Hi please see the attached.

Carolyn Turpin-Petrosino is Professor of Criminal Justice in the College of Humanities and Social Sciences at Bridgewater State University. She served on the Massachusetts Juvenile Justice Advisory Council during the Romney Administration. As a result of her research and writings on hate crime, she was invited to Capitol Hill in 2002 to participate in a Congressional Briefing on the state of hate crime research and public policy in the United States. She recently co-authored a book, American Corrections , now in its second edition. In addi - tion, she has published several articles and book chapters on hate crimes in the areas of the history of hate crime in the United States, affiliation dynamics and recruitment practices of hate groups, and the nature and scope of anti-Black hate crimes. Her next project focuses on communities, collective efficacy, and com - munity response to hate crimes.Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 Turpin-Petrosino challenges us to engage with some of the fundamental questions associated with hate crimes, and to think more critically about their nature, cau - sation, and implications. Written accessibly and authoritatively throughout, this text underlines the importance of seeing hate crime as a human problem which requires interventions beyond simply the immediate or the obvious. Neil Chakraborti, Director of the Leicester Centre for Hate Studies, University of Leicester, UK In the last two decades or so hate crime has become a significant global cause for concern. Drawing upon her own vast experience and expertise in the area, Carolyn Turpin-Petrosino has written a fascinating and accessible book that offers a comprehensive and wide-ranging overview of the complex field of hate crime.

She offers insightful analysis of not just the harmful effects of hate, but also of the motivations and profiles of offenders, both from a US and international per - spective. I’ve no doubt Understanding Hate Crimes will become a key texts for academics, students, and practitioners. Jon Garland, Reader in Criminology, University of Surrey, UK Thoughtful, well-written, and broad in scope, this book provides a strong over - view of hate crime. Researchers and students in a variety of disciplines will find this text enlightening and accessible. Professor Turpin-Petrosino brings a fresh perspective to a topic still badly in need of more study. Phyllis B. Gerstenfeld, J.D., Ph.D., California State University, Stanislaus, USADownloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 Understanding Hate Crimes Acts, motives, offenders, victims, and justice Carolyn Turpin-PetrosinoDownloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 First published 2015by Routledge711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2015 Carolyn Turpin-Petrosino The right of Carolyn Turpin-Petrosino to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication DataA catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication DataPetrosino, CarolynUnderstanding hate crimes: acts, motives, offenders, victims, and justice / Carolyn Petrosino.—1 Edition.pages cm1. Hate crimes—United States. 2. Violence—Psychological aspects. 3. Criminal psychology—United States. I. Title. HV6773.52.P487 2015364.150973—dc232014036287 ISBN: 978-0-415-48400-8 (hbk)ISBN: 978-0-415-48401-5 (pbk)ISBN: 978-0-203-88369-3 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Romanby Swales & Willis Ltd, Exeter, Devon, UKDownloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 Contents List of figures vi List of tables vii Foreword viii Preface ix Acknowledgments xi 1 Introduction: an overview 1 2 A history of hate in the United States 30 3 The evolution toward modern hate crime laws 51 4 The criminology of hate crime 77 5 Perpetrators: what do we know about them? 103 6 Victims: who are they? 136 7 Criminal justice system responses 170 8 International perspectives 191 9 The future of hate crimes 220 Index 231Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 Figures 2.1 Distribution of military experience in post-9/11 White supremacist extremism 40 5.1 Hate crime perpetrators are not alien species 129 6.1 Victim perceptions of offender bias in hate crime, 2003–06 and 2007–11 138 6.2 Religious bias hate crime 2011 156 6.3 Violent crime of disabled versus non-disabled persons 2011 160 6.4 Anti-disability hate crimes by disability type 2010 161Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 Tables 1.1 Hate crimes statistics 2008: incidents, offenses, victims, and known offenders by bias motivation 18 1.2 NIBRS data (1995–2000): number of incidents by location and bias motivation 19 4.1 Allport’s scale of prejudice 79 5.1 Education/occupation of past and present leaders in the United States hate movement 108 6.1 Reported anti-Black motivated incidents 2000–10 139 6.2 Reported anti-Asian/Pacific Islander motivated incidents 2000–10 144 6.3 Anti-Hispanic incident rates 147 6.4 Anti-Hispanic incident rates in Arizona 150 6.5 Sexual orientation hate crimes 151 6.6 Anti-Jewish and anti-Islamic incidents 155 8.1 Trends in racial violence and anti-Semitism in France since 2008 200 8.2 Hate crimes in the OSCE region: police reports, prosecutions, and convictions in 2009, 2010, and 2011 209Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 Foreword It is often said that racism “is as American as apple pie.” But that is an insipid met - aphor because it disrespects a dark history of how White Europeans conquered North America by devastating the native population and how they then built their new nation’s economy on the backs of kidnapped Africans who had been turned into chattel slaves. In perhaps the most poetic Presidential inaugural speech of all time, on March 4, 1865, Abraham Lincoln wondered aloud why God saw fit to send the slaughter of the Civil War to the United States. His conclusion: that slavery was a kind of original sin for the United States, and all Americans had to do penance for it. Nineteen days later, Lincoln was killed by the racist John Wilkes Booth. One hundred and fifty years have passed since Lincoln’s assassination and his admonition for penance is all but forgotten. From the White House and Congress to the federal courts and corporate boardrooms, racism is seldom discussed. What has not changed, however, is the pervasive character of racism in American crime and violence. Few criminologists pay attention to this problem. Yet according to the FBI, 5,800 hate crimes are committed each year in the United States. Sixteen hate crimes occur each day; one hate crime is committed every ninety minutes.

Barack Obama, the nation’s first African-American President, is the target of some thirty assassination threats a day. Still, criminologists ignore this dangerous form of criminality. Thankfully, Carolyn Turpin-Petrosino has our pedagogical back. Herein lays a comprehensive review of the hate crime phenomenon covering its historical breadth, its structural correlates, its perpetrators, and its victims. This book will not only sound an alarm in college classrooms across the country, it may well inspire a generation of students to do their part in seeking penance for our nation’s original sin. Mark S. HammDownloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 Preface Teaching a course on hate crime is no easy task. Personally, I don’t think it should be. The subject itself is disturbing on many levels. But many subjects in criminol - ogy, such as homicide, terrorism, and sex crimes, are disturbing. Hate crimes, however, are particularly harmful because they are designed to not only injure the direct victim, but to send a message to the group the victim represents. The questions that a course on hate crime must tackle are equally disturbing. How is it that the possession of a certain social or biological characteristic such as race or disability becomes condemnatory? How is it that some people come to vilify other members of the human family, not because of personal experience and factual data, but because of flawed and destructive ideologies they hold onto out of fear and ignorance? But teaching such a course is invaluable for students and instruc - tors alike, as hate crimes serve as a barometer on the state of social relationships in an increasingly multicultural world, and contributes to discussions about social justice and egalitarianism. Instructors of hate crime courses are often challenged when teaching to facili - tate student understanding of the nature of these crimes, and all of the larger soci - etal issues that these offenses reflect. When I taught a hate crimes course in 1995, there were few published works on the subject, and even fewer extensive single source writings. I spent a lot of time searching for course materials that would adequately address the myriad complexities of hate crime. Subsequently, I accu - mulated disparate writings that had to be structured into a coherent framework for my students. That experience serves as my primary motivation for writing this book. I wanted to write a comprehensive introductory text for instructors and students that covers the major aspects of hate crime. The text, therefore, not only covers the who, what, where, and why of hate crime, but it also includes the history, legal background, criminology, and official statistics relevant to these offenses. A second motivation for the book was to emphasize the very human nature of hate crimes. It is sometimes too easy for researchers to speak of crime, crimi - nals, and victims as a collection of statistics, theories, study findings, and policies.

Although it is important to examine crime using rigorous social science methods, it is equally vital to not lose sight of hate crime as a human problem; with human actors, human offenders, human victims, and consequently, human sufferings. Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 x Preface I hope this text adequately conveys the human side of hate crime and that readers see themselves in both the perpetrators and the victims of hate crime. There are at least three themes that reverberate throughout most of the book’s nine chapters: (1) that the hate crime perpetrator is quite ordinary ; (2) that the major ideology driving hate crime is the “us versus them” worldview and; (3) that the control and prevention of hate crime rests in addressing its obvious cause—bigotry. Understandably, we often view perpetrators of hate crime, or any violent crime, as an aberration, as individuals who are very different from the average, law-abiding citizen. But in reality, ordinary law-abiding persons have a lot more in common with hate crime perpetrators than they would dare to suspect. How?

We are all subject to various prejudices and bigoted notions. The difference is that the hate crime perpetrator acts upon these notions. But the underlying “motiva - tion” or driving force for the hate crime perpetrator may not be that different from the ordinary person’s sexist, anti-Semitic, or racist beliefs. Chapter 8 International perspectives demonstrates that this strong inclination towards constructing an “us versus them” world view is not just an American phenomenon. I deliberately chose the examples of bigoted and hate-motivated acts highlighted in Chapter 8 to show how remarkably commonplace this margin - alization of the other is, even in societies with vastly different cultures, customs, and traditions. The last theme, which addresses how to counter hate crime, is covered in several chapters, including Chapter 5 (Perpetrators: what do we know about them?), Chapter 6 (Victims: who are they?) , and the aforementioned Chapter 8 . What readers should recognize from these chapters are universal motivations that prompt hate crime: prejudice, fear, insecurity, ignorance, and a sense of entitle - ment. If these factors are the primary motivations which also transcend differ - ences in gender, class, race, nationality, and culture, then the strategies to address hate crime must focus on these motivations. In the book, I highlight some of these strategies, including education, community-based initiatives, coalition building, and the exercise of political courage by elected officials. Finally, I frequently conclude my classes by challenging students to now make a difference; which is the obligation of those privileged to an education. I empha - size the challenge to consciously reject the tendency, sometimes ingrained in all of us, to see the world through the “us versus them” lens, but to endeavor to seek and recognize the commonalities across peoples and cultures. I hope this book will encourage readers to learn from our persistent social shortcomings, and to determine to bridge differences with understanding.Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 Acknowledgements For the students who continue to enroll in my hate crimes classes—thank you for the questions, comments, and insights that you’ve provided overall the last twenty years. Keep them coming! I want to thank my husband Tony for his relentless encouragement during these several years. He tolerated my absences as I stole time away to write. He also acted as a sounding board for my rhetorical questions and entertained my many “a-ha!” moments throughout the writing process. You are my biggest sup - porter and I appreciate you more than you know! To my amazing children, Erica and Elliot; I am inspired to write this book for you both. It is my ardent prayer that the world in which you will raise your children will become more self-aware and more loving day by day. Finally, I most hope that this book honors the legacy of my parents. They lived in a world that sought to remind them daily and in various ways that they were somehow less competent and less deserving because of their brown complexion.

Despite what they encountered, they showed my siblings and I who we really were, our true value, that we were full of raw talent and intelligence, and had unlimited potential. We each understood our value and maintained our dignity and pride in ourselves as African-Americans. How did that happen at the time when the United States was still under its own apartheid system? My parents demonstrated what it was to be a warrior against these injustices without shouting or raising clenched fists. They determined to just “be.” They were spiritual giants of strength, grace, and truth. Thank you, Ben and Erie Turpin. Carolyn Turpin-PetrosinoDownloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 This page intentionally left blankDownloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 1 Introduction An overview Crime is a staple of the news. The public is fed a daily diet of assorted illicit acts such as a corrupt official engaging in conspiracy and extortion, a domestic violence incident that leaves the victim in a coma and children in foster care, or a home invasion where criminals suddenly break into a residence, terrorize and then rob the owners, or worse. What of the OxyContin trafficking ring which has successfully eluded police despite breaking into multiple area drug store chains?

From incidents of road rage to warring rival gangs, the public is inundated with crime stories. All crime requires proper attention, clear understanding, and effective responses from the criminal justice system and that is no less true when it comes to hate crime. Over the last twenty-five years, hate incidents and hate crimes have repeatedly come to the attention of the public. Some see these types of crime as no more serious than the next, while others argue that hate crime, unabated, threatens our very democracy. But what exactly is the nature of hate crime? How is hate crime different from other crimes and how is it defined by law? Does geographical location impact the nature or meaning of a hate crime act? Do hate crime laws as a whole differ from civil rights laws or do they basically address the same unlawful behavior? When hate speech transpires, does that mean that a hate crime has occurred? How trustworthy are hate crime statistics? In reality, there are countless questions about the nature and attributes of hate crime. As such, it would take a series of monographs to adequately address these and other questions. This chapter humbly addresses the fundamental aspects of hate crime.

The objective here is to inform the reader and to clarify commonly misunderstood perceptions of these crimes.

What is hate crime?

On November 18, 2008, a young woman went to enter a convenience store in Worcester, Massachusetts, to pick up a few items while her boyfriend waited in the car. Normally such mundane tasks occur speedily and without incident; this time would be different. Suddenly, two men violently confronted her, spewing racial epithets, slurs, and began to physically assault her. The ferocity of the attack was such that witnesses inside the convenience store believed the young woman’s Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 2 Introduction: an overview life was in danger and with much effort they pulled her inside the store. Then the two men turned to attack the victim’s boyfriend, but he quickly drove off. Even after the police arrived, one of the attackers continued to scream racial epithets and make physical threats against the young woman. This attack came out of nowhere.

It was instantaneous, violent, and unprovoked (Eagan, 2008). The police classi - fied this as a hate crime. The attackers, who were two White males, assaulted the victims, who were Black—because of their perceived race. Their motivation was not to randomly harass others, to rob for financial gain, or to assault the next per - son in sight due to uncontrolled rage. The attack was racially motivated and this incident is representative of the nature or character of hate crime. Individuals commit crimes for a variety of reasons: frustration and anger, drug or alcohol addiction problems, financial distress, greed, impulsiveness, to satisfy a lust for evil, psychological problems, boredom, or just plain poor judgment. Still another motivation for committing crime is bias or hatred. Bias crime, more com - monly referred to as hate crime, refers to those offenses that are committed due to the perpetrator’s prejudiced or hostile attitudes toward a particular social group represented by the victim. Most commonly, the offender’s hostility is triggered by his or her perception of the victim’s ethnicity, race, national origin, religion, sex - ual orientation, disability, or gender. But to hold prejudiced attitudes alone is not a crime. A hate crime is comprised of at least two components, (1) the predicate or base criminal offense, such as harassment or intimidation, aggravated assault, malicious damage, arson, or even murder, and (2) evidence that the perpetrator’s actions are motivated by prejudice or animus against the group represented by the victim. The following incident reflects the two components: on November 24, 2013 in Fulshear, Texas, Conrad Alvin Barrett attacked a 79-year-old man via the infamous “knockout” game (Dinan, 2013). These are random, vicious, and unpro - voked attacks that are usually committed by young adults upon unsuspecting vic - tims. The victim in this case sustained a broken jaw and the loss of three teeth.

According to reports, what made this a hate crime and not the typical “knockout” assault was the evidence that the perpetrator sought to purposely target a Black person. The perpetrator videotaped the crime as well as stating his bias motivation to commit it. In this case, the perpetrator was a White male and the victim was Black. However, the perpetrator’s race is of little importance relative to the bias motivation which triggers the crime. But the essential components are present: (1) the criminal offense (aggravated battery) and (2) evidence of a bias motivation (perpetrator heard on tape stating his interest in attacking a Black person). To the perpetrator, the victim is representative of a social group that he or she dislikes intensely or despises. Discovering why the perpetrator possesses this negative attitude or what germinated his or her bigotry is not relevant to the crime itself. Rather, the fact that the prejudiced attitude drives or motivates the offender’s action — in whole or in part—is essential. The victim is targeted because of his or her apparent membership, for example he or she shares common characteristics or attributes such as religion or sexual orientation with the social group, of which the perpetrator strongly disapproves. It is not always clear to law enforcement which bias is at work in a hate crime. A victim could hold multiple memberships Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 Introduction: an overview 3 involving two or more groups (or in fact none) that are hated by the perpetrator.

For example, the victim could be both Asian and homosexual, or Hispanic and an immigrant, or disabled and Jewish. In such situations, despite the fact that the victim could be legitimately ascribed membership to more than one group, it is the perpetrator’s perception of who the victim is—rightly or wrongly—that deter - mines the hate motive or motives. Hate crimes are committed throughout the United States with regularity but are not as prevalent as ordinary crimes. The US Justice Department’s 2012 Uni - form Crime Report indicated the estimate of 10,189,900 offenses reported to law enforcement. By comparison, the number of reported hate crime offenses for the same year is miniscule, just 5,796. Clearly, hate crimes do not occur to the same extent as conventional crimes. As a result, some believe that such crimes are not a serious problem because they are relatively rare events or that these crimes are a throwback of the past and more of an anomaly today. Some also make the argument that special laws to address hate crimes are not necessary and even counterproductive—a viewpoint that will be discussed in Chapter 3 (Jacobs & Potter, 1998). However, terrorist acts are also rare, but because of the extraordi - nary ramifications of such acts, they are not only the subject of intense study but also the focus of special legislation and government policy. Hate-motivated crimes can range from the intentional destruction of property to violent aggravated assaults and even murder. The more typical of these acts is reflected in the following accounts: Norwalk, CT. Oct. 13, 2009—Robert Wolf, 48, was charged with intimi - dation based on bigotry and third-degree assault for allegedly spitting in a woman’s face and calling her a derogatory name for Latinos. (SPLC, 2009a) Tinley Park, Ill. Nov. 7, 2009—Valerie Kenney, 54, was charged with a hate crime for allegedly yanking the headscarf of a Muslim woman two days after the Fort Hood shootings. (Brooklyn Daily Eagle , 2010) Ivaylo Ivanov . . . spray-painted swastikas and anti-Semitic slogans through - out Brooklyn Heights . . . while assembling . . . illegal guns and bombs inside his . . . home. “Kill All Jews,” “SS + Jew = Soap,” . . . pamphlets papered parked cars . . . Ivanov pled guilty . . . to possession of a weapon . . . and criminal mischief as a hate crime. He was . . . sentenced to an 18 year(s) of incarceration. (Brooklyn Heights Blog, 2010) The basic fundamentals of hate crime also include the distinctive manner in which it causes harm. A victim is targeted by the perpetrator because of a perceived attri - bute that is an essential element of their identity and not easily obscured. There - fore, for the victim of a hate crime, there is no real ability to mitigate vulnerability. Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 4 Introduction: an overview Whereas, a victim of a house burglary can install alarms and deadbolt locks or purchase a watchdog to reduce the likelihood of future targeting and victimiza - tion, hate crime victims cannot simply detach from that which makes them Jewish, Hispanic, Gay or Black. This reality is summarized well by Frederick M. Law - rence (1999, 40), “this heightened sense of vulnerability caused by bias crimes is beyond that normally found in crime victims . . . It is an attack from which there is no escape.” In addition, because the majority of hate crime acts are aimed at individuals who are from groups that historically have been subjected to institu - tionalized discriminatory treatment, harm effects are exacerbated and reverberate old fears; evoking a collective memory of past pains and mistreatment.

Conceptualizations and statutory definitions of hate crime As previously stated there are two necessary components of a hate crime, the predicate criminal offense and the perpetrator’s demonstration of animus toward the victim due to their perceived status. Most hate crime laws articulate these components in statutory language. Nevertheless there are a variety of different conceptualizations and statutory features that are found among hate crime laws. The US Department of Justice defines hate crime as, “a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin” (US Department of Justice Hate Crime Statistics Act 2004, Appendix A, (b)(1)). In this definition, the base offense is prioritized with the bias element following. This definition also requires that even if a bias motive is only partially at work in a crime, it is still considered a hate crime. The state of California’s hate crime statute mirrors this definition: California Penal section 422.55 states, ‘a criminal act committed, in whole or in part , because of one or more of the following actual or perceived charac - teristics of the victim: 1) disability, 2) gender, 3) nationality, 4) race or eth - nicity, 5) religion, 6) sexual orientation, 7) association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.’ (Office of the Attorney General, July 2008) However, the California statute includes the category “association” with those who are targeted as a result of their perceived characteristics. This expands California’s ability to use their hate crime statute to prosecute cases where indi - viduals are targeted due to their mere affiliation with members of a group hated by the perpetrator. Most states include the protected categories of race, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation. But just as California included “association,” other states also include less common protected categories. For example, New York’s Hate Crimes Act of 2000 (485.05) not only includes religion, but also “religious practice,” and “ancestry” as bias categories. Recently disability has been added as a bias category.

Alabama includes it among its protected categories, and further delineates it as Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 Introduction: an overview 5 either physical or mental disability (Section 13A-5-13). This state also adds inter - esting language to its statute by describing the justification as well as the limits of its hate crime statute. It references incitement by groups like the Ku Klux Klan and others, which have a history of carrying out hate- motivated violence. According to California State University at San Bernardino’s Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism: Alabama 2: The Legislature finds and declares the following: 1 It is the right of every person, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or physical or mental disability, to be secure and pro - tected from threats of reasonable fear, intimidation, harassment, and physical harm caused by activities of groups and individuals. 2 It is not the intent, by enactment of this section, to interfere with the exer - cise of rights protected by the Constitution of the State of Alabama or the United States. 3 The intentional advocacy of unlawful acts by groups or individuals against other persons or groups and bodily injury or death to persons is not con - stitutionally protected when violence or civil disorder is imminent, and poses a threat to public order and safety, and such conduct should be subjected to criminal sanctions. One finds different terminology incorporated in Utah’s hate crime law. The statu - tory language found in 76-3-203.3 includes a noticeable emphasis on the intimida - tion of the victim: 2 (a) A person who commits any primary offense with the intent to intimi - date or terrorize another person or with reason to believe that his action would intimidate or terrorize that person is subject to Subsection (2)(b). 3 “Intimidate or terrorize” means an act which causes the person to fear for his physical safety or damages the property of that person or another.

The act must be accompanied with the intent to cause or has the effect of causing a person to reasonably fear to freely exercise or enjoy any right secured by the Constitution or laws of the state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Utah has apparently determined to eschew the inclusion of specific protected cat - egories, preferring to emphasize the intent of the perpetrator to threaten or terror - ize the victim. This brief review provides a sense of the variation found in hate crime stat - utes. But these differences are not unexpected. Differences in cultural and social norms and local politics, including the discourse and negotiations that occurs among politicians, policymakers, citizen advocacy groups, other interest groups and the voting public, all play a role in defining crime in general and hate crime in particular (Lawrence, 1999; Petrosino, 1999; Jacobs & Potter, 1998, Jenness & Broad, 1997). These dynamics help forge the differences seen among state hate crime laws. For example, although gender and disability are included as Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 6 Introduction: an overview protected categories in New Jersey’s hate crime laws, Delaware, New Jersey’s close neighbor to the south, does not include gender. Ohio, another neighboring state of New Jersey, lists race, color, religion, or national origin, but not gender, disability, or sexual orientation. Criminalized acts are the product of multiple social forces that subsequently forge a set of laws. Perry (2001) and Hall (2005) respectively identify these vagaries by noting, “crime is . . . socially constructed and means different things to different people at different times, and what con - stitutes a crime in one place may not in another” (Perry, 2001 as cited in Hall, 1). As Perry suggests, crime is therefore relative and historically and culturally contingent . . . this is particularly true of hate crime” (Perry, 2001 as cited in Hall, 1). Scholars also construct various definitions or theoretical conceptualizations of hate crime. Early efforts focused on describing aspects of hate crime. These endeavors emphasized the bias motive of perpetrators, their demographic pro - files, and the violent nature of these acts. There were also significant contribu - tions made in describing the operational elements of these crimes (Hamm, 1994; Levin & McDevitt, 1993; Levin, 1999; Gerstenfeld, 2004). Initial observations by researchers included the view that hate crimes were at times typical juvenile acts committed by youngsters seeking a thrill or peer approval (Levin & McDevitt, 1993). Others describe hate crimes as political acts with consequences that far exceed the immediate injury of the victim (Hamm, 1994, Petrosino, 1999, Perry, 2001). The most serious of these acts are viewed by some as having the potential to destabilize government itself (Dees & Corcoran, 1996). Some theoretical definitions of hate crimes include the assertion of a dynamic quality that has significant repercussions beyond that of the crime for the vic - tim, the perpetrator, and even for society (Bowling, 1993; Perry, 2001; Petrosino, 2002). These definitions contend that the action of hate crimes has a practical and deeply symbolic meaning. The perpetrator has constructed a world view that requires him or her to “defend” against an imagined threat. This “defense” in the hate crime perpetrator’s mindset is acted out each time an attack on a “threaten - ing” victim/enemy occurs. The perpetrator is messaging to the victim and his or her community that they have crossed a social boundary that will not be tolerated; they have violated a standard in the perpetrator’s social world and therefore pose a threat that must be addressed. Thus, the hate crime act is 100 percent pragmatic— it directly punishes the victim physically and psychologically, and it is equally symbolic—it represents and enforces the social relationship and social ordering constructed by the perpetrator. The differences among hate crime statutes and to some degree, the differ - ences among scholarly or academic definitions clearly reflect the complexities surrounding hate crime as a social problem. Bigotry, racism, homophobia, anti- Semitism, ethnocentrism and the rest of the isms have occurred since the begin - ning of humankind. But as policymakers, criminal justice officials, social service providers, community activists, and academics further comprehend the intricacies of hate crime, the more likely theoretical definitions and hate crime laws them - selves will become increasingly refined.Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 Introduction: an overview 7 Why did hate crime laws come into being?

Hate-motivated acts have long existed, but what were the driving forces that led to modern hate crime legislation? As the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s gained momentum and public attention, it also ignited a resurgence of activity from the USA’s leading hate group at the time, the Ku Klux Klan (Levin, 2009; Sims, 1996). During that era, as institutionalized discriminatory and racist practices were uncovered and publicized, the more the federal govern - ment enacted laws—civil rights laws—as a response to punish those behaviors.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (The Act), sought to discourage racially motivated discrimination. It prohibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, religion, gender, or ethnicity. The Act also out - lawed discrimination in “hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other pub - lic accommodations engaged in interstate commerce.” This law propounded that discrimination based on race, color, or national origin will not be acceptable in any program that receives federal funds and asserted that such racially motivated discrimination (and other included biases) will be circumscribed by the federal government. Similar laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1968, the Civil Rights Res - toration Act of 1988, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, all served as the precursors to modern hate crime legislation. These laws were used to impact discrimination motivated by race, religion, gender and ethnicity and firmly established the intent of the government to intervene and suppress racial and other hate-motivated acts committed by institutions and citizens. In spite of these legislative developments, the 1980s saw an increased visibility of neo-Nazi skinheads, various White nationalists, Klansmen and other racialist groups in the United States. This should not be taken to mean that individuals and groups committed to the ideals of White supremacy and other similar ideolo - gies of power and privilege laid dormant between the Civil Rights era through to the 1980s. No. There are several substantive works that describe with detail the ongoing efforts and activities of those dedicated to this philosophy since World War II (Zeskind, 2009; Barkun, 1994; Lee, 2000). But, the noticeable active - ness of hate groups in the 1980s was also commensurate with a clear increase in hate-motivated criminal activity. As a result of this disturbing trend and calls from civil rights organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the Anti- Defamation League (ADL), and others, the Congress enacted the Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990 (HCSA). This federal law, which was the first to employ the term “hate crime,” requires the US Attorney General to collect, maintain and publish data on crimes reported that evidenced prejudice based on race, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation. This data is published annually by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports program. The protected cat - egories in the HCSA were expanded to include disabilities, with the enactment of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. Passage of state hate crime laws were advocated by the Anti-Defamation League and were further sup - ported by the ADL’s model hate crime statute which withstood court challenges (see Box 1.1 ).Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 8 Introduction: an overview Box 1.1 ADL—Model Hate Crime Statute originally drafted in 1981 1 Institutional Vandalism • A person commits the crime of institutional vandalism by know - ingly vandalizing, defacing or otherwise damaging:

 Any church, synagogue or other building, structure or place used for religious worship or other religious purpose;  Any cemetery, mortuary or other facility used for the purpose of burial or memorializing the dead;  Any school, educational facility or community center;  The grounds adjacent to, and owned or rented by, any institu - tion, facility, building, structure or place described in subsec - tions (i), (ii) or (iii) above; or  Any personal property contained in any institution, facility, build - ing, structure, or place described in subsections (i), (ii) or (iii) above. • Institutional vandalism is punishable as follows:

 Institutional vandalism is a ______ misdemeanor if the person does any act described in subsection A which causes damage to, or loss of, the property of another.  Institutional vandalism is a ______ felony if the person does any act described in Subsection A which causes damage to, or loss of, the property of another in an amount in excess of five hundred dollars.  Institutional vandalism is a ______ felony if the person does any act described in Subsection A which causes damage to, or loss of, the property of another in an amount in excess of one thousand five hundred dollars.  Institutional vandalism is a ______ felony if the person does any act described in Subsection A which causes damage to, or loss of, the property of another in an amount in excess of five thousand dollars. 2 Bias-Motivated Crimes • A person commits a Bias-Motivated Crime if, by reason of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sexual ori - entation, or gender of another individual or group of individuals, he violates Section ______ of the Penal code (insert code provisions for criminal trespass, criminal mischief, harassment, menacing, intimidation, assault, battery, and or other appropriate statutorily proscribed criminal conduct). • A Bias-Motivated Crime under this code provision is a ______ mis - demeanor/ felony (the degree of criminal liability should be at least one degree more serious than that imposed for commission of the underlying offense). (continued)Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 Introduction: an overview 9 (continued) 3 Civil Action for Institutional Vandalism and Bias-Motivated Crimes • Irrespective of any criminal prosecution or result thereof, any per - son incurring injury to his person or damage or loss to his property as a result of conduct in violation of Sections 1 or 2 of this Act shall have a civil action to secure an injunction, damages or other appropriate relief in law or in equity against any and all persons who have violated Sections 1 or 2 of this Act. • In any such action, whether a violation of Sections 1 or 2 of this Act has occurred shall be determined according to the burden of proof used in other civil actions for similar relief. • Upon prevailing in such civil action, the plaintiff may recover:

 Both special and general damages, including damages for emotional distress;  Punitive damages; and/or  Reasonable attorney fees and costs. • Notwithstanding any other provision of the law to the contrary, the parent(s) or legal guardian(s) of any unemancipated minor shall be liable for any judgment rendered against such minor under this Section. 4 Bias Crime Reporting and Training • The state police or other appropriate state law enforcement agency shall establish and maintain a central repository for the collection and analysis of information regarding Bias-Motivated Crimes as defined in Section 2. Upon establishing such a repository, the state police shall develop a procedure to monitor, record, classify and analyze information relating to crimes apparently directed against individuals or groups, or their property, by reason of their actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation or gender. The state police shall submit its procedure to the appropri - ate committee of the state legislature for approval. • All local law enforcement agencies shall report monthly to the state police concerning such offenses in such form and in such manner as prescribed by rules and regulations adopted by state police. The state police must summarize and analyze the information received and file an annual report with the governor and the appropriate committee of the state legislature. (continued)Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 10 Introduction: an overview (continued) • Any information, records and statistics collected in accordance with this subsection shall be available for use by any local law enforcement agency, unit of local government, or state agency, to the extent that such information is reasonably necessary or useful to such agency in carrying out the duties imposed upon it by law.

Dissemination of such information shall be subject to all confiden - tiality requirements otherwise imposed by law. • The state police shall provide training for police officers in identi - fying, responding to, and reporting all Bias-Motivated Crimes. (Source: ADL) Since the passage of the HCSA in 1990, nearly every state, with the exceptions of Wyoming, Georgia, Arkansas, South Carolina, and Indiana, has some legisla - tion aimed at punishing hate-motivated behavior. Wyoming does have laws that are more in keeping with criminal civil rights laws, which prohibit discrimination— Wyo. Stat. paragraph 6-9-102 states, “No person shall be denied the right to life, lib - erty, pursuit of happiness or the necessities of life because of race, color, sex, creed or national origin.” What also increased state responses to hate-motivated crime were several high profile crimes that occurred in the late 1980s through the 1990s that brought national attention to the ugly nature of hate crimes. In 1989, Black teenager Yusef Hawkins was killed in a racially motivated shooting in Bensonhurst, New York, a predominately White community. Both James Byrd Jr, and Matthew Shepard were brutally murdered in 1998, in different areas of the country, due to their race and sexual orientation, respectively. All three of these deaths triggered public outrage; each brought public demonstrations and marches that vowed to bring pressure to legislatures to pass laws to stem these types of tragic crimes.

How do hate crime laws differ from federal civil rights laws? Rev. Henry Harris, reported that . . . he and . . . his family watched for 35 minutes as white diners . . . who arrived after him were escorted to tables at a Cracker Barrel restaurant in Arkansas. He and his family wound up in the smoking section with other African-American patrons . . .

(USA Today , 2010) After investigating multiple similar complaints, the US Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Cracker Barrel. Its complaint alleges that Cracker Barrel violated Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination against African-American customers and prospective customers on the basis of their race or color: Cracker Barrel segregated customers by race; allowed white servers to refuse to wait on African-American customers; and seated or served white customers Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 Introduction: an overview 11 before seating or serving similarly situated African-American customers. The lawsuit further alleged that, in many cases, managers directed, participated or acquiesced in those practices. (USA Today , 2010) What is alleged to have happened to Rev. Harris and other Black families illustrates a violation of federally protected civil rights. The Civil Rights Act Title II states: SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommo - dations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. Public accommodations include, but are not limited to, hotels, inns, movie theat - ers and restaurants—such as the Cracker Barrel restaurant whereas, the type of actions criminalized by state and local hate crime laws are represented by acts like the following reported by the SPLC: Ronald Allen Bramlett, a 65-year-old white man, was charged with felony aggra - vated assault, criminal threats and an enhancement of an alleged hate crime for allegedly calling a Black teenager racial slurs and threatening him with a knife. (SPLC, 2010) These two examples help us to understand similarities and differences in acts that violate federal civil rights laws and those that violate state hate crime laws as well as the intent of both sets of laws. Both civil rights and hate crime laws: (1) seek to inhibit discriminatory acts that are motivated by race, religion, national origin and ethnicity; (2) seek to protect the constitutionally protected rights of citizens; (3) provide specific sanctions for behaviors that violate these laws; and (4) identify the discriminatory aspect of the action as a central component of this prohibition. There are at least three general differences between these laws. First, federal civil rights acts are only applicable when there is a bias motivation to interfere with an individual engaging in activities that are constitutionally pro - tected (using public accommodations or places of entertainment, seeking employ - ment, or using a facility of interstate commerce (trains, buses). Federal civil rights laws protect victims targeted due to a status condition and who are participating in a federally protected activity. Second, hate crime statutes address the targeting of individuals because of their race, ethnicity, and so on, regardless of the victim’s activity. These laws protect victims targeted because of their group membership.

Finally, federal civil rights laws are handled by federal prosecutors in federal courts, whereas state and local hate crime laws are administered by the local dis - trict attorney and state or lower level courts.

Hate speech is not hate crime Many may find hateful speech to be repugnant and distressing, but such speech is not a crime in the United States. It is often protected by the Constitution despite Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 12 Introduction: an overview the intent of the speaker to wound and denigrate the individual and/or group the speech is directed against. The Framers of the Constitution held that the right to free speech is necessary for a free society and therefore cannot be interfered with by government. The First Amendment reads, in part, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” Nevertheless, the Constitution does allow some restrictions on speech under certain circumstances. To illustrate this point, Justice Holmes wrote, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic” ( Schenck v. United States , 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 [1919]). Expressions that under certain circumstances may trigger, facilitate, or encourage harmful acts are less likely to receive First Amendment protections. Example of protected hate speech White Supremacists March in Jena: Klansmen and white nationalists brandished nooses and chanted “If it ain’t white, it ain’t right” during a racist march and rally in Jena, La., organized by the Nationalist Movement on Martin Luther King Jr. Day. (SPLC, 2008) Matsuda (1993, 36), define hate speech as speech that (1) has a message of racial inferiority, (2) is directed against a member of a historically oppressed group, and (3) is persecutory, hateful, and degrading. While hate speech is often in the form of verbal communication directed toward a target or expressed in a public forum during a hate rally, there are other forms of speech less recognized.

Symbolic speech is nonverbal expression that conveys an idea. In the world of racialists and White supremacists, nonverbal expressions include the wear - ing of symbols such as Nazi regalia like swastikas, the iron cross or lightning bolts. Even cross burning may be considered protected speech but other times, it would not. For example, Virginia v. Black , 538 U.S. 343, 123 S. Ct.1536. 155 L. Ed.2d 535 (2003) involved a cross burning aimed at terrorizing an African- American family. A Virginia criminal statute had outlawed cross burning “on the property of another, a highway or other public place . . . with the intent of intimidating any person or group.” The court upheld the statute and emphasized that the First Amendment would protect some types of cross burnings, such as those done at political rallies. However, when the cross burning targeted indi - viduals for the purposes of criminal intimidation, the First Amendment would not be triggered (Cornell University Law School).Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 Introduction: an overview 13 While it is true that hate speech is generally protected by the First Amendment, it is also true that these are socially damaging expressions with the potential to seed and strengthen bigoted notions in others. Moreover, the use of the Internet, by racialists and other extremists, to spread hate-filled ideologies exponentially increases the potential social harm. However, the use of the Internet by hate groups and like-minded individuals once again is protected by the First Amendment. But using the Internet to directly threaten a tar - geted individual or organization is criminal and is not protected speech. Law enforcement officers and prosecutors must be careful in their determination of whether a hate crime has occurred, as opposed to an incident of protected hate speech (Bell, 2002).

