Introduction
People living with disabilities (PLWD) are regular targets and victims of violence initiated by their non-disabled peers. Disability hate crimes (DHC) constitute criminal offences involving hostilities against PLWD, which often stem from prejudices and preconceived notions that individuals hold against that impairment. Generally, it is viewed as an extreme genre of ableism or disablism, which encompass the discriminatory, abusive, and oppressive behaviour and treatment emanating from the conviction that PLWD is inferior or subhuman. The phenomenon of DHC can adopt multiple forms, including verbal abuses, intimidatory behaviour, vandalism, and even murder. However, abuses and harassment constitute the most prevalent category of DHC. Although numerous policies and legislation have been enacted to prevent the commission of these bias-motivated crimes, they have far-reaching implications that extend beyond the emotional and physical harm experienced by the victims.
The Scale and Scope of DHC in England and Wales
DHC are criminal offences comprising two fundamental components, including an outright violation of the law and an identifiable bias motivation stemming from socially constructed prejudices and stereotypes against persons living with impairments. They include such specific acts as harassment, intimidation, and abuses perpetrated onto the victim due to the preconceived notions of vulnerability as a symptom of the target’s health condition or impairment. An estimated 19% of the population in England and Wales is disabled, and the scale and scope of DHC are grossly underreported since over half of all the incidences go unreported (Sakellariou and Rotarou, 2017). A survey conducted in 2016 established that 73% of individuals living with learning challenges and autism had been victims of at least one hate crime (Healy, 2019). Another study by the National Crime Survey indicated that the true figures of DHC in 2018/19 reached 70,000 (How often are disability hate crimes committed? n.d.). In the previous 2016-17 year, police recorded 5,558 DHC incidences (Hall, 2018b). These statistics illustrate that a substantial proportion of the England and Wales population lives with some form of disability and are subjected to prejudicial treatment.
Further, the figures from various surveys demonstrate that DHC is a prevalent social problem that is grossly underreported. The significance of these biased actions of violence is capture by the official statistics of sexual offences, assault, harassment, stalking, fraud cases, and discriminatory practices targeting the most vulnerable individuals in the society. For instance, the United Response (2018) posit that sexual crimes and targeted fraudulent activities rose by 100% and 1, 050%, respectively. Sakellarious and Rotarou (2017) and Hackett et al. (2020) noted that discriminatory practices, especially within healthcare, are widespread, limiting PLWD’s ability to access medical services. In extreme instances, murders have been reported, such as the atrocious attack and targeted violence against Steven Hoskin in Cornwall and Brent Martin in Sunderland. The most affected regions reporting numerous incidences and biggest spiked in DHC incidences were Humberside, West Yorkshire, and Gloucestershire.
The reported statistics demonstrated the severity of DHC in England and Wales as a major social problem, with far-reaching implications extending beyond the victims. They highlight the compounding factor of the incidences, which significantly contribute to the escalation in severity and frequency of cases, thereby necessitating greater attention and prioritization. Notably, there is a general consensus that the level of reported DHC is much lower than the actual incidences, preventing the law enforcement agencies from making informed, data-driven decisions regarding effective resourcing.
Types of Crimes Committed
PLWD in England and Wales experience a wide array of DHC, which capitalize on their vulnerability. These hostilities are mainly in the form of verbal attacks, harassments, sexual violence, fraud, discriminatory practices, and fraud. Also, physical assaults, stalking, malicious communication, and in extreme instances, murders have been perpetrated against PLWD. Generally, there has a consistent and steady rise in the number of DHC incidences reported over the years, although the provided figures are greatly understated.
Importance of Understanding DHC and Prejudice
A comprehensive understanding of DHC is imperative and forms the foundation for responsive strategies and interventions to combat and reduce the vice. Notably, these offences target the most vulnerable members of society are currently misunderstood, widely hidden, and underreported. Moreover, these hate and bias-motivated crimes have severe and far-reaching impacts that transcend the targeted victims’ emotional and physical wellbeing. Generally, there lacks an established framework or working structures to help law enforcement agencies effectively address this challenge. For instance, there is a deficiency in the consistency of approaches and definitions, which police utilize to combat prejudicial violence against PLWD. Targeted violence motivated by prejudicial biases against PLWD potentially reinforce exclusion, isolation, and marginalization of disempowered individuals, damaging community relationships (Hall, 2018b). This is attributed to the fact that this cluster of offences intimidates the casualties, forcing them to live in fear, further aggravating the quality of their lives. In this regard, an in-depth understanding of DHC is an indispensable and critical pillar in designing and developing appropriate and practical responses to protect these susceptible members of society from harm and exploitation.
Theories of DHC and Prejudice
Given the centrality and significance of DHC, various theories have been advanced to explain, help in the understanding, and the subsequent development of appropriate and responsive interventions. Prejudice encompasses the set of negative beliefs, perceptions, judgments, and attitudes towards a category of individuals due to their specific traits or characteristics and forms the basis of their maltreatment. Some of the theories attempt to explain social bias against PLWD power/culture perspective, cultural-based approaches, and personality-centred dimension. These can be further categorized as sociological, criminological, and socio-psychological theories.
