Hate Crimes
The criminal behavior based on the criterion of sexual orientation. Likely the most widespread and recognizable reason for hate crime besides race.
Hostility based on religion. Usually less visible that the crimes based on race and sexuality, and not recognized unanimously across the US, but steadily showing up in statistics
Crimes triggered by gender identity and gender expression
Discrimination based on disability
Each of the examples is chosen for a different reason. The homosexuality is an important issue as it is complicated by the homosexual threat and homosexual panic used in defense of the suspects tried for murder (Gerstenfeld, 2013). The gender identity as a cause of hate crime presents a challenging case as it is limited by the current lack of understanding of the phenomenon. The religion-based crimes are often conducted by organized groups. Finally, the disability hate crimes are legally recognized in 31 states but have no firm scholarly basis (Gerstenfeld, 2013).
Crime v Deviant Behavior
Deviant behavior is the one that differs from the established social norms. It does not necessarily constitute a crime unless it explicitly or implicitly violates the formal law, which is the sole requirement for it to become criminal. In some extreme cases, the social norms may contradict the law, with the most prominent examples being the racial discrimination and violence towards the black population: it was accepted and encouraged despite being unconstitutional.
A criminal act towards a group is an action that violates any part of the common law. It may or may not be considered deviant, but in most of the cases, the social norms align with the official legal requirements. For instance, firing an employee based on his disability is illegal in 31 states (Gerstenfeld, 2013), but is only considered a deviant act elsewhere.
Victims Fail to Report Hate Crimes
1. Fear of retaliation for reporting a crime. This reason is possibly the most substantiated one. Unlike the personal beliefs or the shame, the retaliation is a real, feasible threat.
2. Distrust in law enforcement as an effective measure. This reason is important because it presents the best opportunity for mitigation. It mostly depends on the actions of the organization and thus can be overturned by success rates and improved communication, unlike the shame of reporting, which is determined largely by the social environment.
3. Lack of knowledge about hate crime. It depends on literacy and awareness and thus listed third, but still indicates a weak point which could be alleviated relatively easily.
All three reasons illustrate insufficient success rates of law enforcement in victim protection, functioning, and communication, respectively.
Factors Influence Law Enforcement
1.1. Excessive emphasis on hate crimes. Being a relatively novel approach, the hate crime phenomenon enjoys greater attention and, as a result, officers are more likely to report it after deliberately searching for the attributes which may otherwise be overlooked.
1.2. Inconsistencies in classification. The differences in codification exhibited by different departments lead to higher report instances in certain areas.
1.3. Lack of understanding of the matter. In some cases, the official directives are misinterpreted and ignored, leading to occasional false reports. The two latter causes can be resolved through personnel training, making them a priority.
2.1. The impression that the issue is not the job of the police, which hampers the reputation of law enforcement regarding the effectiveness of operations.
2.2. The lack of concern for the matter. An especially disturbing trend indicative of the problem being present among the officers.
2.3. Lack of reward. Easily correctable and thus demanding immediate attention.
The Development of Prejudice
Some factors may contribute to its development. For instance, my mother comes from the authoritarian family and relies on most of the decisions on my father. This setting may contribute to the image of weak and insecure women. Besides, racial stereotypes sometimes emerge in the family discussions.
Both factors are not persistent, so it would be enough to comment on some of the controversial remarks in a non-intrusive and discreet manner or voice a counterargument, preferably that not leading to conflict. Also, the jokes containing potentially sensitive content could be discouraged (Gerstenfeld, 2013).
It is hard to determine whether school or family is more important in prejudice prevention, but school certainly has a more aggressive impact on a child. Thus, it is less controllable and demands greater resource allocation, while the family relies more on cooperation. Thus, both are important but require a different approach.
Major Hate Groups
The three major hate groups identified in the textbook are the Ku Klux Klan, the racist skinheads, and the racist militias.
The focus of hate for the Ku Klux Klan is the disruption of the established order by the racial minorities. While some of the Klans are associated with fundamentalist Christian groups such as the Church of Identity, they focus on the deprivation of the privileges, both real and imagined, resulting from the granting of equal rights to all citizens. Militia groups are mostly politically-oriented and deem the minorities as an obstacle towards “good governance” as they see it. Finally, the skinheads focus the hate on the ideological side of racism and incorporate racist attitudes as aligning with their preferred “working class” aesthetics.
The common core of hatred for all three groups is the racial minorities, although the causality is greatest for the Ku Klux Klan.
Becoming a Victim
The potential victims are people who would benefit from additional protection. However, the amendment of existing laws may not be a good solution to the problem. The hate crime legislation is currently complex enough to create controversies in the legal area and complicate the functioning of the law enforcement organizations. The expansion of the list poses the problems of the lack of definitions of certain victim groups, gaps in understanding of the phenomena, and the mounting discrepancies associated with the implementation of the hate crime laws in the police practices.
Some of the groups in question are already included in the existing laws. For instance, people with disabilities are legally recognized as hate crime victims (Gerstenfeld, 2013), and some ethnic groups, such as Muslims, fall within categories outlined by the current legislature.
Advocacy Groups
The common theme for the goals of advocacy groups is struggling with intolerance, although their focus, scope, and methods often differ.
Most of the groups, including the smallest and youngest ones, have a list of achievements, such as lobbying a certain law, providing necessary support to a certain minority group, or unearthing important information and thus raising awareness. However, the weight of such operations is not easily determined, so it is unclear whether their achievements can be perceived as proof of their effectiveness.
As the groups have one ultimate goal, they often follow the same path, target the same perpetrators, and use similar strategies in courts. Their scope also differs. For instance, the Southern Poverty Law Center currently includes poverty, immigration, race, religion, and gender identification into their area of competence, while smaller organizations can focus on a single issue. Thus, their cooperation is limited.
Mediation v Diversity Training
1. Restorative justice presumes the resolution of the initial dispute: the successful mediation results in the dissipation of the conflict.
2. Direct involvement of the offender guarantees the perception of equal terms, which removes the pressure of the external authority (the law or social norm)
3. The mediation leads to long-term effects and ensures the transformation of the social climate.
The concept of restorative justice is appealing because of its strategic value, outlined in the third point. However, its use is extremely limited to the nature of a crime, the involvement of parties, and the psychological readiness of both sides to engage in a fruitful conversation. Besides, it still does not have firm scholarly support (Gerstenfeld, 2013).
Diversity training would be a better option as it is preventive rather than mitigating, but its success is still not confirmed by the studies, so its reliability is questionable.
Hate Crimes Defined as Terrorism
Ultimately, terrorism is a purposeful act or threat of violence which has a certain objective, such as facilitating compliance or demoralization by demonstrating power, whereas a hate crime is an act based on certain prejudices towards certain groups. Theoretically, they are not the same, but in practice, the line is blurred because they often choose the same targets and resort to the same tactics.
For instance, Oklahoma City Bombing is classified as a terrorist act but is clearly led by the prejudice against the corrupt government and thus can be considered as that triggered by hate. Conversely, the public executions of blacks by Ku Klux Klan members are recognized as hate crimes but were conducted in part to signal their intentions and instill fear. Thus, terrorism and hate crimes utilize the same methods, but for somewhat different reasons.
Reference
Gerstenfeld, P. (2013). Hate crimes: Causes, controls, and controversies (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.