A hate incident is not a hate crime There are acts that occur which are clearly motivated by prejudice or hatred, but they are not illegal. For example, the Pittsburgh Tribune Review reported that in January 2010 a student at a junior high school in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, wore a Despite the differences between hate speech and hate crime, hate speech may be interpreted by law enforcement as an indicator of a suspected hate crime. For example, an assault and battery may be identified as bias motivated if words or other forms of expression used by the assailant communicate hate or animus for the group represented by the victim.” Frederick Lawrence offers one of the clear - est explanations of the difference between hateful but protected speech and hate crime: The basic distinction . . . lies in the underlying motivation of the actor . . . racist speech is expression, a form of behavior that, how - ever offensive, is protected . . . in our legal system. Speech advocat - ing racial superiority is . . . the expression of an opinion. Burning a cross on the lawn of a Black family, [a form of expression] bias aside, is still at least trespass . . . Free expression protects the right to express offensive views but not the right to behave criminally . Speech that is intended to frighten someone . . . is a verbal assault that may be punished. Bias-targeted behavior that is intended to cre - ate fear in its targeted victim is a bias crime, whether the behavior is primarily verbal or physical. . . . Racially targeted behavior that vents the actor’s racism . . . constitutes racist speech that is protected by the First Amendment. (Lawrence, 1999, 83)Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 14 Introduction: an overview mask depicting Barack Obama to a school basketball game and carried an empty bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken. Although the student was removed from the gymnasium and disciplined by school officials, this act is not considered a hate crime ( Pittsburgh Tribune Review , January 19, 2010, Race Relations Newsletter , dtd. January 19, 2010). Likewise, racist pamphlets were found in several locations in and around Hayden, Idaho. The hate literature was left on lawns or placed at public gathering spots ( Coeur d’Alene Press , January 19, 2010, Race Relations Newsletter , dtd. January 19, 2010). Unless this activity violated a littering or tres - passing ordinance, it is not a hate crime. Both of these incidents describe bigoted behaviors that are repugnant and offensive—but they are not illegal. As men - tioned earlier, a hate crime must involve a criminal offense (for example, assault, malicious damage) that is motivated by bias.

The term “hate crime” is appropriate According to the US Department of Justice, the term “hate crime” was coined by journalists and DOJ staff during the preparation of the bill to propose the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, which was subsequently incorporated in the statu - tory language. Many began to adopt the expression and use it to refer to this crime category. More recently, there have been those who assert that the term is inaccurate and that the phrase “bias crime” is perhaps more appropriate (Chakraborti & Garland, 2009; Jacobs & Potter, 1998). They reason that the term “hate crime” overreaches and makes assumptions about the motives of the perpetrator. The term suggests that for such a crime to occur, the perpetrator’s actions must be driven by detestation and loathing of what the victim repre - sents. Moreover, this perspective observes that it is not hatred but prejudice toward the victim because of his or her membership in a group for which the perpetrator feels contempt (Ehrlich, 1992; Lawrence, 1999; Hall, 2005). This understanding is represented in the following statement offered by the Preju - dice Institute (Ehrlich, paragraph 4): In actual fact, “hate” as a strong, negative emotional response is not necessar - ily involved. Many ethnoviolent incidents are committed impulsively, or as acts of conformity, or as calculated acts of intimidation designed to achieve specific ends of the perpetrator. However, even with the recognition that not all hate crime perpetrators are driven by intense hatred, it is nevertheless arguable that the term “hate crime” is appro - priate and may be a more accurate term with respect to the experiences of the victims of such attacks. Consider the nature of the victims’ experiences in the following accounts of alleged hate crime acts: • Eric Patten was sentenced to 30 days in jail for punching and push - ing two women after yelling anti-gay epithets at them in May (SPLC, 2009b). Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 Introduction: an overview 15 • Darrel James Allen, a 23-year-old Black man, was charged with a hate -crime battery causing injury, robbery, assault and violation of civil rights for yelling racial slurs and punching a Latino man unconscious (SPLC, 2009c). • Swastikas and the letters “KKK” were carved into a Black woman’s car door and scrawled on her cubicle at work (SPLC, 2009d). • Racial taunts were directed at African-American players on an opposing team during a basketball game at a high school in Anaheim, California.

An audio recording of the game confirms that when a Black player touched the ball, members of the crowd made monkey noises (Orange County Register, January 17, 2009, The Race Relations Reporter. Weekly Bulletin . January 17, 2009). • A Black professor at Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colorado, received a note in his office mailbox that contained a swastika. Later, the door to his office was set on fire. Police believe the incidents may be related (Durango Herald , October 4, 2008, The Race Relations Reporter. Weekly Bulletin . October 15, 2008). Taking into account the nature of these acts and their real and symbolic meanings, one may question whether the term “bias crime” characterizes them sufficiently from the victim’s standpoint . The deeply personal nature of these attacks all say to the victim that because of what you are, you are not entitled to exercise your right to liberty, to expect personal safety and security, nor to assume the privileges of citizenship (Parks & Jones, 2008). Whether the attacker is fully conscious of the destructive nature of his or her actions or has the requisite scorn that would qualify as “hatred” from a social psychology point of view, the end result is the same. It is akin to criminals who choose to use either a real or fake gun during the commission of a crime. Some of them have the intention to kill the victim, while others may wish only to intimidate the victim. But in the end, the victims are all terrified and believe that their lives may be coming to an end. To be selected for victimization without provocation (merely because of what you represent to the attacker) certainly must have the impact of being hated. Those who investigate sexual violence usually identify rape as rape. Although the perpetrator’s intent may be to dominate and exercise power over the victim, these crimes are not referred to as first or second degree domination ; they are called what they are, correctly referencing the victim’s experience of rape. Hate is what the victim experiences at the hands of the perpetrator and therefore “hate crime” may be a more fitting term than “bias crime.” Ehrlich (1992, 5) acknowledges that the term “bias crime” possesses an “antiseptic quality.” This quality may pos - sibly diminish how victimization is viewed by utilizing “bias crime,” a term that is more clinical and dispassionate than “hate crime,” which is more reflective of the harm caused.Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 16 Introduction: an overview Public attitudes toward hate crimes and hate crime laws Behaviors deemed threatening to the public welfare are often proscribed by law. Although the intent of these laws is to protect the public, sometimes public sentiment is mixed toward the crime, the law and/or the punishment it requires. Some view hate crime legislation as unnecessary, even counterpro - ductive (Jacobs & Potter, 1998). Still, some studies show that there is pub - lic support for the existence of these laws, particularly when the victims of these crimes belong to historically oppressed groups (Steen & Cohen, 2004).

There is also evidence that suggests that attitudes toward hate crime laws are influenced by personally held biases. For example those with anti-Jewish or anti-homosexual sentiments are less supportive of hate crime laws (Johnson & Byers, 2003; Lyons, 2006). This literature, which is not extensive, indicates that attitudes toward majority and minority social groups are predictive of support toward hate crime legislation. Newspaper coverage and portrayals of hate crime incidents may also influ - ence the public’s perception. Since hate crimes are largely about efforts to con - trol social place and order, newspapers may indirectly impact this aim depending on whether and how they cover these incidents. In other words, to the extent that the media gives insufficient attention to these crimes, the public may intuit that they hold less importance. Gross and Goldman (2003) compared the coverage of mainstream newspapers of anti-gay hate crime with that of a gay newspaper.

While they found more coverage of anti-gay hate crimes in the gay newspaper, they also found that some mainstream papers presented these incidents in a man - ner similar to the gay newspaper. However, a more thorough and systematic examination of the coverage of hate crimes by major newspapers would con - tribute significantly to this under-researched area. Results could better explain whether and how media portrayals shape public opinion on hate crime in a more definitive way.

About hate crime statistics Prior to the passage of the HCSA, there were very few jurisdictions that quanti - fied bias or hate-motivated crimes. The Boston Police Department was the first to document racially motivated crimes, having done so since 1978 (Lawrence, 1999). It is also the first police department to establish a Community Disorders Unit and is recognized for its early commitment to educate and train officers and others about this emerging crime problem (Levin & McDevitt, 1993; Levin & McDevitt, 2002). Other early efforts to track hate crimes were undertaken by advocacy groups such as the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Notwithstanding these attempts, determining hate crime prevalence prior to 1990 is elusive due to the absence of a standardized data collection system during that time. Official hate crime data primarily come from two sources, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR) and the National Crime Victimization Survey Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 Introduction: an overview 17 (NCVS), which is administered by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. These data have different collection points. UCR hate crime data is based on crime statistics reported by state and local law enforcement agencies; whereas NCVS is based on hate crime victimization experiences reported in surveyed households. The limitations of both data sources are well known. Although UCR reflects crimes reported to police, it does not capture unreported crimes. For a variety of rea - sons, some hate crime victims do not contact police and report crimes. Gener - ally speaking, racial minority communities and homosexuals historically have had strained relationships with law enforcement and see police as potentially unresponsive to their victimization. Or worse, they believe that police would exacerbate their distress with apathetic and discourteous treatment. In addition, although the vast majority of police departments participate in the UCR, there is not yet 100 percent participation. According to the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund (LCCREF), “at least 21 agencies in cities with populations between 100,000 and 250,000, did not participate in the FBI data collection effort in 2007” (2009, 7). Also, since hate crime statutes and reporting protocols vary across jurisdictions, what is reported will contain vagaries and will not reflect a consensus or a standardized recognition of hate crime. Thus a crime that occurs in Illinois may be statutorily defined, but the same act in Geor - gia may not be and therefore would not be recorded by police as a hate crime.

Thus the UCR only represents a fraction of the hate crimes that have occurred (see T able 1.1 ). The NCVS was developed to address non-reporting problems by going directly to people and interviewing them regarding their crime victimization experiences.

Even though this provides an excellent opportunity to capture information about unreported hate crimes, the NCVS has other inherent problems. For example, individuals may inaccurately recall an experience, unconsciously add features to the event or fail to remember significant aspects. Understanding bias motives is challenging even for trained law enforcement personnel, and therefore it may be an even larger hurdle for ordinary citizens. NCVS interviewees are asked to identify the type of bias they believed motivated their attack. Once again, misper - ceptions or mistaken interpretations could impede accurate accounts even with interviewees offering indicators that they believe corroborate their perceptions.

Moreover, there may not be a clear understanding of the difference between a hate crime and a hate incident to the interviewee, and what is described may only be an embellished incident. Finally, there may be hesitancy in discussing a hate crime experience to NCVS interviewers, particularly if a gay male, lesbian woman or transgendered victim has not made their sexual orientation or gender identity public. Now that we understand the differences between UCR and NCVS as sources of official crime statistics, as well as their respective limitations, how do these sources report hate crime prevalence? The average yearly number of hate crimes reported by the UCR for years 2000–5 is 7,926. But the NCVS reports that the average number, for the time period of July 2000 through to December 2003 (a shorter time period), is 191,000 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005). Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 18 Introduction: an overview This considerable difference suggests that NCVS may be capturing as much as 24 times the number of hate crimes than is reflected in UCR reports. These realities make clear that a single source of national data cannot be viewed as sufficient to gauge the true scope of hate crime prevalence. The National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) is an additional govern - ment source of information on reported hate crimes. NIBRS collects more detailed information on reported crime events (up to 53 data elements recorded) and thus has the capacity to provide more in depth information (see Table 1.2 ). Beyond informa - tion describing the base crime, bias or hate motive, victim and perpetrator attributes, NIBRS includes information regarding the location of the crime and the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator, time of day of the incident, and victimiza - tion patterns. More importantly, it reports incident-specific factors and thus pro - vides context-rich data that goes beyond the aggregate data of the UCR. Examples from the data sources Table 1.1 Hate crimes statistics 2008: incidents, offenses, victims, and known offenders by bias motivation Bias motivation Incidents Offenses Victims 1 Known offenders 2 Total 7,783 9,168 9,691 6,927 Single-bias incidents 7,780 9,160 9,683 6,921 Race: 3,992 4,704 4,934 3,723 Anti-White 716 812 829 811 Anti-Black 2,876 3,413 3,596 2,596 Source: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2008/data/table_01.html. Retrieved October 2, 2010 Notes: 1 The term victim may refer to a person, business, institution, or society as a whole. 2 The term known offender does not imply that the identity of the suspect is known, but only that an attribute of the suspect has been identified, which distinguishes him/her from an unknown offender.

NCVS data—2005 • Most hate crimes described by victims accompanied violent crimes—a rape or other sexual assault, robbery, or assault (84 percent). The remaining 16 percent were associated with property crimes— burglary or theft. • Victims reported a major violent crime—a rape, robbery, or an assault in which a victim was injured or threatened with a weapon—in a third of hate incidents. • In about half of hate crimes, the victim was threatened verbally or assaulted without either a weapon or an injury being involved. (Source: BJS, 2005)Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 Table 1.2 NIBRS data (1995–2000): number of incidents by location and bias motivation Race Religion Ethnicity Sexual orientation Disability Unknown Total Air/Bus/Train terminal 17 3 3 5 1 29 Bank/Savings and loan 9 1 1 1 12 Bar/Nightclub 79 4 27 36 1 147 Church/ Synagogue/ Temple 14 116 2 4 1 137 Commercial/ Office building 152 56 18 15 241 Construction site 17 4 3 2 26 Convenience store 58 7 14 6 1 86 Department/ Discount store 50 6 6 7 69 Drug store/Drs office/Hospital 25 2 4 4 2 37 Field/Woods 42 10 8 5 2 67 Government/ Public building 69 18 9 11 107 Grocery/ Supermarket 34 5 11 9 59 Highway/Road/ Alley 739 61 134 100 6 1,040 Hotel/Motel/etc. 46 2 8 5 61 Jail/Prison 62 2 3 4 71 Lake/Waterway 9 1 3 1 1 15 Liquor store 3 2 1 6 Parking lot/ Garage 300 53 64 62 6 485 Rental stor. facil. 6 4 1 7 18 Residence/home 1,131 215 207 305 23 3 1,884 Restaurant 90 6 14 17 127 School/College 382 110 66 107 4 3 672 Service/Gas station 44 11 12 8 1 76 Specialty store (TV, Fur, etc.) 44 12 7 4 2 69 Other/unknown 218 38 31 26 1 314 TOTAL 3,640 747 658 752 47 11 5,855 Source: www.as.wvu.edu/~jnolan/analysis.html (Accessed February 10, 2010) Note: Unit of count—IncidentDownloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 20 Introduction: an overview Other sources of information on hate crime incidence A number of agencies and organizations publish statistics on hate crimes. Man - dated by the Jeanne Clery Act of 1990 ( Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act) , the Department of Education monitors the compliance of colleges and universities that are required to publish informa - tion on crime data. These data also includes hate crimes (US Department of Edu - cation, 1998). Founded in 1913, the early focus of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) was on exposing anti-Semitism and to advocate for the fair treatment of Jewish people. Today the ADL addresses bigotry and intolerance in general and supports civil rights for all people. The organization audits and publishes yearly anti-Semitic incidents in the United States. Co-founded in 1971 by Morris Dees and Joe Levin, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) remains focused on advocating for minorities and the poor to ensure that civil rights laws would be actualized. Combining the tools of education and the courts, the SPLC brings civil suits against hate crime perpetrators and provides educators and others resources on teaching bridge building and innovative diversity initiatives. The SPLC also publishes information on hate incidents and hate crimes, For the Record , through the Intelligence Report publication. Similar efforts were made by The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education ’s, The Race Relations Reporter. The Reporter , which is no longer available, was a weekly disseminated electronic newsletter that provided a variety of articles and commentary primarily on education policies and court decisions that impact African-American and other racial groups. It also chronicled racial incidents in Recent Racial Incidents in the United States , which listed brief summaries of racial incidents reported in US newspapers. Distinct from other victim advocacy organizations, the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP) is committed to addressing violence against sexual minorities and HIV-affected persons even when the violence is perpetrated by members of those communities. Similar to the ADL, the NCAVP provides a number of informational resources to assist communities responding to these inci - dents. It also annually publishes a report on anti-LGBTQ violence (see www.avp.

org). One of the more recent advocacy groups, the Asian American Justice Center, which was founded in 1991, monitors anti-Asian trends in the USA and offers assistance in combating these behaviors and promotes civil rights for all groups.

It publishes comprehensive reports of anti-Asian incidents (see 2002_Audit of Violence Against Asian Pacific Americans.pdf). While the efforts of these organi - zations may contribute to the further understanding of prevalence, none demon - strate a well-vetted methodology to establish good baseline data that would enable comparative or other analyses.

Where hate crimes occur Descriptive data from a number of sources provide information on when and where hate crimes have occurred. NIBRS reports the following:Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 Introduction: an overview 21 • 32 percent of all hate crimes reported in NIBRS 1997–1999 occurred in a residence. • 28 percent in an open space such as parking garages, parking lots or streets. • 19 percent in a commercial/retail business or public building. • 12 percent in a school or college. • 30 percent or more of racial, ethnic, and disability-motivated incidents occurred in an open space. • Of sexually motivated incidents, 41 percent occurred at a residence, 23 per - cent in an open space, 16 percent at a school or college and 15 percent at a commercial/retail business or public building. • One-third of religious-motivated incidents occurred at an educational or reli - gious institution. • Weapons were reported to have been used in 18 percent of all violent hate crimes. • Victims age 17 or younger were most likely to be victimized during the day, as nearly two-thirds of these incidents occurred between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m., with a peak between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. • Violent hate crimes involving victims age 18 to 24 were more likely to occur in the late evening, between 10 p.m. and 1 a.m., with a peak around midnight. (BJS, 2001, 6) These data mostly show that as a crime category, hate crimes are not very dissimilar from conventional crime events when it comes to place and time factors (Victims of Crime). In particular, children and younger teenagers or often victimized between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m., when adult supervision is most likely to be lacking (after school and before parents arrive home from work). However, young adults (aged 18–24) are more likely to be targeted during late evening. Christopher Lyons (2007) examined the structural conditions of communi - ties and the likelihood of racially motivated hate crimes to occur in them and reported instructive conclusions. In testing social disorganization theory, resource competition theories and the defended community perspective, Lyons found that anti-Black motivated incidents were more likely to happen in organized com - munities with established informal social control mechanisms in place, and less likely in deteriorating communities undergoing economic strain and uncertainty.

His findings support the historical observation of coordinated resistance to Blacks attempting to integrate White communities. In socially organized and economi - cally sound White communities, resources are marshalled and used to message to Blacks that they are unwelcome in that area. Thus, hate crimes carried out to defend the community against the threat of intruding Blacks would happen in middle-class, upper-class, and even affluent White neighborhoods. A related observation is made by Ed Dunbar (2004) who examined the patterns of hate crime in Los Angeles. Dunbar found that African-Americans and persons of Asian-Pacific descent were more likely to be victimized by hate crime while in their own neighborhoods. However, despite the fact that targeting occurred in the Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 22 Introduction: an overview communities in which they resided, these victims were also living in areas where Blacks and Asians were less than 20 percent of the population. In such environ - ments, they were very visible and therefore more easily targeted.

Hate crime settings—the workplace and the campus In the preceding section we reviewed elements of where hate crimes occur, including time and place, location, and the reality of the neighborhood as a rel - evant context for hate crime occurrence. We now turn to two additional settings, the workplace and the college campus to gain a sense of how and why hate crimes occur in these environments.

The workplace setting What is meant by hate crime at the workplace? Does this simply refer to victims being targeted by White supremacists while at work or because they do work?

Do such acts require that the perpetrators be employees at the same workplace?

Or could it only reflect the place at which the crime occurs—that the defining element is that the victim is at work or leaving the workplace at the time of the attack? The US Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Adminis - tration (OSHA) defines workplace violence as: “violence or the threat of violence against workers. It can occur at or outside the workplace and can range from threats and verbal abuse to physical assaults and homicide.” This definition suggests that workplace violence is merely indicative of where the crime occurs. It is not required to mean that the crime occurs because of the workplace. However the US Department of Agriculture offers a more specified definition A number of different actions in the work environment can trigger or cause workplace violence. It may even be the result of non-work-related situa - tions such as domestic violence or “road rage.” Workplace violence can be inflicted by an abusive employee, manager, supervisor, co-worker, customer, family member, or even a stranger. There may be a greater connection, however, between the place of employment, the victim, and the perpetrator in hate crimes. As mentioned earlier, hate crime is frequently about efforts to control social place, both real and symbolic. Perhaps for some perpetrators, contending with a new female, Muslim, or homosexual supervisor is too much to tolerate. Presently, too little is known about hate crime in the workplace. It is another area that requires systematic and sustained examination. The following two examples illustrate hate crimes that occurred in, around, or because of the workplace. The Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma housed over 500 employees. It was home to various federal offices including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Social Security Administration and Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 Introduction: an overview 23 others, as well as a day care center. The building and its employees was targeted by Timothy McVeigh, who set off a strategically placed truck bomb killing 168 indi - viduals, 19 of which were children, on April 19, 1995. Clearly an act of domestic terrorism, this act arguably is also an example of workplace hate crime. McVeigh was strongly motivated by animus towards the US federal government and all that it symbolized to a mindset immersed in anti-government, militia, and White suprema - cist ideologies (Levitas, 2002). He attacked federal employees due to his hatred of the government and its representatives. It appears that he attacked them in, around, and certainly because of the workplace and what it represented to him. On July 28, 2006, the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle building was the scene of a workplace hate crime in Seattle, Washington. Naveed Afzal Haq entered the building armed with semi-automatic handguns. He shot six people, killing one because of his hatred for Israel and Jews. Among the multiple felo - nies charged was malicious harassment, the state’s felony charge for hate crime (The Seattle Times , 2006). In this instance, the perpetrator selected this work site because of what it represented and his focus on targeting Jews. Both of these events are examples of the most violent workplace hate crimes; other workplace incidents are less severe. “SANFORD, NORTH CAROLINA:

The owner of a grocery store in Sanford, North Carolina, made racial comments and threatened to kill a Black couple if they did not leave the store. The proprietor reportedly said, “You niggers are trespassing. Those people only come in a store to steal.” The store owner was arrested and charged with ethnic intimidation ( The Race Relations Reporter , December 23, 2009). In 2009, 168 Black and Hispanic employees of Colorado’s Albertson Supermarket chain were awarded nearly $9 million dollars in a class action lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The lawsuit described reprehensible incidents of racial harassment, taunting, unequal treatment and other unconscionable acts. Racist graffiti was com - monplace; drawings depicting Blacks lynched; hanging stuffed animal monkeys were routinely placed in the work spaces; and the word nigger was scrawled on walls. Hispanics were directly referred to as ‘border jumpers’ and subjected to poor treatment. A Black male employee suffered an on the job injury, his leg crushed by a piece of equipment. He was left in that condition for 30 minutes on the floor and was told that’s what he deserved for being Black (7News Denver). These bias motivated acts occurred in or around the workplace but are illustrative of the more typical hostile acts that occasionally take place in these settings.

The college and university campus setting Institutions of higher education generally seek to empower students; to help them realize their potential and to equip them with the skill sets necessary for success in their chosen fields. These are not environments where one would expect to see crimes motivated by bigotry and hatred. However, as indicated earlier, these settings are not immune. In fact, the US Department of Justice has brought civil rights actions against non-students, former students and current students who have committed hate crimes against other students. The following cases reported Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 24 Introduction: an overview by the Center for the Prevention of Hate Violence (2001) illustrate the nature of these crimes on US campuses: United States v. Samar. James Samar, a college student, was indicted on three counts of using threats of force to interfere with the federally protected rights of three students attending a small Massachusetts college. Samar used anti-Semitic slurs, threatened two fellow students, and threatened to kill one fellow student. In addition, he delivered photographs of holocaust victims to one student and stated, among other things, that the photographs were “a reminder of what happened to your relatives because they too made a mock - ery of Christianity.” Samar entered a plea agreement (3).

United States v. Little . The defendant, Robert Allen Little, was charged with igniting a homemade pipe bomb in the dorm room of two African-American students on a campus in Utah. The bomb caused extensive damage to the building and destroyed the belongings of both students. After the bombing, Little returned to the dorm and left a threatening and racist note on the door of another African-American student. Little was sentenced to 12 years in prison, fined $12,000, and ordered to pay restitution (4). These examples are representative of the most serious and rarest campus hate crimes. More common are incidents that do not rise to the level of a crime and are at best, acts of prejudice. The Department of Justice describes such acts as mostly “degrading language and slurs by . . . students directed toward people of color, women, homosexuals, and Jews” (US Department of Justice, 2001, 6).

Are hate crimes really distinctive crimes?

In what ways might hate crimes be considered different from conventional crimes?

In the perpetrator’s intent . Some perpetrators commit hate crimes without pos - sessing a well-formed ideology that fuels these actions. Rather, they seek peer approval, or thrill and exhilaration from harassing and attacking others viewed as weak and vulnerable (Levin & McDevitt, 2002). However, other perpetrators have a focused intent, even an agenda to intimidate, threaten, and ultimately con - trol the individual victim, and to message the members of the victim’s community (Hamm, 1994; Miethe & McCorkle, 1998). For these perpetrators, their crimes are committed in order to conform the social landscape to that which subordinates racial, sexual, ethnic, religious, and other minority communities while ensuring the “superiority” of White heterosexual males (Perry, 2001). Ultimately, hate crimes seek to compromise the civil liberties of targeted victim groups. This aim is unlike traditional crime. In the nature of its impact on the victim . Garcia & McDevitt (1999), Herek, et al. (2002), McDevitt, et al. (2001) and others have reported on the perceived seriousness of hate crime victimization and related issues according to victims.

Much of the literature underscores the fact that the trauma experienced, both physical and psychological, is more deleterious than that suffered by victims of comparable non-hate crime acts.Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 Introduction: an overview 25 In the nature of its impact on the victim’s community. The repercussions of hate crime attacks extend well beyond that of the immediate victim. The victim’s community becomes more aware that safety is less sure as persons who share their skin color, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or disability are targeted.

Moreover, if members of the victim’s community begin to alter their habits and not venture into certain locations or they begin to travel in groups for safety, moving quickly through areas where they now feel less welcomed, then a major concession has occurred and the perpetrator has won a battle. These communities have become more wary, more distrustful, and more isolated. Its historical relevance . Hate crimes further distinguish themselves in two important areas: (1) the historical continuity of hate crime victimization of racial minorities, Jews, Hispanics, and homosexuals; and (2) the complicity of main - stream institutions and cultural practices in the victimization of these groups (Pet - rosino, 1999; Boeckmann & Turpin-Petrosino, 2002). Given these factors, the harm factor in hate crimes is evidently distinctive from non-bias crimes. As a result of these four distinguishing characteristics, hate crimes may pos - sess qualities that well justify their criminalization and punishment as a unique category of crime.

Chapter summary points • Hate crimes are offenses committed due to the perpetrator’s prejudice against a particular group represented by the victim. The most common categories of prejudice include ethnicity, race, national origin, religion, sexual orienta - tion, disability, or gender. Hate crimes are comprised of two components, (1) the predicate or base offense, and (2) the perpetrator’s prejudice against the group represented by the victim. • While a victim may hold multiple memberships to two or more targeted groups, it is the perpetrator’s perception of the victim that determines the hate motive. • The majority of hate crime acts are aimed at individuals from social groups that have been historically subjected to institutionalized discriminatory treatment. • Hate crime laws were enacted to address a disturbing increase in hate- motivated criminal acts during the 1980s in the United States. • There are several differences between federal civil rights laws and hate crimes stat - utes. Essentially, federal civil rights laws are applicable when there is interference with an individual engaging in constitutionally protected activities; whereas hate crime statutes address the harming of individuals because of their race, ethnicity, and so on, regardless of the victim’s activity. Federal civil rights laws are handled by federal prosecutors in federal courts, whereas state and local hate crime laws are administered by the local district attorney and state level or lower courts. • Hate speech is generally protected by the First Amendment. However, speech that directly threatens a targeted individual or organization is criminal and is not protected speech. • There are acts that are clearly motivated by prejudice, even hatred, but they are not illegal. A hate crime must involve a criminal offense (for example, assault, malicious damage) that is motivated by bias.Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 26 Introduction: an overview • The term “hate crime” is appropriate. The deeply personal nature of these attacks and the intense disregard of the victim’s humanity all say to the victim that they are the victim of intense animus or hatred and not simply bias. • National hate crime data primarily come from two sources, Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). There are limitations in both data sources. The UCR reflects only reported crimes, and despite a high number of police agencies participating in the program, there is not yet 100 percent participation. The NCVS data is based on vic - timization surveys of a national sample of households. Limitations include the failure of interviewees to recall facts accurately (or at all) or confusion or misinterpretation of an event and the reluctance to divulge a victimization experience to an interviewer. • Hate crimes are distinct from conventional crimes in the following areas:

(1) the perpetrator’s intent; (2) impact on the victim; (3) impact on the vic - tim’s community; and (4) historical relevance.

Case study 1.1 Citizens’ band radio and hate crime When is talk just talk and when is it a crime, especially a hate crime? The Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals clarified that when it upheld the convic - tion of Bradley Smith whose words and actions constituted a hate crime.

Smith, as well as the victim, Alfred Henderson were participants in the citi - zens’ band (CB) radio culture of Modesto, California. But Smith used CB radio to threaten Henderson, an African-American and his family. Smith would routinely use racial slurs (N-word) and epithets aimed at Henderson; he also threatened to burn a cross on his property, throw Molotov cocktails on the property, sexually abuse his wife and then to lynch him by hang - ing. These threats persisted over two years and culminated with Smith again taunting and threatening harm to Henderson, his wife and the rest of his family, and that he and a number of Whites were going to come to his home to attack them. Henderson then called the police, and Smith and a group of other Whites did come to the house. Smith’s motivation was to intimidate the Henderson family and encourage them to move out of the community.

Eventually they did just that. Although the Stanislaus County prosecutor declined to pursue charges against Smith, federal prosecutors did. Smith was convicted and sentenced to six and a half years for civil rights violations. (Source: www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f =/c/a/2010/ 02/12/BAVI1C0T8B.DTL, Accessed February 14, 2010) Discussion questions 1 Identify what elements in this action indicate that a hate crime had occurred. 2 Why didn’t the First Amendment protect Smith’s comments over the CB radio? 3 Do you agree that federal prosecutors should have filed charges, even when the county district attorney chose not to?Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 Introduction: an overview 27 Bibliography 7News Denver. (n.d.). December 15, 2009. Albertsons Settles $8.9 Million Racial Discrimina - tion Lawsuits. Available from www.thedenverchannel.com/news/albertsons-settles-8-9- million-racial-discrimination-lawsuits [Accessed March 5, 2015]. Anti-Defamation League (ADL). (n.d.). Available from www.adl.org/99hatecrime/text_legis. asp [Accessed March 29, 2010]. Barkun, M. (1994). Religion and the Racist Right: The Origins of the Christian Identity Movement. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. Bell, J. (2002). Policing Hatred: Law Enforcement, Civil Rights, and Hate Crime . New York: New York University Press. Bowling, B. (1993). Racial Harassment and the Process of Victimisation. British Journal of Criminology, 33(2), 231–50. Brooklyn Daily Eagle (February 2, 2010). Available from www.brooklyneagle.com/ categories/category.php?category_id=4&id=33379 [Accessed March 26, 2010]. Brooklyn Heights Blog (February 25, 2010). Ivanov Gets 18 Years for Bombs, Hate Crimes . Available from http://brooklynheightsblog.com/archives/16654 [Accessed January 8, 2014]. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report (BJS). (2001). Hate Crimes Reported in NIBRS 1997–1999. September 2001. NCJ 186765. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. (BJS). (2005). Hate Crimes Reported by Vic - tims and Police. November 2005. NCJ 209911. Available from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/ content/pub/pdf/hcrvp.pdf [Accessed October 2, 2010]. Center for the Prevention of Hate Violence, University of Southern Maine. (2001). Hate Crimes On Campus: The Problem and Efforts to Confront It. Bureau of Justice Assis - tance Monograph. Hate Crime Series #3. October. NCJ 187249. Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism. (n.d.) Selected Hate Crime Laws in Vari - ous States: Alabama—Section 13A-5-13. Available from http://hatemonitor.csusb.edu/ resources/hate_crime_law_A_L.htm [Accessed January 30, 2010]. Chakraborti, N. & Garland, J. (2009). Hate Crime: Impact, Causes and Responses . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Cornell University Law School. (n.d.). Legal Information Institute. Virginia v. Black. Availa - ble from www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/01-1107 [Accessed on March 5, 2015]. Dees, M. & Corcoran, J. (1996). Gathering Storm. America’s Militia Threat . New York: HarperCollins Publishers. Dinan, S. (2013). Feds Charge White Man with Hate Crime in First “knockout” Pros - ecution. The Washington Times. December 26. Available from www.washington - times.com [Accessed February 7, 2015]. Dunbar, E. (2004). Community Factors in Hate Crime Victimization. Paper presented at the 112th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association in Honolulu. Eagan, Jennifer. (2008). City Leaders Condemn Alleged Hate Crime in Worcester . Available from www.necn.com/pages/landing?blockID=136934&tagID=21150 [Accessed March 22, 2010]. Ehrlich, H. J (n.d.). Understanding Hate Crimes. The Prejudice Institute. Available from http://prejudiceinstitute.com/understandinghatecrimes.html [Accessed March 5, 2015]. Ehrlich, H. J. (1992). The Ecology of Anti-Gay Violence. In G. M. Herek & K. T. Berrill (eds.) Hate Crimes: Confronting Violence Against Lesbians and Gay Men . Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Garcia, L. & McDevitt, J. (1999). The Psychological and Behavioral Effects of Bias and Nonbias Motivated Assault . Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Gerstenfeld, P. B. (2004). Hate Crimes: Causes, Controls, and Controversies . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Gross, K. & Goldman, S. (2003). Framing Hate: A Comparison of Media Coverage of Anti-Gay Hate Crime in the Washington Post and Washington Blade. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. Philadelphia, PA.Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 28 Introduction: an overview Hall, N. (2005). Hate Crime . Portland, OR: Willan Publishing. Hamm, M. S. (1994). American Skinheads: The Criminology and Control of Hate Crime . Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. 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), 319–39. Jacobs, J. B. & Potter, K. (1998). Hate Crimes: Criminal Law & Identity Politics. New York: Oxford University Press. Jenness, V. & Broad, K. (1997). Hate Crimes: New Social Movements and the Politics of Violence. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Johnson, S. D. & Byers, B. D. (2003). Attitudes Toward Hate Crime Laws. Journal of Criminal Justice , 31(3 ), 227–35. Lawrence, F. M. (1999). Punishing Hate: Bias Crimes under American Law . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund (LCCREF). (2009). Confronting the New Faces of Hate: Hate Crimes in America. Published by the Leadership Confer - ence on Civil Rights Education Fund, Washington, DC. Lee, M. A. (2000). The Beast Reawakens: Fascism’s Resurgence from Hitler’s Spymasters to Today’s Neo-Nazi Groups and Right-Wing Extremists . New York: Routledge. Levin, B. (1999). Hate Crimes: Worse by Definition. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice , 15(1), 6–21. Levin, B. (2009). The Long Arc of Justice: Race, Violence, and the Emergence of Hate Crime Law. In B. Perry (ed.) Hate Crimes: Understanding and Defining Hate Crime , Vol. 1 (pp. 1–22). Westport, CT: Praeger. Levin, J. & McDevitt, J. (1993). Hate Crimes: The Rising Tide of Bigotry and Bloodshed . New York: Plenum Press. Levin, J. & McDevitt, J. (2002). Hate Crimes Revisited: America’s War on Those Who Are Different . Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Levitas, D. (2002). The Terrorist Next Door: The Militia Movement and the Radical Right . New York: St. Martin’s Press. Lyons, C. J. (2006). Stigma or Sympathy? Attributions of Fault to Hate Crime Victims and Offenders. Social Psychology Quarterly , 69(1), 39–59. Lyons, C. (2007). Community (Dis)organization and Racially Motivated Violence . Ameri - can Journal of Sociology , 113(3), 815–63. Matsuda, M. J. (1993). Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim’s Story. In M. J. Matsuda, C. R. Lawrence III, R. Delgado, and K.W. Crenshaw (pp. 17–51). Words That Words: Critical Race Theory Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment . Boul - der, CO: Westview. McCorkle, R. C. & Miethe, T. D. (1998). The Political and Organizational Response to Gangs: An Examination of a Moral Panic in Nevada. Justice Quarterly 15, 41–64. McDevitt, J., Balboni, J., Garcia, L., & Gu, J. (2001). Consequences for Victims: A Comparison of Bias and Non Bias Motivated Assaults. American Behavioral Scientist , 45(4), 697–713. Nolan III, J.J., Menken, C., & McDevitt, J. (2005). NIBRS Hate Crimes 1995–2005, Juvenile Victims and Offenders. Washington, DC. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin - quency Prevention, US Department of Justice. Office of the Attorney General. (July 2008). California’s Department of Justice. Hate Crime in California 2007. Available from http://ag.ca.gov/cjsc/publications/hatecrimes/ hc07/preface07.pdf [Accessed January 30, 2010]. Parks, G. S. & Jones, S. E. (2008). “Nigger”: A Critical Race Realist Analysis of the N-Word Within Hate Crimes Law. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology , 98 (4), 1305–52. Perry, B. (2001). In the Name of Hate: Understanding Hate Crimes . New York: Routledge.Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 Introduction: an overview 29 Petrosino, C. (1999). Connecting the Past to the Future: Hate Crime in America. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice , 15, 22–47. Petrosino, C. (2002). Hateful Sirens . . . Who Hears Their Song? An Examination of Stu - dent Responses to Hate Groups and their Recruitment Practices. Journal of Social Issues, 58(2), 281–302. Race Relations Reporter, The (n.d.). Available from www.jbhe.com/rrr/rrr.html [Accessed February 14, 2010]. Seattle Times, The (2006). Available from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/ 2003170287_webhaq02.html [Accessed February 14, 2010]. Sims, P. (1996). The Klan . Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky. Southern Poverty Law Center. (SPLC) (2008). Nationalist Movement Rally. Intelligence Report, Spring 2008, Issue No. 129. Available from http://www.splcenter.org/get- informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2008/spring/nationalist-movement- rally [Accessed March 4, 2015]. Southern Poverty Law Center. (SPLC) (2009a). Hate Incidents. Connecticut. Available from http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-incidents?year=2009&state=CT [Accessed March 4, 2015]. Southern Poverty Law Center. (SPLP (2009b). Hate Incidents. Massachusetts. Available from http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-incidents?page=2&year=&state=MA [Accessed March 5, 2015]. Southern Poverty Law Center. (SPLC) (2009c). Hate Incidents. California. Available from http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-incidents?page=19&year=&state=CA [Accessed March 5, 2015]. Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). (2009d). Hate Incidents. Washington. Available from http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-incidents?page=4&year=&state=WA [Accessed March 5, 2015]. Southern Poverty Law Center. (SPLC) (2010). Hate Incidents. California. Available from http:// www.splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-incidents?year=2010&state=CA [Accessed March 4, 2015]. Steen, S. & Cohen, M. A. (2004). Assessing the Public’s Demand for Hate Crime Penalties. Justice Quarterly , 21(1), 91–124. USA Today . (2010). Available from www.usatoday.com/money/companies/2004-05-07- cracker-barrel_x.htm [Accessed February 3, 2010]. US Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Available from www.usda.gov/news/pubs/violence/ wpv.htm [Accessed February 7, 2015]. US Department of Education. (1998). Amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1965. Available from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea98/sec486.html [Accessed on March 8, 2015]. US Department of Justice. (2001). Hate Crimes on Campus. Bureau of Justice Assistance. Hate Crimes Series #3. NCJ 187249. Available from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ bja/187249.pdf [Accessed March 5, 2015]. US Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). (2002). OSHA Fact Sheet. Available from www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/appendix_a.htm [Accessed February 1, 2010]. Victims of Crime. (n.d.) When And Where Does Violent Crime Happen? Available from www.libraryindex.com/pages/447/Victims-Crime-WHEN-WHERE-DOES-VIO - LENT-CRIME-HAPPEN.html#ixzz0lSSh9UAP [Accessed February 7, 2015]. Zeskind, L. (2009). Blood and Politics: The History of the White Nationalist Movement. From the Margins to the Mainstream . New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 2 A history of hate in the United States Perpetrators of hate crime see their victims as inherently inferior people. Intruders in their world who are unworthy or somehow undeserving of the equality, justice, or freedom guaranteed by the Constitution due to reasons of race, religion, sexual orientation, or other status condition. Should hate crimes achieve their intended effects, the civil liberties afforded to some segments of the US population would become moot or non-existent. Hate-motivated acts are as much a part of America’s past as other events that are usually written about in history books. There are many acts that occurred in the past that would well qualify as hate crimes had they occurred in the twenty- first century. As stated previously, hate crimes are crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on categories such as race, religion, sexual orientation, gen - der, ethnicity, and disability. Despite the fact that hate-motivated acts of the past were virtually identical to modern hate crimes in motive, intent, and sometimes in manner, for the most part they were not criminalized acts. Moreover, although hate-motivated acts have occurred in the United States for the last 400 years, what has society learned from them? Is there anything about those events that can shed light on modern hate crimes? This chapter provides a historical perspective of hate crime in the United States. Because the scope of this topic cannot be suffi - ciently addressed here, this chapter will only identify broad similarities between historical and modern hate-motivated acts and related factors. I also argue here that these historical events are very relevant to the understanding of present-day hate crime. In addition, this chapter explores the question of whether modern hate crimes are a consequence of historical hate crime patterns and whether such pat - terns are possibly predictive of developing trends in hate crimes.

