Hate Crimes Impact Communities More Than Street Crimes

RUNNING HEAD: THE PREVALENCE OF HATE CRIMES…
Ryan Callahan
Criminal Justice B.S.
York College of Pennsylvania

THE PREVALENCE OF HATE CRIMES AND THE IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY 2
About the Researcher
Ryan Callahan is presently a senior in the Criminal Justice program at York College of
Pennsylvania. As part of his undergraduate degree experience, Ryan completed an internship
with the York County District Attorney’s Office. This internship allowed Ryan to experience all
areas of the Department’s operations. After completing his degree in Criminal Justice and
graduating in May 2015, Ryan plans to continue searching for careers in the criminal justice field
and plans to further his education in the spring of 2016 with graduate school.

Abstract
This research examines the prevalence of bias motivated offenses, commonly called hate crimes,
in society and the impact that hate crimes have on communities. Previous research indicates that
hate crimes are not as prevalent as other forms of crime. This study consisted of a 50 Likert item
survey distributed to 32 Criminal Justice seniors at York College of Pennsylvania. Findings of
the survey show that many students are unaware of what the term bias motived offense means as
many of the answers came back neutral. A sample of two local police chiefs, a police sergeant, a
counseling supervisor and a professor were interviewed. Findings show that hate crimes are not
as prevalent as thought by the researcher however the interviews helped support the hypothesis
that hate crimes damage communities more than typical street crimes. More research is
recommended in this area.
Key Words: Bias motivated offenses, impact on communities, street crime

Introduction
Hate crimes are not as prevalent in society as one may be lead to believe. I was interested
in the topic of hate crimes to disprove the previously mentioned statement. I was not satisfied
that the research in the article “Bias-Motivated Offenses: A Review of Prosecutorial
Investigation Reports” was comprehensive enough to draw conclusions. The article’s sample
only includes one state that has a good grasp on hate crime policies. To go about disproving this
research I devised three survey questions to add into a larger pool of overall survey questions.
Bias motivated offenses, or more commonly called hate crimes, are very damaging to a
community. Sometimes, they are even more damaging than a typical street crime. This topic is
very important and relevant within society. This topic has always been very important but
growing concerns over racism, sexism and heterosexism have grown within the past few years.
This research intended to look at the prevalence of hate crimes and show that hate crimes are
very prevalent within society and have a very large impact on the community.

Literature Review
Many recent studies have shown that many heterosexual people avoid contact with
homosexual people (Plant et al., 2014). Heterosexual people also tend to have negative
interactions when forced to have contact with homosexual people and also tend not to publically
support homosexual rights and/or policies (Plant et al., 2014). Plant, Zielaskowski and Buck
(2014), state that the reason many people do the abovementioned activities is because they,
themselves are afraid of being mislabeled as homosexual (Plant et al., 2014). They state that the
“mating motives” increase concerns about being misidentified as being homosexual (Plant et al.,
2014).
Three experiments were done by the researchers to test three separate hypotheses. In the
first study, the researchers tested the hypothesis of mating motives being the cause for
vilification of homosexual people by heterosexual people (Plant et al., 2014). The second study
examined mating motives and social contagion concerns that come in to play with heterosexual
people interacting with homosexual people in public (Plant et al., 2014). The third study
conducted was designed to allow to researchers to study the effect of mating motives and
negative responses towards homosexual people (Plant et al., 2014).
The participants for all three studies were all introductory psychology students (Plant et
al., 2014). Each study used the same design, where participants were given a social contagion
survey between three months and three weeks before the actual experiment (Plant et al., 2014).
After the initial survey each study used two unrelated studies; for the first part the experimental
group wrote about four or five times they felt sexually aroused and the control group wrote about

