that bias victimization causes multiplies when victims and justice agencies don’t recognize or report hate crimes as such. In addition, in cases for which law enforcement agencies fail to respond to or investigate hate crimes, relationships between law enforcement and affected communities can suffer, and public trust in police can erode.[1]

While it is known that hate crimes are underreported throughout the United States, there is not a clear understanding of exactly why reporting rates are low, to what extent, and what might be done to improve them. An even more elementary question, with no single answer, is: What constitutes a hate crime? Different state statutes and law enforcement agencies have different answers to that question, which further complicates the task of identifying hate crimes and harmonizing hate crime data collection and statistics.

By Matthew L Williams; Pete Burnap, Amir Javed, Han Liu, Sefa Ozalp

Hate crimes have risen up the hierarchy of individual and social harms, following the revelation of record high police figures and policy responses from national and devolved governments. The highest number of hate crimes in history was recorded by the police in England and Wales in 2017/18. The 94,098 hate offences represented a 17 per cent increase on the previous year and a 123 per cent increase on 2012/13. Although the Crime Survey for England and Wales has recorded a consistent decrease in total hate crime victimization (combining race, religion, sexual orientation, disability and transgender), estimations for race and religion-based hate crimes in isolation show an increase from a 112,000 annual average (April 13–March 15) to a 117,000 annual average (April 15–March 17) (ONS, 2017). This increase does not take into account the likely rise in hate victimization in the aftermath of the 2017 terror attacks in London and Manchester. Despite improvements in hate crime reporting and recording, the consensus is that a significant ‘dark figure’ remains. There continues a policy and practice needed to improve the intelligence about hate crimes, and in particular to better understand the role community tensions and events play in patterns of perpetration. The HMICFRS (2018) inspection on police responses to hate crimes evidence that forces remain largely ill-prepared to handle the dramatic increases in racially and religiously

The British Journal of Criminology, Volume 60, Issue 1, January 2020, Pages 93–117

By Michael Jendrykea, , Stephen C. McClure

From time to time the popular media draws attention to hate crimes and hate groups, evoking images of NaziGermany and the rise of fascism. The geographic association between hate groups and hate crimes is uncertain. In this research we ask whether hate crimes are co-located and correlated to the presence of hate groups to explore a potential association between these two phenomena. Publicly available point level data on hate crimes and hate groups collected by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) were aggregated to unitary framework of hexagonal grid cells of a Discrete Global Grid System (DGGS) at multiple scales for consistent analysis. We explore the effects of proximity by interpreting a co-location map, deploying a Geographically Weighted Regression (GWR) for count data, and apply a Spatial Lag Model (SLM) at multiple scales, to ascertain the effects of the size of the aggregation units on the relationship between hate groups and hate crimes. Controlled or uncontrolled for spatial dependence, at all scales, the Spatial Lag Model (SLM) shows that an average of 39.5% of the hate crimes was correlated with hate groups. These results are consistent with the existing research but show that in most instances spatial dependence was present, regardless of the size of the aggregation unit or the distance to neighboring cells. Our future research will consider additional racial, economic and social variables using a DGGS.

Applied Geography. Volume 111, October 2019, 102072

By Brian Levin, James Nolan, and Kiana Perst

When prejudice-related data are combined and analyzed over time, critical information is uncovered about overall trends, related intermittent spikes, and less common sharp inflectional shifts in aggression. These shifts impact social cohesion and grievously harm specific sub-groups when aggression escalates and is redirected or mainstreamed. These data, so critical to public policy formation, show that we are in such a historic inflection period now. Moreover, analysis of the latest, though partial Federal Bureau of Investigation hate crime data release, when overlaid with available data from excluded large jurisdictions, reveals hate crimes hit a record high in 2021 in the United States that previously went unreported. This Essay analyzes the most recent national data as well as various numerical and policy milestones that accompanied the historic, yet incomplete, implementation of hate crime data collection and related statutes over recent decades. This analysis of emerging trends in the United States is undertaken in the context of bigoted aggression broken down over time.