A hate crime is a hate crime is a . . . On a beautiful autumn afternoon, a group of individuals going about their daily rou - tine were suddenly and viciously attacked in their own community by those who viewed the individuals as threatening. The aim of the attackers was to send a mes - sage: these individuals were not welcomed there, despite living separately, because of their difference , inferiority , and dangerousness . The attack nearly accomplished the murder of most of the male members of the group, including children.Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 A history of hate in the United States 31 This incident, the Haun’s Mill massacre, occurred on October 30, 1838, in Caldwell County, Missouri. The victims were Mormons. The perpetrators were local militiamen, who may have been inspired to commit this act by Missouri’s Governor who earlier issued an extermination order against Mormons (Denton, 2003). Although this event occurred over 150 years ago, it possesses characteris - tics of modern-day hate crimes. Mormonism was viewed with suspicion and those that practiced this religion were viewed as threatening. Mormons were attacked by individuals, citizen groups, and finally governments. They were persistently subjected to harassment and banishment, even their extinction was periodically sought. Today, Mormons number in the hundreds of thousands and they live peacefully throughout the United States; yet their history includes being the tar - get of hate-motivated acts for decades. There are many historical incidents that resemble the hate crimes of today. The targeting of others due to their religion, ethnicity, race, or other perceived differences has been a common occurrence throughout American history (Feagin, 2001; Perlmutter, 1992).

America’s past—when hate crimes were not Many bias- or hate-motivated acts were not considered illegal during the dis - tant past (Jordan, 1968; Miller, 1979; Petrosino, 1999; Stampp, 1956; Steinfield, 1973; Takaki, 1994a, 1994b; Wells-Barnett, 1969). The likely reasons for this includes the absence or limited constitutional or statutory protections afforded to victims, the devaluation of their very personhood according to the social norms of that time, and the direct role of governments and other legal authorities in hate- motivated actions (Petrosino, 1999). While acts such as assault, theft, murder, and rape were crimes under the common law, (which is the historical basis for Ameri - can jurisprudence), these same acts were less likely to be viewed as criminal when motivated by racism, ethnocentrism, or classism (Hoffer, 1992; Jordan, 1968; Per - lmutter, 1992). Few would argue that the common law was utilized to protect the poor or racial and ethnic minorities to the same extent as White native-born property-owning males (Mann, 1993; Perlmutter, 1992; Steinfield, 1973; Takaki, 1994a, 1994b; Walker, et al. 1996). General characteristics of modern hate crime includes: (1) victims are more likely to be members of racial and or ethnic minority groups (Bureau of Jus - tice Assistance, 1997; Hamm, 1994); (2) victim groups tend to be less advan - taged economically and politically, relative to the majority group (Hamm, 1993); (3) prevailing cultural values and traditions situate victim groups as suitable for discriminatory and unequal treatment (Perry, 2001); and (4) victim groups are perceived as a serious threat to the quality of life of the dominant group (i.e., social hegemony, economic stability and/or physical safety); (Levin & McDe - vitt, 1993; Ridgeway, 1990; Herek, 1992; Hall, 2013). The historical incidents selected for this examination possess some of these attributes and are drawn from among the historical experiences of racial and ethnic minority groups in Amer - ica. This approach aids comparative analysis efforts, an objective in this chapter.

Nevertheless, it is important to state strongly that hate-motivated acts were not Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 32 A history of hate in the United States experienced solely by members of racial and ethnic minority groups (the Irish were also the victims of deplorable systematic discrimination, as were Catholics), however historical records describing the mistreatment of these groups is well documented in the literature due to the constancy and extreme nature of their victimization.

Historical incidents and the evolution of hate crime Pre-Civil War Many historians describe the early contacts between European settlers and Native Americans as non-violent and even mutually beneficial (Abbot, 1975). However, the relationship between these groups changed with the increasing efforts of col - onists to homestead and take tribal land, often in unfair ways (Sanders, 1978; Spindler, 1972; Steinfield, 1973; Tebbel & Jennison, 1960). As Native Ameri - cans resisted White encroachment, interferences with their sovereignty, and the deceptive practices of colonists, they found themselves demonized (Harjo, 1998; Riding In, 1998). Anti-Indian sentiments became prominent in early American cul - ture, political discourse and governmental policies. Jacksonian democracy, which shaped cultural and social practices and political thought from the 1820s to 1860s exemplifies these convergent social forces. Berlet and Lyons (2000) describe Jacksonian perspectives as advocating “an inclusive class ideology of White male egalitarianism with the hard racism of exclusion, terror, and suppression toward people of color” (42). Expansionist efforts during that time were rational - ized by this chauvinistic ideology. This social climate facilitated egregious hate- motivated acts against Native Americans.

The near-genocide of the Yuki and Cheyenne Indians—anti-Native American acts The Yuki of northern California numbered approximately 5,000 when first encountered by White settlers in 1848. By this time period in American history, atrocities and inhumane treatment was routinely committed against Native Amer - icans by settlers, local authorities, and the US Cavalry in the form of kidnapping, theft, fraud, forced indentured servitude, sexual assault, starvation, and murder (Hendricks, 2006; Riding In, 1998). Targeting the Yuki for similar treatment, unfortunately, was not unusual. In fact, military records indicate interest in their extermination in order to increase White settlements (Gundersen & Smelser, 1994; Miller, 1979). With the execution of planned attacks authorized by California’s Governor Peter Burnett, the Yuki lost 90 percent of their population in a 32-year period (Chalk & Jonassohn, 1990). The Cheyenne were victims of similar acts, as described in the 39th U.S. Congressional Record , 2nd session, Senate Report 156. The following is an account of a mass murder that occurred on November 28, 1864, as told by eyewitness Robert Bent:Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 A history of hate in the United States 33 When the troops fired, the Indians ran. . . . I think there were six-hundred Indians in all. . . . about sixty [men]. . . . I saw five squaws under a bank for shelter. . . . but the soldiers shot them all. . . . There seemed to be indiscrimi - nate killing. . . . There were some thirty or forty squaws collected in a hole for protection; they sent out a little girl about six years old with a white flag. . . . ; she had not proceeded but a few steps when she was shot and killed. . . . I saw one squaw cut open with an unborn child. . . . I saw the body of a leader, with the privates cut off, and I heard a soldier say he was going to make a tobacco pouch out of them. (Brown, 1970, 73) Few would disagree that these acts were at least in part racially motivated.

Evidence of racial animus toward Native Americans permeated American culture at that time, and these brutal acts clearly indicate a potent disregard of the victims’ humanity (Berthrong, 1963). Sentiments toward Native Americans during that time are captured by the astounding fact that it was not until 1891 that the US Supreme Court declared that Indians were human beings (Kennedy, 1959). The commodification of Black Africans: slavery—anti-Black acts Early observations of Africa and African people were articulated through a Euro - centric perspective (Fredrickson, 1991; Jordan, 1968; Pieterse, 1992). When eco - nomic profit became a driving force for furthering the New World and slavery the crucial means, a particular image of the African was needed. African skin color and non-Christian religious practices made it simpler to cast the African as an uncivilized pagan and to associate Blackness with negativity, evil, and unworthi - ness (Jordan, 1968). It became the norm in White culture to associate being Black with the conditions of inferiority. As early as 1625, being African became synonymous with being enslavable. However, the treatment of Africans in a debased and discriminatory manner pre - dated institutionalized slavery in Colonial America. With the advent of legalized slavery in the colonies and the enactment of the Black Codes in 1640, Blacks became distinguished from all other groups in America (Morris, 1996). These con - sistent social and legal practices reinforced racial animus and prejudiced attitudes toward this group. Once slavery was well established, it received the legal status of perpetual (Jordan, 1968), making the loss of freedom lifelong and complete. The status of children born to slaves was clarified when slavery was defined by law as an inherited condition (Higginbotham, 1978). Despite the overwhelming totality of slavery as an institution, slaveholders employed various techniques to force Blacks to accept their condition. These techniques included acts of kidnap - ping, assault, torture, inhumane treatment (because slaves were viewed as chattel and not as human beings), rape, and psychological abuse. These acts were at least in part racially motivated and largely viewed as innocuous considering the pre - vailing social norms of that time.Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 34 A history of hate in the United States Kearneyism—anti-Asian Acts Asian laborers were invited to the United States in the 1800s as workers in large scale labor projects including the construction of the California Central railroad and the Transcontinental railroad (Healey, 1995). Initially viewed as an indus - trious people, the images of Asians soon deteriorated for several reasons. Ideas advocated by the eugenics movement (which began as earlier as the 1880s) cen - tered on racial classifications and social practices needed to ensure a racially supe - rior America. Non-European groups, such as Asians, did not fare well in these proposals. Some contended that the adult Mongoloid was equivalent to an ado - lescent Caucasian (Gould, 1981). In fact, many stereotypes used to depict Native Americans and Africans were also used against Asians: White workers called the Chinese “nagurs” [ sic ], and a magazine cartoon depicted a Chinese man as a bloodsucking vampire with slanted eyes, a pig - tail, dark skin, and thick lips. Like blacks, the Chinese were described as heathen, morally inferior, savage, childlike, and lustful. Chinese women were condemned as a “depraved class” and said to resemble Africans. (Takaki, 1994b, 66) The industrious nature of the Chinese, their ability to earn a wage, and even own a business incurred resentment from others. Their successes were viewed by many as threatening. Several states enacted laws during the 1800s to constrain Asian liberties. These statutes initially segregated them and culminated in an effort to banish Asians from the United States. The pervasiveness of anti-Asian sentiments during this period is well documented. Consider the sentiments expressed by President Theodore Roosevelt (1901–09) who believed that America should be preserved as a heritage for Whites and that Asians should not live here (Takaki, 1994b). The Native Sons of the Golden West, a nativist organization that vigorously sought to minimize the presence of racial minorities in California, is accredited with the following statement (Chronister, 1992): “the state of California should remain what it had always been and God himself intended it shall always be—the White Man’s Paradise. . . . the 31st star shall never become dim or yellow” (pp. 40–41). Asian unemployment surged at the completion of the railways but was short-lived. Many took jobs that Whites declined, or they started their own businesses. While Asians found steady work, White unemployment became a growing problem. Labor leader Denis Kearney and others inflamed anti-Asian sentiments by consistently arguing that Chinese workers caused White unemployment (Steinfield, 1973). The scapegoating of Asians by Kearney, along with pre-existing norms of racial prejudice, created an atmosphere that prompted spontaneous acts of racially motivated violence. During this period Asian businesses were vandalized or destroyed and individuals were robbed, assaulted, and murdered. In 1871, 22 Chinese were hung by a mob in Los Angeles (Perlmutter, 1992). Because Asians lacked basic civil liberties, (see People v. Hall , 1854), little was done through the courts to respond to their victimization. Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 A history of hate in the United States 35 In fact, the murder of Asians became so casual that the print media frequently chose not to report its occurrence (Steinfield, 1973; Takaki, 1994b). These acts, which were motivated by ignorance, resentment, and racial animus were carried out with impunity and sent an unmistakable message to Asian communities.

Post-Civil War Lynching: anti-Black acts Named after Charles Lynch, who popularized the act during the eighteenth cen - tury, lynching, or lynch law, is the unlawful killing of an individual thought to have violated important social norms and/or the law. These extra-legal acts were usually carried out publicly by citizen mobs. Although Whites and other minorities were also lynched, (e.g. in the Southwestern part of the US more Mexi - can Americans were lynched than Blacks between 1865 and 1920, [Perlmutter, 1992]), overall Blacks were disproportionately the recipients of these actions. The victimization rate of Blacks in southern states is reported to have been 350 per - cent greater than that of Whites (Cutler, 1969; Dennis, 1984; Garraty & Foner, as cited in Levin, 2002; Wells-Barnett, 1969). Historical records reflect how eas - ily Blacks were selected for lynching (Wells-Barnett, 1969): “John Hughes of Moberly (Missouri) and Isaac Lincoln of Fort Madison (S. Carolina) and Will Lewis in Tullahoma, Tenn. suffered death for no more serious charge than that they were ‘saucy’ to white people” (p. 17). The casual nature of Black lynching reveals the ubiquitous nature of the racial animus existing at that time. Perlmutter (1992) states that “lynching was so common it was impossible to keep accurate accounts” (p. 151). The following is an eyewitness report of a July 15, 1921, lynching in Moultrie, Georgia that was published in a local newspaper: Williams was brought from Moultrie on Friday night by sheriffs. . . . Saturday court was called. . . . The trial took half an hour. Then Williams, surrounded by fifty sheriffs armed with machine guns, started out of the courthouse door toward the jail. . . . 500 poor pecks rushed the sheriffs, who made no resist - ance. . . . They tore the negro’s clothing off. . . . The negro was unsexed, as usual, and made to eat a portion of his anatomy. . . . The negro was chained to [a] stump. . . . The pyre was lit and a hundred men, women, old and young. . . . joined hands and danced around the negro while he burned. (Steinfield, 1973, 40–42) Ku Klux Klan: the first hate group (first and second eras) The idea of Black equality and participation in the democratic process through the vehicles provided by Reconstruction was repugnant to many White Southerners.

To hinder these developments, a group of veterans of the Confederate army formed the Ku Klux Klan in 1866 in Pulaski, Tennessee. A secret society, the Klan uti - lized violent terroristic tactics to stop Blacks from exercising newly gained civil Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 36 A history of hate in the United States liberties and to restore White control over every major aspect of Black life. Black community leaders as well as sympathetic Whites where particularly targeted. In practicing these strategies, the Klan laid the foundation for the White suprema - cist movement in the United States. Historically, the Klan demonstrated three distinct periods of onset activity, which occurred in 1866, 1915, and 1954. Dur - ing the first period, the Klan is suspected of having murdered over 1,500 Blacks in Georgia alone (Berlet & Lyons, 2000). The second period saw an increase in Klan membership with new members from among the more affluent and edu - cated. Estimates of membership indicate a peak of nearly five million during this period (Dobratz & Shanks-Meile, 1997; Potok, 2001). Despite the Klan’s ability to wield political influence, even on the national level, as well as obtaining a measure of respectability in the eyes of many, members frequently engaged in violent hate-motivated behavior. Only now, Roman Catholics, Jews, and other Whites who were empathetic to the plight of Blacks and others were added as legitimate targets.

The Leo Frank Lynching and related incidents—anti-Semitic acts Anti-Semitic attitudes existed in the USA as far back as the Civil War (Diner, 2004). Since then, the scapegoating of Jews, the establishment of Jewish quotas, the portrayal of Jewish religious practices as sinister, and the committing of vari - ous discriminatory acts against them were commonplace. As mentioned earlier, the resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan, beginning in 1915, saw the targeting of Jews residing in the South and Midwest: “A whole new breed of hatemonger developed on the American scene [at that time] that thrived on the spread of hate propaganda against Jews” (Steinfield, 1973, 162). The National Pencil Company in Atlanta, Georgia was the site of the rape and murder of 14-year-old employee Mary Phagan. Despite dubious evidence, Jewish owner Leo Frank was charged with her murder and placed on trial. As the trial was conducted, local newspapers waged blatant anti-Semitic campaigns against Frank. He was convicted and sentenced to death, but his sentence was later com - muted to life by Georgia’s governor. An action not well received by many. On August 16, 1916, while Frank was housed in Milledgeville Prison, a group of 25 men entered, overpowered guards, and removed him. After driving to Marietta, Georgia, the group lynched Frank by hanging. His murder was representative of the stark determination and boldness of those motivated by anti-Semitism and hatred.

Residential move-in violence—racially motivated acts Beginning in the 1890s, Blacks began to leave the rural areas of the South for northern cities. A half million relocated during World War I, and approximately six million more followed after the war through the 1960s (Meyer, 2000). Along with the potential for a better life, migration also meant that victimization would no longer occur just in the South. Most Blacks settled in major metropolitan areas Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 A history of hate in the United States 37 in the North that were largely racially segregated. Black families made economic gains, but seeking better neighborhoods meant moving into predominately White residential areas, which was met with great resistance. When White initiatives, such as opportunistic zoning regulations, improvement associations, and race-restrictive covenants, failed to maintain segregated neighborhoods, threats and violence was the next strategy employed. Black families were frequently subjected to racially motivated harassment and intimidation. Meyer (2000) provides an account of the notes received by a Black family that moved into a White area of Brooklyn: If you move into that house, one warned, it will be the worst days [ sic ] work that you ever did. . . . You should know better than to move where you are not wanted. Another letter came from the Klan. There are five of us for each Nigger on Staten Island. (Meyer, 2000, 34) Detroit saw appalling racial violence as Black families attempted to settle into more pleasant neighborhoods occupied by White families. Meyer notes (2000, p. 37), “In early July, a mob of about 1,000 whites gathered to taunt the family of John Fletcher, which had recently moved to a white block on the city’s west side. Demonstrators yelled, ‘lynch him. Lynch him.’” Chicago violence was far worse than that which occurred in New York and Detroit. Fifty-eight racially motivated bombings occurred in the city between 1917 and 1921. Perpetrators targeted persons due to race and used threats and violence to attempt to maintain the status quo of racial segregation.

The civil rights era The Ku Klux Klan’s third era—resisting Black equality Prior to Brown v. the Board of Education (1954), Black life was encumbered by two US Supreme Court decisions: Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) and Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). In the Scott decision, the court established that people of Afri - can descent could never be citizens of the United States and were little more than objects of property. Approximately 40 years later, the Plessy decision established the legal doctrine of separate but equal, prescribing segregated public facilities.

Together, these decisions codified and affirmed White supremacy and Black subordination in America. However, the Brown decision upended both Scott and Plessy . The Supreme Court decision in Brown announced that segregation was inherently unequal and violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amend - ment. The modern Civil Rights Movement thus began, as well as the resurgence of hate-motivated crimes. Backlash from Brown took many forms, such as the publication of the 1956 Southern Manifesto. Signed by 100 US senators and congressmen from eleven southern states, the manifesto stated that the signing members were committed to “resist forced integration by any lawful means” (Dudley, 1996, 70). The fear Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 38 A history of hate in the United States that integration would lead to “racial mixing” and in turn the demise of the White race, was a common belief among many in the United States. Alabama governor John Patterson reiterated his commitment to fight the Brown decision in his 1959 inaugural speech: I will oppose with every ounce of energy I possess. . . . any mixing of the white and Negro races in the classrooms of this state. . . . Any attempt by the federal government or anyone else to integrate the schools of this state by force would cause turmoil, chaos and violence. (Dudley, 1996, 78) These pivotal Supreme Court decisions that first denied and then established the civil rights of Black Americans reflect the turbulence surrounding the very idea of Black equality in the USA. With the Brown decision and the start of the Civil Rights Movement, racially motivated crimes occurred more frequently between 1954 and 1965. Much of the violence was Klan activity and included, according to the US Justice Department, “seventy bombings in Georgia and Alabama, 30 Negro church burnings in Mississippi, the sadistic castration of a black man in Birmingham, ten racial killings in Alabama, plus the . . . murders of three civil rights’ workers in Mississippi” (Sims, 1996, 95). This spree of violence is the third onset period of the Klan. The Mississippi White Knights were responsible for the most egregious terrorist attacks during this time. Klan leaders urged their members to engage in strategic attacks against civil rights participants.

Consequently “there were 80 racially motivated assaults, including 35 shootings, 20 church arsons, and five murders” (Bullard, 1993; Chalmers, 1981 as cited in Levin, 2002, 235).

The modern age of hate crimes The fundamental elements that form the social conditions that facilitate hate crimes arise from historical patterns of racial and ethnic discrimination and violence. Today, hate crimes range from malicious damage to property, verbal threats and intimida - tion, to assaults and murder—all predicated on the perpetrator’s hostility toward the social group represented by the victim. Most modern hate crimes are relatively con - sistent in presentation, but there are emerging patterns that may have implications not just for today—but also for the evolving nature of these crimes. These patterns include the growing commonality of the globalization of hate groups, the exploita - tion of the US military by hate groups, the violent nature of younger participants in the hate movement, and the real potential for mass casualties in hate-motivated attacks. We now turn to take a brief look at each of these developments.

Globalization As early as the 1960s, leaders of the American Nazi Party met periodically with European national socialists (Simonelli, 1999). Today, the Internet makes contact Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 A history of hate in the United States 39 between hate groups effortless. According to some reports, members of US- based hate groups are associating more frequently with their European counter - parts (Anti-Defamation League, 1995; Southern Poverty Law Center, 2001). The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has long reported links between American hate groups and Middle-Eastern state-sponsored terrorist organizations (Levin & McDevitt, 1993; Sloan, 1997). These efforts towards building and strengthening international relationships is encouraged by pan-Aryanism, an ideological belief in the hate movement that describes a world-wide struggle of Whites against the “destructive” forces of Jews, racial minorities, and the evils of capitalism (Rock - well, 1967).

Exploitation of the military High-profile crimes involving White supremacists serving in the US military uncovered a number of alarming developments. First, the strategy of some hate groups to locate near military bases in order to actively recruit servicemen and women; second, that there are neo-Nazis and other White supremacists who were actively serving in the US military and; third, that the military chain of command would often disregarded these events, even the displaying of Nazi flags and other similar regalia in living quarters (Leyden & Cook, 2008). David Holthouse (2006) stated in a recent article published in the Intelligence Report : In 1996, following a decade-long rash of cases where extremists in the mili - tary were caught diverting huge arsenals of stolen firearms and explosives to neo-Nazi and white supremacist organizations, conducting guerilla train - ing for paramilitary racist militias, and murdering non-white civilians . . . , the Pentagon finally launched a massive investigation and crackdown. One general ordered all 19,000 soldiers at Fort Lewis, Wash., strip-searched for extremist tattoos. But that was peacetime. Now, with the country at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the military under increasingly intense pressure to maintain enlistment numbers, weeding out extremists is less of a priority.

Recruiters are knowingly allowing neo-Nazis and white supremacists to join the armed forces, and commanders don’t remove them from the military even after we positively identify them as extremists or gang members, said Depart - ment of Defense investigator Barfield. The FBI has documented the presence of former and current US military personnel in the White supremacist movement. They report that “military experience is found throughout the White supremacist movement as the result of recruitment campaigns by extremist groups and self-recruitment by veterans sympathetic to White supremacist causes. Extremist leaders seek to recruit members with military experience in order to exploit their discipline, knowledge of firearms, explosives, and tactical skills and access to weapons and intelligence,” (3). In addition, the FBI has documented instances were military personnel have “volunteered” their “professional resources,” for the cause (4) (see Figure 2.1 ).Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 40 A history of hate in the United States Currently the military touts a zero-tolerance policy regarding enlisted person - nel participating in hate groups as a result of the fallout from the hate-motivated crimes committed by ex-serviceman Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City bomber) and enlisted men James Burmeister and Malcolm Wright (Ft. Bragg/Fayetteville murders) (Kifner, 2006; Potok, 2006). Extremist groups seek to recruit those actively serving as well as those who have been discharged. Individuals with a military background have been trained in weaponry, explosives, combat skills, and may also have access to arsenals.

Youth involvement According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Incident-Based Report - ing System, nearly 40 percent of hate crime offenders are under the age of twenty-five. Neo-Nazi skinheads, who are among the most violent hate crime perpetrators (Dobratz & Shanks-Meile, 1997; Hamm, 1993), also have the young - est memberships (Hamm, 1993; Wooden, 1994). Leaders of racist skinhead groups have directly appealed to youth through music. The Anti-Defamation (REPOR TING ON 203 PERSONS FR OM OCT OBER 20 01–MA Y 20 08) CREA TIVI TY MO VEMENT 4% OTHER6% NA TIONAL ALLIANCE 29% AR YAN NA TIONS 8% SELECT KU KLUX KLAN GR OUPS10% NA TIONAL SOCIALIS T MO VEMENT 21% SELECT SKINHEAD G RO UP S 22% (U) Ser vice : F[3] Wh ite Supr emacist Extr emist subject major gr oup dase f les. Individuals h ave been ca tegor ized accor ding t o most r ecent g roup a ffliation. In cases of concurr ent multiple gr oup affliations , per sons ha ve been identif ed with the g roup with which the y ar e most activ ely in volved. (12) (7) (17) (20/203) (44/203) (45/203) (58/203) Figure 2.1 Distribution of military experience in post-9/11 White supremacist extremismDownloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 A history of hate in the United States 41 League reports that these groups at times target high school newspapers to place ads for free music downloads (ADL, 2009). Those that respond to the offer are then exposed to White power music and the not very subtle bigoted messages it contains. According to the ADL report, this has occurred in high schools located in California, Indiana, and Montana. Such strategies have the objective of recruiting youth “to become soldiers in the war for White racial survival” (5).

An example of the messaging embedded is viewed in the title of the CD, Smash - ing Rainbows: Rock Against Homosexuality , and in the name of a song in this collection, Killer of Faggots by Evil Incarnate. The song includes the repeated use of slurs against Blacks and gays and calls for their violent killing. Despite the contemptible nature of such lyrics that are routinely found in this genre, White power music has several distributors and an audience who financially support it.

Potential for mass destruction Mod ern hate crime perpetrators have the capacity to cause large-scale destruc - tion single-handedly. In 1989, Patrick Purdy acquired a semi-automatic assault rifle and shot Asian children (as he saw the Asian community as responsible for the difficulties in his life) during recess in their Stockton, California ele - mentary school. Purdy wounded 30 children and killed 5 (Levin & McDevitt, 1993). Fifteen years later, in 2004, Demetrius Van Crocker with White suprem - acist involvement, was arrested for attempting to buy from an undercover agent ingredients for Sarin nerve gas along with C-4 explosives (SPLC, 2001). It is reported that he remarked, “it would be a good thing if somebody could deto - nate some sort of weapon of mass destruction on Washington, D.C.” (para - graph 63). An odorless and colorless agent, Sarin can be released into the air; and with sufficient exposure, it can cause devastating consequences, including many deaths. Crocker was sentenced to 30 years. In 2003, federal agents found a considerable arsenal held by William Krar in Noonday, Texas. The cache included 500,000 rounds of ammunition, multiple pipe bombs, remote-control briefcase bombs as well as hate literature (SPLC, 2001). In addition, Krar man - aged to acquire sodium cyanide along with the tools needed to weaponize it.

Police described this as “a sodium-cyanide bomb capable of killing thousands” (Christian Science Monitor , December 29, 2003). Finally, in December 2008, police discovered in the home of shooting victim and neo-Nazi James G. Cum - mings, “a cache of radioactive materials,” in his efforts “to build a radioac - tive dirty bomb, along with literature on how to build such a deadly explo - sive. Authorities reported that Cummings was very upset by the election of Barack Obama” (SPLC, 2001, paragraph 71). Clearly the capabilities of some hate groups or lone wolfs to acquire dangerous weapons show their threat potential. We now turn to examine similarities between historical and modern hate-motivated acts.Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 42 A history of hate in the United States Comparing past and present patterns Before identifying distinctions among historical incidents, it is important to review the social conditions that appear to facilitate hate-motivated acts, both historical and modern. These conditions include the existence of: (1) dominant groups with cultural, political, and economic advantages that are not available to other groups; (2) subordinate groups lacking in the aforementioned resources and possess a lesser social standing according to the dominant groups; (3) a main - stream culture that ignores, devalues, demeans or mocks the cultural traditions of minority groups; (4) an underlying fear or suspicion of subordinate groups, which includes the notion that their existence negatively impacts the quality of life of others; and (5) authorities that fail to recognize and/or sufficiently address these dynamics, which inevitably lead to hate-motivated acts. The historical hate- motivated acts discussed earlier reflect these conditions, as do modern hate crimes.

Keeping these social conditions in mind, the following summaries reflect distinc - tions among the historical examples that nevertheless gave rise to the evolving nature of hate-motivated acts.

Summary: pre-Civil War • Victim groups were viewed as either interfering with or necessary to gov - ernmental policies. The intent to grow the nation geographically and eco - nomically placed the freedom and dignity of Native Americans, Africans, and Asians on a collision course with government objectives. • Majority groups generally supported racially motivated discriminatory gov - ernment policies as such policies also reflected the social norms and cultural beliefs of that time. • The confluence of the preceding factors produced conditions that facilitated innumerable destructive outcomes, including fatalities brought by hate- motivated acts. As a result, the so-called hate crimes from this period mostly resembled pogroms. Native Americans were almost totally obliterated, Afri - cans endured perpetual bondage and spontaneous lynching, and Asians were murdered because of their ability to survive economically. The most egregious racially motivated acts during this time period were carried out almost exclusively by governmental bodies or agents acting on behalf of local, state, or federal authorities and not extremist groups.

Summary: post-Civil War • Victim groups were targeted by smaller entities that were less likely to be directly connected to government authorities. • Perpetrators organized under the banner of White supremacy for the first time. The modern hate movement was born in 1866 with the formation of the Ku Klux Klan in Pulaski, Tennessee.Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 A history of hate in the United States 43 • The Klan formed in reaction to efforts by the federal government to move toward de facto equality and to address discriminatory and other mistreat - ment perpetrated against victim groups. This pattern of reacting against efforts toward social (and political) equality of subordinate groups would be repeated during the civil rights period. • Hate-motivated acts committed during this period were terroristic in nature as perpetrators utilized violence or threats of violence to achieve sociopolitical objectives. • Finally, the intent of hate crime was not genocidal, as was found in the pre- Civil War era, but rather to intimidate, control, and oppress victim groups. Summary: civil rights era • Hate-motivated crimes committed during this period, particularly as a result of the Civil Rights Movement, reveal the conspicuous involvement of law enforcement and other governmental authorities in these actions. Several bombings and murders directly involved local officials and government agents (e.g., Neshoba County, Mississippi law enforcement and other per - sonnel were involved in the 1964 murders of civil rights workers Michael Schwerner, James Chaney, and Andrew Goodman). • With law enforcement officials either taking an active role in hate crimes or protecting perpetrators, the level of vulnerability for victim groups was more pronounced. In these instances, the law enforcement community victimized those targeted by hate-motivated acts, rather than protected them. Summary: post-civil rights era • With the availability of an assortment of lethal weaponry, including automatic assault weapons, “how to” Internet sources on killing methods, the existence of paramilitary training camps, greater access to deadly explosives, ammuni - tion, and potentially deadly chemical agents, today’s hate crime perpetrator can accomplish a high level of destruction within a very brief period of time. • US military personnel are occasionally implicated in the hate movement; active and former servicemen and women are highly sought for recruitment due to their training in hand-to-hand combat, marksmanship and knowledge of explosives. • This period sees the involvement of younger and more violent hate crime perpetrators than those from earlier periods. Growing acceptance of extremist ideology Even more disturbing is the quiet acquiescence to and adoption of extremist views in some corners of mainstream political platforms and ideologies (Hagan, 1997; Hor owitz, 1996; Levin & McDevitt, 1993; McLemee, 1997). Self-avowed White supremacist Tom Metzger considered by some to be the leading force behind Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 44 A history of hate in the United States the revitaliza tion of the racist skinhead movement in the United States (Hamm, 1994), sought to enter into mainstream politics early in his career. He supported Republican Presidential Candidate Barry Goldwater in 1964, George Wallace in 1968, and he found agreement in much of Ronald Rea gan’s campaign platform. Metzger ran for a congressional seat in 1980 and his extreme views were pre - sent in his political vision (Hamm, 1993). He nevertheless won his primary with 55,000 votes and became the Democratic candidate for US Congress, only to lose in the general election. More recently the Tea Party movement, a grassroots populist movement (which gained public attention in 2009) which has captured the imagination and participation of many in Middle America, contains some racist, homophobic, and xenophobic elements. During the contentious debate on health care reform, Tea Party protestors gathered at the Capitol to express their concerns. Both racist behavior and speech was observed among the group: “a racist Tea Partier spat on Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, an African-American Democrat from Missouri. Another African-American congressman, Rep. André Carson, remembered the nasty atmosphere: “They were shouting the N-word. It was like a page out of a time machine.” Openly gay Congressman Barney Frank was reportedly heckled with anti-gay slurs during the same rally ( Washington Post , March 20, 2010). The social conditions of the past are deeply etched into the social and cultural norms of today and are evidenced by the following: first, the continual existence of hate-motivated crime, which now has a nearly 400-year history in the United States; second, the composition of perpetrator–victim groups remains largely unchanged over time; and third, the general factors that motivate hate crime also remain consistent in spite of social progress. These observations indicate that the problem of hate crime will not be eradicated any time soon. But lessons can be learned from this history. The most apparent is that dominant social and cultural dynamics must begin to dismantle the security blanket of tacit approval and make animus towards others due to perceived status unsupportable.