four or five times they had felt happy (Plant et al., 2014). The next set of questions was measured
on a hot to cold scale (Plant et al., 2014).
For the first study participants were asked questions such as: “If I was hanging out with a
homosexual person, I would worry that other people would think I was a homosexual too.”
(Plant, et al., 2014). For the second study, participants were asked questions such as: “I would
avoid contact with my roommate in our apartment.” (Plant et al., 2014). In the third study,
participants were asked to interact with a partner that had allegedly answered a series of
questions about homosexuality that was unbeknownst to either participant (Plant et al., 2014).
All three studies found negative answers toward a homosexual person when mating
motives were activated plant et al., 2014). This study was limited by the fact that it was the first
of its kind (Plant et al., 2014). The article suggests that future work should explore whether
getting the opportunity to promote one’s sexual orientation is enough to assess these concerns
(Plant et al., 2014).
The decision to use students can be very effective if the right students are used. College
level students are generally more aware and open to social issues and therefore are more
accepting. However, having students participate for credit may not be the best thing since the
student may not cooperate with the study fully and put answers just to fill them in. As stated
above, these responses are not hate crimes but it shows that discrimination occurs even at this
basic stage.
Herek, Gillis, and Cogan’s 1999 study Psychological Sequelae of Hate-Crime
Victimization Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults looks at the victimization rates of the
previously mentioned groups. Questionnaires were sent out to residents of the Sacramento area

in California (Herek et al., 1999). The questionnaire was self-administered and took about 40
minutes to complete (Herek et al., 1999).
The sample consisted of 1,170 women and 1,089 men with the total number of
participants equaling 2,259 (Herek et al., 1999). According to Herek, resources were limited so
probability sample could not be done; instead five sampling methods were used (Herek et al.,
1999). The sampling methods included: “major community events, including the annual Pride
celebration in June; cafés, clubs, and bars frequented by gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals;
community organizations; notices, advertisements, and leaflets distributed throughout the
community; and personal networks of study participants” (Herek et al., 1999).
The questionnaire was self-administered and contained separate versions for men and
women with appropriate questions for each (Herek et al., 1999). Three sections contained within
the survey are of importance to the researchers: victimization experiences, psychological well-
being, and worldview and victimization-related beliefs (Herek et al., 1999).
The question used to measure victimization experiences was: “Have you ever been the
victim of any sort of crime or attempted crime-such as a physical attack, sexual assault, or
vandalism-because someone thought you were lesbian, gay or bisexual” (Herek, et al., 1999). If
participants responded yes to the question they were then asked follow-up questions about their
most recent victimization (Herek et al., 1999). Each participant that responded yes were asked
about when the incident occurred; the nature of the incident; whether some type of weapon, if
any, was involved; and whether or not they reported the incident to the police (Herek et al.,
1999).

If at all possible questions were asked about the most recent victimization and any other
victimization that had occurred (Herek et al., 1999). A second set of questions were also
distributed and these contained questions about victimizations not related to their sexual
orientation (Herek et al., 1999). The same type of questions were asked but it was made clear
that these questions and the victimizations they were reporting on had nothing to do with their
sexual orientation (Herek et al., 1999).
The next section the researchers measured was psychological well-being; five areas were
looked at over the 30 days prior to the testing (Herek et al., 1999). Depressive symptoms, crime-
related traumatic stress, state anxiety, state anger, and positive affect were all measured within
this part of the research (Herek et al., 1999). Each item was measured using a four point response
scale ranging from 0 to 3 with 0 being rarely or never experienced and 3being experienced the
symptom most of the time (Herek et al., 1999). The crime-related traumatic stress variable,
however, was measured using a dichotomous checklist (Herek et al., 1999).
The researchers then looked at the participants’ worldview and victim-related beliefs. Six
different types of beliefs that may be affected by victimization were analyzed in this section
(Herek et al., 1999). Each different belief was recorded using a different scale. Beliefs about “the
benevolence of the impersonal world” and “benevolence of people” were assessed by using
Janoff-Bulman’s measures (Herek et al., 1999). Personal safety beliefs were analyzed using a
six-item version of Norris and Kaniasty’s Fear of Crime measure that was then adapted for use
within local administration (Herek et al., 1999). Personal sense of control was measured using a
six-item “Self Mastery Scale” and attributions to sexual prejudice were measured using a four-
item scale that looked at the participants’ ability to attribute negative events within their life to
the fact that they were gay or bisexual (Herek et al., 1999).