112 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 749 (2023)

This guide begins by describing the problem of hate crimes and reviewing factors that increase its risks. It then identifies a series of questions to help you analyze your local hate crimes problem. It reviews responses to the problem and what is known about these from evaluative research and police practice. Specifically, it describes what you can do to reduce underlying tension in the community that contributes to hate crimes. This guide also outlines what the police can do to address any special fear and trauma experienced by the individual victim and the racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual orientation community to which the victim belongs. Finally, it reviews the police role in monitoring hate groups that have members and conduct activities in your community.

Read more at the Center for Problem Oriented Policing

By Michael Jensen, Elizabeth Yates and Sheehan Kane.

The Proud Boys were formed by Gavin McInnes, co-founder of Vice Media, in 2016 during the U.S. presidential election. Proud Boys consider themselves “Western chauvinists” who romanticize a traditional, male-dominated version of Western culture. While the Proud Boys vehemently deny adhering to a racist ideology, the organization is deeply rooted in white nationalism and misogyny. As of December 31, 2021, 83 Proud Boys members and sympathizers have allegedly carried out ideologically motivated crimes in the United States. This number includes 54 Proud Boys defendants who participated in the Capitol breach on January 6, 2021. Proud Boys defendants have come from 25 states and the District of Columbia, including 14 from Florida, 14 from New York, 7 from Washington, and 6 from Pennsylvania. Using auxiliary data from the Profiles of Individual Radicalization in the United States (PIRUS) project, these infographics provide information on the characteristics of U.S. Proud Boys defendants and their crimes.

College Park, MD: START, 2022. 3p.

Edited by Jennifer Schweppe and Mark Austin Walters

The Globalisation of Hate: Internationalising Hate Crime? is the first book to examine the impact of globalisation on our understanding of hate speech and hate crime. Bringing together internationally acclaimed scholars with researchers, policy makers and practitioners from across the world, it critically scrutinises the concept of hate crime as a global phenomenon, seeking to examine whether hate crime can, or should, be conceptualised within an international framework and, if so, how this might be achieved. …. The final part of the book concludes with an examination of the different ways in which hate speech and hate crime is being combatted globally. International law, internet regulation and the use of restorative practices are evaluated as methods of addressing hate-based conflict, with the discussions drawn from existing frameworks as well as exploring normative standards for future international efforts. Taken together, these innovative and insightful contributions offer a timely investigation into the effects of hate crime, offering an interdisciplinary approach to tackling what is now a global issue.

New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. 340p.

By Joyce King

On June 7, 1998, James Byrd, Jr., a forty-nine-year-old black man, was dragged to his death while chained to the back of a pickup truck driven by three young white men. It happened just outside of Jasper, a sleepy East Texas logging town that, within twenty-four hours of the discovery of the murder, would be inextricably linked in the nation’s imagination to an exceptionally brutal, modern-day lynching.

In this superbly written examination of the murder and its aftermath, award-winning journalist Joyce King brings us on a journey that begins at the crime scene and extends into the minds of the young men who so casually ended a man’s life. She takes us inside the prison in which two of them met for the first time, and she shows how it played a major role in shaping their attitudes—racial and otherwise. The result is a deeply engrossing psychological portrait of the accused and a powerful indictment of the American prison system’s ability to reform criminals. Finally, King writes with candor and clarity about how the events of that fateful night have affected her—as a black woman, a native Texan, and a journalist given the agonizing assignment of covering the trials of all three defendants.

New York: Pantheon Books, 2002. 248p.