Chapter summary • Hate-motivated acts of the past are as much a part of the fabric of the USA’s history as those events that are more commonly found in American history books. • There are many acts that occurred in the past that would well qualify as hate crimes had they occurred in the twenty-first century. • Discrimination or hate-motivated acts were not considered illegal during the distant past. The reasons for this includes the absence of legal protections for victims, the devaluation of their personhood according to the social norms of that time, and the direct role of governments and other authorities in hate- motivated acts. • General characteristics of modern hate crime include the following: (1) vic - tims are more likely to be members of racial and or ethnic minority groups; (2) victim groups tend to be disadvantaged economically, politically, and Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 A history of hate in the United States 45 socially relative to the majority group; (3) prevailing cultural norms and traditions situate victim groups as suitable for discriminatory treatment; and (4) victim groups are perceived as a threat to the quality of life of the domi - nant group. • History is replete with events that could be characterized as hate-motivated crimes, particularly (but not exclusively) for Native Americans, African slaves and subsequently African-Americans, and Asians, both Chinese and Japanese. • The Klan laid the foundation for the White supremacist movement in the United States. Collectively, Klan groups had three periods of onset activism, in 1866, 1915, and 1954, respectively. • The resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan in 1915 saw the targeting of Jews resid - ing in the South and Midwest and the exploitation of anti-Semitic propaganda. • The 1980s saw a surge in hate-motivated criminal activity across the United States concurrent with a growth in neo-Nazi extremist groups. It is during this post-civil rights period that these acts are first referred to as hate crimes. • More recent incidents of modern hate crimes (completed or attempted) and/or hate group activity may have implications for future developments of this crime. These characteristics include the increasing globalization of hate groups, exploitation of the US military, younger participants in the hate movement, and a capacity for more sophisticated and lethal methods of attack heighten the potential for mass casualties in hate-motivated attacks. • Historical hate-motivated acts vary in nature and manifest themselves differ - ently in accordance to the cultural and sociopolitical features of a given time period. • The history of hate-motivated acts suggest two critical indicators: (1) when dominant cultural values and social practices undermine the equality of minority and other marginalized groups and (2) when government and other institutions of formal social control fail to effectively address these social practices, then the resulting environment facilitates hate-motivated acts. • The social conditions of the past are deeply etched into the social and cultural norms of today and are evidenced by: the continual existence of hate crime; the composition of perpetrator–victim groups remains relatively unchanged; and, the general factors that motivate hate crime also remain stable despite social progress. • More effective interventions and prevention initiatives will help to diminish the potential danger found in modern hate crime. What is required is a com - mitment to disrupt the patterns that we have consistently viewed throughout history and today.

Case study 2.1 The murder of Lenuel Penn Lemuel A. Penn was an assistant superintendent of education in the District of Columbia’s public schools. He was also a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserves. Lt. Col. Penn was murdered on July 11, 1964, near Athens, Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 46 A history of hate in the United States Georgia, as he was driving from Fort Benning, Georgia, to Washington, DC. The four Ku Klux Klan members who shot Penn were later convicted in federal court of violating his civil rights. It was the first such conviction under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. (Source: Papers of the FBI Investigation of the Lemuel A. Penn Murder, www.lib.uiowa.edu/spec-coll/MSC/ToMsc550/MsC507/msc507.html) The murder In the early hours of July 11, 1964, a sedan carrying U.S. Army Reserve officers Charles E. Brown, John D. Howard, and Lemuel Penn departed Fort Benning outside Columbus and headed north for Washington, D.C.

After two weeks of active army reserve training, the men were return - ing home to resume their civilian routines as educators in the District of Columbia school system. . . . neither Penn nor his passengers noticed the . . . station wagon that followed the men out of town. The pursuing vehicle was trailing the offic - ers . . . but pulled alongside their sedan as it crossed the Broad River Bridge near the Madison-Elbert County line. Two shots were then fired from inside the station wagon, and Penn was killed instantly.

The trial Georgia governor Carl Sanders declared that he was “ashamed for myself and the responsible citizens of Georgia that this occurrence took place in our state.” After weeks of investigation, state prosecutors brought first-degree murder charges against two local White men, Cecil Myers and Joseph Howard Sims. Despite considerable evidence indicating their guilt, an all- White jury in Madison County acquitted both men on September 4, 1964. Federal authorities remained committed to bringing Penn’s murder - ers to justice. FBI agents had uncovered enough evidence, they believed, to secure a guilty verdict in a federal court. On the basis of the recently enacted Civil Rights Act of 1964, federal authorities charged Sims, Myers, and four other local Klansmen, Herbert Guest, James S. Lackey, Denver Phillips, and George Hampton Turner, with violating the federal law, which made it illegal for two or more persons to conspire to abridge or threaten another person’s civil rights. Criminal proceedings against the men began on June 27, 1966, two years after Penn’s murder. Though four of the defendants were found innocent, Sims and Myers were both convicted on conspiracy charges and sentenced to ten years apiece in the federal penitentiary. (Source: “Lemuel Penn Murder” by Edward A. Hatfield from the New Georgia Encyclopedia www.newgeorgiaencyclopedia.com/nge/Article. jsp?path =/HistoryArchaeology/SunbeltGeorgia/People-7&id =h-3611)Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 A history of hate in the United States 47 Discussion questions 1 Considering the conditions that facilitate hate-motivated acts, why do you think Lemuel Penn and his two colleagues were targeted by the Ku Klux Klan? 2 What was the significance of Governor Sanders’ statement about public shame? 3 Some of the defendants were acquitted in the criminal trial. What social dynamics may have made that outcome unsurprising? 4 What factors caused the Ku Klux Klan to go into decline during the late 1960s, considering the indicators that facilitate hate crime? Bibliography Abbot, W. W. (1975). The Colonial Origins of the United States, 1607–1763. New York: Wiley. Anti-Defamation League (ADL). (1995). The Skinhead International: A Worldwide Survey of Neo-Nazi Skinheads . New York: Author. Anti-Defamation League (ADL). (1996). Danger: Extremism. The Major Vehicles and Voices on America’s Far-Right Fringe . New York: Author. Anti-Defamation League. (2009). Neo-Nazis Use Deceptive Music Downloads to Attract Young People to White Supremacy. Available from http://archive.adl.org/presrele/ neosk_82/5681_82.html#.VPyjjjIcTIU [Accessed on March 8, 2015]. Barkan, S. E. & Cohn, S. F. (1994). Racial Prejudice and Support for the Death Penalty by Whites. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 31, 202–9. Berlet, C. & Lyons, M. N. (2000). Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Com - fort . New York: Guilford Press. Berthrong, D. J. (1963). The Southern Cheyennes. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. Brown, D. (1970). Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West . New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Bullard, R. D. (1993). Confronting Environmental Racism: Voices from the Grassroots. Economic Geography , 72(2), 230–2. Bullard, S. (ed.) (1993). Free at Last: A History of the Civil Rights Movement and Those Who Died in the Struggle . Montgomery, AL: Southern Poverty Law Center. Bureau of Justice Assistance. (1997). A Policymaker’s Guide to Hate Crimes . NCJ 162304. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. Chalk, P. & Jonassohn, K. (1990). The History and Sociology of Genocide: Analyses and Case Studies . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Chalmers, D. A. (1981). Hooded Americanism: The History of the Ku Klux Klan . New York: Franklin Watts. Christensen, L. (1994). Skinhead Street Gangs . Boulder, CO: Paladin Press. Christian Science Monitor. (December 29, 2003). The Terror Threat at Home, Often Over - looked—As the Media Focus on International Terror, a Texan Pleads Guilty to Pos - sessing a Weapon of Mass Destruction . By Kris Axtman, Staff writer. Available from www.csmonitor.com/2003/1229/p02s01-usju.html [Accessed April 30, 2010]. Chronister, A. (1992). Japan-Bashing: How Propaganda Shapes Americans’ Perception of the Japanese. Unpublished master’s thesis, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA.Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 48 A history of hate in the United States Cutler, J. E. (1969). Lynch-Low: An Investigation into the History of Lynching in the United States . Chicago, IL: Negro Universities Press. Dennis, D. (1984). Black History . New York: Writers and Readers. Denton, S. (2003). American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows, September 11, 1857 . New York: Knopf. Diner, H. (2004). The Jews of the United States . Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Dobratz, B. A. & Shanks-Meile, S. (1997). White Power, White Pride! The White Separa - tist Movement in the United States . Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Dred Scott v. Sandford , 60 U.S. 393 (1857). Dudley, W. (ed.) (1996). The Civil Rights Movement: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press. Feagin, J. R. (2001). Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, and Future Reparations . New York: Routledge. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2008). White Supremacist Recruitment of Military Per - sonnel Since 9/11. Intelligence Assessment Report. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1964). FBI Investigation of the Lemuel A. Penn Murder Papers . Iowa, IA: University of Iowa Libraries, Iowa City. Fredrickson, G. M. (1991). White Supremacy: A Comparative Study in American and South African History . New York: Oxford University Press. Garraty, J. A. & Foner, E. (eds.) (1991). The Reader’s Companion to American History. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Gould, S. J. (1981). The Mismeasurement of Man . New York: W. W. Norton. Gundersen, J. R. & Smelser, M. (1994). American History at a Glance (5th ed.). New York: HarperCollins. Hagan, F. E. (1997). Political Crime: Ideology and Criminality . Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Hall, N. (2013). Hate Crime (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Hamm, M. S. (1993). American Skinheads: The Criminology and Control of Hate Crime . Westport, CT: Praeger. Hamm, M. S. (1994). Conceptualizing Hate Crime in a Global Context. In M. S. Hamm (ed.) Hate Crime: International Perspectives on Causes and Control (pp. 173–94). Cin - cinnati, OH: Anderson. Harjo, S. S. (1998). Redskins, Savages, and Other Indian Enemies: An Historical Overview of American Media Coverage of Native Peoples. In C. R. Mann & M. S. Zatz (eds.) Images of Color Images of Crime (pp. 30–46). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury. Harris, L. M. (2003). In the Shadow of Slavery: African Americans in New York City , 1626–1863 . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Hate Crime Statistics Act, 28 U.S.C. Paragraph 534 (1990).

Hatfield, E. A. (August 5, 2013). Lemuel Penn Murder. The New Georgia Encyclopedia . Available from www.newgeorgiaencyclopedia.com/nge/Article.jsp?path=/HistoryAr - chaeology/SunbeltGeorgia/People-7&id=h-3611 [Accessed August 27, 2014]. Healey, J. F. (1995). Race, Ethnicity, Gender and Class: The Sociology of Group Conflict and Change . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hendricks, S. (2006). The Unquiet Grave: The F.B.I. and the Struggle for the Soul of Indian Country . New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press. Herek, G. (1992). The Social Context of Hate Crimes: Notes on Cultural Heterosexism. In G. Herek and K. T. Berrill (eds.) Hate Crimes: Confronting Violence Against Lesbians and Gay Men (pp. 89–101). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Higginbotham, A. L., Jr. (1978). In the Matter of Color: Race and the American Legal Process: The Colonial Period . New York: Oxford University Press.Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 A history of hate in the United States 49 Higginbotham, A. L. (1996). Shades of Freedom . New York: Oxford University Press. Hoffer, P. C. (1992). Law and People in Colonial America . Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Holthouse, D. (2006). A Few Bad Men. Intelligence Report , 122, 1–6. Horowitz, C. (1996). Anti-semitic violence is increasing. In P. A.Winters (Ed.), Current Controversies Series: Hate Crimes (pp. 18–24). San Diego, CA: Greenhaven. Jacobs, J. B. & Potter, K. (2000). Hate Crimes: Criminal Law & Identity Politics . New York: Oxford University Press. Jordan, W. D. (1968). White Over Black: American Attitudes Toward the Negro, 1550–1812 . Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Kane, P. (2010). Tea Party Protesters Accused of Spitting on Lawmaker, Using Slurs. Washington Post . March 20, 2010. Available from www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010032002556.html [Accessed February 8, 2015]. Kennedy, S. (1959). Jim Crow Guide to the U.S.A.: The Laws, Customs and Etiquette Governing the Conduct of Nonwhites and Other Minorities as Second-Class Citizens . Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Kifner, J. (2006). White Supremacists Enlisting in Military, Watchdog Report Says Aryan Nations Graffiti in Baghdad. San Francisco Chronicle , July 7, p. A-9. Levin, B. (2002). From Slavery to Hate Crime Laws: The Emergence of Race and Status Based Protection in American Criminal Law. Journal of Social Issues , 58, 227–46. Levin, J. & McDevitt, J. (1993). Hate Crimes: The Rising Tide of Bigotry and Bloodshed . New York: Plenum Press. Leyden, T. J. & Cook, M. B. (2008). Skinhead Confessions: From Hate to Hope . Spring - ville, UT: Sweetwater Books. Mann, C. R. (1993). Unequal Justice: A Question of Color . Bloomington, IN: University of Indiana Press. McLemee, S. (1997). The Militia Movement is Dangerous. In C. P. Cozic (Ed.), The Militia Movement . At issue. An Opposing Viewpoints Series (pp. 50–58). San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press. Meyer, S. G. (2000). As Long as They Don’t Move Next Door: Segregation and Racial Conflict in American Neighborhoods . New York: Rowman & Littlefield. Miller, Y. P. (1979). Ukomno’m: The Yuki Indians of Northern California . Socorro, NM: Ballena Press. Morris, T. D. (1996). Southern Slavery and the Law, 1619–1860 . Chapel Hill, NC: Univer - sity of North Carolina Press. Perlmutter, P. (1992). Divided We Fall: A History of Ethnic, Religious, and Racial Preju - dice in America . Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. Perry, B. (2001). In the Name of Hate: Understanding Hate Crimes . New York: Routledge. Petrosino, C. (1999). Connecting the Past to the Future: Hate Crime in America. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice , 15, 22–47. Pieterse, J. N. (1992). White on Black: Images of Africa and Blacks in Western Popular Culture . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Plessy v. Ferguson , 163 US 537 (1896). Potok, M. (2001). The New Internationalism. Intelligence Report , 103, 1. Potok, M. (2006). Extremism and the Military. Intelligence Report , 122, 1. Rockwell, G. L. (1967). White Power . Dallas, TX: Ragnarok Press. Ridgeway, J. (1990). Blood in the Face . New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press. Riding In, J. (1998). American Indians in Popular Culture: A Pawnee’s Experiences and Views. In C. R. Mann & M. S. Zatz (eds.) Images of Color Images of Crime (pp. 15–29) . Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 50 A history of hate in the United States Sanders, R. (1978). Lost Tribes and Promised Lands: The Origins of American Racism . Boston, MA: Little, Brown. Schmaltz, W. H. (1999). Hate: George Lincoln Rockwell and the American Nazi Party. Washington, DC: Brassey’s. Simonelli, F. J. (1999). George Lincoln Rockwell and the American Nazi Party . Cham - paign, IL: University of Illinois Press. Sims, P. (1996). The Klan (2nd ed.). Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky. Sloan, S. (1997). An Unholy Alliance: The Internationalization of Domestic Terrorism. Intelligence Report , 85, 10–11. Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). (2001). Hands Across the Water. Intelligence Report , 103, 14–23. Spindler, W. H. (1972). Tragedy Strikes at Wounded Knee and Other Essays on Indian Life in South Dakota and Nebraska . Vermillian, SD: University of South Dakota Press. Stampp, K. M. (1956). The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South. New York: Vintage. Steinfield, M. (1973). Cracks in the Melting Pot: Racism and Discrimination in American History (2nd ed.). New York: Glencoe Press. Takaki, R. (1994a). Issei and Nisei: The Settling of Japanese America . New York: Chelsea House. Takaki, R. (1994b). Journey to Gold Mountain: The Chinese in 19th-Century America . New York: Chelsea House. Tebbel, J. & Jennison, K. (1960). The American Indian Wars . New York: Harper & Row. US Department of Justice. (n.d.). Hate Crime—Overview, 2007–2008 . Available from www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/overview.htm [Accessed November 11, 2010]. Walker, S., Spohn, C., & DeLone, M. (1996). The Color of Justice. New York: Wadsworth. Wells-Barnett, I. B. (1969). On Lynchings: Southern Horrors, a Red Record, Mob Rule in New Orleans . New York: Arno Press. Wood, R. (1999). The Indigenous Nonracist Origins of the American Skinhead. Youth & Society , 31(2), 131–51. Wooden, W. S. (1994). Renegade Kids, Suburban Outlaws . New York: Wadsworth.Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 3 The evolution toward modern hate crime laws Introduction New laws are sometimes controversial. This can be said for hate crime laws.

Proponents of hate crime legislation argue that such laws are needed to punish this behavior and to symbolize values underlying an inclusive and diverse democ - racy. However, opponents assert that these laws are not necessary; that there are sufficient criminal statutes to respond effectively to hate-motivated crime. Moreo - ver, opponents contend that instead of ameliorating the existence of bigotry and prejudice in society, hate crime laws may exacerbate these attitudes by instigating resentment over so-called “identity politics” (Jacobs & Potter, 1998). But oppo - sitional arguments may lose their appeal to some when the etiology of hate crime laws are placed in a historical and legal context. This author contends that the historical perspective of hate crime law help the understanding of why such laws are legitimate, have utility, and are paramount to achieving and maintaining a free and secure society for all.

The evolution of hate crime law The efforts of both federal and state legislatures to address hate-motivated crimes did not just begin in the twentieth century. Just as Chapter 2 provides a review of historical crimes and incidents that resemble modern hate crimes, we also find that in the past there were some efforts to respond to these acts by enacting laws.

These early acts set the stage for hate crime laws. Among the most illuminating discussions of this area is that offered by legal scholar Brian Levin (2002). In his article, From Slavery to Hate Crime Laws: The Emergence of Race and Status- Based Protection in American Criminal Law , Levin meticulously identifies his - torical conditions that prompted legislative actions which would serve as building blocks for modern hate crime legislation.

Slavery and dealing with its aftermath Since the justification of slavery in the USA was largely based on race, the reme - dies required to redress its damages likewise required the recognition of the effects of race-based oppression. The dismantling of slavery and the efforts needed to Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 52 The evolution toward modern hate crime laws address its profound consequences prompted the initial use of the law as a means to rectify racially motivated actions and policies and to punish those who deliber - ately victimized others because of race. To that end, Levin begins with pointing to the significance of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the US Constitution. Each sought to remedy a race-based wrong:

Thirteenth Amendment (1865) —abolished slavery. Slavery became synony - mous with being Black. Fourteenth Amendment (1868)— established national citizenship for all persons born or naturalized in the US (including newly freed Blacks) and ensured their Constitutional protections. States were prohibited from depriv - ing any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Fifteenth Amendment (1870)— the right of citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Following the Emancipation Proclamation and the end of the Civil War, the socio- legal status of hundreds of thousands of Blacks was unclear. Race-based slavery was no more, but Black citizenship was not proclaimed either until the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which preceded the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27 (1866) Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude . . . shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding. This is the first federal law following the Civil War that purposed to address racially motivated acts targeting newly freed Blacks. The 1866 Civil Rights Act provided a penalty of a fine or incarceration to anyone who sought to interfere with Blacks exercising their rights as articulated in the law. Despite these and other efforts to support Black liberty and the privileges of citizenship, defiant southern authorities, the Ku Klux Klan, and even ordinary citizens fearful and resentful of these changes sought to harass, intimidate, and violently confront Blacks to prevent them from realizing the rights articulated in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 The evolution toward modern hate crime laws 53 Amendments in particular. To address the race-based reactionary violence, the federal government enacted the Force Act of 1870 and the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (also referred to as the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 ). These laws provided civil and criminal sanctions for those (whether government authorities or private conspiracies) who were guilty of interfering with or depriving citizens (including Black citizens) of their constitutional rights including suffrage. It was clear that the federal government was taking aim at Klan activities. One of the provisions of 42 U.S.C.A. paragraph 1985(3) states that “when two or more persons ‘conspire or go in disguise on the highway or the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving . . . any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the law,’ they may be sued by the injured parties.” The disguise reference applied to the hooded garments that Klan members wore during their acts to terrorize Blacks. While some efforts were made to put laws into place to address the targeting and victimization of Black citizens, laws to clarify and broaden their civil rights also occurred. Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875 , which provided equal public accommodations for African-Americans. It stated the following: That all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement; subject only to the conditions and limita - tions established by law, and applicable alike to citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude. SEC. 2. That any person who shall violate the foregoing section by deny - ing to any citizen . . . of every race and color, and regardless of any previ - ous condition of servitude, the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges in said section enumerated, or by aiding or inciting such denial, shall, for every such offense, forfeit and pay the sum of five hundred dollars to the person aggrieved thereby, . . . and shall also, for every such offense, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than five hundred nor more than one thousand dollars, or shall be imprisoned not less than thirty days nor more than one year. (US Statutes at Large, Vol. XVIII, 335ff) While each of the laws discussed above were designed to accomplish two things simultaneously—to ensure Black equality and to punish efforts to interfere with that objective, not all governing authorities agreed with those ends. Moreover, these laws mostly focused on state and local governments’ infringement upon the rights of African-Americans and other citizens but not interference by private citizens. Thus these laws often are more akin to a stuttering gait rather than bold and confident moves toward progress. Nevertheless, these laws were precedent- like for criminalizing behaviors that were motivated by racial animus and or other related hostilities, causing the intentional targeting of victims due to their racial or other ascribed class-based characteristics (Hall, 2005; Higginbotham, 1996; Levin, 2002).Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 54 The evolution toward modern hate crime laws The years following emancipation were dangerous ones for Black Americans. They were subjected to many incivilities as well as summary lynching (from the time of emancipation, 1865, to the 1940s), particularly in southern states for exer - cising basic liberties. Lynching was carried out with impunity as law enforcement and other government powers rarely prosecuted those responsible. The federal government was powerless to intercede in these murders until the middle of the twentieth century due to the lack of federal anti-lynch laws. Several attempts were made to pass these laws from the 1920s to the 1940s. While anti-lynch bills would pass in the House of Representatives, they would fail to progress to a vote in the Senate due to filibusters or threats to filibuster by southern senators (NPR, 2005). Still, some states were more successful than the federal government in their efforts to combat this violence by passing anti-lynching and anti-masking laws that targeted the Klan. For example, African-Americans in West Virginia were able to effectively amass support for an anti-lynching measure. In 1921, the Capeheart Anti-Lynching bill was signed into law by Governor Ephraim Morgan.

It stated in part: [a] “mob” or “riotous assemblage,” [a] collection of individuals, five or more in number, assembled for the unlawful purpose of offering violence to the person or property of any one supposed to have been guilty of a violation of the law, or for the purpose of exercising correctional or regulative powers over any person or persons by violence and without lawful authority. . . . participation in such a mob or riotous assemblage is punishable by a fine ranging from a hundred to a thousand dollars and imprisonment of not less than 30 days nor more than 12 months. For damage on person or prop - erty, the crime is a felony punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary.

The person or persons damaged have an action against the city or county in which the damage is done up to $5,000.00. In case of lynching, where person lynched has been taken from state, county, of municipal officer, the county shall be subject to forfeiture of $5,000 for the dependents or estate of the deceased and action may be brought in any state court and mandamus issue for the execution of judgment even to the levying of a tax. County may then recover same from negligent officer by action on his bond. A different type of racially motivated violence occurred when multiple waves of Blacks migrated from the rural south to northern urban centers, particularly following World War II. They were subjected to violence perpetrated by White mobs for moving into White neighborhoods, vying for jobs or due to rumors about Black on White crime (Tuttle, 1996; Lieberson & Silverman, 1965). Many of these attacks were precipitated by lies, fears, misrepresentations or gross exaggerations of local events. Libel and slander are acts that defame another by written or verbal communica - tions, respectively. Group libel is the defamation of a group of individuals based on their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or other similar reasons. Illi - nois became the first state to criminalize group libel with the passage of the 1949 Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 The evolution toward modern hate crime laws 55 state law, 224a of the Illinois Criminal Code, Ill. Rev. Stat., 1949, c. 38, Div. 1, paragraph 471. The section provides: It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to manufacture, sell, or offer for sale, advertise or publish, present or exhibit in any public place in this state any lithograph, moving picture, play, drama or sketch, which publication or exhibition portrays depravity, criminality, unchastity, or lack of virtue of a class of citizens, of any race, color, creed or religion which said publication or exhibition exposes the citizens of any race, color, creed or religion to contempt, derision, or obloquy or which is productive of breach of the peace or riots. Such laws, which target a category of speech based on content , would be subject to First Amendment scrutiny and tested. The Illinois law was also challenged in 1951 by Joseph Beauharnais. The founder of the White Circle League of America, Beauharnais was convicted under the law for distributing racist anti- Black literature on Chicago streets. An excerpt of the flier’s content is instructive: “Wanted” One Million Self Respecting White People in Chicago to Unite under the Banner of the White Circle League . . . to oppose . . . Tru - man’s . . . Civil Rights Program . . . to amalgamate . . . black and white races with the object of mongrelizing the white race!” The . . . League . . . is the only . . . white voice in America . . . in protest against negro . . . infiltrations into . . . white neighborhoods . . . (Leagle.com) The US Supreme Court upheld the Illinois statute (and affirmed Beauharnais’s conviction) in Beauharnais v. Illinois 343 U.S. 250 (1952). The court found that Beauharnais’s speech was indeed the libel of a group and as such was not constitutionally protected speech. The significance of this statute and the Supreme Court’s decision contributed to modern hate crime legislation by penalizing behaviors (not attitudes or thoughts) that denigrated a class of people due to their race, color, creed, or religion (Levin, 2002). With racially and other hate-motivated violence occurring in the south and now the north, and rumblings of a developing Civil Rights Movement in the US, politi - cal leaders and social progressives advocated for the federal government to con - tinue efforts to suppress these activities. Congress subsequently passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 . This law strengthened the civil rights division of the Justice Department and provided the Attorney General the authority to seek federal court injunctions against those who interfered with the right of African-Americans (or others) to vote (Cummings & Wise, 1971). The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is arguably the single most important precur - sor to modern hate crime laws. Further strengthened in 1968 by the adding of criminal penalties to civil rights violations, it articulated civil rights that fall under federal protection. They include protection against unequal application of voter Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 56 The evolution toward modern hate crime laws registration requirements, discrimination in public accommodations, state and municipal governments denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, religion, gender, or ethnicity, and segregated public schools (see Civil Rights Act of 1964 below). Enumerated Federal Protections—Civil Rights Act of 1964 1 Prohibit racial or religious discrimination in public accommodations that affect interstate commerce, including hotels, motels, restaurants, cafete - rias, lunch counters, gas stations, motion picture houses, theaters, and sports arenas. 2 Prohibit discrimination because of race, color, sex, religion, or national origin by employers or labor unions. 3 Bar voting registrars from adopting different standards for white, black or other applicants. 4 Permit the Attorney General to bring suit to enforce desegregation of public accommodations; and allow individuals to sue for their rights under the act. 5 Permit the executive branch of the Federal Government to halt the flow of funds to public or private programs that practice discrimination. 6 Extend the life of the Civil Rights Commission; create a Community Relations Service to conciliate racial disputes and an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to enforce the fair employment section of the act. (Cummings & Wise, 1971, 173) The next significant legal advancement toward hate crime law is the 1968 Civil Rights Act (Title 18, U.S.C., Section 245) , which makes it unlawful to “willfully injure, intimidate or interfere with any person, or to attempt to do so, by force or threat of force, because of that other person’s race, color, religion or national origin and because of his/her activity in one of the federally protected activities.” In addition, these activities include participating in a program or service provided by the government, attending a public school or college, traveling on a common carrier, patronizing a public accommodation, or participating as a juror. Title 18 further legitimized the use of the law to punish hate-motivated acts. The law provides punishments: fined or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 The evolution toward modern hate crime laws 57 Additional laws were passed to provide the federal government the ability to intervene in hate or bias motivated acts such as the Fair Housing Act and the Church Arson Prevention Act. It is clear that each of these initiatives clearly established the ability of state and federal governments to legitimately criminalize hate-motivated acts.

Modern hate crime laws From the 1860s to the 1960s, the federal government attempted to address hate-motivated attacks, which were primarily aimed at Black citizens, by crimi - nalizing the hostile interference with constitutionally protected rights. These early laws provided a legal framework that informed post-civil rights era or mod - ern hate crime legislation. To that end, early hate crime statutes were modeled after federal civil rights laws (Levin, 1999). But the contribution of the Anti- Defamation League’s model hate crime statute paved the way for states to build laws that would withstand judicial review.

The 1981 Anti-Defamation League (ADL) model statute Connecticut and Massachusetts were among the first states to pass hate crime laws before the 1980s (Lawrence, 1999; Levin, 2002). The slow start of most states to follow suit was likely due to the gradual recognition of hate crimes themselves, the political debate regarding how to respond to them, and finally the challenge of constructing sound crime bills. To encourage more states to pass hate crime legislation, the ADL drafted a model statute in 1981 that aided states in their efforts to enact similar laws. There were five components of the model statute:

(1) identifying a hate crime as a two-tiered criminal act, the predicate or base offense and the element of animus toward the victim because of actual or per - ceived characteristics; (2) the enhanced penalty element; (3) institutional vandal - ism (as these acts are often directed towards groups due to bias); (4) availability of civil actions for hate crime victims; and (5) states collecting and maintaining hate crime data reported to law enforcement. While some states passed laws based on the ADL model, others preferred different approaches and passed hate crime statutes accordingly. But the vast majority of states (forty-five) and the District of Columbia with hate crime statutes include the penalty-enhancement feature. The majority of these jurisdictions (states plus DC) include race, religion, national ori - gin, and ethnicity as protected categories; sexual orientation is included in 32, dis - ability in 31, gender in 27, and gender-identity is included in 10 (ADL, The ADL Approach, 4). Many states also have institutional vandalism laws which address the destruction or defacement of private schools, houses of worship, meeting places, cemeteries or other similar institutions due to bias motives. Overall, the majority of states have laws to address hate crimes; at the time of this writing, 45 states plus the District of Columbia have hate crime laws. As mentioned earlier, five states do not and include Arkansas, Georgia, Wyoming, Indiana, and South Carolina. Members of Georgia’s legislature have proposed hate crime bills con - sistently for the last several years, but with no successful outcomes.Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 58 The evolution toward modern hate crime laws The US Supreme Court decision in Wisconsin v. Mitchell 508 U.S. 47 (1993) (which will be discussed later in the chapter) affirmed the constitutionality of the ADL model statute, including the enhanced penalty approach. Subsequently, most states today include penalty enhancement in their hate crime statutes. We now turn to the examination of the two court cases that placed the issue of the constitu - tionality of hate crime laws center stage: R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul (90-7675), 505 U.S. 377 (1992) and Wisconsin v. Mitchell (92-515), 508 U.S. 47 (1993). The St. Paul, Minnesota hate crime ordinance (R.A.V. v. St. Paul), 1992 In June 1990, Robert A. Viktora (R.A.V.), Arthur Miller and several other teenag - ers burned a cross inside the fenced yard of a Black family that lived across the street from the house where they were staying. Viktora was charged under the St.

Paul ordinance. The ordinance (Minnesota Legislation Code, paragraph 292.02, 1990) stated the following: Whoever places on public or private property a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The trial court dismissed the charges, stating that the ordinance was overbroad and inappropriately interfered with the First Amendment rights of the defendant.

The Minnesota State Supreme Court disagreed and reversed. The US Supreme Court did not concur with the State Supreme Court. The majority opinion written by Antonin Scalia stated that the ordinance is facially unconstitutional because it targets speech aimed at subjects of “race, color, creed, religion or gender.” This is discriminatory as the ordinance chose to ban only certain symbolic conduct, that is, cross burning, when it was motivated by those categories identified in the law (race, color, creed, religion, or gender). But if this form of hostile expression, including the Nazi swastika and the like, is directed towards other reasons such as homophobia, political affiliation, or other social classifications, for example homelessness or public assistance recipient, the ordinance is silent. This results in content-based discrimination and is not permissible under the First Amendment (Cornell University Law School). Thus St. Paul’s attempt to enact a hate crime ordinance failed. As a result of the R.A.V. decision, any hate crime statutes that were constructed in a way that was similar to the St. Paul ordinance, were no longer viable. For example, the New Jersey State Supreme Court overturned the state’s hate crime law in 1994 as a direct result of the R.A.V v. St. Paul decision; joining Maryland and Washington State. New Jersey, as with many other states, would come to rely on a different construction of its hate crime law; one that emphasized the intentional selection of victims due to their race, religion, or other perceived characteristics ( New York Times , 1994).Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 The evolution toward modern hate crime laws 59 The Wisconsin Bias Crime Statute (Wisconsin v. Mitchell), 1993 Wisconsin’s hate crime statute differed substantially from the St. Paul ordinance. Whereas the St. Paul ordinance sought to criminalize specific speech content, Wisconsin’s hate crime law focused on the conduct of hate crime perpetrators. Statute paragraph 939.645 (1991–92) includes the following: If a person does all of the following, the penalties for the underlying crime is increased as provided in sub. (2):(a) Commits a crime under chs. 939 to 948.

(b) Intentionally selects the person against whom the crime under par. (a) is committed or selects the property that is damaged or otherwise affected by the crime under par. (a) in whole or in part because of the actor’s belief or perception regarding the race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry of that person or the owner or occupant of that property, whether or not the actor’s belief or perception was correct. (ADL, 2012. See the full description of Wisconsin’s hate crime statute at https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/ statutes/939/IV/645) After becoming angry from watching the movie Mississippi Burning, defend - ant Todd Mitchell incited a group of teenagers and young men to attack and beat a fourteen-year-old white boy who was nearby. Mitchell was convicted of aggravated assault but, as a result of the Wisconsin penalty enhancement statute, his sentence exposure was increased from two years to seven years.

Subsequently, he received a four-year sentence. Mitchell appealed his convic - tion, arguing that the Wisconsin law infringed upon his First Amendment rights.

The Wisconsin State Supreme Court agreed and reversed the conviction. The court reasoned that the penalty enhancement law inappropriately punishes hate thought (motive) and thus compromised First Amendment rights. But in 1993, the US Supreme Court upheld the Wisconsin statute and found that the statute proscribes conduct (and not expression), specifically the conduct of intentional and “discriminatory selection” of a victim based on race (Lawrence, 1999, 33). As Lawrence explained (1999, 33) “so long as Mitchell chose (the victim) on the basis of his race, his conduct would trigger the Wisconsin penalty- enhancement statute.” Levin (2009) summarizes the significance of the changes in hate crime law as represented by R.A.V. v. St. Paul and Wisconsin v. Mitchell . The court’s decision in Wisconsin v. Mitchell “upheld the constitutionality of broadly applicable pen - alty enhancement laws for hate crime” (2009, 15). In addition, it resolved some of the central criticisms of hate crime laws. Offering three reasons for its decision in Wisconsin, the court stated, (15): First, while the government may not punish abstract beliefs, it has wide latitude to address (offender) motive. Second, the Court further found that Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 60 The evolution toward modern hate crime laws penalty enhancement laws . . . were aimed at discriminatory conduct and did not punish merely hateful expression.” (Whereas,) “in R.A.V. the criminal - ity depended not on the hostile use of a particular symbol, but on whether a designated disfavored viewpoint was conveyed by its use. Last, the Court addressed the severity of hate crime harms, stating that they are “thought to be more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harm on their victims and incite community unrest. (Wisconsin v. Mitchell , 1993, 487–88) According to the 2009 report of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund, at least 45 states and the District of Columbia had passed hate crime statutes that utilize the penalty enhancement structure. The next signifi - cant hate crime law is named for the victims of two highly publicized and tragic hate crimes that occurred in the United States, Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Murdered in the same year (1998), but in two different parts of the country, (Wyoming and Texas, respectively), these crimes galvanized a network of advo - cacy groups, national organizations, and progressive political leaders to support stronger measures to combat hate crime. At the time of these murders, the state of Wyoming and Texas could not prosecute these as hate crimes. Neither state had hate crime laws at that time. Neither could the federal government intervene and prosecute because sexual orientation was not a protected status. Nor could Byrd’s matter evoke federal statues because he was not engaged in a federally protected activity at the time of his attack. The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act would address those deficiencies.

The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, 2009 On October 28, 2009 President Barak Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law and essentially broadened the ability of federal authorities to prosecute local hate crimes. Before the passage of the Shepard-Byrd Act, the federal government could only be involved in the prosecution of a hate crime if the victim was attacked (because of race, religion etc.), while engaged in a federally protected activity. This legislation creates a new federal criminal hate crimes statute, 18 U.S.C. paragraph 249. Section 249(a) (1), which eliminates the requirement of victim participation in federally protected activities (see 18 U.S.C. paragraph 245). In addition, local and state law enforce - ment authorities receive additional investigative and prosecutorial resources by working collaboratively with federal authorities. In states where the local authori - ties have insufficient resources to respond to a hate crime; or for some reason, elect to not prosecute the case, federal authorities would have the ability to enter into the picture and or provide additional funds and technical assistance to support the local authorities. There are also instances when a criminal defendant has com - mitted several hate crimes in multiple jurisdictions. Under such circumstances, federal authorities are best situated to respond.Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 The evolution toward modern hate crime laws 61 While state authorities could be concerned with the possibility of federal pros - ecutors trampling upon state sovereignty and taking over prosecutions, the law has built in procedures to ensure that federal involvement is based on valid grounds and that state authorities have agreed to its involvement in a state case. The “certifica - tion requirement” requires that “no prosecution of any offense described . . . may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General or his designee, that: 1 such certifying individual has reasonable cause to believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orienta - tion, gender identity, or disability of any person was a motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant; and 2 such certifying individual has consulted with State or local law enforce - ment officials regarding the prosecution and determined that— 3 the State does not have jurisdiction or does not intend to exercise jurisdiction; 4 the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction; 5 the State does not object to the Federal Government assuming jurisdic - tion; or 6 the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demon - stratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias motivated violence. 7 a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice. (Open Congress, S. 909) The law also provides new protected status categories in federal hate crime law:

gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability. Thus the protected status categories under federal law now include race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act is not without its critics. Some fear that adding the protected categories of sexual orientation and gender identity brings about targeted censorship and compromises religious freedom (Leichman, 2009; Lofton, 2009). They theorize that religious leaders would be subject to arrest if they deliver sermons that suggest that homosexuality runs counter to God’s prescription for marriage and the family. Others suggest that the law provides protections for pedophiles and other categories of sexually deviant behavior as a result of the gender identity category, which is probably the least familiar and therefore less understood. These concerns aside, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act does not appear to include language that permits targeted censorship or censorship in general, nor is it situated to infringe upon the First Amendment protection of freedom of religion.Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 62 The evolution toward modern hate crime laws The first case charged under the Shepard-Byrd Act ended in a conviction. George Thompson, an employee of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), was off duty when he committed the crime on May 4, 2010. According to reports, upon leaving his neighborhood bar, Thompson spotted the victim whom he assumed was Muslim because he was bearded. Witnesses stated that Thomp - son yelled at the victim, “You, Muslims, go back to your country.” Asking the man if he was Somali, Thompson continued. . . . “You Somali, go back to your country.” He physically assaulted the eighty-two-year old, hitting him, and then chased him, threatening to kill him. Police intervened. Thompson admitted to the attack as well as to yelling ethnic and anti-Muslim slurs. He supposedly was frustrated from difficulty in his neighborhood with Somali youth. On August 10, 2011, he was sentenced to six months in federal prison (DOJ, 2011). With the pas - sage of the Shepard-Byrd Act, the federal government has increased its ability to become directly involved in what would otherwise be typical state and local hate crime occurrences.