Questionnaire packets were handed out in the Sacramento gay, lesbian, and bisexual
communities between June of 1994 and October of 1995 (Herek et al., 1999). Most
questionnaires were returned immediately when handed out at community events and some were
then mailed back in paid envelopes (Herek et al., 1999). 2,344 questionnaires were returned and
of those, 85 were unusable due to pertinent missing information (Herek et al., 1999).
About one fourth of the men and one fifth of the women in the sample had reported
experiencing some type of criminal victimization in their lifetime due to their sexual orientation
(Herek et al., 1999). Men were more likely than women and homosexuals were more likely than
bisexual to experience victimization based on their characteristics (Herek et al., 1999). Hate
crimes were less likely to be reported to the police than a regular crime with lesbians reporting
36% of their hate crimes and about 68% of regular crimes to the police (Herek et al., 1999). Men
reported 46% of hate crimes and 72% of all other crimes (Herek et al., 1999).
Findings show that of 260 participants who had responded to being victimized before
they were the age of 16 were more likely to show higher levels of psychological distress (Herek
et al., 1999). Gay and lesbian individuals who experienced some sort of hate crime in the five
years prior to this study scored higher in each of the measures and found that they exhibited
higher levels of distress than someone who was not the victim of a hate crime (Herek et al.,
1999).
Worldview beliefs results showed that individuals who were victims of a hate crime were
more likely to show a diminished attitude towards the benevolence of people while also showing
a higher fear of crime (Herek et al., 1999). In fact, of all the six items that were tested

participants showed a lower belief (Herek et al., 1999). However, victims of hate crimes did not
differ significantly in regards to the belief of the benevolence of the world (Herek et al., 1999).
The researchers state that their research shows that hate crime victimization seems to
heighten psychological stress levels for gay men and lesbian women (Herek et al., 1999). They
also found that victims of hate crimes are more likely to view the world as unsafe, the people
more malevolent, and to attribute any personal setbacks to sexual prejudice (Herek et al., 1999).
The researchers state that one of the reasons behind this is that the length of time for recovery
may not be enough; they showed that if the victimization occurred within two years the victims
were more likely to have elevated psychological distress than if the victimization had occurred
three to five years prior (Herek et al., 1999).
The researchers also conclude that, while trying not to generalize, a large number of gay
men and lesbian women and bisexual people experience victimization due to their sexual
orientation (Herek et al., 1999). They also find that victimization is actually less in this study
than in previous studies but they attribute this to the larger sample size they have (Herek et al.,
1999). They go on to state that they did not ask participants to detail what their experience was
and instead asked them if they believed they were victimized due to their sexual orientation
(Herek et al., 1999).
The researchers state that the findings of the study suggest how future research should be
conducted (Herek et al., 1999). The researchers suggest that the study should be replicated in
other areas to look at the effect this has on the beliefs and feelings of the gay and lesbian
community with different ethnicities (Herek et al., 1999). They also suggest that this research

shows the need for better public policy regarding hate crimes and to enhance the penalties for
them (Herek et al., 1999).
About ten years later, Herek’s study on Hate Crimes and Stigma-Related Experienced
Among Sexual Minority Adults in the United States yield interesting results. Using an internet
survey data collected from 662 gay, lesbian, and bisexual adults from a U.S. national probability
sample (Herek, 2009). The article examines the prevalence of criminal victimization among the
sample (Herek, 2009). About 20% of the overall participants stated that they experienced either
person or property crime based on their sexual orientation (Herek, 2009). About half of the
participants had experienced some type of verbal abuse due to their sexual orientation and about
1 in 10 participants had stated that they felt their sexual orientation had limited them from
obtaining housing or employment (Herek, 2009).
Gay men have significantly higher rates of violence and property crimes attributed to
them over lesbian or bisexuals (Herek, 2009). Gay men were also severely limited in their
attempts for housing and employment due to their sexual orientation (Herek, 2009).
Herek used a sample of 662 gay, lesbian or bisexual people and had them fill out an 8
item questionnaire (Herek, 2009). The sample was gathered by Knowledge Networks and
random digit dialing to obtain participants (Herek, 2009). Answers to the questions were
measured by participants responding with never, once, twice or three or more times (Herek,
2009). Three questions were asked on criminal victimization, harassment and threats, and
discrimination (Herek, 2009).
To measure criminal victimization questions were used such as: “You were hit, beaten,
physically attacked, or sexually assaulted” (Herek, 2009). To measure harassment, questions