By Colleen E. Mills

Hate crime proves prevalent in American society, inflicting a variety of harms on victims as well as society at large. Scholars have long sought to understand the motivations and conditions behind hate crime offending. Green and his colleagues conducted the classic neighborhood studies examining the conditions that foster hate crime (Green, Glaser, & Rich, 1998; Green, Strolovich, & Wong, 1998; Green, Strolovitch, Wong, & Bailey). Using data from the New York Police Department’s Hate Crimes Task Force, the current study replicates and extends Green's neighborhood studies by investigating hate crime in New York City from 1995 to 2010. This study investigates whether Green, Strolovitch, & Wong’s (1998) findings hold true over an extended period of time in New York City, during which the city underwent major demographic changes. Using a group conflict framework (Blalock, 1967; Tolnay & Beck, 1995), the current study extends prior work by investigating the impact of various "threats, including defended neighborhoods as well as economic, political, terrorist, and gay threat, on different types of anti-minority hate crime, including those against racial, ethnic, and religious minorities as well as anti-gay hate crime. The current study also integrates criminological frameworks, testing social disorganization and strain to explain hate crime. Using negative binomial regression analyses with a pooled cross-sectional design, the current study provides a thorough analysis of hate crime in New York City as well as further insight into hate crime in the context of defended neighborhoods.

New York: City University of New York, 2007. 211p.

By Paul Iganski

The impression often conveyed by the media about hate crime offenders is that they are hate-fuelled individuals who, in acting out their extremely bigoted views, target their victims in premeditated violent attacks. Scholarly research on the perpetrators of hate crime has begun to provide a more nuanced picture. But the preoccupation of researchers with convicted offenders neglects the vast majority of hate crime offenders that do not come into contact with the criminal justice system.This book, from a leading author in the field, widens understanding of hate crime by demonstrating that many offenders are ordinary people who offend in the context of their everyday lives. Written in a lively and accessible style, the book takes a victim-centred approach to explore and analyse hate crime as a social problem, providing an empirically informed and scholarly perspective. Aimed at academics and students of criminology, sociology and socio-legal studies, the book draws out the connections between the individual agency of offenders and the background structural context for their actions. It adds a new dimension to the debate about criminalising hate in light of concerns about the rise of punitive and expressive justice, scrutinizing the balance struck by hate crime laws between the rights of offenders and the rights of victims.

Bristol, UK: Policy Press, 2008. 168p.

By James B. Jacobs and Kimberly Potter

In the early 1980s, a new category of crime appeared in the criminal law lexicon. In response to concerted advocacy-group lobbying, Congress and many state legislatures passed a wave of "hate crime" laws requiring the collection of statistics on, and enhancing the punishment for, crimes motivated by certain prejudices. This book places the evolution of the hate crime concept in socio-legal perspective. James B. Jacobs and Kimberly Potter adopt a skeptical if not critical stance, maintaining that legal definitions of hate crime are riddled with ambiguity and subjectivity. The book contends that hate crime as a socio-legal category represents the elaboration of an identity politics now manifesting itself in many areas of the law. But the attempt to apply the anti-discrimination paradigm to criminal law generates problems and anomalies. For one thing, members of minority groups are frequently hate crime perpetrators. Moreover, the underlying conduct prohibited by hate crime law is already subject to criminal punishment. Jacobs and Potter question whether hate crimes are worse or more serious than similar crimes attributable to other anti-social motivations. Advancing a provocative argument in clear and persuasive terms, Jacobs and Potter show how the recriminalization of hate crime has little (if any) value with respect to law enforcement or criminal justice. Indeed, enforcement of such laws may exacerbate intergroup tensions rather than eradicate prejudice.

Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1998. 224p.

By Barbara Perry

In The Name of Hate is the first book to offer a comprehensive theory of hate crimes, arguing for an expansion of the legal definitions that most states in the U.S. hold. Barbara Perry provides an historical understanding of hate crimes and provocatively argues that hate crimes are not an aberration of current society, but rather a by-product of a society still grappling with inequality, difference, fear, and hate.

New York: Routledge, 2001. 289p.

By Jennifer Paterson, Mark A Walters, Rupert Brown, and Harriet Fearn.

This report summarises the findings from a five year research project, the Sussex Hate Crime Project, funded by the Leverhulme Trust. The aim was to examine the indirect impacts of hate crimes – how hate attacks on members of a community affect the thoughts, emotions and behaviours of other members of that community. The project focused on hate crimes targeted against LGB&T and Muslim communities and used a variety of different research methods, including questionnaire surveys, individual interviews and social psychological experiments.

Sussex, UK: University of Sussex, 2018. 54p.