Cross-burning and anti-mask laws Laws that criminalize cross-burning and mask-wearing may be considered a subset of hate crime laws. Historically, these laws were a response to the violent campaigns of the Ku Klux Klan to intimidate and terrorize African- Americans and others and the particular manner in which these campaigns were carried out. What came to be the iconic images and symbols of the Klan had practical benefits. The wearing of hoods and robes not only evoked fear but also concealed the identity of the wearer. Cross-burnings have also been used throughout the years as a method to threaten others. The first documented inci - dent of cross-burning by the Klan occurred in 1915 (Swanson, 2002). Although the Klan itself will argue that a burning cross is part of a ceremonial sacred ritual, they’ve also used it as a tool of aggression and promise of violence. It is because of the manner in which the hood wearing and cross-burning has been used that legislatures have sought to criminalize these actions under proper cir - cumscribed conditions. The challenge to these laws is their ability to withstand First Amendment challenges. Wearing hoods or masks and cross-burning may be construed as expressive or symbolic speech. The First Amendment exists for the purpose of ensuring freedom of speech; even speech that many would find detestable.

Georgia’s anti-mask law In 1951, Georgia enacted the Anti-Mask Act OCGA paragraph 16-11-38. This law was prompted by the high level of violent actions, threats and harassment perpetrated by the Klan against targeted citizens of the state. The law provides the following:Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 The evolution toward modern hate crime laws 63 A person is guilty of a misdemeanor when he wears a mask, hood, or device by which any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer and is upon any public way or public prop - erty or upon the private property of another without the written permission of the owner or occupier of the property to do so. (State v. Miller ) The law was careful to target certain mask-wearing behavior and not all. Mask- wearing during seasonal holidays, for physical safety at the workplace or during a sports activity, or for theatrical productions or celebrations such as Mardi Gras are exceptions and do not trigger the Act. The specific objective of the law is reflected in the Statement of Public Policy articulated in the law itself. The Anti- Mask Act reflects “the General Assembly’s awareness of and concern over the dangers to society posed by anonymous vigilante organizations.” It reads as follows: All persons residing in the State are entitled to the equal protection of their lives and property. The law protects all, not only against actual physical vio - lence, but also against threats and intimidations from any person or group of persons. The General Assembly cannot permit persons known or unknown, to issue either actual or implied threats, against other persons in the State.

Persons in this State are and shall continue to be answerable only to the estab - lished law as enforced by legally appointed officers. (State v. Miller ) This language clearly indicates that Georgia’s Anti-Mask Act was in reaction to the lawless violent behavior of the Klan, which used the mask to conceal the identity of those implicated in criminal behavior. But the law was challenged in State v. Miller . Shade Miller was convicted under the Act for wearing Klan regalia including the traditional hood in public. He challenged the constitutionality of the Georgia law arguing that the law violated his freedom of speech among other encroachments upon his civil rights. Although the trial court declared the Anti-Mask Act unconstitutional, the Georgia State Supreme Court in State v. Miller did not. The court referred to United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 , which affirmed that “the government may regulate conduct that has both speech and nonspeech elements, if the regula - tion furthers a substantial governmental interest that is unrelated to the suppres - sion of free expression” and is minimal. The substantial governmental interest in the Act is the protection of the people of Georgia from “ terrorization by masked vigilantes ,” while reassuring the free exercise of the civil rights of law abiding citizens. Governmental interests also includes supporting law enforcement in the apprehension of offenders. The identification of masked criminals by their vic - tims is extraordinarily difficult, in addition to the paralyzing fear caused by such images. Moreover, the Georgia State Supreme Court stated that the Anti-Mask Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 64 The evolution toward modern hate crime laws Act was non-discriminatory and content-neutral as the law proscribed “menacing conduct” or the behavior of the mask-wearer rather than a particular message.

The focus was on the intimidation or fear provoking aspect of the mask-wearer’s behavior, which includes the concealment of the wearer’s identity, which in turn evokes apprehension. The State Supreme Court reiterated that conviction requires that the context of the defendant’s conduct must be considered. For example, it must be proved that the defendant wore the mask knowing or having reasonable knowledge that wearing the mask to intimidate or to threaten is not protected by the First Amendment. Miller or any Klansmen has the freedom to participate in organized public rallies, marches, to distribute leaflets and so on. The Anti-Mask Act does not interfere with this protected speech activity but rather forbids intimi - dating mask-wearing communicative conduct.

Virginia’s cross-burning law The Virginia legislature passed its cross-burning law, paragraph 18.2-423 (burn - ing cross on property of another or public place with intent to intimidate); penalty; prima facie evidence of intent. The first version of this law was passed in 1950.

The law states: It shall be unlawful for any person or persons, with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, to burn, or cause to be burned, a cross on the property of another, a highway or other public place. Any person who shall violate any provision of this section shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. Any such burning of a cross shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons. Just as Georgia’s Anti-Mask Act was challenged in court, so was Virginia’s cross-burning law. In August 1998, Barry Black, the Imperial Wizard of the International Keystone Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, led a Klan rally in Carroll County, Virginia. To end the rally, the group circled a large cross approximately 25 feet high and burned it on private property with the owner’s permission.

Black was subsequently arrested and convicted under Virginia’s cross-burning law. Several similar cases, in addition to Black’s case, were appealed to the State Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of Virginia’s cross-burning law.

That court held that the law was unconstitutional because it “selectively chooses only and all cross burnings because of its distinctive message,” and is thus not content neutral but discriminatory. The court also stated that the pronouncement that the very occurrence of a cross-burning was prima facie evidence made the law overbroad and violated the First Amendment. The state of Virginia petitioned the US Supreme Court, which subsequently reviewed the law and rendered a decision that clarified the issue. In Virginia vs. Black 2003 , the court determined that a state may ban cross-burnings which are done willfully for the purpose of evoking fear and to intimidate. In this decision, Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 The evolution toward modern hate crime laws 65 the court acknowledges that the history of and social meaning surrounding cross- burning legitimizes state regulation. However, that portion of the Virginia law that stated that the burning of a cross in and of itself is sufficient evidence to establish the required intent was an overreach. As despicable as Klan cross-burning may be to some if not most individuals in a free society, the First Amendment per - mits such symbolic expression when done under appropriate (and legal) circum - stances. The Klan and similar groups have the First Amendment protected right to use a burning cross as political speech, or as a symbol of group ideology and/or as a symbol of their organization or part of their rituals. To criminalize those aspects of cross-burning suppresses speech and violates the First Amendment. Therefore, while the Virginia law against cross-burning is valid, its provision of any act of cross-burning as prima facie evidence of intimidation is deemed unconstitutional and is struck down by the court.

State hate crime laws In September 2005, the Congressional Research Service published a report on “State Statutes Governing Hate Crimes.” The report identifies four types of state hate crime laws: “statutory provisions that outlaw destruction of religious institu - tions, criminalize bias motivated violence and intimidation, mandate training for state police officers in recognizing and reporting hate crimes, and also prohibit infringement on another person’s civil rights” (Austin & Wallace, 2005, 4). Most state hate crime legislation will include one or more of these elements. There is variation and commonalities among state hate crime statutes. General differences may be found in how the hate crime offense is defined, the scope or comprehen - siveness of the law, and the range in penalties. Some states utilize the civil rights legislative approach and conceptualize their hate crime laws as the interference with the exercise of a Constitutional right. For example Wyoming (Wyo. Stat.

paragraph 6-9-102) criminalizes violations of civil or constitutional rights: 6-9-102. Discrimination prohibited; penalties.

a No person shall be denied the right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness or the necessities of life because of race, color, sex, creed or national origin. b A person who violates this section commits a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than six (6) months, a fine of not more than seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00), or both. Other state laws use language that is similar to the ADL model statute: “offenses committed by reason of the actual or perceived race, color, religion . . . of another person or group of persons.” Missouri state law 557.035 states: 1. For all violations of subdivision (1) of subsection 1 of section 569.100, RSMo, or subdivision (1), (2), (3), (4), (6), (7) or (8) of subsection 1 of section 571.030, RSMo, which the state believes to be knowingly motivated because of race, Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 66 The evolution toward modern hate crime laws color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, or disability of the victim or victims, the state may charge the crime or crimes under this section, and the violation is a Class C felony. Several states, such as California, have developed statutes that not only deal with the criminal offense, but in training and reporting issues as well. California— Cal Pen Code paragraph 422.6 criminalizes injury or threat to person or damage to property because of actual or perceived “race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, gender, or sexual orientation.” The following components of California’s hate crime laws reflect its comprehensive nature: Cal Pen Code paragraph 666.7 Lists sentence enhancements for felony hate crimes and damage to property because the property is “associated with a person or group of identifiable race, color, religion, nationality, country of origin, ancestry, gender, disabil - ity, or sexual orientation.” Cal Pen Code paragraph 628.5 Establishes criteria for validating incidents of each crime description reported by schools.

Cal Pen Code paragraph 628.2 Covers compilation and distribution of reports of crimes committed on school grounds.

Cal Pen Code paragraph 628.1 Mandates development of reporting form for hate crimes, for use by all school districts and county offices of education.

Cal Pen Code paragraph 628 Establishes legislative intent to ensure collection of sufficient data and infor - mation about type and frequency of hate crimes and hate incidents on school campuses to combat such crime.

Cal Pen Code paragraph 594.3 Criminalizes vandalism of places of worship and interference with religious worship.

Cal Pen Code paragraph 422.95 Covers conditions of probation for hate crime perpetrators, including civil rights training and payments to organizations that help hate crime victims.

Cal Pen Code paragraph 422.75 Enhances penalty for felony committed because of victim’s actual or per - ceived “race, color, religion, nationality, country of origin, ancestry, disabil - ity, gender, or sexual orientation.”Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 The evolution toward modern hate crime laws 67 Cal Pen Code paragraph 422.7 Specifies additional penalties to be imposed for “felony of intimidation because of specified beliefs or characteristics.” As discussed earlier, many state hate crime statutes include a penalty-enhancement element, which reflects the ADL model hate crime statute. It requires that crimes motivated by hate be subject to an increased or enhanced sentence. This component is triggered when the defendant intentionally selects the victim based upon his or her perceived membership in a group with characteristics that are included in the protected categories articulated in the state’s law. Wisconsin’s hate crime law specifies the sentence enhancement feature:

a If the crime committed . . . is ordinarily a misdemeanor . . . the revised maximum fine is $10,000 and the revised maximum period of imprison - ment is one year in the county jail; b If the crime committed . . . is ordinarily a Class A misdemeanor, the penalty increase under this section changes the status of the crime to a felony and the revised maximum fine is $10,000 and the revised maxi - mum period of imprisonment is 2 years; c If the crime committed . . . is a felony, the maximum fine prescribed by law for the crime may be increased by not more than $5,000 and the maximum period of imprisonment prescribed by law for the crime may be increased by not more than 5 years. (Wisconsin State Legislature, paragraph 939.645) In general, criminal laws vary from state to state. Therefore, it is not unusual to find distinctions among state hate crime laws. This variation is not only beneficial but it is also expected as the nature of hate crime itself manifests differently across counties, cities, states, and in different regions of the country.

The hate crime law controversy Hate crime laws will continue to be viewed as a necessary tool by some and with certain skepticism by others. The disputed ideas surrounding hate crime laws may change, but never fully disappear. Despite the Supreme Court’s decision in Wis - consin v. Mitchell , some will continue to argue that these laws punish thoughts and that it has opened the door to the concept of “thought police.” The recognition of hate-motivated acts in American society took hundreds of years to occur. The criminalization of that which used to be a cultural norm is a monumental step. The idea of prohibiting a crime because it is motivated by the animus of a social status or identity is unique from most other laws. Moreover, policing and punishing these crimes in a rational and effective manner are addi - tional areas of disagreement. It is quite clear that this category of law will be viewed as controversial for the foreseeable future. We now turn to outline some of the more common arguments for and against hate crime laws.Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 68 The evolution toward modern hate crime laws Proponents of hate crime laws: a summary 1 Hate crime laws are necessary because of the corrosive nature of hate crimes . Some of the most important reasons why hate crime laws are needed were articulated in the US Supreme Court’s decision in Wiscon - sin v. Mitchell . In it, the court describes the distinctive qualities of hate crime acts. For instance, the court mentioned that bias or hate motives are “depraved motives.” The selection of the term “depraved” is meaningful— as it suggests that hate crimes are particularly repugnant acts. The court also pointed to the severe nature of hate crimes stating that they are “thought to be more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harm on their victims, and incite community unrest” (Levin, 1999, 10). 2 There is evidence that hate crimes tend to be more violent and injurious than non-biased violent crimes. These acts tend to involve more violent assaults and cause serious bodily injury to victims in comparison to non-biased moti - vated assaults (Levin & McDevitt, 1993). Hate crimes also tend to involve multiple perpetrators in a single attack. 3 The vast majority of hate crimes go unreported . There are several con - tributing factors for the lack of reporting. One includes the belief that not much can or will be done by law enforcement to respond to the crime.

Furthermore, the relationship between racial minority communities, the gay community, and local police authorities have been strained at best (Dunbar, 1997). Victims from these communities may be distrustful of law enforcement and are less enthusiastic about turning to them to report the crime. 4 Another justification for hate crime laws is based on the impact these crimes have on victims (Herek, et al. 1997). Collectively these crimes seek to create a social order that places white male heterosexuals in a permanent position of superiority, and all others in an inferior position.

Thus, these crimes rail against the American ideals of justice, equality, and freedom for all. Opponents of hate crime laws: a summary 1 Hate crime laws infringe upon freedom of speech. Despite evidence to the contrary, some continue to argue that hate crime laws punish thoughts or certainly pose a threat to the right to free speech. This concern is supported by the fact that what distinguishes a hate crime from a conventional crime lies in the bias or hate motive. Motive can be determined by forms of communi - cation, whether expressive or symbolic, written or verbal. Yet, the decision in Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993) reiterated that the statute did not criminalize speech, but conduct in the offender’s intentional selection of a target due to race, religion, sexual orientation, gender or disability. This decision should have effectively diminished this concern. Nevertheless, there are hate crime Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 The evolution toward modern hate crime laws 69 statutes that are not modeled after the Wisconsin law, which may contribute to continuing First Amendment concerns. 2 Hate crime laws infringe upon freedom of religion. There have been instances outside of the United States where religious teachers, pastors, Catholic bish - ops, and others have been “scrutinized” by authorities and even charged with a hate crime for speaking out against homosexuality (and other topics) within the context of biblical teachings. The Catholic Civil Rights League of Canada reports several such specific instances in the following online publication (Catholic Civil Rights League of Canada):

• Catholic Insight Magazine was the subject of a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission due to material on its website critical of homosexual conduct. (The complaint was dismissed but is currently under appeal by the complainant.) • Steven Boissoin, a Christian pastor was fined a total of $7,000 in 2008 and ordered never to speak or write publicly in future about homosexual conduct, after a complaint to the Alberta Human Rights Commission for a letter published in the Red Deer Advocate. Boissoin did win his appeal in December 2009. • In 2002, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ordered the Saskatoon Star Phoenix and Hugh Owens to each pay $1,500 to three complainants because of the publication of an advertisement that quoted Bible verses on homosexuality. Four years later, this was overturned by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal after the court ruled that the message, though offensive, didn’t reach the level of inciting hatred. Conflicts like these fuel the anxieties of cautionary First Amendment advo - cates and those of faith communities who point to these incidents and warn that they serve as a bellwether for the United States (Black, 2009). 3 Hate crime laws further the problem of identity politics. Other opponents interpret hate crime laws as somehow advantaging minorities and work against the majority group and that this benefit violates the equal protection clause on the Fourteenth Amendment and plays to the interests of identity politics (Jacobs & Potter, 1998). This stance almost justifies why hate crime laws are needed. The interpretation of the historical victimization of minori - ties and subsequent laws to punish that behavior is in some way viewed as favoritism. Those expressing this view point think of racially motivated acts as only anti-Black, or anti-Hispanic and fail to see that racially moti - vated also includes anti-White motivated acts. This viewpoint also over - looks that in Wisconsin v. Mitchell , Mitchell the defendant, was a young African-American male who facilitated a group attack upon a Caucasian.

The aim of hate crime laws is to punish discriminatory behavior and does not have the goal of prosecuting a particular group. The protective cate - gories are exhaustive. Racially motivated includes a member of any race, Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 70 The evolution toward modern hate crime laws Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaskan Native and White.

Religion-motivated crimes means a victim of any religion, not just Judaism or Christianity, but also Buddhism and Islam. Likewise, sexual orientation- motivated crime includes gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered persons, and heterosexuals. Chapter summary • Legal scholars contend that the legal antecedents of modern hate crime leg - islation can be found in the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amend - ments to the US Constitution. Each of these Amendments sought to remedy a race-based wrong. The significance and relevance of these and other federal laws is found in the stated objectives and language used, which has direct relevance to the goals of modern hate crime laws. • As a result of the federal government’s efforts to protect freed Blacks and support their participation as American citizens, defiant southern authori - ties, the Ku Klux Klan, and even ordinary citizens fearful of these changes, worked to harass, intimidate, and violently confront Blacks at those junctures where they sought to exercise freedom. • Seeking to address race-based reactionary violence, the federal government enacted laws such as the Force Act of 1871 and the Ku Klux Klan Act, also of 1871. These laws provided civil and criminal sanctions for those who were guilty of interfering with or depriving citizens (including Black citizens) of their Constitutional rights. • The clear intention of these laws was to provide the federal government with the legal means to police, protect, and punish those individuals and groups, particularly the Ku Klux Klan, who engaged in racially motivated interfer - ences and other types of systematic victimizations. But more importantly, these laws were precedent-like for criminalizing behaviors that were moti - vated by racial animus and or other related hostility, causing the intentional targeting of victims due to their racial or other ascribed class-based charac - teristics (Hall, 2005; Higginbotham, 1996; Levin, 2002). • A different type of racial violence occurred when multiple waves of Black migration from the rural south to northern urban centers occurred. Blacks were subjected to violence perpetrated by White mobs for reasons that ranged from moving into predominately White neighborhoods and/or competing for jobs or rumors about Blacks perpetuating crimes against Whites (Tuttle, 1996; Lieberson & Silverman, 1965). • Group libel is the defamation of a group of individuals based on their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or other similar reasons. Illinois became the first state to criminalize group libel with the passage of the 1949 state law which criminalizes the portrayal of “any race, color, creed, or religion,” as a class of citizens who lack any virtue or as being “depraved” or as “criminals.” • The US Supreme Court upheld the Illinois statute in Beauharnais v. Illinois 343 U.S. 250 (1952), which criminalized the libel of a group and essentially Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 The evolution toward modern hate crime laws 71 found that this type of speech is not constitutionally protected. The significance of this statute and the Supreme Court’s decision contributed to modern hate crime legislation by penalizing behaviors that denigrated a class of people due to their race, color, creed, or religion (Levin, 2002). • Early hate crime statutes were modeled after federal civil rights statutes (Levin, 1999). However, these laws would begin to resemble modern hate crime statutes with the aid of the Anti-Defamation’s model hate crime statute. There were five components of the model statute including: (1) identifying a hate crime as a two-tiered criminal act, the predicate or base offense and the element of animus toward the victim because of actual or perceived char - acteristics; (2) the enhanced penalty element; (3) institutional vandalism (as these acts are often directed towards groups due to bias); (4) civil actions may be sought for damages; and (5) states should collect and maintain hate crime data reported to law enforcement. • On October 28, 2009 President Barak Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law and essentially broadened the ability of federal authorities to prosecute local hate crimes.

The law also provides new protected status categories in federal hate crime law: gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability. • Hate crime laws will continue to be viewed with skepticism by some. The dis - puted notions surrounding hate crime laws change, but never fully disappear. • Arguments to support hate crime laws include: (1) Hate crime laws are nec - essary because of the corrosive nature of hate crimes. (2) There is evidence that suggests hate crimes tend to be more violent and injurious than non- biased violent crimes. (3) The vast majority of hate crimes go unreported.

There are several contributing factors for the lack of reporting. One includes the belief that not much can or will be done by law enforcement to respond to the crime. The existence of these laws helps to diffuse this perspective. (4) Another justification for hate crime laws is due to the nature of the impact these crimes have on their victims (Herek, et al. 1997). Thus, these crimes rail against the American ideals of justice, equality, and freedom for all. • Arguments against hate crime laws include: (1) Hate crime laws infringe upon freedom of speech. Despite evidence to the contrary, some are con - cerned that hate crime laws punish thoughts or certainly pose a threat to the right to free speech and free expression. (2) Hate crime laws infringe upon freedom of religion. There have been instances outside of the United States where religious leaders and others have been the subject of investigation by authorities and subsequently charged with a hate crime for teachings critical of homosexuality within the context of biblical teachings. These instances fuel the anxieties of cautionary First Amendment advocates and those of faith communities who point to these incidents as a bellwether for the United States. (3) Hate crime laws further the problem of identity politics. Other opponents interpret hate crime laws as somehow advantaging minorities and work against the majority group. However, racially motivated crimes address victims of any race.Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 72 The evolution toward modern hate crime laws Discussion questions 1 California’s recent passage of the Hate Crimes Protection Act reflects efforts to extend protections to victims of hate crime. How would those who are concerned with identity politics respond to this new law? 2 This new law permits hate crime victims to have the ability to file a civil law suit and sue for damages regarding their hate crime victimization. Are there any potential unanticipated consequences regarding hiring practices that could occur as a result of the Hate Crimes Protection Act? 3 Is it possible to over-legislate protection for hate crime victims?

Case study 3.1 California assembly passes new hate crimes bill Author: Equality California Published on Apr 30, 2010 SACRAMENTO, Calif. April 29, 2010 - Today the California State Assembly passed the Hate Crimes Protection Act (AB 1689) in a 44-25 vote. Sponsored by Equality California . . . , the bill would exempt hate crimes from mandatory arbitration clauses . . . and would prohibit con - tracts from requiring an individual to waive his or her legal rights, guaran - teed under the Ralph Civil Rights Act, which provides protections for hate crime victims. “Victims of hate crimes should never be forced into arbitration simply because they signed an employment or residential contract . . . that waives their right to seek justice in our courts,” said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California. Although California state and civil laws protect people from hate-related crimes, private contracts often require individuals to relinquish their funda - mental rights and protections. “Many employment contracts have a mandatory arbitration clause, which allows perpetuators of hate crimes to arbitrate and not go to court,” said Assembly member Saldana. “This bill would make hate crimes an exemption if you sign one of these contracts.” (Source: Equality California 2010)Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 The evolution toward modern hate crime laws 73 Appendix Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 HR 1913 RFS 111th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 1913 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES April 30, 2009 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary AN ACT To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ‘Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009’. SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.

In this Act— 1 the term ‘crime of violence’ has the meaning given that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code; 2 the term ‘hate crime’ has the meaning given such term in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note); and 3 the term ‘local’ means a county, city, town, township, parish, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a State.Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 74 The evolution toward modern hate crime laws SEC. 3. SUPPORT FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS BY STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS.

a Assistance Other Than Financial Assistance— 1 IN GENERAL—At the request of a State, local, or tribal law enforce - ment agency, the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investiga - tion or prosecution of any crime that— A constitutes a crime of violence; B constitutes a felony under the State, local, or tribal laws; and C is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or tribal hate crime laws. 2 PRIORITY- In providing assistance under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall give priority to crimes committed by offenders who have committed crimes in more than one State and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the extraordinary expenses relating to the inves - tigation or prosecution of the crime. (Source: www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr1913/text, Accessed August 20, 2014) Bibliography Anti-Defamation League (ADL). (2012). Hate Crimes Law: The ADL Approach . Available from www.adl.org/assets/pdf/combating-hate/Hate-Crimes-Law-The-ADL-Approach.

pdf [Accessed February 20, 2014]. Austin, C. A. & Wallace, P.S. (2005). State Statutes Governing Hate Crimes . CRS Report for Congress. Black, N. (2009). Christians Say Hate Crimes Bill is Not What You Think. Christian Post Reporter . 26 June. Available from www.christianpost.com/article/20090626/ christians-say-hate-crimes-bill-is-not-what-you-think/index.html [Accessed Decem - ber 18, 2009]. Catholic Civil Rights League of Canada. (n.d.) Hate Speech. Available from https://ccrl. ca/?s=hate+speech [Accessed on March 8, 2015]. Cornell University Law School. (n.d.). Legal Information Institute. R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul. Available from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/505/377#writing- USSC_CR_0505_0377_ZO [Accessed on March 8, 2015]. Cummings, Jr., M. C. & Wise, D. (1971). Democracy Under Pressure . New York: Har - court Brace Jovanovich. Dunbar, E. (1997). Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation in Hate Crime Victimization. The Importance of Race and Gender Membership in Sexual Orientation Hate Crime Victimization and Reportage: Identity Politics or Identity Risk. Available from https:// www.academia.edu/8332887/Running_Head_Race_Gender_and_Sexual_Orientation_ in_Hate_Crime_Victimization_The_Importance_of_Race_and_Gender_Membership_Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 The evolution toward modern hate crime laws 75 in_Sexual_Orientation_Hate_Crime_Victimization_and_Reportage_Identity_Poli - [email protected]&email_was_taken=true [Accessed March 5, 2015]. Equality California. (2010). Press Release. California Assembly Passes New Hate Crimes Bill. EQCA-Sponsored Bill Would Strengthen Protections for Victims of Hate Crimes.

Available from http://www.eqca.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH &b=4869041&ct=8225923 [Accessed March 5, 2015]. Gerstenfeld, P. B. (2004). Hate Crimes: Causes, Controls, and Controversies . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Griffing, J. (2009). Hate Crimes and the Sedition Act of 2009. The American Thinker. May 24. Available from www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/hate_crimes_and_the_ sedition_a.html [Accessed December 19, 2009]. Hall, N. (2005). Hate Crime . Portland, OH: Willan Publishing. Hambrick, G. (2009) South Carolina Baptists Resolve to “Avoid” LGBT Hate Crime. Charleston City Paper . Available from www.charlestoncitypaper.com/Gay Charleston/ archives/2009/11/16/south-carolina-baptists-resolve-to-avoid-lgbt-hate-crimes [Accessed December 19, 2009]. Herek, G.M., Gillis, J.R., Cogan, J.C. & Glunt, E.K. (1997). Hate Crime Victimization Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults: Prevalence, Psychological Correlates, and Methodological Issues. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12 , 195–215. Higginbotham, A.L. (1996). Shades of Freedom: Racial Politics and Presumptions of the American Legal Process . New York: Oxford University Press. Jacobs, J. B. & Potter, K. (1998). Hate Crimes: Criminal Law and Identity Politics . New York: Oxford University Press. Lawrence, F. M. (1999). Punishing Hate: Bias Crimes Under American Law . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund (LCCREF). (2009). Confronting the New Faces of Hate: Hate Crimes in America . Washington, DC. Leagle.com. (n.d.). Beauharnais v. Pittsburgh Courier Publishing Co. Available from http://www.leagle.com/decision/1957948243F2d705_1750.xml/BEAUHARNAIS%20 v.%20PITTSBURGH%20COURIER%20PUBLISHING%20CO [Accessed February 7, 2015]. Leichson, A.J. (2009). Christian Attorneys Urge Senate to Vote Against “Hate Crimes” Bill. Christian Post Reporter . 1 May. Available from www.christianpost.com/article/20090501/ christian-attorneys-urge-senate-to-vote-against-hate-crimes-bill/index.html [Accessed December 19, 2009]. Levin, B. (1999). Hate Crimes. Worse by Definition. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice , 15(1), 6–21. Levin, B. (2002). From Slavery to Hate Crime Laws: The Emergence of Race and Status-Based Protection in American Criminal Law. Journal of Social Issues , 58(2), 227–45. Levin, B. (2009). The Long Arc of Justice: Race, Violence, and the Emergence of Hate Crime Law. In B. Levin (ed.) Hate Crimes. Volume 1: Understand and Defining Hate Crime . Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Levin, J. & McDevitt, J. (1993). Hate Crimes: The Rising Tide of Bigotry and Bloodshed . New York: Plenum Press. Lieberson, S. & Silverman, A. (1965). The Precipitants and Underlying Conditions of Race Riots. The American Sociological Review , 30(6), 887–98. Lofton, J. (2009). Hate Crime Bill Concerns Church Leaders. Ada Evening News . June 15. Available from www.adaeveningnews.com/local/local_story_166091705.html [Accessed December 19, 2009].Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 76 The evolution toward modern hate crime laws Minnesota Legislation Code, paragraph 292.02 (n.d.). Available from https://www.law. cornell.edu/supct/html/90-7675.ZO.html [Accessed on March 8, 2015]. Neiwert, D. (2009). Fox’s Napolitano Fears Hate-Crimes Law Hurts Free Speech — But Ignores Explicit Language of Bill. Available from http://crooksandliars.com/david-nei - wert/foxs-napolitano-fears-hate-crimes-la [Accessed December 19, 2009]. New York Times. (1994). Available from www.nytimes.com/1994/05/27/nyregion/new- jersey-bias-crimes- statutes-are-overturned.html [Accessed March 6, 2010]. National Public Radio (NPR). (2005). All Things Considered: Anti-Lynching Law in U.S. History—Interview of Prof. Harvard Sitkoff, University of New Hampshire, June 13.

Available from www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4701576 [Accessed February 8, 2015]. Open Congress, S.909. (n.d.). Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Available from https://www.opencongress.org/bill/s909-111/text [Accessed on March 8, 2015]. State v. Miller , No. S90A1172, Supreme Court of Georgia, 260 Ga. 669; 398 S.E.2d 547; 1990 Ga. LEXIS 459; 59 U.S.L.W. 2374, December 5, 1990, Decided. Swanson, J. L. (2002). Unholy Fire: Cross Burning, Symbolic Speech, and the First Amendment. Virginia v. Black. Cato Supreme Court Review 2002–2003 . Washington, DC: Cato Institute. Tuttle, W. M. (1996). Race Riot: Chicago in the Red Summer of 1919 . Chicago, IL: Uni - versity of Chicago Press. US Code. (n.d.). Title 42. Chapter 21. Subchapter I. paragraph 1985. Conspiracy to Inter - fere with Civil Rights. US Department of Justice (DOJ). (2011). Justice News. Wednesday, August 10, 2011. For - mer TSA Employee Pleads Guilty to Federal Hate Crime for Assaulting Elderly Somali Man. Available from http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-tsa-employee-pleads- guilty-federal-hate-crime-assaulting-elderly-somali-man [Accessed on March 8, 2015]. US Statutes at Large. (n.d.). Vol. XVIII, p. 335 ff. Available from http://chnm.gmu.edu/ courses/122/recon/civilrightsact.html [Accessed March 2, 2010]. What Is Proposition 8? (n.d.). Available from www.whatisprop8.com [Accessed December 19, 2009]. Wisconsin State Legislature, paragraph 939.645. (n.d.). Penalty; crimes committed against certain people or property. Available from http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/stat - utes/939/IV/645 [Accessed on March 8, 2015]. Young, E. (2009). Ministry: “Hate Crimes” Law Will Fuel Hostility Toward Traditional Morality. Christian Post Reporter . May 17. Available from www.christianpost.com/ article/20090517/ministry-hate-crimes-law-will-fuel-hostility-toward-traditional- morality/index.html [Accessed December 19, 2009].Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 4 The criminology of hate crime Introduction Public discourse on hate crimes and the laws intended to control them often reflects strong opinions. While most would prefer that these crimes did not occur at all, not everyone agrees with how to respond to them when they do occur. As we have learned in Chapter 3, some question the validity of hate crime laws, either seeing them as compromising constitutionally protected liberties or as laws that are potentially divisive—valuing the victimization of some over others. Still others see hate crime laws as legitimate tools that are necessary for the deterrence of these uniquely destructive acts. Less common is discussion about why these behaviors occur. The criminology of hate crime, more specifically the study of the criminal behavior of hate crime perpetrators, is a growing body of scholarly literature. A variety of theoretical perspectives are represented including psychological, criminological, and even economic-based theories. Clearly it is beyond the scope of this work to include a comprehensive critique of each of these perspectives. This chapter reviews selected theories that are offered for the understanding of why hate crimes are perpetuated. Criminological theories are discussed primarily; however, we begin with acknowledging contributions from social psychology literature on the role of prejudiced attitudes in hate-motivated behavior. We then discuss several crimino - logical theories including social disorganization theory, routine activities, social control, strain, and other potentially relevant theories.

Social psychology There is a vast psychology literature brought to bear on the problem of bigotry and prejudice (i.e. sexism, heterosexism, racism, ethnocentrism, etc.) and subse - quent behaviors. For our purposes, we limit our review to theoretical viewpoints discussed in social psychology. Social psychology perspectives focus on how social environment, social con - struction of the “other,” and psychological health work to shape attitudes and behaviors. Accordingly, prejudiced attitudes are explained as the product of underlying hostilities and invalid generalizations or negative stereotypes toward Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 78 The criminology of hate crime others (Allport, 1979). For example, Raphael Ezekiel’s study of Klansmen and neo-Nazis (1995, 310–11) reports that “white racists . . . estimate that 80% of black people,” are “cheaters,” “violent robbers,” who wish to “hurt whites.” While members of extremist organizations are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes, so are non-members. But individuals who are racially prejudiced do not neces - sarily engage in racist actions, let alone commit hate crimes. There are differ - ences between those who harbor prejudice and those who act on their prejudice.

Psychologist Gordon Allport addresses this important area and identifies a sort of social progression towards hate-motivated criminal behavior. He offers a five- point scale or typology of actions that illustrates that dynamic. The contributions of Allport to the field of psychology are well known. What is less recognized is the relevance of his work for the study of modern hate crime (see Table 4.1 ). Allport further describes this progression that begins with prejudice and ends with what could qualify as hate crime actions (Allport, 1979, 57–58):

1 The negative stereotype of the victim group(s) is well recognized by the dom - inant culture. 2 The scapegoating of the targeted group has been well established. 3 There is a history of discrimination against the targeted group. 4 The dominant group experiences socioeconomic or political strain due to changing conditions. 5 Frustration and helplessness increases. 6 Some affected individuals choose to affiliate with extremist groups (Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazi skinhead groups, Aryan Nation, or other such white suprema - cist groups). 7 These groups encourage the use of violence as justified. 8 An incident occurs (or is imagined) and is focused upon as a triggering event. 9 Like-minded individuals join together to commit violent and destructive acts against the targeted group. What is implicit in this progression is that individuals observe, learn and understand broader social arrangements that provide members of the dominant culture with superior social positioning, social advantages, and expectations relative to members of minority cultures. These social arrangements and concomitant attitudes are internalized through socialization processes. The recognition and adoption of these norms also influences the social perception of other groups. The more unlike a minority group from the dominant group—the less well they are perceived, characterized and socially valued. Subsequently, some individuals reveal this attitude towards minority groups by indulging in antilocution only or perhaps in avoidance behavior. However, as Allport describes, the more intense and predominant these processes become in the life of individuals, the more susceptible they are to hate-motivated criminal behavior. Thus, some individuals journey well beyond antilocution toward physical attack. Allport also includes social strain as an aggravating feature or triggering agent in this process. We will see later a similar point of view expressed in criminological strain theory.Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 Table 4.1 Allport’s scale of prejudice Stages Antilocution Avoidance Discrimination Physical attack Extermination How the stage is manifested Expressing prejudice among like-minded family and friends Taking deliberate action to avoid the disliked group Taking deliberate action to deny members of the disliked group civil rights or social equality Participating in threats or assaults against the disliked group or their property Taking actions that cause fatal injuries to members of the disliked group How it is expressed by perpetrator Less intense prejudice Less likely to result in hostile action More intense prejudice More likely to result in hostile action Increased prejudice Engages in negative action against disliked group Intense prejudice Engages in violent action against disliked group Participating in acts that cause life threatening or fatal injuries to members of the disliked group How it is experienced by disliked group Not aware Less likely to be aware Disliked group more likely to become aware of these actions Greater certainty of awareness and why acts occur Greater certainty of awareness and why acts occur + ++ +++ ++++ +++++ Source: Adapted from Allport, 1979, 14–15Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 80 The criminology of hate crime Social psychological perspectives shed light on why some prejudiced indi - viduals may go on to commit hate-motivated crimes. While there is research to support the premise that the combination of personality factors, social learning, and developing social conditions together facilitate conditions prime for hate crime, there is less research to substantiate the stages of progression described by Allport in the lives of hate crime perpetrators. Other informative theories from social psychology include social learning theory and realistic group conflict theory.