read: “Someone threatened you with violence” or “Someone verbally insulted or abused you”
(Herek, 2009). Discrimination questions read: “You were fired from your job or denied a job or
promotion” (Herek, 2009).
The second set of questions were 5-point Likert items asking things such as: “Most
people where I live think less of a person who is gay” and “Most employers where I live will hire
openly gay people if they are qualified for the job” (Herek, 2009). The survey also included a
question about the participants’ sexual orientation as well as gender, race and ethnicity (Herek,
2009).
The results of the study showed that gay men scored significantly higher than bisexual
men and lesbian and bisexual women (Herek, 2009). In every case, gay men had the most
amounts of harassment, physical violence and discrimination (Herek, 2009). Herek describes
these differences as significant meaning there is enough of a difference between the scores that
can rule out random chance (Herek, 2009).
Herek states that future studies should include information regarding the circumstances of
each of the questions that participants were asked (Herek, 2009). Herek states that the limitations
of the study are that there could be error due to sampling and that the initial sampling group
excluded homes without phone access (Herek, 2009).
D’haese, Dewaele, and Van Houtte propose that violence and discrimination against gay,
lesbian and bisexual people occurs through the act of childhood gender non conformity (D’haese,
Dewaele, & Van Houtte, 2015). Four types of homophobic violence was looked at in their study
including: verbal, material, physical and sexual (D’haese et al., 2015). The researchers conducted

a survey in 2013 online asking Flemish gays, lesbians and bisexuals to write about their
experiences with the abovementioned homophobic violence (D’haese et al., 2015).
The results of the survey found that gay and bisexual men reported more homophobic
violence than lesbian and bisexual women (D’haese et al., 2015). Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals
who reported childhood gender non conformity were more likely to report homophobic violence
(D’haese et al., 2015).
The researchers used a large scale online survey to contact participants throughout May
and September of 2013 and the target population included Flemish men and women who were
felt they were gay and lesbian, respectively (D’haese et al., 2015). The design of the study
included questions that pertained to the four violence categories of 14 verbal, 11 physical, nine
material, and 13 sexual; items were presented and participants were asked to answer them based
off three answer choices of never, once or twice, or several times (D’haese et al., 2015).
About 90% of the participants responded having experienced some type of verbal
violence, about a third experienced physical violence, 22% experienced material violence, and
42% had reported experiencing some type of sexual violence (D’haese et al., 2015). In each of
the four categories of violence, gay and bisexual men reported experiencing the homophobic
violence more often than lesbian and bisexual women (D’haese et al., 2015).
The researchers state that one limitation of the study was that the sample is not
representative of all of the gay, lesbian and bisexual community (D’haese et al., 2015). They also
state that they used non representative sample to obtain their sample (D’haese et al., 2015). They
state that future studies should include information about transitions in their life that may or may
not lead to these events (D’haese et al., 2015).

Szymanski and Balsam conducted a study on the effect of traumatic events within
lesbians’ lives. Their study looks at two kinds of heterosexist experiences where one does not
meet the requirements for PTSD and ones that do meet the requirements for PTSD (Szymanski
& Balsam, 2011). They also explore the role of self-esteem and how it relates to moderating
heterosexist events (Szymanski & Balsam, 2011). The results found that both categories of
heterosexist events contributed to symptoms of PTSD in lesbian women (Szymanski & Balsam,
2011).
The study consisted of 247 lesbians who were asked questions similar to the studies
above. The questions were graded on a 6-point Likert scale of 1= the event has never happened
to you and 6= the event happened almost all the time (Szymanski & Balsam, 2011). Results
found that events that are not considered a hate crime do actually factor in to developing PTSD
symptoms (Szymanski & Balsam, 2011). They find that heterosexist events and mental health
problems are, in fact, linked (Szymanski & Balsam, 2011).
The study is limited by self-reporting measures and the use of a convenience sample that
consisted of primarily white and educated females (Szymanski & Balsam, 2011). The researchers
state that their study may not accurately represent lesbian women of all socioeconomic status and
race and therefore may be skewed in one way of the other (Szymanski & Balsam, 2011).
Szymanski and Balsam state that future research should include lesbians of color, lower
educational levels, bisexual women, and gay men (Szymanski & Balsam, 2011). They also state
that future research should extend the definition of heterosexism and look into institutional
heterosexism (Szymanski & Balsam, 2011).