Personality-Centred Theories
Although contextual and environmental factors are critical in obtaining an in-depth understanding of prejudices against PLWD, person-centred perspectives also play a key role in determining how an individual treats others. This implies that such personal attributes as agreeableness, openness, psychopathy, narcissism, and neuroticism impact peoples’ overall prejudicial attitudes (Koehn, Jonason, and Davis, 2019). The personality-oriented approaches encompass multiple approaches, such as the scapegoat hypothesis, which explains prejudgment biases as an attribute of a person’s avenue of dealing with frustration through aggression. Consequently, people substitute such targets and redirect their anger to other easy, less threatening recipients. Chen and Carl (2017) corroborate this perspective, and personality is a powerful moderator for orientations and actions undertaken by a person. From this perspective, the distinct personality traits of an individual play an influential role in predisposing them to prejudicial behaviours.
Additionally, an authoritarian character increases a person’s predisposition and tendency to engage in prejudicial and stereotypical thinking. From a psychoanalytic perspective, the defining personality of an individual influence their general tendencies. For instance, authoritarian attributes are characterized by remarkable propensity and penchant for social dominance and categorizing people into “us” and “them” while seeing their class as socially superior. As a result, these people are highly sensitive and inclined to totalitarian ideas, thereby expanding their proneness to prejudicial behaviours. According to Lin and Alvarez (2020), personality shapes the ideological, attitudinal, and social traits, including the orientation to hate people based on their appearances. A study involving over 5,000 participants in the United States demonstrated a robust association between authoritarian characters and anti-black prejudice (Lin and Alvarez, 2020). From this perspective, a person’s distinct characters influence their likelihood of developing negatively biased perceptions and the subsequent mistreatment of people they deem socially inferior.
The applicability of personality-centred approaches as theoretical explanations of prejudicial and stereotypical is limited by their simplicity and the lack of robust scientific underpinning. For instance, the development of the authoritarian personality theory was heavily dependent on self-reported questionnaires whose questions were framed to encourage individuals to respond positively. This implies that the theory’s statistical supremacy was significantly eroded by the reporting and structure biases in the questionnaires. However, the personality-centred perspective sufficiently explains most irrational versions of prejudice, including the dislike for people without firsthand reason as the basis for the bias, such as previous interaction or engagement. Moreover, the absence of consistent findings erodes the acceptability of this theoretical model as a foundation for explaining prejudice.
Culture-Based Theories
Culture-based theoretical models of prejudice indicate that people learn prejudicial tendencies in the same they acquire other aspects of the society in which they live. According to Fiske (2017), cultural context is a major determiner and enforcer of specific customs, beliefs, and traditions of a particular community. For instance, some cultures normalize and entrench the preconceptions of specific members of society. Once the perception that some minority group are inferior is created, social mechanisms are initiated to perpetuate and advance that notion. This perspective is corroborated by Baldwin (2017), who contend that prejudice thrives within a social context where it is culturally tolerated and accepted. In this regard, negatively biased perceptions have a strong cultural component, and the subsequent continuity is an outcome of socialization. However, the cultural explanations for prejudice suffer several setbacks, including the misconception that all people in a given society have similar levels of prejudice and that there are no neutral recipients of culture. Moreover, people learn multiple norms from society, including the values of justice and fairness. As a result, individuals have the discretion and power to choose which attitude or behaviour to exercise.
Power/Culture Theories
Power culture theories emphasize the ideology that prejudicial behaviours and tendencies stem from intergroup competitions. The resultant conflict serves as the rationalization for the perpetration of exploitation and stratification. These theories further indicate that the elites develop, control, and shape the dominant ideology supported by the other members of society. This implies that individuals at higher social echelons mobilize opposition and perpetuate prejudicial narratives against a specific class of individuals as a means of self-preservation. The applicability of these theories is impeded by the existence of conflicting information, including the understanding that cultures, personalities, societies, and family structures are the greatest sources and enablers of prejudice.
Criminological, Socio-Psychological, and Sociological Theories
Criminological, sociological, and socio-psychological theories are emerging perspectives, which are increasingly gaining momentum. The former integrates a legal perspective regarding why people break the law, their criminal and deviant behaviours. The dimension illustrates that oppression, cruelty, and the perpetration of inhumane treatment is the direct outcome of criminal thoughts and propensity to violate the rights of people deemed inferior. Conversely, socio-psychological and sociological models highlight the integral role played by the environmental factors in reinforcing or reducing the acceptability of prejudice against PLWD.
Although the multiple theoretical models illuminate the potential causes of prejudice and the perpetration of DHC, the person-centred and cultural-based perspectives provide the most rational explanation for this category of crimes. However, no single premise adequately explains the cause and origin of prejudicial behaviours. This view implies that the commission of hate crimes is arguably an outcome of multiple factors. In this regard, an effective response strategy would need to adopt a multipronged approach, with specific provisions addressing each of the contributory components.