Social learning theory Social learning theory states that the acquisition of understanding the social world occurs through the processes of observation and imitation of the actions and values modeled by others. Just as essential to this fundamental dynamic is the reinforcement or shaping of the learners behavior through rewards (social approval) or punishment (social disapproval). This theory became better known through Bandura’s famous Bobo doll experiments. The subjects were preschool- aged children who were divided into three groups. One group observed an adult playing aggressively with the Bobo doll (striking, kicking, etc.), the second group witnessed nonviolent play, and the third group served as the control group.

As predicted, subjects who observed the aggressive modeling were more likely to imitate that behavior during their play time with the doll. The doll studies sup - ported the theory that social learning involved: (1) a cognitive process that takes place in a social context; (2) observing a social behavior and the consequences of the behavior; (3) experiencing reinforcement and processing that informa - tion; and (4) making judgments about the observed behavior (Bandura, et al.

1961). But the idea of replicating social behavior or variations of that behav - ior is impacted by a variety of factors including how the observed behavior is introduced to the learner (direct observation), verbal representation or symbolic presentation (cultural depictions), and the cognitive abilities and learning style of the learner. The theory of the authoritarian personality, an extension of social learn - ing theories, was argued by Adorno and his associates in 1950. It describes a personality that defers to and strongly supports conventionalism as a result of a rigid and arrogant upbringing which facilitated what can be called an us versus them mentality. Authoritarian personalities follow social conventions that they perceive are condoned and demonstrated by the majority; that the purpose of their deference and submission is to be considered legitimate and acceptable, and that they are hostile against those who appear to deviate from or be contrary to conventionalism (Kessler & Cohrs, 2008). In fact, much has been written about the intolerance of various minority groups, especially anti- Semitic attitudes, demonstrated in the authoritarian personality (Solt, 2012).

Moreover, authoritarians rationalize their hostility by pointing to social con - vention as justification.Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 The criminology of hate crime 81 How well does it account for hate crimes?

Social learning theory has real application for some hate crime offenders. There are several ethnographic works on participants in the hate movement which implicate the role of family in teaching (whether directly or indirectly) ideas of White superiority and concomitantly the inferiority of racial and other minorities (Ezekiel, 1995; Sims, 1978; Leyden, 2008, Simi & Futrell, 2010). Simi and Futrell’s detailed description of Aryan homes is fraught with examples of the deliberate indoctrination of children into a mindset of racialism, anti-Semitism, heterosexism and the like. On a larger and perhaps more disturbing scale, main - stream culture itself contains values and norms that in addition to egalitarian themes, also implicitly support gendered, racialized, and ethnocentric social struc - tures. Thus, adhering to the dominant culture can also facilitate the learning of bigoted notions and ideals. Wilkinson’s 2004 article on hegemonic masculinity and anti-gay hostilities suggests that the authoritarian personality perspective provides a plausible expla - nation for discriminatory actions and perhaps hate crimes directed against gay men. Studies indicate that anti-gay attitudes are more endemic among men than women and that these attitudes are derived from gender norms in society that identify heterosexual males as not only the ideal representation of masculinity and manhood, but also that it is superior to all other masculinities, including homo - sexuality or any other sexual minority role preferred by men (see Herek, 1986; Kite & Whitley, 1998). The gender hierarchy constructed by society is reflected in the “gender belief system” (GBS) as discussed by Kite, 2001 and others. In GBS, heterosexual men reflect conventionality whereas gay men represent those who violate conventionality and deviate from the norm. In keeping with authoritar - ian personality theory, men who adhere to GBS would assume a hostile posture towards gay men that would condone the violent confrontation of gay men. Altemeyer (1981) extended authoritarian theory through the testing and refinement of Adorno, et al.’s F-scale of authoritarianism. His construction of the Right-Wing Authoritarian (RWA) scale was designed to measure authoritarian aggression and conventionality. It is applicable in this discussion because it under - scores the desire of some to justify aggression towards others based on tradition and conventionalism that is manifested by the social construction of hegemonic power as demonstrated through dimensions of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. The idea is for dominant groups to maintain control over structural power by erecting and policing social boundaries. Altemeyer argues that individuals who score high on the RWA scale view the world as a place where those of inferior status pose a constant threat to the dominant group.

Realistic group conflict theory Realistic group conflict theory (RGCT) seeks to explain the conditions that foment intergroup conflict and attitudes of prejudice (see Sherif, et al. 1954 The Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 82 The criminology of hate crime Robber’s Cave experiment). A fundamental tenet of RGCT is that competition for finite resources between and among groups can trigger feelings of threat, resent - ment, disagreement, and subsequently intergroup struggles in various forms.

The theory also includes the acknowledgment of “out-groups” by “in-groups,” meaning that those groups that are viewed as a threat are further demonized and alienated. There are several factors that help to situate a sort of us versus them perspective in RGCT. One of the most significant factors is the sense of entitle - ment and privilege that dominant groups have over minority groups. This reality creates a threat interpretation of competition which is viewed as a challenge to an advantage position and a zero sum perspective which heightens tension between groups. White privilege in particular has played a role in understanding the violent reaction of some Whites to school integration and school busing initiatives that occurred during the 1960s (Bobo, 1983). Another significant factor is concerned with perceived incompatibility or conflicting goals and other value systems between groups that create tensions. More recent RGCT studies focus on addi - tional social conditions that may exacerbate intergroup tensions. For example, Filindra and Pearson-Merkowitz (2013) examine the impact of macroeconomic instability on out-group hostility represented by support of restrictive immigrant policy and found support for their hypothesis.

How well does it account for hate crimes?

Of course hate crime is not committed by groups, but by individuals. However, a common perspective espoused in the hate movement is the threat presented by out-groups, that is, racial minorities, Jews, homosexuals, and others. In general, one could use the rhetoric of hate to conclude that RGCT has some application when it comes to hate crime. There have been many instances when the first African-American or Hispanic family or the first same-sex couple moves into a neighborhood, they are met with hostility and attacked with hate graffiti, burn - ing crosses, slashed tires, arson, or even physical attacks. Because of the threat caused by the presence of a representative of the out-group, a perpetrator seeks to “defend” against a changing life style, cultural values or even the market value of houses in a neighborhood. The defended neighborhood thesis tested with Chicago hate crime data, found that anti-Black hate crime occurred more frequently in homogenous white neighborhoods; the pattern for anti-White hate crimes was less discernable (Lyons, 2008). Another reference to RGCT is Bobo’s contention that a group may feel threat - ened if they perceive a shift in relative group status. Social policies like affirma - tive action, marriage equality, gay rights and women’s rights may be viewed as real threats to the social location of straight white males and increase hostilities toward out-groups. Likewise, according to belief systems attributed to the hate movement, Jews continuously conspire to derail and to eventually destroy the status of White (Aryan) heterosexual, Christian males. Adherents of this and other similar views see the very existence of Jewish people as a threat to their group.

The targeting of Jews by some hate crime perpetrators has included that motive.Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 The criminology of hate crime 83 Finally, this theory may also address the prospect of the increasing importance of aligning self-identity with that of the in-group. RGCT posits that when that occurs, the likelihood of intergroup conflict also increases, which further under - scores the need to maintain in-group allegiance. This dynamic explains the attrac - tion of some into a hate group as a way of providing a stronger sense of self, group solidarity, and group identity, which deepens emersion into the world of hate. A shortcoming of this theory is the order in which the in-group develops stereotyped attitudes toward the out-group. Classic RGCT asserts that this happens at the point of competition over resources and zero sum thinking. However, this order fails in addressing traditional prejudices and discriminatory practices of majority mem - bers on minorities even in the face of abject segregation and gross inequalities.

Criminological perspectives Psychology involves the examination of human behavior as individuals engage in the social world from childhood until death. The human mind serves as the focus of study and is largely concerned with the individual, whereas criminology seeks to understand the nature of a specific human behavior—criminal behavior and the manner in which society responds to it. Social conditions, including those that exist along micro, meso and macro levels, play a critical role in the analyses of criminal behavior. Thus criminality involves a broader scope and seeks to explain phenomena that well extend beyond that of the individual offender. Criminologi - cal theories have exponentially increased our understanding of crime, criminals, and criminal behavior. But it is also recognized that there is no single theory that explains all criminal behavior. The same is true for hate crime. Now that we have acknowledged that, we turn to examine those criminological theories that may be useful in understanding hate crime.

Social disorganization Social disorganization theory posits that when a community’s socializing insti - tutions become weakened and non-functional (becoming socially disorganized/ dysfunctional), delinquent and/or criminal behavior is more likely to occur and continue as a matter of cultural transmission. Early studies characterized socially disorganized communities as primarily poor, heterogeneous urban neighborhoods with high mobility. Likewise, communities with stable and functioning social institutions are better protected against the development of criminogenic condi - tions. Such communities enjoy a vested interest in the community, social cohe - siveness, informal social control mechanisms and collective efficacy. For social disorganization to hold any promise in explaining hate crime, we would need to see a pattern of hate crimes occurring in socially disorganized neighborhoods. However, while hate crimes have occurred in such neighbor - hoods, many have not. These crimes occur in a variety of places from poor rural towns to Ivy League universities. In addition, there are some research findings that suggest anti-Black hate crime is more likely to occur in socially organized Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 84 The criminology of hate crime and more affluent communities (Lyons, 2007). This research suggests that these incidents are meant to defend such communities (i.e. the defended community perspective) against the entry of the undesired or targeted group. However, anti- White-motivated hate crimes may occur in more socially disorganized neighbor - hoods. Overall, social disorganization theory offers some assistance in explaining community level attributes where certain types of hate crimes may occur. But even more intriguing is the inverse view that the environment of socially organ - ized communities tend to trigger racially motivated hate crime; that is majority versus minority incidents. The Department of Justice reported that in 2010, 31.4 percent of hate crime incidents occurred in or near residences. In fact, since 2005 this pattern has remained the same; one-third of all reported hate crimes occur in or near residential areas. These data, however, do not identify the socioeconomic characteristics of these residential areas. Clearly, more research is needed to test hypotheses like Lyons, as they relate to hate crimes.

Routine activities theory This theory explains crime as the result of opportunities that arise from com - mon daily activities. The attractiveness of the opportunity for offenders to commit crime is determined by three critical elements that must occur simultaneously: the presence of a motivated offender, a suitable target and the absence of a capable guardian or other preventative conditions. This approach presumes rationality; that offenders employ a real decision-making process that involves weighing the risks and benefits of committing an illegal act. If benefits (value of the target) out - weigh potential risks (apprehension/arrest), the greater the likelihood the offender will commit the crime. Conversely, if the risks are perceived by the offender as too great, the crime is less likely to occur. As suggested by the theory’s name, opportunities for crime are present in everyday routines and activities, that is, going to work, school, shopping, other leisure activities, and so on (Miller, et al.

2006; Lilly, et al. 2011). The focus in routine activities theory (RAT) is not on what causes someone to become criminal. It is on those basic elements that invite crime to occur. As such, the offender is concerned with the easy obtainment of instant gratification provided in the right opportunity. Marcus Felson and Law - rence Cohen, who proposed this theory in 1979, typically discuss property crimes rather than personal or violent crimes as they relate to RAT. However, are there some applications of this theory for hate crime? I believe so. Utilizing the well-known offender typology offered by Levin and McDevitt (1993, 2002) we can consider the theoretical fit of RAT. Whether premeditated or spontaneous, hate crimes cannot occur without opportunity. Levin and McDe - vitts’ typology of hate crime offenders (which also implies offense attributes) offers a rational discussion that supports aspects of RAT. For our purposes we will briefly analyze three of the four categories offered in the typology (thrill, defensive, and retaliatory) omitting mission, the rarest type of hate crime. In thrill hate crime, the predilection of hate crime offenders is to seek out their prey and randomly attack objects or persons once encountered. These offenders seek to Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 The criminology of hate crime 85 experience a perverse thrill or excitement from hurting others and often seek their victims in locations where they are more expected to be found. They may or may not be deeply dedicated to hate ideology; but the end result is nevertheless the same. Victims are chosen because they are perceived by the offenders as suitable targets due to their supposed inferiority. This particular aspect causes members of sexual minorities to be particularly vulnerable to “thrill” attacks. Often members of the LGBTQ community will frequent gay friendly establishments which are also well known to those outside of that community. The RAT hate crime offender will take advantage of this practice—a routine activity—and victimize targets accordingly. What further exacerbates this vulnerability is the questionable sup - port afforded this community by law enforcement. Thus, knowledge of the social gathering places of the LGBTQ community—which may be viewed as somewhat socially and politically isolated (Herek & Berrill, 1992)—provides an attractive target for thrill hate crime offenders. Similarly, due to racially segregated residen - tial patterns throughout many communities, it is easy for these offenders to target African-Americans, Latinos and Asian-Americans as well. Likewise, defensive hate crime occurs when offenders perceive that their world is being intruded upon, threatened or invaded by “undesirables.” As a result they take actions to send a message to the so called invaders that they are not wanted in the community or workplace. We also find support for this category of hate crime with regard to RAT. A classic and historical illustration of defensive hate crime involves “move-in” violence. There are numerous instances where racially motivated crimes occurred when African-Americans first attempted to move into previously all-White communities (Lyons, 2007; Wexler & Marx, 1986; Green, et al. 1998). In these instances White perpetrators, who seek to prevent Black families from moving into their neighborhoods, commit various acts to thwart this occurrence. These acts, which fit the characteristics of defense hate crime, have ranged from the malicious damage or destruction of property and threatening bod - ily harm, to actual personal assaults. In keeping with RAT, these newly available suitable targets in the neighborhood as perceived by motivated offenders, also include the third element. With the history of strained relationships between law enforcement and racial minorities, at times law enforcement has been less than vigilant when it comes to protecting minorities under these circumstances. Such lax law enforcement helps to create the condition of the absent capable guardian. As described by Rothstein, 2012: State and local governments used force to preserve residential segregation in two ways: by failing to protect black families from violence (or, tacitly encour - aging such violence) when these families have attempted to move to predomi - nantly white neighborhoods; and by police harassment of black motorists or pedestrians who enter predominantly white neighborhoods. (14) The absence of a capable guardian can take various forms beyond that of reluctant law enforcement. Likewise, expressions of territoriality and controlling one’s Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 86 The criminology of hate crime turf extends beyond residential neighborhoods and also encompasses schools, the workplace, and other venues as well. In June 1949, the city of St. Louis, Missouri, opened the Fairground Swimming Pool, a public facility, to include Black residents for the first time. By the end of that first day, it was reported that hundreds of White residents came to the area, angry over the desegregation policy. To these individuals, the Fairground facility was their domain, their turf— and now it was being invaded. Violence did occur; its intent was to message to St. Louis’ Black residents that they were not wanted at that facility (Jolly, 2006).

Police, once again, were reluctant to play the role of capable guardians for Blacks (Wesley & Price, 1999). A more recent incident occurred in 2009 at the Valley Club private swimming facility in Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania. Although no physically aggressive acts occurred that would constitute a defensive hate crime, several White club members actively engaged in an intense campaign to change the contract that permitted Black and Hispanic children from the Creative Steps Summer Camp to use the primarily White facility. The Valley Club owners denied any racial moti - vation in their decision to subsequently revoke the contract, but the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission found that racial animus undeniably played a role in their decision (Grant, 2012). Even though the Human Relations Commission eventually acted in the role of capable guardian by speaking out against the acts of Creative Steps—“guardian-like” authorities were absent until that point. Levin and McDevitt’s third category, retaliatory hate crime, occurs when per - petrators believe that an attack of some sort has occurred on one of their own.

Consequently, a retaliatory action is carried out. RAT is also applicable in this context because the motivation of the offender is clearly heightened as is the iden - tification of a “suitable” target. What varies is the extent to which the offender is willing to risk the retaliation in light of the possible presence of preventative agents—capable guardians. This notion of the presence of capable guardians requires additional considera - tion when it comes to hate crime. It is important to point out that the absence of a capable guardian could exist in different forms. There is the most concrete form— the physical—and then there is the more subtle form—the sociological or cultural form. For example, as mentioned earlier, the absence of a capable guardian can exist in the uncertainty of how law enforcement (and other potential guardians) might respond to the victimization of someone from the LGBTQ or other minor - ity communities. There is a history of strained relationships between police and minority communities in general in the United States. Moreover, historically, society has signaled that the victimization of members of minority communities by members of the majority is viewed as less serious and did not trigger demands for justice (Perry, 2001; Petrosino, 1999). In this sense, there is a cultural mindset that implies a symbolic absence of guardianship. There is much to consider in RAT for hate crimes. To the extent that hate crime is largely a function of opportunity with other necessary ingredients, we find offense elements that coincide with these ideas. However, it is also evident that RAT would suggest greater numbers of hate crime incidents. Clearly, each Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 The criminology of hate crime 87 of the elements required in RAT, the motivated offender, suitable target and the absence of a capable guardian is particularly relevant in hate crimes. Given the persistence of intolerance and bigotry in society and the increasing availability of suitable targets due to population shifts and mobility, one would expect high num - bers of hate crime. But these conditions do not cause hate crime. Still, the actual number of hate crimes is unknown because it is recognized that not all victims report to law enforcement for a variety of reasons. Notwithstanding, considering the general nature of hate crimes, RAT should not be dismissed as a contributing criminological theory for hate crime acts.

Social bonds theory Hirschi’s social control theory (also referred to as social bonds theory), presents the view that criminal behavior is not atypical but in fact is a common occurrence.

A more significant question is what causes individuals not to commit crime. What are those social elements which hinder or restrain people from committing crimi - nal acts? Hirschi’s response is that social bonds or ties to conventional values, beliefs and practices are those elements that increase the likelihood of law abiding behavior. Individuals with strong social bonds are more likely to conform to soci - ety’s mores and are therefore less likely to violate conventionality; whereas those with attenuated or weakened bonds are more likely to commit criminal behavior. Central to the theory are four social bonds: attachment, involvement, commit - ment, and belief. Each reflects an individual’s personal investment in pro-social beliefs, values, and practices. Attachment reflects the existence of significant and positive personal relationships (i.e. parent-child; relationship with peers; student- teacher, etc.). These relationships incentivize pro-social attitudes and behaviors.

Involvement ties demonstrate engagement in conventional activities (i.e. volun - teer to work in community projects, participating in sports programs for youth, etc.). These activities reflect support for traditional social customs and values.

Commitment identifies investment in conventional goals and aspirations and the traditional means to obtain them (i.e. pursuit of vocational or academic training, financial plans to purchase a car or home, entrepreneurial pursuits, etc.). Again, such activities reflect agreement with societal prescriptions for success and accomplishment and show that we have “skin in the game” and thus much to lose should we risk it all for criminal pursuits. Finally, belief indicates agreement with the consensus perspective and the formal rules and regulations (laws) and author - ity structures that are employed to govern society. Individuals who agree with these mechanisms will seek to be in compliance with the same and would identify law breaking as undesirable and socially repugnant behavior. If Hirschi’s explanation for criminality is a valid explanation for hate crime, we should see its perpetrators with weak, minimal, or no social bonds as conspicuous among hate crime perpetrators. But is this the case? Studies suggest at least two possible applications of social bonds theory for hate crimes: (1) social bonds has utility for some but not all hate crime offender types; and (2) strong social bonds to cultural values and practices which include Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 88 The criminology of hate crime embedded notions of bigotry facilitates hate crime. These viewpoints clearly assume different views on the role of conventional norms and the prevalence of prejudice. The first application (social bonds as a prophylactic) acknowledges that there are hate crime offenders from troubled backgrounds that include dysfunctional, broken or non-existent relationships with parental figures, poor attachments and a life characterized by failure. To the extent that there is empirical evidence to support these dynamics, social bonds theory is plausible. Several studies indicate findings that could be construed as supportive of social bonds theory, noting per - petrators with poor adjustment to school; existing within the margins of society (Levin & McDevitt, 1993, 2002); possessing a history of delinquent and violent behavior and experiencing violence within the family (Ray, et al. 2004); multiple areas of dysfunction and deprivation, including substance abuse (Gadd, et al. 2005 reported in Chakraborti & Garland, 2009). Hate crime offender and serial murderer, Joseph Paul Franklin, currently serv - ing two life sentences, perhaps serves as a good example. Over a three-year period Franklin, acting as a sniper, shot and killed his many victims. It is reported that he was motivated by anti-Semitism and racism. Crime writer Charles Montaldo describes Franklin’s background: Franklin . . . was born in . . . Alabama on April 13, 1950 . . . in a volatile impoverished home. As a child Franklin . . . turned to reading books, mostly fairy tales, as an escape from the domestic violence in the home. His sister has described the home as abusive, saying Franklin was the target of much of the abuse. (crime.about.com) The second application (social bonds as criminogenic) situates successful socialization as paradoxical. Critical criminologists and sociologists contend that degrees of ethnocentrism, heterosexism, misogyny, racism, and other aspects of bigotry are inherent to the dominant culture. Therefore, it would follow that strong bonds to such social mores provides a greater capacity to commit hate crimes. Moreover, individuals who are reared within racist or homophobic families —will be more inclined to see bigoted attitudes and related behaviors as the norm. Therefore, given that context, such individuals would not view the animation of their bigotry as deviant, let alone criminal (Feagin, 2010; Sibbit, 1997; Perry, 2001; Leyden, 2008). Hamm’s (1994) invaluable study of American neo-Nazi skinheads reveals that the majority of skinheads in his sample came from traditional working-class or white-collar households. In addition, those skinheads who were stronger adherents to Nazi ideology evidenced the achievement ideology (conventionalism) more so than their less committed peers. These findings are evidence of mainstream socialization and acceptance of normative ideals, goals, and social practices (strong social bonds). Still, if it is accurate that embedded in the dominant cultural are various forms and degrees of bigotry—one might expect to see hate crime occurring at a much Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 The criminology of hate crime 89 higher rate than what is currently reported. One might speculate, however, that educational efforts to construct multiculturalism as a strength rather than as a weakness in society may have created a hindering effect regarding the demon - stration of racist or repugnant behaviors. Overall, it appears that Hirschi’s social bonds theory provides, at best, a mixed “fit” in explaining hate crime.

Strain theory Merton’s strain theory focuses on the inadequacy of the social structure to articu - late an array of conventional pathways or means to achieve economic (or other culturally defined) success. As a result, not all segments of society are able to easily access the means towards those ends. The anomic condition references the disjuncture caused by the lack of equal access to the means identified to achieve goals. Strain or frustration is routinely experienced by those individuals and groups that are unable to gain entrance to stipulated means. Strain theory recognizes that socioeconomic class largely determines the likeli - hood of strain experiences. The United States in particular has a variety of class distinctions and is a socially stratified society. Thus the poor, racial and ethnic minorities and newer immigrant groups are more likely to experience strain and therefore are predicted to have a greater likelihood to commit crime. While Mer - ton offers five adaptations to strain (conformists, ritualists, retreatists, innova - tors, rebels), some of the adaptations provide greater opportunities for criminal behavior. Specifically, innovators are those who continue to aspire to conven - tional goals, but replace the means to those goals with others that are not neces - sarily lawful or socially acceptable. Retreatists have given up on both the goals and means and adopt a lifestyle of abandonment and escape characterized by drug and alcohol addiction, transience, and homelessness. Finally, unlike the retreatists who give up on all, rebels desire to replace conventional goals and means with those that they value. These new goals and means lie outside of expected social norms and are more revolutionary and radical in nature; seeking to introduce a new social structure altogether. Of the three adaptations mentioned here, it is the rebel that best fits the vision of those who are strong adherents to the hate move - ment agenda. But how well does strain theory predict hate crime? If strain theory has util - ity for hate crime, most of the perpetrators should be from those groups that are most likely to experience strain and frustration from economic and other emphasized goals of success. In other words the majority of perpetrators should be racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants, the poor, and those from other simi - larly situated groups. Moreover, if poverty serves as a proxy for strain like - lihood—then hate crime perpetrators should be primarily drawn from racial minority groups. The 2010 US Census reports that 27 percent of Blacks and 26 percent of Hispanics live at the poverty level while that number is 9.9 per - cent for Whites. On a related note, in 2009 the dropout rate for White students was 5.2 percent, but it was almost twice that for Blacks (9.3 percent) while the rate for Hispanics was more than three times that of Whites (17.6 percent) Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 90 The criminology of hate crime (US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2011).

Even more stark is the all-encompassing life expectancy statistic. A persistent outcome is that Blacks have a shorter life expectancy than Whites in the United States (Bharmal, et al. 2011). Clearly there are multiple factors that contribute to this disparity, but it is safe to assume that those factors, along with shortened life expectancy and conditions of poverty reflect problems with accessing legitimate means to achieve economic success. According to this theory, such conditions should ensure that hate crime per - petrators are racial minorities. However, this expectation is not borne out. Fed - eral hate crime statistics indicate that since 2004 nearly six out of ten known hate crime offenders were White. In fact, it appears that White males as perpe - trators have remained a constant since these data have been compiled. Taken together, these factors suggest that strain is not sufficient in explaining hate crime phenomena.

Social learning and cultural transmission theories Social learning theory explains crime as a result of observing and learning from intimate social groups (family members/peers) and then practicing criminal mores.

Our social environments and who we interact with on a regular basis (our socio- cultural network) provides a continuous classroom of sorts. The social interac - tions, norms, values, and messages communicated, both implicit and explicit, are either supportive of law-abiding or law-violating behavior. When law-violating behavior is viewed as more acceptable, in fact normal, the likelihood of criminal behavior increases. Differential Association, a social learning theory, contends that the type of criminal behavior that emerges is determined by particular crimi - nal habits taught and subsequently learned (Miller, et al. 2006). Thus, if social interactions condone law breaking in a particular form or direction—the resulting criminal behavior will reflect that pattern. If these theories are valid explanations for hate crime, the following patterns should be evident: that families that are unabashedly bigoted produce more hate crime offenders; that territorial White ethnic neighborhoods that have demon - strated resentment toward “outsiders” moving into their areas, would see more hate crime incidents and; that areas in the country where the cultural values are antithetical and resistant to the notion of racial or social equality, would produce more hate crime offenders and/or see more incidents of hate crime. Ezekiel’s (1995) study of neo-Nazi and Klan members appear to support the racist family influence perspective. Most of his subjects described either a parent or grandparent as having strong negative views on Jews and Blacks in particular.

One of his participants stated: my grandfather always spoke highly of Adolf Hitler. He said the only mistake Hitler made was not getting rid . . . of all the Jewish people . . . My grandfa - ther’s the one who told me, read Mein Kampf. (260)Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 The criminology of hate crime 91 A female subject’s background was described in the following way: Rosandra’s mother, who lived in a small town in northern Michigan, was heavily involved with the Klan . . . Rosandra Said . . . (that) her mother would (only) let her associate with Klan or NS (National Socialist). (265) Many of the families of Ezekiel’s subjects were Whites who were trapped in urban neighborhoods that had changed over to be predominately African-American. He characterized them as isolated, with some joining hate groups out of fear and hatred of Blacks. As a result, they primarily fraternized with fellow members of the group and family.

Ethnic neighborhoods resisting “others” One of the most highly publicized hate crimes in the United States occurred in 1989 in Bensonhurst, New York. Bensonhurst was primarily a White, working- class, mostly Italian neighborhood. Many of its young male residents were highly territorial and apparantly suspicious toward other groups. Four black teenagers, including Yusuf Hawkins, came into Bensonhurst for the purpose of inspecting a used car advertised in the newspaper. Shortly after they arrived, they were brutally attacked by a mob of bat-wielding White youths, which tragically ended in the shooting death of sixteen-year-old Hawkins. Unfortunately, this sort of incident (anti-Black violence as a result of their sheer presence) has a long history in the United States. Stephen Meyer’s (2001) work, As Long As They Don’t Move Next Door documents the efforts of Whites to thwart—often violently—racial inte - gration of White neighborhoods. He states, “According to Rose Helper, when whites even see African Americans in their neighborhoods, they often feel ‘con - cerned,’ . . . ‘jittery, disturbed’” (Meyer, 11). Differential Association theory states that everything allied with crime is learned—even the very reasons used to rationalize committing crime. Continuing with the Bensonhurst incident, while not all residents participated in the attack on Hawkins, many of the residents held similar attitudes as the attackers. The follow - ing was reported in the New York Times , August 22, 1999: Mr. Hawkins’s family who marched through Bensonhurst after the shooting were cursed by residents, hit with pieces of food and spat upon. They were taunted with chants of ‘‘useless, useless,’’ a play on the name “Yusuf.” (Sachs, 1999, paragraph 5) Following the Bensonhurst incident, several large-scale protest marches took place in the community. Many residents resented the marchers along with the corresponding media coverage. Anger and frustration were clearly felt by many residents, but the manner of that expression was often steeped in a racially repugnant manner and may be somewhat reflective of cultural values found in Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 92 The criminology of hate crime the Bensonhurst community. The notion of particular geographical areas with unique cultural beliefs and traditions also include attitudes toward others and is relevant to note for this discussion. For example, the history of the US includes the existence of “sundown towns” (Loewen, 2005). The official practice of these towns was to blatantly exclude African-Americans and other racial minorities from even visiting in the area past sun down— hence the name. This was accomplished through restrictive covenants, official law enforcement practices or by threat from citizen groups or racist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan. Loewen estimates that there were literally thousands of sun down towns in the US, peaking in the 1970s. To the extent that bigoted ideas, discriminatory and even hostile acts toward “the other” are normative within families, neighborhoods and even in geographi - cal areas, social learning theory could further the understanding of hate crime.

Techniques of neutralization and drift theory Similar to social control and social learning theories, techniques of neutralization and drift theories are aimed at explaining the behavior of juveniles. This does not diminish application in hate crime as many of its offenders are young—including teenagers and young adults. Techniques of neutralization explains how individu - als who normally uphold conventional social norms, beliefs, and values are able to suspend them during periods of delinquent or criminal activity, only to return to them afterward. According to Matza and Sykes (1961), these individuals have learned to employ rationalizations for their involvement in crime. There are five rationalizations or techniques of neutralization described: (1) denial of respon - sibility; (2) denial of injury; (3) denial of the victim; (4) condemnation of the condemners; and (5) appeal to higher loyalties. While the rationalizations are employed in a variety of delinquent and criminal scenarios, they are particularly useful in hate crime indulgences. Denial of responsibility is used to project blame to some external cause to explain the involvement in delinquent or criminal behavior. For the hate crime offender who is motivated by hate ideology, he or she projects blame on “danger - ous” Blacks and Hispanics, “repulsive” and “diseased” gays, and or the “pollution of illegal aliens,” and so on, and says that these things caused his or her criminal behavior. This stance corresponds well with Levin and McDevitt’s category of defensive hate crime. These are hate crimes committed in response to the intru - sion of enemy groups into the community, the school campus, or the workplace.

Because racists, ethno-centrists, or heterosexists by definition see the “other” as inferior or even as a subspecies—the denial of injury and the denial of the victim rationalizations are probably easiest to use. Evidence of the objectifica - tion of the other is easily viewed in the culture of hate. The other is referred to in derogatory terms (spics, niggers, bitches, dirty Jews, etc.); hate crimes often involve brutal attacks causing serious physical injury to the victim. The nature of the attacks indicates the offender’s complete disregard of the victim. On August 8, 2011, James Anderson, a 49-year-old auto plant worker was murdered in Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 The criminology of hate crime 93 Jackson, Mississippi because he was Black. The language and behavior of his killer, 18-year-old Deryl Dedmon, Jr, reveals the disdain he had for his victim and illustrates the denial of injury mindset. The following are excerpts from an article published October 24, 2011 by Scott Bronstein and Drew Griffin, CNN correspondents regarding the Jackson hate crime: Dedmon announced, “Let’s go fuck with some niggers,” . . . the teens beat Anderson repeatedly . . . used racial slurs . . . As Anderson staggered towards the truck’s headlights, the . . . driver . . . (Dedmon) slammed on the gas, aimed . . . at Anderson, and ran him down . . . Dedmon boasted . . . about the killing . . . “I ran that nigger over,” Dedmon . . . said in a phone conversa - tion . . . he was laughing . . . about the killing. (CNN) “Condemnation of the condemners” is also relatively easy to engage in for the hate crime offender who has adopted the common beliefs of the hate movement. Those who would condemn his or her hate crime act are categorized as race traitors or those under the influence of the Zionists who have control of the US government.

These individuals are the enemy of the Aryan race; their authority is not recognized. In fact, their very existence justifies the hate crime acts committed by the offender. Finally, “appeal to higher loyalties” is also relied upon by hate crime offenders—particularly those who are seriously committed to the movement. For them, loyalty to the White race supersedes local ordinances, state and federal law, democratic values, or even traditional religious teachings. Overall, drift theory and techniques of neutralization may have some applica - tion for hate crime offenders who have not yet embraced the goal of total revolu - tion and the overthrow of the government. For such individuals, there is no desire to invest in conventional mores to any degree because they are repugnant to him or her. Moreover, to observe conventionality but periodically suspend their con - trolling effects in order to justify committing a hate crime would not occur. But for the occasional hate crime offender, drift and techniques of neutralization may have some validity. The preceding discussion focuses on the adequacy of some criminological the - ories to address hate crime dynamics. What we see is that each theory reviewed may have at best some utility in its application. None of them is able to stand alone and sufficiently address the broad contours of this crime. Why is hate crime such a difficult challenge to theoreticians? Its complexity hinders the ability to adequately situate the who, what, where, how and why elements in a logical and coherent fashion. For example, hate crime offenders greatly range in their invest - ment in hate ideology thus the degree and depth of bias varies; hate crimes can involve the simple defacement of property or a horrific premeditated murder that is nightmarish. These offenders may have extremely dysfunctional backgrounds, having witnessed continual domestic abuse, neglect, and violence while others come from privileged backgrounds with stable parents and addresses in exclusive communities. Victims may be randomly chosen or specifically targeted because Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 94 The criminology of hate crime of some supposed infraction they committed. Hate crime can occur because of the public observance of Jewish holidays or can be unplanned and done on a spur of the moment. Finally, while the overwhelming majority of hate crime offenders are White males, others are racial minorities. What may be more helpful is to pivot away from traditional criminological the - ories and to consider constructs involving power and privilege that are utilized in critical criminological frameworks. The political aspect of hate crime is included in these perspectives. In a way, hate crime offenders strive to divert victims from enjoying their fair share of civil liberties, freedoms, and entitlements. As stated in the famous clause in the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . . (Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776) Hate crime offenders seek to send a message to victims that would cause them to think better of their pursuit of happiness and in effect limit their freedoms.

This message is coupled with a threat of violence and therefore has political consequences particularly in a democracy. This undermines a fundamental element of the state and would cause significant negative implications if hate crimes were permitted to go unchecked. But how does this approach help us better summarize hate crime phenomena? Instead of relying on critical criminological perspectives, let’s consider the idea of relative deprivation, a sociopolitical theory, which may provide a better fit for understanding hate crime.

Relative deprivation Ted Robert Gurr (1970) discusses relative deprivation as a means to understand political violence including rebellion. He contends that tension and subsequently levels of aggression and frustration intensify in societies where individuals or groups perceive a growing gap between expectations for social status and accom - plishment and their capacity to achieve that end. Gurr notes that this perception may be experienced even by those deemed successful if they perceive a sense of inequality or deprivation when compared to others. One individual’s condition of success is another’s insufficiency; it is a relative condition a sense of relative deprivation brought on by the comparison of one’s overall welfare with that of another’s (Stouffer, et al. 1949). Other scholars have used the concept of rela - tive deprivation to specifically investigate the motive to commit terrorist acts (Moghaddam, 2005; Richardson, 2011). Given these basic theoretical elements, it can be argued that relative depri - vation may be effective in explaining the complex nature of hate crime. While the concept of relative deprivation is often discussed in the context of material Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 The criminology of hate crime 95 gains, I would extend its application of well-being to that of the maintenance of hegemony. Gurr emphasizes that some are of the belief that they deserve a certain quality of life. In the US, there is little question that the social group that holds the greatest amount of social capital, power, privilege, and influence are White Protestant heterosexual males. The social place of this bloc remained undisturbed until the gains of the Black Civil Rights Movement, the Women’s movement and the most recent gains made by LGBTQ community. For a significant number of White males, the gains made by these groups are perceived as a clear threat to their dominance—their expectation of social status and welfare. Sociologist Joe Feagin describes the persistent problem of racism and the expectation of White privilege in the following way: Racist thinking is more than rationalizing oppression . . . it also represents a defensive response, a fear of losing power to Americans of color. In recent years many advocates of white superiority have directed their attacks at the values or cultures of new immigrants of color coming to the U.S., as well as at black Americans. In one recent interview study elite numerous white men openly expressed some fear of the growth of Americans of color in the U.S., seeing Western civilization as under threat. (Feagin, 2001, 101) Therefore, with the advent of affirmative action, women’s rights, equal- opportunity initiatives, political correctness, and multiculturalism, many White males interpret these developments as signaling a destabilization of their social place. Despite the fact that White males continue to outpace all other social groups in the metrics that measure quality of life standards, some feel a sense of social injustice and inequality. As a result, of this perceived condition of relative “deprivation” some Whites respond with insecurity, fear, anger, frustration, and subsequently aggression (Turpin-Petrosino, 2002; Gurr, 1970). A cursory review of social history in the US suggests periodic surges in hate-motivated crimes (majority on minority) and hate-group activity when social and legal gains were made by marginalized groups. A more recent example of this trend is illustrated with the election and reelection of Barak Obama, the first African-American President of the United States. Various watch group organizations, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center reported increases in the number of hate groups; for example, there was a 48 percent increase in the number of groups between 2000 and 2007 (Beirich & Potok, 2009). Therefore, according to relative deprivation theory, White males perceive themselves as unfairly disadvantaged in comparison to all other “undeserving” social groups who are making social and other gains. This dynamic helps to explain why this frustration, discontent and anger felt by some is expressed by dis - criminatory practices (Feagin, 2001), hate-motivated acts or even the subsequent affiliation with extremist groups (Turpin-Petrosino, 2002; Richardson, 2011). So while this may be a collective experience felt at different levels for some White males in particular (or even by Whites in general), it is expressed on the individual Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 96 The criminology of hate crime level by committing hate crime or as a social movement—the modern hate move - ment. The perceived destabilization of the White male hegemonic bloc and other social developments that are intensifying and converging could be the trip wire that would cause some to commit hate crimes. Research is needed to test the validity and utility of relative deprivation theory in the context of perceived threat to White privilege for hate crime events. This proposal extends the application of the theory beyond that conceptualized by Gurr and Richardson. If it provides some supportive findings, its application is tested by minority on minority and minority on majority hate-motivated acts. Still, it offers some theoretical promise that should be investigated.