Rothman, Exner, and Baughman, take a different approach to their study and focusing on
reviewing 75 studies that examine sexual assault victimizations among gay or bisexual people
(Rothman, Exner, & Baughman, 2011). All of the studies were between the years of 1989 and
2009 and contain quantitative research (Rothman et al., 2011). The researchers reviewed studies
including: lifetime sexual assault, childhood sexual assault, adult sexual assault, intimate partner
sexual assault, and hate crime-related sexual assault (Rothman et al., 2011). The studies were
grouped by either using probability methods or non-probability methods for their sampling
(Rothman et al., 2011).
A total of 139,635 gay lesbian and bisexual people participated in these 75 studies
(Rothman et al., 2011). The requirements for a study to be included were: articles between 1989
and 2009, peer reviewed, quantitative research, and they needed to report the prevalence of
sexual violence among a heterogeneous sample (Rothman et al., 2011).
The results for this review are a bit outlandish. The ranges for many of the categories of
sexual assault are wide. For lifetime sexual assault the range for lesbian and bisexual women are
between 15.6 and 85% of the women surveyed (Rothman et al., 2011). Many of these ranges are
large and they do not paint a very good picture of what the actual percentage is among each of
these categories and each of these groups.
The study conducted by Dunbar (2006), examines the impact of hate crimes upon gay
and lesbian individuals. The study gathered 1,538 hate crime cases from the Los Angeles County
Human Relations Commission from the years of 1994 to 1995 (Dunbar, 2006). Each hate crime
was coded for 18 different acts including: “violence to person” and “violence to property”

(Dunbar, 2006). Since these were just general hate crimes, each case was coded for demographic
information (Dunbar, 2006).
Out of the 1,538 cases looked at by the researchers, 551 were motivated in some way by
sexual orientation (Dunbar, 2006). Dunbar also broke down the rest of the percentages but they
are not pertinent to this research. For the total number of hate crime offenses 56% of the ones
reported were classified into violent crime while the remaining percentage consisted of non-
violent crime (Dunbar, 2006). Out of the entire sample, gay men constituted 30% of the victims
with lesbians consisting of 6% of the sample (Dunbar, 2006).
In approximately one third of the cases looked at, 28% were classified as having no
perpetrator identified (Dunbar, 2006). Thirty-nine percent of the cases consisted of incidents
where the victim and the perpetrator were the same race or ethnicity (Dunbar, 2006). The
research examines the number of specific hate crimes and then compares them to the Cormier-
Lang total score (Dunbar, 2006).
The researcher also looked a second research question that examined racial and gender
differences somehow influenced the magnitude of the degree of victimization for sexual
orientation cases (Dunbar, 2006). Different variables were combined at examined (Dunbar,
2006). The researcher found that “lesbians of color” had the highest rate of crimes against person
than other groups (Dunbar, 2006). There were no significant differences between any group and
property crimes (Dunbar, 2006).
The research also showed that 72% of gay and lesbian victims reported the crime to the
police (Dunbar, 2006). In contrast, hate crimes that were classified into racial motivation had a
range of 95% to 100% reporting rate (Dunbar, 2006). No difference was found by gender; both