Policies to Address DHC and Support the Victims
England and Wales have formulated multiple policies and regulations to combat DHC and support the victims of prejudicial crime. Among the prominent strategies is the expansion of the scope and definition of what constitutes a hate crime. This includes elaborate training and outreach programs to sensitize and educate the public and relevant government agencies on how to recognize and report DHC. Notably, this policy framework seeks to primarily challenge the existing behaviours and attitudes, which foster hatred. It is inspired by the thinking that although bias-motivated crimes are endless, it is imperative to definitively identify and define what constitutes DHC. The strategy has been accompanied by the creation of specialized units in law enforcement and personnel training to enhance the officers’ responsive abilities.
Additionally, multiple hate crime legislation has been enacted to enhance punishments, support the effective operationalization of the existing policies, and institutionalize long-term educative deterrence. For instance, the Crime and Disorder Act of 1998 has undergone a series of reforms designed to support easier reporting, expand the scope of the law, and reinforce the practical application of the law. Other provisions, Equality and Diversity, Domestic Abuse, and Harassment and Bullying Procedure, are covered by the Everyday Guide to Equality. Chakraborti (2017) notes that these interventions have been critical in reinforcing the effectiveness of the criminal justice system, changing social attitudes and prejudicial behaviours, and dismantling the existing barriers for efficacious reporting. Supportive strategies include the Victim Support team and Stop Hate UK, which allows confidential reporting of hate crimes and the provision of a 24-hour helpline for the victims. Therefore, they have formed an important background against which meaningful engagement with diverse stakeholders, communities, and interested parties can contribute to better policy formulation.
Future Policy Outlook
Although the current policy framework attempts to combat the perpetuation of DHC, there is little effort channelled to address the root causes of the crime. For instance, the destruction of the cultural and social constructs which reinforce and enable these offences will require elaborate community-level interventions and the engagement of the locals. Additionally, the various statutory bodies, including the law enforcement agencies, have not deployed data-driven decisions to inform their response plans, resulting in poor outcomes for DHC mitigation. From this perspective, the future outlook of DHC needs to integrate statistical insights and scientific data to understand the scope, causes, and promising interventions comprehensively. Moreover, it will be imperative to adopt a multiagency response strategy instead of the current disintegrated and fragmented strategies.
Conclusion
Disability hate crimes are bias-motivated prejudicial offences targeting people living with disabilities. In England and Wales, this challenge is grossly underreported, resulting in the absence or inadequate interventions to combat the challenge. Overall, the contributing factors are multimodal, necessitating the formulation of policies which address the multiple aspects of the phenomenon. Although the existing policies have attempted to limit the perpetuation of these crimes, they lack the reinforcement of scientific data. In this regard, future policy interventions should adopt a multiagency approach and utilize data-driven decisions.
Reference List
Baldwin, J. (2017) ‘Culture, prejudice, racism, and discrimination’, Oxford Research Encyclopedias. doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.164
Chakraborti, N. (2017) ‘Responding to hate crime: escalating problems, continued failings’, Criminology & Criminal Justice, 18(4), pp. 387−404. doi: 10.1177/1748895817736096
Chen, P. G. and Palmer, C. L. (2017) ‘The prejudiced personality? Using the big five to predict susceptibility to stereotyping behaviour’, American Politics Research, 46(2), pp. 276−307. doi: 10.1177/1532673X17719720
Dimensions. (n.d) How often are disability hate crimes committed? #ImWithSam.
Fiske, S. T. (2017) ‘Prejudices in cultural contexts: shared stereotypes (gender, age) versus variable stereotypes (race, ethnicity, religion). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(5), pp. 791−799. doi: 10.1177/1745691617708204
Hackett, R., et al. (2020) ‘Disability discrimination and wellbeing in the United Kingdom: a prospective cohort study’, BMJ Open, 10(3), pp. 1−11. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035714
Hall, E. (2018b) ‘A critical geography of disability hate crime’, Area, 51(2), pp. 249−256. doi: 10.1111/area.12455
Hall, E. (2018a) Why disability hate crimes are woefully under-reported.
Healy, J. (2019) ‘It spreads like a creeping disease’: experiences of victims of disability hate crimes in austerity Britain’, Disability & Society, 35(2), pp. 176−200. doi: 10.1080/09687599.2019.1624151
Koehn, M., Jonason, P. and Davis, M. (2019) ‘A person-centred view of prejudice: the big five, dark triad, and prejudice’, Personality and Individual Differences, 139, pp. 313−316.
Lin, C. and Alvarez, R. M. (2020) ‘Personality traits are directly associated with anti-black prejudice in the United States’, PLOS ONE, 15(7), p. e0235436. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235436
Sakellariou, D. and Rotarou, E., 2017. Access to healthcare for men and women with disabilities in the UK: secondary analysis of cross-sectional data. BMJ Open, 7(8), pp. 1−9. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016614