Conclusion This chapter reviews several criminological theories to examine their effective - ness for explaining hate crime phenomena. Most students of criminology under - stand that there are many theories offered to explain crime and criminal behavior because the scope of crime and the variation among criminals is quite broad. There is no single theory in existence that is powerful enough to explain all aspects of criminality. We find no different outcome when it comes to hate crime. In fact, it is far easier to determine why theories are inadequate in explaining hate crime than it is to argue why they work. At any rate, it is hoped that reviewing aspects of social psychology as well as some of the conventional criminological theories, such as social control and strain has been constructive. I am most intrigued with the review of routine activities theory as it sheds light on the nature of hate crime more so than the doing of it. In addition, the approach offered by relative depriva - tion theory is interesting and has some theoretical potential. The criminological study of hate crime continues to be nascent and hopefully will be the focus of many scholars over the next several decades.

Chapter summary • There are several theoretical perspectives that may offer some understand - ing of why hate crimes are committed. This chapter reviews the relevancy of social psychological perspectives as well as criminological theories. • Social psychology perspectives focus on how social environment, social construction of the “other” and psychological health work to shape attitudes and behaviors. Accordingly, prejudiced attitudes are explained as the product of underlying hostilities and invalid generalizations or negative stereotypes toward others (Allport, 1979). • While most hate crime offenders are motivated by prejudiced attitudes, not all prejudiced persons commit hate crimes. • Allport addresses this distinction and identifies a sort of social progression towards hate-motivated criminal behavior. He offers a five-point scale or typology of actions that illustrates that progression: antilocution, avoidance, discrimination, physical attack, and extermination.Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 The criminology of hate crime 97 • Social learning theory and realistic group conflict theory may provide some limited insight into those dynamics that facilitate propensity towards com - mitting a hate crime. • Social disorganization theory posits that when a community’s socializing institutions become weakened and non-functional, delinquent and/or criminal behavior is more likely to occur and continue as a matter of cultural trans - mission. For social disorganization to explain hate crime, we would see hate crimes occurring in socially disorganized neighborhoods. However, while hate crimes have occurred in such neighborhoods, many have not. There is research that suggests that anti-Black hate crime is more likely to occur in socially organized and more affluent communities. • Routine activities theory (RAT) explains crime as the result of opportunities that arise from common daily activities. To the extent that hate crime is a function of opportunity, we find elements that coincide with RAT. Given the persistence of bigotry in society and the availability of suitable targets due to population shifts and mobility, RAT would predict high numbers of hate crime. But these conditions do not cause hate crime. • Social bonds theory states that individuals with strong social bonds are more likely to conform to society’s mores and are therefore less likely to violate them; whereas those with weakened bonds are more likely to commit crimi - nal behavior. But this theory provides a mixed “fit” in explaining hate crime.

There are offenders from turbulent backgrounds and limited ties to society and others who are well rooted, from stable families and who aspire to the classic work ethic. • Strain theory recognizes that socioeconomic class largely determines the likelihood of strain experiences. If strain theory has utility for hate crime, most of the perpetrators should be from those groups that are most likely to experience strain and frustration from their attempts to attain the economic goals of success. In other words, the majority of perpetrators should be racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants, the poor and those from other similarly situated groups. However, the majority of perpetrators are White males, and not always from the underclass. This suggests that strain does not easily apply to hate crime. • Social learning and differential association explains crime as a result of observing and learning from intimate social groups (family members/peers) and then practising criminal mores. To the extent that bigoted ideas and hab - its are normative within families, neighborhoods, and even in geographical areas, social learning theory could further the understanding of hate crime. • Techniques of neutralization and drift theory explains how individuals who normally uphold conventional social norms, beliefs, and values are able to suspend them during periods of delinquent or criminal activity only to return to them afterward. There are five rationalizations used to mitigate delinquent/ criminal acts: (1) denial of responsibility; (2) denial of injury; (3) denial of the victim; (4) condemnation of the condemners; and (5) appeal to higher loyalties. Each can be employed by hate crime offenders as justification.Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 98 The criminology of hate crime • Relative deprivation holds that aggression and frustration may increase in societies where individuals or groups perceive a growing gap between expec - tations for social status and the capacity to achieve that end; this may be experienced more by those deemed successful if they perceive a sense of inequality or deprivation when compared to others. For a number of White males, the gains made by women, racial minorities and other “marginalized” groups are perceived as a threat to their dominance. • There is no single theory adequate enough to explain all aspects of hate crime.

At any rate, it is hoped that reviewing aspects of various theories has been constructive. The criminological study of hate crime is nascent and will be the focus of many scholars over the next several decades.

Case study 4.1 White supremacist sentenced to life for deadly 2009 rampage No one has the ability to know with certainty what was in the mind of Keith Luke on January 21, 2009. What is known are the actions that he took that day and his explanation for why he did them. On that day Luke killed a 20-year-old woman, Selma Concalves, who walked in on the rape and sodomy of her handcuffed sister by Luke. He shot Selma three times to stop her from getting help. After the sexual assault, he shot his victim who survived the horrendous attack. While fleeing, Luke came upon 79-year-old Arlindo Depina Concalves, a homeless man; who he subsequently shot to death. Those were his actions. The explanation he gave to Brockton police was that he was tired of being a virgin and that he wanted to kill all non- Whites. In fact, he was on a mission to kill non-Whites and Jews and that he expected to be killed in the process. The fact that he committed his crimes shortly after the inauguration of Barak Obama, the first African-American President may be very relevant.

Luke identified himself as a neo-Nazi who believed that the White race was on the verge of becoming extinct. This was the constant warning of hate groups on the Internet. Luke was a consumer of this rhetoric. All three of his victims were Cape Verdean racial minorities. He apologized for firing upon police, because the officers were Caucasian. But he stated he did not regret killing and raping his victims because he hated all non-Whites. Luke was subsequently placed on trial and found guilty of several charges, including attempted murder, rape, kid - napping, armed home invasion and two counts of murder. He was con - victed and sentenced to two consecutive life sentences, with no possibility of parole. Keith Luke was merely 22 years old when he committed these crimes. What was his background? He was described as having a history of mental illness, after all he did carve a swastika into the skin of his own forehead. Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 The criminology of hate crime 99 Discussion questions 1 Which of the crime theories reviewed could accommodate the use of the Internet as an tool that could influence an individual to commit a hate crime, as described in the above case? 2 Keith Luke committed murder and rape. Are there any crime theories that would appear to address violent hate crime more easily than nonviolent hate crime? 3 Although not discussed in the chapter, would consideration of the offender’s gender suggest that one or more of the the criminological theories are more appropriate than others? Bibliography Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-Wing Authoritaranism. Winnipeg, MB: University of Manitoba Press. Allport, G. W. (1979). The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Perseus Books. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. (2003). Report on Hate Crimes and Dis - crimination Against Arab Americans: The Post-September 11 Backlash September 11, 2001–October 11, 2002. Washington, DC. Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of Aggression Through Imita - tion of Aggressive Models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 63, 575–82. Beirich, H. & Potok, M. (2009). USA: Hate Groups, Radical-Right Violence, on the Rise. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice , 3(3), 255 –63. Bharmal N., Tseng, C. H., Kaplan, R., & Wong, M. (2011). State-Level Variations in Racial Disparities in Life Expectancy. Washington, DC: Health Research and Edu - cational Trust. Bobo, L. (1983). Whites’ Opposition to Busing: Symbolic Racism or Realistic Group Conflict? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 45(6), 1196–1210. Bronstein, S. & Griffin, D. (2011). Teen Murder Suspect Carried “Backpack of Hatred ”. Available from http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/22/us/mississippi-hate-crime-teens/ [Accessed May 15, 2011]. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2006). Prisoners in 2006 . Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

He saw all non-Whites (and Jews) as his personal problems and told police that he intended to target the local synagogue next. His mother described his early childhood as a happy one but that he later became isolated with few friends, became truant and periodically received mental health treat - ment. She also said that he made it a habit to sleep on cinderblocks arranged in the shape of a cross. Luke attempted suicide several times during incarceration and eventu - ally succeeded May 12, 2014. (Source: SPLC, 2013)Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 100 The criminology of hate crime Chakraborti, N. & Garland, J. (2009). Hate Crime: Impact, Causes and Responses. Lon - don: Sage. CNN Special Investigations Unit (October 24, 2011). Available from www.cnn.com/2011/ 10/22/us/mississippi-hate-crime-teens/index.html [Accessed May 15, 2011]. Crime.about.com. (n.d.) Available from http://crime.about.com/od/hatecrimecriminalcases/a/ josephfranklin.htm [Accessed March 5, 2015]. Dunbar, E. (2006). Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation in Hate Crime Victimization: Identity Politics or Identity Risk? Violence and Victims , 21, 323–37. Ezekiel, Raphael S. (1995). The Racist Mind: Portraits of American Neo-Nazis and Klans - men. New York: Penguin Books. Feagin, J. R. (2001). Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, and Future Reparations. New York: Routledge. Feagin, J. R. (2010). Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, and Future Reparations (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Filindra, A. & Pearson-Merkowitz, S. (2013). Together in Good Times and Bad? How Economic Triggers Condition the Effects of Intergroup Threat. Social Science Quar - terly , 94(5). Doi: 10.1111/ssqu.12028. Gadd, D., Dixon, B., & Jefferson, T. (2005). Why Do They Do It: Racial Harassment in North Staffordshire. Keele: University of Keele, Centre for Criminological Research. Reported in Chakraborti & Garland, 2009. Gaines, S. O. & Reed, E. S. (1995). Prejudice: From Allport to DuBois. American Psy - chologist , 50(2), 69–103. Grant, J. K. (2012). The Valley Swim Club of Huntington Valley Discrimination Con - troversy: The Racial, Economic, and Legal Implications for African-Americans and Latinos. Widener Journal of Law, Economics and Race. Available from http://blogs.law. widener.edu/wjler/archive/special-projects/controversey-swim-club-of-huntingdon- valley/grant/ [Accessed January 9, 2012]. Green, D. P., Glaser, J., & Rich, A. (1998). From Lynching to Gay Bashing: The Elusive Connection Between Economic Conditions and Hate Crime. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 75(l), 177–93. Green, D. P., Strolovitch, D. Z., & Wong, J. S. (1998). Defended Neighborhoods, Integra - tion and Racially Motivated Crime. American Journal of Sociology , 104(2), 372–403. Gurr, T. R. (1970). Why Men Rebel. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Hamm, M. S. (1994). American Skinheads: The Criminology and Control of Hate Crime. Westport, CT: Praeger. Herek, G.M. (1986). The Social Psychology of Homophobia: Toward a Practical Theory. Review of Law and Social Change , 14 (4), 923–934. Herek, G. & Berrill, K. (1992). Primary and Secondary Victimization in Anti-Gay Hate Crimes: Official Response and Public Policy in Hate Crimes Confronting Violence Against Lesbians and Gay Men. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Herek, G. M. (2009). Hate Crimes and Stigma-Related Experiences Among Sexual Minority Adults in the United States: Prevalence Estimates from a National Probability Sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 24, 54 –74. Jackson, J. W. (1993). Realistic Group Conflict Theory: A Review and Evaluation of the Theoretical and Empirical. Psychological Record , 43(3), 395–413. Jolly, K. S. (2006). Black Liberation in the Midwest: The Struggle in St. Louis, Missouri, 1964–1970. New York: Routledge. Kessler, T. & Cohrs, J. C. (2008). The Evolution of Authoritarian Processes: Fostering Cooperation in Large-Scale Groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice , 12(1), 73–84.Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 The criminology of hate crime 101 Kite, M. E. & Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1996). Sex Differences in Attitudes Toward Homosexual Persons, Behavior, and Civil Rights: A Metaanalysis. Personality and Social Psychol - ogy Bulletin, 22, 336–353. Lawrence, Frederick M. (1999). Punishing Hate: Bias Crimes under American Law. Cam - bridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Levin J. & McDevitt, J. (1993). Hate Crimes: The Rising Tide of Bigotry and Bloodshed . New York: Plenum Press. Levin J. & McDevitt, J. (2002). Hate Crimes Revisited: America’s War on Those Who Are Different . Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Leyden, T. J. [with Cook, M. B.] (2008). Skinhead Confessions . Springville, UT: Sweet - water Books. Lilly, J. R., Cullen, F. T., & Ball, R. A. (2011). Criminological Theory (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Loewen, J. W. (2005). Sundown Towns: A Hidden Dimension of American Racism . New York: New Press. Lyons, C. J. (2007). Community (Dis)organization and Racially Motivated Hate Crime. American Journal of Sociology , 113(3), 815–63. Lyons, C. J. (2008). Defending Turf: Racial Demographics and Hate Crime Against Blacks and Whites. Social Forces , 87(1), 357–85. Doi: 10.1353/sof.0.0071. Matza, D. & Sykes, G. (1961). Juvenile Delinquency and Subterranean Values. American Sociological Review , 26(5), 712–19. Merton, R. K. (1994). Social Structure and Anomie. In Joseph E. Jacoby (ed.) Classics of Criminology (2nd ed.) (pp. 178–87). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Meyer, S. (2001). As Long As They Don’t Move Next Door: Segregation and Racial Con - flict in American Neighborhoods . New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Miller, J. M., Schreck, C. J., & Tewksbury, R. A. (2006). Criminological Theory: A Brief Introduction . New York: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon. Moghaddam, F. M. (2005). The Staircase to Terrorism: A Psychological Exploration. American Psychologist , Vol. 60(2), 161–169. Montaldo, C. (n.d.). Profile of Serial Killer Joseph Paul Franklin. Serial Extremist Killer. Available from http://crime.about.com/od/hatecrimecriminalcases/a/josephfranklin.htm [Accessed January 12, 2012]. Morgan, G. S., Wisneski, D. C., & Skitka, L. J. (2011). The Expulsion from Disneyland: The Social Psychological Impact of 9/11. American Psychologist , 66(6), 447–54. Parrott, D. J., Peterson, J. L., & Bakeman, R. (2011). Determinants of Aggression Toward Sexual Minorities in a Community Sample. Psychology of Violence , 1(1), 41–52. Partners Against Hate. (n.d.). Available from www.partnersagainstate.org. A Collaborative Project of the Anti-Defamation League, The Leadership Conference Education Fund and The Center for Preventing Hate [Accessed March 6, 2015]. Perry, Barbara. (2001). In the Name of Hate. New York: Routledge. Petrosino, C. (1999). Connecting the Past to the Future: Hate Crime in America. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice , 15(1), 22–47. Ray, L., Smith, D., & Wastell, L. (2004). Shame, Rage and Racist Violence. The British Journal of Criminology , 44(3), 350–68. Richardson, C. (2011). Relative Deprivation Theory in Terrorism: A Study of Higher Edu - cation and Unemployment as Predictors of Terrorism. Available from http://politics.

as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/4600/Clare_Richardson_terrorism.pdf [Accessed May 16, 2012]. Rothstein, R. (2012). Racial Segregation and Black Student Achievement. In D. Allen and R. Reich (eds.) Education, Justice, and Democracy . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 102 The criminology of hate crime Sachs, S. (1999). Recalling Yusuf Hawkins and Hate That Killed Him. New York Times , August 22. Available from www.nytimes.com/1999/08/22/nyregion/recalling-yusuf- hawkins-and-hate-that-killed-him.html?ref=yusufkhawkins [Accessed May 14, 2012]. Sears, David O. & Henry, P. J. (2003). The Origins of Symbolic Racism. Journal of Per - sonality and Social Psychology , 85(2), 259–75. Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R. & Sherif, C. W. (1954). Intergroup Con - flict and Cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment. Available from http://m.friend feed-media.com/d9487a89bebe9e28b3edc16f4dea8e54d7fbd568 [Accessed March 5, 2015]. Sibbitt, R. (1997). The Perpetrators of Racial Harassment and Racial Violence. Home Office Research Study 176. London: Home Office. Simi, P. & Futrell, R. (2010). American Swastika : Inside the White Power Movement’s Hidden Spaces of Hate . Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Sims, P. (1978). The Klan (2nd ed.). Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky. Solt, F. (2012). The Social Origins of Authoritarianism. Political Research Quarterly , 65(4), 703–13. Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). (2010). Idaho Community Commemorates SPLC’s Aryan Nations Victory, paragraph 10. Available from www.splcenter.org/get-informed/ news/idaho-community-celebrates-10th-anniversary-of-splcs-aryan-nations-victory [Accessed February 8, 2015]. Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). (2013). White Supremacist Sentenced to Life for Deadly 2009 Rampage. Hate Watch. Available from http://www.splcenter.org/ blog/2013/05/31/white-supremacist-sentenced-to-life-for-deadly-2009-rampage/?

[Accessed March 5, 2015]. Stouffer, S. A., Suchman, E. A., DeVinney, L. C., Star, S. A., & Williams, Jr., R. M. (1949). The American Soldier: Adjustment During Army Life . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Turpin-Petrosino, C. (2002). Hateful Sirens . . . Who Hears Their Song? An Examination of Student Attitudes Toward Hate Groups and Affiliation Potential. Journal of Social Issues , 58(2), 281–301. University of Massachusetts Amherst. (March 5, 1995). Hate Groups in America , paragraph 5. Available from www.umass.edu/jewish/programs/hate_95/ [Accessed February 8, 2105]. US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Trends in High School Dropout and Completion Rates in the United States: 1972–2009. Available from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012006.pdf [Accessed on March 5, 2015]. Utsey, Shawn O., McCarthy, Eileen, Eubanks, Robin, & Adrian, Genaro. (2002). White Racism and Suboptimal Psychological Functioning Among White Americans: Implica - tions for Counseling and Prejudice Prevention. Journal of Multicultural Counseling & Development , 30(2), 81–95. Wesley, D. A. & Price, W. (1999). Lift Every Voice and Sing: St. Louis African-Americans in the Twentieth Century . Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press. Wexler, C. & Marx, G. T. (1986). When Law and Order Works—Boston’s Innovative Approach to the Problem of Racial Violence. Crime and Delinquency , 32(2), 205–23. Wilkinson, W. W. (2004). Authoritarian Hegemony, Dimensions of Masculinity, and Male Antigay Attitudes. Psychology of Men & Masculinity , 5(2), 121–31.Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 5 Perpetrators What do we know about them? Introduction Just as the types of hate crimes vary greatly, so do perpetrators. Hate crime offenders differ in age, education, and family background in addition to the under - lying causes of their acts and the type of hate motive expressed. Differences also lie in whether he or she is a serial offender who is strongly committed to the ideo - logical beliefs advocated by the hate movement or an individual who, under the right set of circumstances, commits a hate crime. Serious hate crimes receive media attention and public officials respond accordingly. As a result, we often see the hate crime offender as a distinct type of individual; one that is unlike ordinary citizens. However, this could very well be the wrong assumption. Clearly there are individuals who’ve committed hate crime with particularly troublesome and dysfunctional backgrounds with a history of violence and violent behavior directed towards ethnic and other minorities. But there are also those offenders who have unremarkable backgrounds; backgrounds that are perhaps indistinguishable from law-abiding citizens. In fact, hate crimes are often committed by ordinary members of the public (Ray, et al. 2004). It is an unsettling reality that even the “guy or girl next door” is capable of harming another because of their bias toward another’s social identity. A more attractive notion is that individuals who are capable of hate-motivated crime are throw-backs from a distant past, who march around with robes and hoods and burn crosses or scream “Heil Hitler”—those who are not exactly like ordinary folk. But there is no simple profile of the hate crime perpetrator. This chapter is a survey of what is known about people who commit hate crimes—the hate crime offender. We begin by reviewing three media accounts of hate crime offenders where we begin to obtain a preliminary sense of the offender.

Official hate crime data also adds to the image of the perpetrator so we review some of these sources. Hate groups are sometimes viewed as ground zero for hate crimes. So we turn our attention to the relevance of hate groups for understanding more about these offenders. Following this discussion, we look briefly at women in the hate movement and at minorities as hate crime perpetrators. We then turn to recruitment strategies and ideological beliefs extolled in the hate movement.

Being aware of the rationale of some offenders—the belief system—enables better Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 104 Perpetrators: what do we know about them? understanding of the acts and motives of perpetrators so we begin to wind down the chapter by reviewing a sample of hate crime acts. The chapter ends with the observation that the distinctions viewed among hate crime offenders means little relative to those found in the general population.

Contemporary profiles of perpetrators: media depictions First news story: “Bellmore teen faces hate crime charge in attack” . . . police arrested a Bellmore teen on hate crime charges who was part of a knife-wielding duo yelling anti-gay slurs that chased down a man on the street. The duo began shouting . . . slurs, then got out of the car to chase the victim . . . The victim escaped uninjured . . . (Chayes, 2009) Second news story: “Elderly man admits to charges of hate crime” A 73-year-old Port Jefferson man has pleaded guilty to splashing motor oil onto the front door of the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Mount Sinai, William Frank Kelley was arrested after members of the congregation discovered the damage and found video evidence implicating him, Mr. Kel - ley . . . pleaded guilty to a charge of felony criminal mischief as a hate crime Mr. Kelley had contact with members of the house of worship at a March 30 service . . . He allegedly questioned the congregation’s beliefs and was asked to leave, Mr. Kelley returned in the early morning hours when the hall was closed and poured two quarts of motor oil onto an exit door. He told inves - tigators that he intentionally did the damage “believing that he was doing God’s work,” police said. “He selected them because of their beliefs. And that is what makes it a hate crime.” (North Shore Sun , 2010) Third news story: “DOJ probes discriminatory policing in New York county” In MA . . . boys aged 11–14 were charged . . . with severely beating a Guate - malan immigrant with bricks, bottles and rocks . . . The victim . . . was hos - pitalized for a month with head injuries. . . . Police said the boys targeted (the victim) because of his ethnicity.” . . . investigators were looking into “the possibility . . . the attack was not the first . . . by these youths.” (Intelligence Report , 2009) Each of these accounts is typical among hate crimes reported in the media and yet we find that the offenders involved are remarkably different in several ways. In the first account, the offender is a sixteen-year-old teen who, despite Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 Perpetrators: what do we know about them? 105 his age, acted in a very deliberate and predatory way. He appeared to be on a hunt; seeking a homosexual (or perhaps another acceptable target) to victimize. It was not enough to scream epithets once finding the victim. The sixteen-year-old attempted to chase the victim as well. This is a very aggressive and personal attack on the victim. Even more disturbing is the fact that this young man had previous contact with the criminal justice system. He was about to be sentenced on a prior conviction—which clearly had no deterrent impact on him in any way. The second account describes a 73-year-old “senior citizen,” who claimed that his actions, which were meant to damage or destroy the church, were motivated by religious reasons. He reportedly disagreed with the teachings of this church and thus saw his illegal act as obedience to God. He acted alone and believed he was answering a higher calling. He also wanted to avoid harming the congregants (as he committed the act after the building was closed and in the early morning hours), focusing solely on the building. Ironically, the third account involving the youngest offenders is also the most violent. Bricks were used to viciously attack an adult—causing life threatening injuries. Even more disturbing is the intentionality of these young offenders to physically attack another based on the perceived ethnicity of the victim. This is an ideologically driven motive in full bloom and committed at such a young age. While these acts were all reckless and also reflect a violent nature, the offend - ers could not be more different in the manner in which they carried out their crimes and in the implied rationales represented by their actions. These contrasts show the range in offender types and also suggest why iden - tifying universal characteristics of hate crime offenders is challenging. However, what more do we know about these offenders? Hate crime data provides us with some additional information. The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is comprised of crime data generated by the surveys of a representative sample of US households. These data capture crime events which may not have been reported to police and therefore not included in the annual uniform crime reports. The questions are designed to determine the likelihood of crime victimization based on residential (or nearby) area characteristics, socioeconomic data, type of crimes experienced in the house - hold (from property to violent crimes), frequency of crimes—how many times did it occur? What time of the day? The nature of the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim and other elements. The NCVS also includes inquir - ies about hate crime victimization experiences (“do you suspect that the offender targeted you because of race, religion, ethnicity, disability, gender, sexual orienta - tion, etc.”). To address the need for more in-depth information regarding crimes reported to police, an expanded data collection system was constructed. The National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) provides for the recording of multiple contextual and other specific factors on single crime events included in Group A offenses. It also has provided substantive data on hate crimes. These two data sources sketch out a rough outline of hate crime perpetrators. The NIBRS data referenced here is from incidents reported between 1995 through 2000 and the NCVS data is based on victimizations that occurred from 2003–09.Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 106 Perpetrators: what do we know about them? In observing these reports from 1995–2009, we identify some characteristics of hate crime offenders. For example, it appears that racial bias is a predominate motive among perpetrators. Offenders are also more likely to be young (18 years and younger) white and male. The likelihood that the perpetrator targets a stranger is also apparent. So looking at these two important datasets, we continue to see that the profile of the typical offender is a young white male who is more likely to be racially motivated. Two of the more substantive official crime data sources seem to agree on the general attributes of perpetrators. Several researchers have constructed profiles of hate crime offenders. Levin and McDevitt (1993, 2002) provide one of the earliest descriptions. Included in their characterization is the dysfunctional background of these offenders. A troublesome childhood, problems in the home and difficulty in school is evident among some offenders, according to Levin and McDevitt. Yet they often lack criminal histories (at least formally recorded ones) due to their younger age range.

An important component of the social psychology of youth is the need for peer approval and acceptance. The desire to fulfill these needs often results in a young person participating in a hate crime to garner acceptance and to enjoy camaraderie with others. Levin and McDevitt acknowledge this dynamic in their description of “thrill” hate crimes. As a result of this motivation, hate crimes are frequently committed by groups of young males. To assist the efforts of criminal prosecutions of hate crimes, Levin and McDe - vitt (2002) developed an offender typology, describing four levels of crime par - ticipation or roles and the corresponding degrees of culpability for offenders involved in group attacks. The four levels include: leader, fellow traveler, unwill - ing participant, and hero. The “leader” role is self-evident and describes the prin - cipal party who ignites, shapes, and directs the attack. The “fellow traveler” is the offender who joins in with the others once the attack begins. Levin and McDevitt describe the “unwilling participant” as the offender who does “not condone the act, nor participates, but is present during the attack and does no intervening” (Levin & McDevitt, 2002, 198). Lastly, “the heroes” are those individuals who attempt to thwart the attack from occurring. Similar to this is Willems’s (1995) categorization of racially motivated perpetrators, which is also illuminating.

Willem classifies these offenders according to how entrenched they are in hate ideology: “sympathizers” is similar to the fellow traveler-reluctant participants who wish not to disappoint their peers (and are not sympathetic to the victim); “criminal adolescents or thugs” are youth who are already problematic and have established destructive patterns of behavior, which is akin to the “leader” role.

Willems’s last two categories are the most committed: the “ethnocentric or xeno - phobe” and the “extreme right-wingers,” who are most comparable to Levin and McDevitt’s “leader” role. Each of these classifications provide insights into the nature of hate crime perpetrators and warrant discussion here. The following one includes informa - tion regarding the social environment or residential community of potential perpetrators. Rae Sibbit (1997) examined the characteristics of perpetrators of racially motivated hate crime in two London suburbs. One of the most compelling Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 Perpetrators: what do we know about them? 107 findings reported is that the hostile attitudes of the attackers towards ethnic minor - ities were likewise held by the residents of those communities. It was also found that the community did not condemn these acts but “actively reinforced” that behavior, (Sibbit, 1997, vii). This suggests that there may not be that much dif - ference between the hate crime offenders’ and ordinary citizens’ attitudes toward minority communities. What is key here is that community attitudes created an environment that facilitated (even nurtured) racial hatred, discriminatory acts, and hate crime. Sibbit’s “pensioners” were residents who witnessed changes in the community such as economic strains, new social problems, and an increas - ing number of immigrants. In their opinion, their communities and the nation itself were being “invaded” by the problematic other . The “people next door” category are those who grew up in households parented by the pensioners. They routinely hear that racial minorities and immigrants are to be feared, blamed, and resented for a whole host of reasons. This group is more likely to commit racist acts towards others. Those characterized by the term “problem family” repre - sents households especially beset with problems (e.g. poverty, unemployment, truancy, mental health problems, and poor health in general). Children are more likely to be abused in such families and, in turn, these children victimize others.

This category represents those who are likely to set out and deliberately victimize minorities. Sibbit analyzed the racist tendencies of community youth according to age and found that the youngest group (ages 4–10) has the greatest chance of becoming dangerous racists who will act accordingly. This group is most exposed to prejudiced ideas, as they are surrounded by older siblings, parents, grandpar - ents, and other authority figures who are inclined to hold racist worldviews and xenophobic notions. They also have the greatest potential to be isolated and to start careers as racist thugs at an earlier age than the other age groups. While Sibbit, Levin, and McDevitt, and others provide profiles of offend - ers from struggling socioeconomic classes, their offerings are less applicable to offenders from wealthier subgroups. Not all hate crime offenders, sympathizers with the hate movement or even members of hate groups are dysfunctional fail - ure-prone uneducated individuals who exist in the margins of American society (see Table 5.1 ). William L. Pierce, founder of the National Alliance, a virulent neo-Nazi organization, earned a PhD in physics and was a University of Oregon professor. Former Florida State Legislator, Ben Klassen, founded the Church of the Creator, a race-based theological doctrine and church. David Duke, former National Director of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, graduated from Louisiana State University and served in the Louisiana State Legislature. Matt Hale, one- time leader of the World Church of the Creator (previously known as the Church of the Creator)—later renamed the Creativity Movement, earned a BA from Brad - ley University, and a JD degree from Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Southern Illinois University. Don Black, former Klansmen and architect of the hate website Stormfront, attended the University of Alabama. The educated and the middle class are represented in the hate movement, which shows the ability of these ideas to attract those from diverse backgrounds, perspectives, and experi - ences (Hamm, 1993; Petrosino, 1999).Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 108 Perpetrators: what do we know about them? The preceding section brings to bear news items found in print media, govern - ment statistics, and academic research to describe portrayals of the hate crime perpetrator. This individual’s most common attributes are pretty static but other aspects vary, such as socioeconomic background, educational obtainment, and degree of commitment to hate-filled ideology or the type of hate crimes commit - ted. In addition, affiliation with a hate group is not part of the documented profile of most hate crime offenders although some offenders are members or affiliated with a hate group or are inspired by hate groups. Thus a discussion about hate crime perpetrators should include an examination of hate groups.

Hate groups What exactly constitutes a hate group? Is it determined by the number of mem - bers or the appropriateness of its agenda? Is the existence of a hate movement the same type of organism as a hate group? The former may be understood as a rudimentary social movement comprised of a “loose coalition of groups and Table 5.1 Education/occupation of past and present leaders in the United States hate movement Affiliation Education/achievements Richard Barret Nationalist Movement Attended Rutgers University and Memphis State University.

Earned Law degree. Argued before US Supreme Court Stephen D. Black Knights of the KKK * Graduate of University of Alabama Richard Butler Willis A. Carto Harold Covington Aryan Nations Liberty Lobby National Socialist White People’s Party Lockheed Aircraft Engineer Graduate of Denison University Ran in the 1980 Republican primary for Attorney General of North Carolina and received 43 percent of the vote George Dietz Liberty Bell Publications Farm Broker and Commercial Printer David Duke NAAWP ** Graduate of Louisiana State University Dan Gayman Church of Israel Former High School Principal Kirk Lyons CAUSE Defense Attorney Theodore Winston National Prayer Network Graduate of Portland University Mark Weber Institute for Historical Review Graduate of Indiana University.

Earned Master’s degree Matt Hale World Church of the Creator Southern Illinois University Law School at Carbondale Source: ADL, 1996 Notes: *KKK = Ku Klux Klan **NAAWP = National Assoc. for the Adv. of White PeopleDownloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 Perpetrators: what do we know about them? 109 organizations” (Kollman, 2011), that expresses interest in achieving some com - monly held goals. In hate crime literature, one will see references to the term “hate movement” as sometimes representative of extremist groupthink (e.g. pan- Aryanism or RAHOWA); and one will also see references to hate groups con - noting the same concept. One of the most straightforward and clear definitions of a hate group states, “a hate group (which is comprised of at least two or more individuals) has beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of peo - ple, typically for their immutable characteristics” (SPLC, 2012a). This definition identifies the most salient feature of a hate group that distinguishes it from other social groups—that its primary purpose for existing revolves around its hostility toward particular social groups based on definitive traits demonized by the hate group. Hate groups made their first appearance as far back as 1866 in the United States with the founding of the Ku Klux Klan in Pulaski, Tennessee. Now, 145 years later, there are 939 active hate groups in the United States, as of 2013, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC, 2012b). This civil rights organization has monitored hate groups in the US since the 1980s and makes that information available to the public and to law enforcement through various pub - lications and online reports. Today, every state has one or more hate groups which up until very recently was not the case. The states with the largest numbers of active hate groups are:

California (77), Florida (58), Texas (57), Georgia (50), New Jersey (44), New York (42), and Pennsylvania (41). These numbers are fluid—as these groups wax and wane over time and sometimes morph into new groups with new nametags (e.g. The World Church of the Creator to The Creativity Movement). Also, actual membership numbers are only rough estimates at best. In this netherworld of loosely aligned hate groups, individuals may enjoy multiple memberships in sev - eral organizations or groups, concurrently. In addition, with the added dimension of the Internet, it is unknown how mere psychological affiliation is represented in membership codification—if at all. The SPLC and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) as well as other watchdog groups report that the number of hate groups had increased since the 1990s until recently. There are several observations offered to explain the surge: (1) a too- slow economic recovery and the lack of jobs; (2) increasing awareness of the numbers of immigrant and non-White racial and ethnic groups residing in the US; (3) the election of the first African-American President—Barack Obama; (4) it is projected that the US will no longer be a predominately White nation by 2050, (US Census); and (5) the sociopolitical but slow destabilization of the hegemonic bloc of White Protestant Heterosexual Males (SPLC, 2012b). An added level of complexity involves the variation among hate groups. They all have the common element of animus towards other group(s) (e.g. gays, Blacks, immigrants, the government), but there are real differences in group structure, organization, leadership, level of sophistication, group philosophy, types of mem - bers, and adopted strategies. So while racist skinhead groups are primed to seek violent confrontation on the streets with targeted victims; other groups like the Nationalist Coalition’s Arizona chapter hold family “spaghetti night” meet and Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 110 Perpetrators: what do we know about them? greets in order to draw more persons from mainstream America (Conant, 2009).

Still others hold weekend retreats, combining KKK rallies with readings from the Bible “decorated with confederated flags” (Conant, 2009). How does the existence of hate groups impact the occurrence of hate crime? As early as 1993, Levin and McDevitt reported “only about 15% of all hate crimes are perpetrated by organized groups” (104). Since then, the FBI has estimated that racist skinheads were responsible for at least 63 percent of the violent acts attributed to White nationalist extremists from January 2007 through September 30, 2008, including 65 percent of assaults and 71 percent of murders (FBI, 2010).

So unlike Levin and McDevitt who looked at all hate crimes, the FBI focused on a subcategory of hate crime acts—those committed by the extreme elements in the hate movement, and found that racist skinheads (who are group affiliated) were mostly responsible. Researchers Matt E. Ryan and Peter T. Leeson (2011) evaluated the relationship between hate groups and hate crime and found “little evidence that hate groups are connected to hate crime in the United States” (3).

However, the long view of this question may provide a different result. Recent research on the life course of White supremacist groups indicates that group lon - gevity and sphere of influence explains their relationship to hate crime rather than the sheer existence or growth of a hate group (Freilich, et al. 2009). Much more research is needed to answer the question regarding the influence of hate groups on hate crime. Here are a few essential questions that should be considered to this end:

1 Not all hate groups have the same agenda—so there needs to be a closer scru - tiny regarding: Whether or how the type of hate group differentially impacts hate crime? 2 Does a hate group’s geographic location impact the nature of hate crimes committed in that area? 3 Neo-Nazi skinhead groups seem to be in the forefront of violent physical confrontation and assaultive behavior as a matter of strategy. Assuming that there is some validity in this observation, is there more reported hate crime (violent or nonviolent) where neo-Nazi skinhead groups are located? 4 What are the differences between hate groups that have essentially an Internet presence and those with a brick and mortar presence regarding crime? While it is important to better understand the role of hate groups when it comes to hate crime occurrence, it must still be recognized that ordinary persons, those unaffiliated with hate groups, commit the lion’s share of hate crimes (Chakraborti & Garland, 2009). Even though hate-group involvement in hate crimes is not typically found, these groups still play an important role in this overall dynamic and in the incite - ment of violence in particular. Several scholars have emphasized the culture of hatred, antagonism, and irrational violence that is nurtured within hate groups (Hamm, 1993; Simi & Futrell, 2010; Levin & McDevitt, 1993; Blee, 2002). The objects of their loath - ing (gays, Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, and others) are consistently presented in the Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 Perpetrators: what do we know about them? 111 most contemptible light. Vicious rants are a significant part of the social bond - ing of hate-group members (Simi & Futrell, 2010). Jews are often presented as the actual off spring of Satan or are depicted as vermin, a pestilence—deserving destruction; Blacks are subhuman or animals and most other minorities are infe - rior “mud people.” Constant references of this nature results in dehumanization, which permits members of hate groups to develop tolerance and even comfort with physically brutalizing or killing the “enemy.” In order to reinforce and main - tain these perspectives, hate-group culture includes “totalism” which requires the practice of separatism. Similar to the separatism viewed in various religious cults, hate-group members minimize and eventually eschew social interactions with non-hate-group members (Lifton, 1989 cited in Woolf & Hulsizer, 2004).