men and women reported these crimes equally (Dunbar, 2006). The researcher also states that
gay white men are the most likely, out of the sexual orientation hate crimes, to report it (Dunbar,
2006). This is followed by white lesbians, then minority gay men, and then the lowest reporting
rate was among minority lesbians (Dunbar, 2006).
Dunbar concludes with saying that from the current research conducted, victims of sexual
orientation hate crimes have a difference of meaning of that hate crime from victims of other
hate crimes (Dunbar, 2006). He goes on to state that the severity of the crime did not impact
reporting of it and that having a suspect identified in the case did also not have an impact of
reporting (Dunbar, 2006). Dunbar goes on to state that living in a post 9/11 world constitutes law
enforcement having better policies in place to serve as allies to victims of hate crimes (Dunbar,
2006). He goes on to state that law enforcement and first responder personnel need to be aware
of the sensitivity of these crimes (Dunbar, 2006).
He states that one limitation to the research is the fact that comparisons are only drawn
from “historically oppressed groups” consisting of gay men and lesbians and compared with
racial and religious minorities (Dunbar, 2006). He goes on to state that the research needs to be
considered for the geographical area it is being conducted (Dunbar, 2006). He states that this
may not accurately reflect crime patterns found in other areas that may have well established
populations of certain groups prone to hate crimes (Dunbar, 2006).
Plumm & Terrances’s study focuses on extra-legal factors that may have influenced a
hate crime (Plum & Terrance, 2014). In their study, 240 participants read a transcript from a trial
in which a man was assaulted during a gay pride parade (Plum & Terrance, 2014). The victim’s
sexual orientation varied from case to case where the researchers either explicitly stated the man

was gay or that he was not; the victim’s involvement in the parade also varied from case to case
where he could be participating, spectating, marching quietly, or marching loudly and shouting
pro-gay rhetoric (Plum & Terrance, 2014).
The researchers also conducted, as part of the same study, a transcript based on race and
ethnicity (Plum & Terrance, 2014). Since the majority of this literature review is on sexual
orientation, this part of the literature will be omitted. It is worth noting that for this part of their
research, Plum & Terrance found the opposite of what they originally thought they would find
(Plum & Terrance, 2014).
Participants consisted of 240 college students enrolled in a psychology course who
volunteered for the study in exchange for course credit (Plum & Terrance, 2014). The
participants played the role of jurors in each case where they read one of six different trial
transcripts (Plum & Terrance, 2014). The participants were then asked to give their thoughts
about what the conviction of the defendant should be and the level of victim blame (Plum &
Terrance, 2014).
For the first part of their study, the researchers conclude that many people may not
associate hate crimes with sexual orientation (Plum & Terrance, 2014). They state that since
historically gay and lesbians are seen as negative connotations to people, the fact that they are
gay or lesbian may also incur some victim blame (Plum & Terrance, 2014). More victim blame
was actually placed on the victim when it was stated explicitly he was gay (Plum & Terrance,
2014). Participants in this study were also more inclined to believe the defendant should be
convicted and less likely to blame the victim when they were just spectating (Plum & Terrance,
2014).

Miller’s study took a different approach to measuring hate crimes. Miller looks at the
growing concern for hate crimes within the United States and uses survey data from college
students to help understand this concern (Miller, 2001). Miller states that they reason she chose
criminal justice students were that these students spend a good amount of time studying the law
and crime (Miller, 2001). She also assumed that criminal justice students will be more likely to
agree with the statements given to the throughout the research (Miller, 2001).
Miller asked six institutions (Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, and Virginia) to
distribute a survey to criminal justice students enrolled within the spring and fall 1998 semesters
(Miller, 2001). These schools were chosen out of convenience (Miller, 2001). A total of 726
students participated, but 20 students did not answer the survey fully and were omitted leaving
the total to be 706 (Miller, 2001).
The items on the survey were based on actual crime and crime data reported to the FBI
(Miller, 2001). Participant were asked to read each scenario and assessed it based on a seven
point Likert scale and determined if the scenario could be considered a hate crime (Miller, 2001).
Ten of the survey items focused on actual incidents involving religion, race, gender and sexual
orientation (Miller, 2001).
Miller found that students who are male and white are less likely to portray any of the
scenarios as a hate crime (Miller, 2001). White males are also less likely to portray minorities
and females as victims of hate crimes (Miller, 2001). Again, white males “are not convinced that
the scenarios involving Jewish victims constitute hate crimes” (Miller, 2001). Miller had
hypothesized that criminal justice students would categorize the scenarios given into hate crimes