The result is increasing social isolation and constant exposure to the echoing of violent diatribes deemed necessary to respond to imaginary threats. In addition to the violent culture of hate groups and the absorption of this ideology, mounting pressure is placed on newer members to show their commitment to the cause by participating in violent attacks. As extreme and as reprehensible the ideology and agenda of hate groups might appear to ordinary citizens, the roots of their beliefs stem from mainstream social institutions, cultural biases, and systemic bigoted and racist practices that are part of the past and extant social conditions in the United States and elsewhere. But that is only half of the conditions necessary for the proclivity of hate group members to commit more violent hate crimes. Hate groups in and of themselves provide the encouragement, rationalizations, and incentives for their members to indulge in violence. But to offset attrition, these groups must be replenished with new members. Are there certain types of individuals who are drawn to hate groups? Are there types of individuals who are more likely to embrace the violent messages that are spewed from these groups? Is there a difference between ordi - nary citizens who commit hate crime and those individuals who join hate groups and subsequently commit hate crime? Contemporary hate-group members are frequently described as youth who are academically unsuccessful, have poor family relationships, feel insecure, alien - ated, impotent, and angry (Levin & McDevitt, 1993; Lang, 1990; Kronenwetter, 1992; Zia, 1991; Sears, 1989; Came, 1989; Ezekiel, 1995). Studies have also indi - cated that backgrounds of family violence, child, and substance abuse are not uncommon (Levin & McDevitt, 1993; Aho, 1994; Hamm, 1993). Law-break - ing behavior is not uncommon (Sims, 1996; Wooden, 1995), although criminal records tend to be minimal in younger hate-group members (Levin & McDevitt, 1993). The desire for power, acceptance, economic gain, and support for particu - lar views have been included as reasons for joining hate groups and other devi - ant collectives (Jankowski, 1990 as cited in Sheldon, et al. 1997). Christensen’s (1994, 13) study of Portland, Oregon skinheads noted: “excitement of gang activ - ity, peer pressure, attention, respect, sense of family and survival” as motives for joining. The survey research and content analysis of California Youth Authority case files conducted by Wooden (1995) found similar reasons for joining among racist skins, that is, the lure of excitement and the need for one’s own ideological community.Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 112 Perpetrators: what do we know about them? Individuals who enter into hate groups don’t arrive at the doorstep with an agenda that exactly mirrors that of the group. In fact, the requisite attitude of rac - ist, anti-Semitic, homophobic or other prejudiced attitudes are not even necessar - ily harbored by new recruits. Blee (2002) describes in her research “conversion by near death stories” whereby individuals experience personal crises and emo - tional traumas leaving them seeking security, stability, and a justification of their victimization (cited in Woolf & Hulsizer, 2004, 46). Hate groups are an attrac - tive option. What is more evident is that these are individuals with significant unmet needs that they may not even be aware exist. They are in search of having their needs addressed and hate groups are ready to offer them a means to obtain satisfaction that includes scapegoating, demonizing others, and feeding a sense of entitlement via a relentless blustering of the superiority of in-groups and the need to control and diminish out-groups. It is during this process of seeking self- fulfillment, security, and acceptance that indoctrination and the internalization of hate ideology occurs. Those individuals who are from stable family backgrounds may still develop a sense of uncertainty on the broader world stage as they face an increasingly multicultural and multiracial world. I have examined high-school and university students’ potential attraction toward hate groups and their messages. Results indi - cated that while high-school respondents more often held beliefs that were similar to those in the hate movement and expressed more interested in hate groups, there was still a portion of university students who did as well. College-educated youth have been and continue to be drawn to hate groups, even in the absence of tradi - tional risk factors. I argue for a “middle-class” application of deprivation theory; neo-deprivation theory. According to some social scientists, the family is the first line of defense against externally derived destabilizing factors (e.g. Kanter, 1972).

Society itself is a type of family: a macro family structure, particularly for middle- and upper-class White youth. It provides a sturdy network of support in the form of acceptance, presumptions and affirmations culturally, politically, education - ally, and economically. However, with the advent of affirmative action, equal opportunity initiatives, political correctness, and multiculturalism, many White males interpreted these and similar developments as signaling a breakdown of their macro family structure. As a result, some White youth are insecure, uncer - tain of their future, resentful, and feel less powerful, despite the benefits of higher education and aggregate upward mobility. Therein lies the “new” deprivation: a perceived disturbance of White privilege—a class, race, and gender deprivation.

Thus, some middle-class educated White youth become attracted to an ideology that argues for the “reinstatement” of White entitlement and privilege.

Are those who join hate groups more inclined to commit violent hate crimes?

Many hate groups disseminate a good deal of odious hate-filled rhetoric, leaf - lets, and other publications, in addition to the numerous hate web sites that serve to inspire, transmit, and support similar messages. There are examples where Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 Perpetrators: what do we know about them? 113 organized hate groups inspired hate crimes committed by others. The 1988 murder of Mulugeta Seraw by skinheads in Portland, Seattle was encouraged by the hate group White Aryan Resistance (WAR), as determined in a wrongful death civil suit ( Berhanu v. Metzger case # A8911-07007). Nevertheless, these types of linked events happen infrequently, in comparison to the more common hate crimes. What might be more insidious than recognized hate groups are the appear - ance of so-called advocacy groups which hold the same worldview and objectives of traditional hate groups, but have modified their approaches to become more palatable and in fact resonate with voices heard in mainstream sociopolitical dis - course. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights published a report that implies a connection between the recent increase in attacks against Hispanics in the US, anti-immigrant advocacy groups that indulge in demonizing Spanish- speaking illegal immigrants, and the political and media outlets that give such groups a platform and thus legitimize them. Their online publication, The State of Hate: Escalating Hate Violence Against Immigrants , paragraph 4, states: Some groups opposing immigration reform, such as the Federation for Amer - ican Immigration Reform (FAIR), the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), and Numbers USA, have portrayed immigrants as responsible for numer - ous societal ills, often using stereotypes and outright bigotry. While these groups, and other similar organizations, have strived to position themselves as legitimate, mainstream advocates against illegal immigration in America, a closer look at the public record reveals that some of these organizations have disturbing links to . . . extremists in the anti-Immigration movement. These seemingly “legitimate” advocates against illegal immigration are fre - quently quoted in the mainstream media, have been called to testify before Congress, and often hold meetings with lawmakers and other public figures. (LCCREF, 2009) The LCCREF (2009) reported that Keystone United (formally known as the Keystone State Skinheads—a white supremacist group) has used the immigration issue to draw new recruits. The report noted the following, “Ann Van Dyke of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission said of Keystone United: ‘It appears they are tapping into and fanning the flames of mainstream America’s fear of immigrants. They are increasingly using the language of Main Street, things like, “We want safe communities to raise our children” ’ ” (19). Therefore, as mainstream news reports and legitimate political discourse focuses on serious social issues, such as immigration reform; these issues are then socially constructed as racial and ethnic problems which concomitantly feed the paranoia of pseudo advocacy groups (FAIR) as well as traditional hate groups (Keystone United). Individuals who join hate groups may pay a serious price for getting out. Not unlike the violent subculture of many street gangs, recruits of hate groups are commonly expected to show loyalty. A primary test of allegiance is observing the “blood in, blood out” oath. One is expected to spill blood of the enemy to become Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 114 Perpetrators: what do we know about them? a trustworthy and loyal member. But leaving the group (blood out) means that it will cost the member his own blood (perhaps life) to leave. There are several compelling published testimonies of former hate group members that attest to this custom. Thomas T.J. Leyden, a former national leader and recruiter for racist neo-Nazi skinhead groups like American Firm, Western Hammerskins, and Ham - merskin Nation, became disillusioned with the movement and eventually left. But when he did, he became a marked man. On April 26, 1996 he left the movement.

After his first public speaking engagement warning youth about hate groups:

“The next day . . . (less than twenty-four hours later), there was an entire website devoted to my demise. . . . Western Hammerskins wrote advice to others in the Movement to ‘terminate [me] on sight’ ” (Leyden & Cook, 2008, 153). Bryon Widner, former co-founder of the Vinlanders Social Club and known leader in the racist skinhead movement, reported a similar experience. Once he left the move - ment, death threats were made against him by his former brothers. There is the “neither-nor” reality of those individuals who are not directly affil - iated with an actual hate group but who strongly identify with the hate movement.

Gruenewald (2011) conducted a comparative analysis of hate crime offenders classified as far-right extremist perpetrators (FREP) who committed homicides with the homicides of ordinary offenders. Using open-source data, FREP homi - cides were identified as homicide acts where at least one of the perpetrators was affiliated with the far-right extremist movement. Gruenewald expected to find that: (1) far-right extremist perpetrators will be older than the average homicide offender; (2) they are more inclined to target strangers than the average homicide offender; (3) these offenders disproportionately commit non-firearm-related hom - icides and; (4) FREP homicides involve more offenders than the average homi - cide. Results indicated that murders committed by far-right extremist perpetrators differed. The majority of FREP homicides (52.5 percent) were committed with a firearm. There was also greater use of blunt objects, knives, and other weap - ons used in killings (47.5 percent to 31.7 percent). It was anticipated that FREP offenders would be older and they did fit more often in the upper age categories (19–28 years and 29–38 years). The involvement of multiple offenders was also found more often in this group, as was the lack of a relationship with the victim. Far-right homicides are most often committed by White males. When race is iden - tified, FREP homicides are primarily inter-racial, while typical homicides tend to be intra-racial. An unforeseen finding was the percentage of FREP homicides that actually involved a profit-seeking element. Homicides committed by far-right extremist are typically represented in the literature as ideologically driven. But Gruenewald reports that as much as 24 percent of FREP homicides included a profit motive as well. Finally, criminals who identify with the hate movement involve themselves with ordinary crimes along with those that are hate-motivated.

Recruitment strategies of hate groups Today’s hate groups do not replicate the recruitment methods of the past.

Early Klan groups were very secretive and favored clandestine meetings and Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 Perpetrators: what do we know about them? 115 ritualized ceremonies. Now they use strategies that even groups with non-sinister objectives employ to reach a targeted population. The modernization of recruit - ment strategies is illustrated by the British white power band Skrewdriver and its late founder Ian Stuart Donaldson. Using music as the primary mechanism, Donaldson packaged the attraction of free rock concerts with the dissemination of literature espousing his worldview of nationalism, racial superiority, xenophobia, and the use of violence to achieve these ends. This strategy mastered by Donald - son was replicated in early racist skinhead groups in the US, since then recruit - ment tactics evidenced by hate groups have been extraordinary. Klan groups, the Aryan Youth Movement, and the Canadian Heritage Front have distributed racist flyers and related publications outside of high schools, encouraging membership (McDonald, 1995). The Nizkor Project provides infor - mation to the public on how hate groups target youth. Understanding the psychol - ogy of youth, members of these groups look for alienated youth to befriend and offer them the guise of social acceptance, support, and friendship. Introduction to hate doctrine comes later: How Hate Groups Recruit – * They always lie to new members, never telling them of their true agenda of hatred and violence before it is too late. * Young people are brainwashed through rituals, rallies, training camps and the dissemination of hate propaganda, until they give up their independ - ent identity, join the cause and become hatemongers themselves. (The Nizkor Project) Hate groups have used local newspapers to identify student leaders, honor roll inductees or local star athletes for recruitment purposes. Geographic location plays a practical role in recruitment activities. Campuses in close proximity to headquarters of hate groups receive consistent attention. Ohio State, the University of Ohio, and the University of Cincinnati experienced recruitment activity when skinhead groups formed in nearby communities (Anti-Defamation League, 1989).

The University of Massachusetts Lowell received attention by a local Ku Klux Klan group with the distribution of their flyers, shortly after establishment of the cell in the area (Wills, 1999). The Internet has also become an effective recruitment tool for hate groups. With the explosion of computers and consequently access to the Internet, many are exposed to these groups and their destructive messages. Far more insidious is the ability for many to psychologically affiliate with hate groups without physically joining and attending formal meetings and so on. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund (LCCREF) 2009 reported the potential impact of the Internet on furthering the agenda of hate groups (8): Whereas hate mongers once had to stand on street corners and hand out mimeographed leaflets to passersby, extremists now use mainstream social Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 116 Perpetrators: what do we know about them?

networking sites such as MySpace or Facebook to access a potential audience of millions . . . Daniel Cowart . . . and Paul Schlesselman . . . arrested in the fall of 2008 for plotting an assassination attempt on Barack Obama followed by a plan to engage in a multi-state racist shooting spree, were reportedly introduced to each other by a mutual friend on a social networking website. Pollock (2010) reports on the world of Internet newsgroups and websites as online spaces that encourage bigots in the maintenance of their hate-filled ideas and encourage deeper connections with the hate movement. “E-powered small haters” (Pollock’s term) are individuals or small groups who use the Internet to solicit and disseminate hateful speech via newsgroups. These individuals are independent of hate groups, but the views they espouse frequently coincide and encourage hate- group affiliation. Pollock examines three newsgroups, (which function like discussion forums) in particular—alt.flame.niggers, alt.politics.white-power, and alt.skinheads— and describes how these “alternative” groups are structured, how they operate, and whether they encourage others to commit hate-motivated crimes. The name of the newsgroup identifies its general area of interest. For example, alt.flame.

niggers makes the following claim: “the newsgroup is a: ‘ . . . wonderful place where members of non-nigger races can join together to discuss typical nigger behaviour.’ ” Ads are also found on these forums that promote extremist ideas, goods, and services. For example, White power merchandisers ply their wares such as Nazi flags, jewelry, newsletters and books on these newsgroups. Owners of White supremacist music stations advertise in these venues and provide information on rallies, concerts, and other promoted events. An announcement found on Alt.

flame.niggers: IF YOU ARE SICK OF NIGGERS TAKING OVER DUBUQUE PLEASE COME TO OUR MEETING OF NIGGER HATERS OF AMERICA, MON - DAY AT 7PM AT 264 E 14TH IN DUBUQUE. COME AS YOU ARE. WE ONLY ASK THAT YOU ARE WHITE. ANY BLACKS WILL GET THEIR ASS KICKED ON SITE. (Pollock, 2010, 145) These communications have the potential to attract sympathizers and encourage involvement in the hate movement or even specific hate groups. Pollock cautions us to note that these newsgroups have grown in number and in popularity in recent years. All in all, hate groups are developing wide-ranging methods to draw new members into their ranks and/or to develop a larger audience of sympathizers to the cause. What we have yet to learn is: (1) how effective hate web sites (and chat rooms/forums) are in growing the membership of local hate groups and; (2) whether the former question is even relevant in light of the shift in strategy to small cell groups or lone wolf scenarios.Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 Perpetrators: what do we know about them? 117 Women in the hate movement Cultural beliefs that support White privilege and maintaining the hegemony of White Protestant heterosexual males also support a gender hierarchy. In this social arrangement, males are placed in an advantaged social location over that of females. The critical view that mainstream cultural practices include gendered arrangements that provide males social, political, and economic advantages and females disadvantages seems to repeat itself in the hate underworld. Nevertheless, it is also true that the role of women may be expanding in some hate groups. Thomas (T. J.) Leyden, former leader in the neo-Nazi skinhead group American Firm, states that women have become a major recruitment tool. Leyden states “White separatists are not immune to the fact that sex sells—most particu - larly to their targeted audience of young, impressionable white males” (Leyden & Cook, 2008, 181). Thus, a specific strategy involves the use of women—to get them into the movement and have them take on an active role in recruiting males.

This use of female White separatists still involves using them as sexual objects and does not reflect the progress of women within the movement. Perhaps even more destructive than racist male skinheads looking for violence, are young White mothers who are adherents to hate ideology, raising and train - ing their children from birth—to understand and adopt this malevolent world - view. “Most Aryan families homeschool (sic) their children to preserve them from ‘mongrel ideas’ ” (Leyden & Cook, 2008, 182). Leyden goes on to describe the typical life of an Aryan woman affiliated with a racist skinhead group. She is instrumental in setting up a household that reflects the ideology of the movement.

Not only is the home decorated with iconic hate images, but she also adorns her - self with these symbols (jewelry, tattoos, etc.). As a mother, she homeschools, which furthers the isolating aspects of her social life. For some groups, the women strategize to take advantage of public assistance programs including welfare, food stamps, and health care. Yet she is also increasingly involved with the reality of both violent and non-violent attacks upon others. The National Incident-Based Reporting System’s (NIBRS) 1997–99 hate crime data shows that 17 percent of known offenders were female. Seventeen percent of violent and 18 percent of non-violent incidents was committed by female offend - ers. The 2003–09 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) reports a similar statistic; 19 percent of violent incidents were committed by female offenders. It may be disturbing to some to consider that while hate culture primarily sup - ports traditional gender roles of women as homemakers, child rearing, and sup - porters of their male partners, it also invites them to engage in violent acts. For example, on March 23, 2003 Tristain Frye, a female White supremacist, along with her three male peers, bludgeoned with bats and stomped to death Randy Townsend, a homeless man—so that she could earn her red shoelaces ( Intelli - gence Report , 2004). But this dual and somewhat counterintuitive role is not a new phenomenon. Blee (2002) provides a historical and sociological perspective on the evolution of the role of women in the Ku Klux Klan. In it, she contends that their level Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 118 Perpetrators: what do we know about them? of participation corresponded with the increasing opportunities for women in general. As the Klan devised various tactics to hinder Black equality, women were effective in employing these tools sometimes used by surrogate groups for the Klan, to create economic and political threats and obstacles and to leading local chapters for women. They also participated in the most horrific violence, both witnessing and celebrating the gruesome lynching of Blacks. Today, there are hate groups which make a concerted effort to recruit women for a variety of reasons (appear more mainstream, add a stabilizing factor and thus increase membership longevity, draw more male members via women, broaden strategies, etc.). Blee (2002) notes that women are less likely to participate in ter - rorist activities aimed at state institutions and more likely to be involved in street violence. Women continue to engage in traditional roles and increasing involve - ment in hate crimes and other illegal activities.

Unexpected offenders: minorities against minorities The Los Angeles County Commission on Human Relations (LACCHR) collects, screens, and then publishes annual reports on hate crime for the region. The Com - mission’s 2012 hate crime report found that Latinos committed 68 percent of the anti-Black racially motivated attacks in the county, while African-Americans were suspects in 58 percent of the anti-Latino attacks. There is a clear pattern of racially motivated violence being committed by Blacks and Latinos. This pattern remains unchanged according to the most recent Commission reports. The NCVS 2003–09 dataset indicated that 43 percent of violent hate crimes were committed by White offenders and 29 percent by Black offenders. The 2009 Hate Crime Statistics Report shows 62.4 percent of all hate crimes (violent and nonviolent) were committed by White offenders and 18.5 percent of these crimes were committed by Black offenders. Less focused upon is when both the offender and the victim are members of minority groups. Minority on minority hate crime is, in many ways, even more disturbing and more of an anomaly particularly for this type of crime. Whereas the traditional hate crime involves a perpetrator from the dominant group victimizing someone from a minority group, when both actors are mem - bers of minority groups, what motivates these actions? Are they somehow distinct from traditional hate crime dynamics? What do we know about minority-on- minority hate crime? Some have argued that this type of hate crime is primarily reflective of group conflict and the struggle for power, control, and desirable resources (Perry, 2001; Levin & McDevitt, 1993). With minority groups contending over successive places of decreasing power, there is considerable pressure to outmaneuver multi - ple racial and ethnic minority groups in the United States. It seems simpler for the dominant group (Whites). In that context, it is Whites against non-Whites—sim - ple and straightforward. For minorities, multiple groups are in second, third, and other “subordinate” social positions. But the racist and bigoted notions expressed in traditional hate crimes are also found in minority-on-minority hate crimes.Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 Perpetrators: what do we know about them? 119 Perry contends that minority groups also vie for social dominance and to assert their own self-identities and therefore use the tools perfected by domi - nant groups; that of marginalization, subordination, and subsequent oppression of the “other.” This is the sociopolitical dynamic and function of hate crime itself (Perry, 2001). Even more disturbing are organized efforts by some minority groups to threaten, intimidate, and attack others; even forming their own versions of rac - ist hate groups. The following newspaper article describes these reported events: Four Hispanic teenagers were charged with a hate crime Thursday, (June 9, 2011) after allegedly attacking two black teens in Moline, Ill. Moline police were called about 9:30 p.m. Wednesday after a large group of men were spotted “beating up on a black kid” with baseball bats, bricks, sticks and large pieces of wood near the 100 block of Fourth Avenue. When officers arrived, they found the victims, a 19-year-old male and a 17-year-old female, surrounded by a number of individuals who had come out of their homes, witnessed the attack and chased away the attackers. Police (stated) . . . that the teens were yelling racial slurs and stole property from the victims. (HuffPost Chicago , 2011) The ugly spate of racial violence between Blacks and Latinos is further complicated by the persistent problem of gang violence. The gangs in the Los Angeles mostly break down along racial lines. The Los Angeles County Commission’s 2012 report refers to the perpetrators of racially motivated crimes as gang members and that some of the motivation involves turf issues over drug territories. Currently, the Latino gangs have been very aggressive in targeting Blacks for the purpose of forcing them to leave particular neighborhoods. The Commission’s 2005 report states the following (12): The large number of anti-black and anti-Latino crimes can be attributed to a number of factors. Racialized gang violence continued to play a significant role in communities, public schools, and the County jails and juvenile deten - tion facilities . . . In 2005, there were 56 cases of gang-involved racial hate crime, involving 69 victims and 130 suspects. In other words, 11 percent of all victims were targeted by gang members, similar to last year. As in previous years, the overwhelming majority of these were cases in which Latino gang members’ targeted African-American victims. The data show that 54 (78 percent) of racial crimes committed by gang members were anti-black, and only 8 (12 percent) targeted Latinos. Very few reports indi - cated that these racial crimes were committed by gang members against rival gang members; most were against victims who were not identified as gang members. US Attorney Thomas P. O’Brien brought indictments against members of the Varrio Hawaiian Gardens gang in 2009 for multiple charges, includ - ing kidnapping, murder, illegal guns and narcotics. This Latino street gang Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 120 Perpetrators: what do we know about them?

is reported to take pride “in their racism and often refer to themselves as the ‘Hate Gang’ ”. Furthermore, “VHG gang members have expressed a desire to rid the city of Hawaiian Gardens of all African-Americans and have engaged in a systematic effort to achieve that result by perpetrating crimes against African-Americans.” (The Huffington Post , May 23, 2009) Some community residents refer to these crimes as a form of “ethnic cleansing” that is occurring right in Los Angeles County ( Intelligence Report , 2007, par - agraph 1). Inter-minority racism is when minorities practice multiracial White supremacy, sometimes in attitude only, other times in actions (Lum, 2011). Dr. Nitasha Sharma, scholar of African-American and Asian-American studies observes the example of race-based distrust and negative stereotyping becoming more demonstrative among some Asian Indians and African-Americans. Levin and McDevitt (2002) explain minority-on-minority hate crime as an artifact of liv - ing in a society where dominant views support a racial hierarchy. Minorities may internalize these views and with sufficient provocation—real or imagined—these views may be expressed in ugly racist acts. In addition, racial minorities as politi - cal interest groups may periodically compete for available, but limited, resources.

This awareness may also fuel feelings of resentment and hostility that is expressed through racial conflict—and possibly as hate crime.

Belief systems in the hate movement There are several beliefs espoused in the hate movement. Many of these views are popular and well established throughout the hate movement, but it is important to recognize that not every participant embraces all of these outlooks. For example, Christian Identity theology is not adopted by those who are followers of Odinism or by those who do not adhere to any religious teachings. On the other hand, some of these views overlap with others (e.g. white supremacy and the denigration of racial minorities) and there is little contradiction among them.

White supremacy White supremacy is the belief that White racial and ethnic groups are superior biologically, psychologically, intellectually, and morally to their counterparts of color. This mindset coincides with a sense of White entitlement and privilege.

These are the attitudes that support and facilitate ethnocentrism, discrimination, and racism. Unfortunately, notions of White supremacy/superiority or privilege do not exist only in the hate movement. These perspectives are deeply entrenched in American culture and were the toxic zeitgeist of its past and to some degree, to its present. The remnants of a sociopolitical and economic system that maintained Black slavery, apartheid, and White dominance for more than 300 years continues to thrive today. Institutionalization of White and male privilege remains part of Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 Perpetrators: what do we know about them? 121 society’s social structure. Although significant progress has occurred in address - ing the myriad forms of institutionalized and cultural racism, research continues to show that many Whites continue to hold negative opinions of Blacks, Jews, and other minorities and women in less esteem.

Perverted Christian precepts to justify White supremacy When theology is mentioned as part of hate ideology, it is almost always dis - cussed in reference to Christian Identity, which is discussed later in this section.

Christian Identity theology is a gross distortion of traditional biblical teachings in Christianity. But it may be feasible to some due to a longstanding misinter - preted biblical teaching within traditional Christianity that was used to justify Black inferiority. In Genesis 9:19–27, the scripture tells of an incident involving Noah (of Noah’s Ark) and his youngest son, Ham. Ham committed an immoral act that involved Noah, who had become drunk. The exact nature of the act has been highly debated, but it appears to be of a sexual nature. Subsequently Noah cursed Ham’s son, Canaan, to a life of servitude. Advocates of African slavery during the antebellum period helped to pro - mote the idea that Canaan was the progenitor of the Black race. As such, Black slavery is legitimized by scripture and is in essence God’s will for Blacks. Thus the social construction of Blacks as an evil, uncivil race with rapacious sexual tendencies that needed to be restrained and controlled via the institution of slav - ery became socially and politically advantageous (Wineburg, 2001; Haynes, 2002). This interpretation was more commonly adopted among southern White Christians, where the advocacy of Black slavery was most keenly expressed (Lee, 2003).

Heterosexism and anti-gay sentiments Members of the LGBTQ community are persistently targeted by hate crime perpe - trators. Gay men are more often attacked than lesbians, who are generally viewed as less threatening to notions of proper masculinity; but transgendered individuals are often targeted for vicious attacks. There are a variety of explanations regard - ing the vilification of homosexuality in the hate movement. First, the image of the ideal Aryan male does not include a homosexual orientation, particularly among young men in the movement who are finding their footing regarding their own sexuality. The National Socialist Movement’s homepage includes the eligibility requirements for membership. It states the following: Party Membership is open to non-Semitic heterosexuals of European Descent.

If you really care for your heritage and for the future of your family, race and nation, fill out a Membership Application today. (National Socialist Movement)Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 122 Perpetrators: what do we know about them? In addition, there is the idea that Jews—who are the alleged enemies of White civilization, share in the blame for AIDS due to their advocacy of homosexuality.

Some believe that AIDS is God’s punishment for homosexuality. Except for a very small contingent of neo-Nazis who are also homosexual, the dominant view in the hate movement supports heterosexism and condemns homosexuality.

Denigration of racial minorities, immigrants, and anti-Semitism For some White supremacists, the ultimate ascendancy of the White race is directly linked to an all-out war which primarily targets Blacks, Jews, other racial minorities and Whites who oppose this agenda. The idea of a cataclysmic event ushering in a race war is referred to in the hate movement as RAHOWA or Racial Holy War. Founder of the Creativity Movement (or Church of the Creator), Ben Klassen, first coined the term in his writings on the struggle of the white race. The following excerpts are taken from Klassen’s (1987) book ‘RAHOWA’ – Rahowa This Planet is All Ours (4) : There is now a new consciousness bestirring the White Race in America, in South Africa and even in Europe. It is a realization of what the Church of the Creator has been preaching for 15 years, namely (a) That we are embroiled in a racial war for survival on this Planet Earth, (b) All mud races are our enemies in this fight for survival. (c) The Jews are leading and orchestrating this war against us; and (d) The Christian churches are their most ardent ally and most potent weapon. (Paragraph 12) It is all spelled out in the Creativity creed and program. It is further polarized in the more recent fighting word of the White Race—RAHOWA! In this one word we sum up the total goal and program of not only the Church of the Creator, but of the total White Race, and it is this: We take up the challenge.

We gird for total war against the Jews and the rest of the goddamned mud races of the world. (Paragraph 13) Racially motivated violence against minorities is also reflected in the persistency of this category of hate crime. Writer Loretta Ross (2010) stated in an article written for Political Research Associates: “FBI statistics report that 65 percent of America’s hate crimes are committed by whites against Blacks. Some of the haters, living on the United States’ borders, are petrified at the thought that brown hordes of Mexicans, Chinese, or Haitians may swarm over them (paragraph 13; paragraph 14). In their efforts to appeal to mainstream Whites, some White supremacist websites deny that they are racist. Instead, they argue that they are seeking to emphasize their love for the White race. But further exploration of these websites quickly reveals the worst type of racism imaginable. For example, should one Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 Perpetrators: what do we know about them? 123 visit various White power websites, you would likely see ugly racist depictions of President Barak Obama. A Klan site depicts President Obama in the minstrel tradition: blackened skin, wildly exaggerated facial features, large lips usually painted red and so on. Equally absurd and repulsive was a caption under the image indicating comments in classic poor grammar while the character eats the stereo - typical diet of watermelon and fried chicken. Anti-Semitism continues to anchor most of the beliefs found in the hate move - ment. For adherents, Jews are the archetypal enemy of Whites. This anti-Semitism appears as obsessive within the hate movement. Jews are the driving force for all things negative and detrimental to Whites on the planet. Included in these ideas is the existence of a Jewish cabal plotting to destroy White civilization: Jews are the architects for all of the evils of liberalism; they are in control of the US govern - ment; referred to as ZOG (Zionist Occupied Government), the banking institu - tions, and the media industry. Negative attitudes towards immigrants existed in the 1800s in the US (and prob - ably earlier) among some in the general populace. Fear of various groups bring - ing unfamiliar cultures, practices and values disrupting the status quo prompted political responses. Hence the Nativist movement and its progeny sought to restrain the number of Catholics and Chinese immigrants, for example. In the hate movement, the fear of immigrants has been racialized. Immigrants, espe - cially those with brown complexions, are viewed as representing a multifaceted threat to Whites and the American way of life (Perry, 2001). Spanish-speaking immigrants (both legal and illegal) are currently most feared. They are depicted in highly negative terms by right-wing extremists. The following quote, reported by the Anti-Defamation League reflects the racist rhetoric directed toward Latinos: One member of an Aryan Nations faction, “Pastor” Jay Faber of Pennsylva - nia, claimed on April 10 on the Aryan Nations Internet forum that “I already know they will not throw one of these stumpy little brown beasts out of here, so for the amount of guats in my area, I have at least 10 rounds of ammunition for each of them.” (ADL, 2006) The US Border Guard, an Arizona-based militia group with ties to neo-Nazi national socialist groups, appointed itself to the task of patrolling the Mexican Arizona border. The group’s founder once advocated using deadly force including constructing a minefield to stop illegal immigration (Castellanos, 2012).

Christian Identity theology Christian Identity theology is not to be confused with traditional Christianity— which strongly supports the nation of Israel. Rather it is linked to the theory of British Israelism , which argues that the ten lost tribes of Israel migrated to Britain from Canaan. As a result, God’s chosen people are not the Jews of Israel, but the British people. Further developed during the mid-1940s, by former Methodist Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 124 Perpetrators: what do we know about them? minister and Klansmen, Wesley Swift, he later founded the Church of Jesus Christ Christian, a Christian Identity-based church. Swift developed a racist and anti-Semitic two-seed theory to explain the origin of the races. Essentially, the Black race is seen as pre-Adamic and referred to as “mud people.” In this doctrine, they are described as soulless and not fully human.

Later God “corrected” this first failure and created Adam and Eve. But the serpent (the Devil) would seduce Eve, who subsequently gives birth to Cain who becomes the father of the Jewish nation. Hence the Jews are the literal spawn of Satan—and are therefore evil. This theology goes on to state that Abel is the offspring of Adam and Eve and becomes the father of the Aryan race—the Chosen people of God (true Israelites). Christian Identity was adopted by Richard Butler, the founder of Aryan Nations and it became an ideological pillar in the hate movement. Essen - tially, Christian Identity theology justifies racism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, disrespect of governmental authorities, and endorses the use of violence.

Political ideology and strategies Anti-statism is the general position that the government is not to be trusted and is a detrimental institution, therefore hostility towards the government is commonly expressed. Given that it is believed that the government is a Zionist occupied entity—its overthrow is most desired. Moreover, anti-statism sup - ports the contention that government is the tool to be used for the destruction of White civilization—the ultimate goal of Jews. Federal policies concern - ing civil rights and social welfare initiatives (e.g. affirmative action, the Vot - ing Rights Act), gun control laws, and more recently universal health care are viewed as efforts to somehow disempower Whites (Duffy, 2003). Social movements inspired by anti-statism views include Posse Comitatus and the militia movement. Posse Comitatus groups do not acknowledge governing authorities beyond the county level. They deny the legitimacy of federal and state authorities and the laws generated at those levels. Militia groups also formed as a result of suspicion and hostility towards the federal government.

The focus of militia groups centers on advocating guns and other weapons along with survivalist training in anticipation of violent confrontation with federal and state law enforcement agents. For those factions in the hate movement preparing for RAHOWA, there appear to be at least two possible outcomes from this violent struggle: the physical sepa - ration of racial groups by assigned territories or the annihilation of non-Whites.

The following was found on an Aryan Nation website: We believe that the Aryan . . . deserve . . . a sovereign existence and racial self-determination within a territorial area characterized by our own . . . cul - ture. . . . This is in line with the “Blood and Soil” concept of Third Reich-era National Socialists and follows the logic that for a people to survive . . . they must have their own land. . . . (Aryan Nations, paragraph 12)Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 Perpetrators: what do we know about them? 125 The creation of racial territories is advocated within the Aryan Nations, however other factions seem to prefer the more violent option. The Turner Diaries is a fictional account of a violent revolution led by an army of White revolutionaries.

Written by the co-founder of the National Alliance, William Pierce, under the pseudonym Andrew MacDonald, the novel describes the systematic murder of Jews, Blacks, other racial minorities and any group who stands in the way of the establishment of “the dream of a White world” (MacDonald, 1978, 210). This novel articulates a vision that is shared by many in the hate movement. It does not support the mutual existence of the races even in distinct geographical territories, but the genocide of all, save the White race. What distinguishes hate crimes from other crimes is that the offender’s action of targeting the victim is prompted by prejudiced attitudes. It is not the attitude or belief that is criminalized, but the action of the offender that stems from the attitude or belief. Now that we’ve surveyed the array of beliefs found among hate groups and in the hate movement itself, we turn our attention to the nature of acts produced by these beliefs.

A sample of hate crime acts—when, how, who, and why Hate crime acts vary by target, degree of intended harm, hate motive, level of criminal sophistication demonstrated by the offender, and the nature of the injury sustained by the victim. The following is a sample of acts identified as a hate- motivated offense in online news websites. The belief underlying these acts are easily discernible. Attempted bombing targeting Martin Luther King, Jr. Unity Parade attendees Spokane, Wash.—The man who confessed to leaving a pipe bomb inside of a backpack on the Martin Luther King, Jr, Unity March . . . was sentenced to 32 years in prison Tuesday. Kevin Harpham, 37, was given the maximum sentence from U.S. District Court Judge Justin Quackenbush. . . . In Septem - ber, Harpham plead guilty to attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction as well as the hate crime of placing the bomb in an effort to target minori - ties. . . . the FBI said Harpham placed a bomb loaded with lead fishing weights and coated in rat poison, an anti-coagulant. (khq.com, 2011) Some hate crimes are purposely committed around specific holidays such as Martin Luther King Day or Chanukah. The US Department of Justice references the significance of when a hate incident occurs in data collection guidelines created for law enforcement. An incident that occurs during a “significant ethnic holiday is a possible indicator of hate crime: ‘The incident coincided with a holiday or a date of particular significance relating to a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin, e.g., Martin Luther King Day, Rosh Hashanah’ ” (US Department of Justice, 1999, 5). Other countries also note an ethnic holiday or Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:44 24 May 2016 126 Perpetrators: what do we know about them? observance may prompt hate-motivated crimes. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), an international organization that provides a forum for conflict prevention, crisis management and problem-solving initiatives published a report in 2007 on the problem of hate crime in the OSCE region (ODIHR, 2008). Stated in the Executive Summary, 4: “This year’s ODIHR report on hate crime . . . finds a continued pattern of brutal attacks on visibly identifiable groups . . . Many of the attacks coincided with religious holidays and/or prayer times. Another alarming development was the emergence of the Holocaust as a rhetorical means to threaten . . . Jews, underlined by frequent damage to Holocaust memorials.” Milton man faces hate crimes charges A black man walking