more easily (Miller, 2001). The biggest conclusion reached is that white men, regardless of
major, are less likely to portray any of the scenarios given as hate crimes (Miller, 2001).
Miller states that future researchers should be aware of survey data that returns with
every answer filled in as either “strongly agree” or “strongly disagree” because this may be the
cause of a participant not reading the survey (Miller, 2001). The researcher also states that a
broader sample may have yielded better results since the majority of the respondents in this case
came from personal contacts with other institutions (Miller, 2001). Miller suggests that criminal
justice departments need to address these multicultural issues that are present since criminal
justice majors are more likely to be involved with this than any other major (Miller, 2001).
Miller states that one of the explanations for the results is that there is a lack of attention
to the subject (Miller, 2001). This study implied that criminal justice students are being taught in
areas such as multiculturalism, gender diversity, and hate crimes more so than the rest of the
majors (Miller, 2001). Miller also states that if these programs do not change soon, the students
will be unaware of theses social issues upon graduating and must cope with that (Miller, 2001).
Bell & Perry took a very different approach to their research. The researchers conducted
their study using a focus group of 15 individuals who identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or
pansexual (Bell & Perry, 2015). The purpose of the study was to see the extent of the harm that
hate crimes have on sexual minorities that are not the direct victims of a crime (Bell & Perry,
2015).
Bell & Perry chose the focus group approach because they wanted to allow the
participants to speak freely about their experiences (Bell & Perry, 2015). They state that this
form of research also allows the participants to bounce thoughts and ideas off one another and

keep topics going (Bell & Perry, 2015). They also state that the focus group approach allows the
participants to clarify any response they may give (Bell & Perry, 2015).
The participants were recruited by posters in different organizations and businesses to
attract sexual minorities inconspicuously (Bell & Perry, 2015). The sample consisted of 15
individuals, ten male and five female (Bell & Perry, 2015). Eight people identified as being gay,
four identified as being lesbian, one participant was bisexual, and two participants were
pansexual (Bell & Perry, 2015). Thirteen participants were white, one participant was black, and
one participant identified as aboriginal (Bell & Perry, 2015).
Participants were given topics such as: “Psychological and emotional impact of anti-LGB
hate crime on LGB nonvictims”, “Victim blaming”, “Behavioral modification”, The impact of
hate crime on decisions to come out or go back into the closet”, and “Resisting anti-LGB
violence” (Bell & Perry, 2015). In each case participants were asked to have an open discussion
about each topic (Bell & Perry, 2015). The researchers also included full responses from each
participant and deleted filler words where necessary (Bell & Perry, 2015).
The results for this study are very difficult to quantify and there is not enough space in
this review to comment on all of the responses. The researchers conclude that beyond the
immediate victims of sexual minority hate crimes the effects of non-victims is also very
profound (Bell & Perry, 2015). Participants responded that hate crimes affect them in their daily
lives (Bell & Perry, 2015). Participants also stated that these crimes make them more cautious
and more paranoid during their daily lives (Bell & Perry, 2015). In addition, some participants
also stated that they would conceal their sexual identity so they would not be victimized (Bell &
Perry, 2015).

The main limitation of Bell and Perry’s study was external validity (Bell & Perry, 2015).
While a good amount of “ecological validity” was present, the fact that the focus group only
contained 15 members decreased the external; validity of it (Bell & Perry, 2015). The researchers
also stress that the results should not be generalized to any population (Bell & Perry, 2015). The
researchers also state that this is a pilot study and is part of a much larger and broader “agenda”
to show that victimization from crime is not limited to the victim (Bell & Perry, 2015).
In terms of the literature, it seems to help support the hypothesis of hate crime
prevalence. Many of the research examined that contained survey data from homosexual persons
seemed to lean the way of hate crimes being very prevalent. However, upon further study and
analysis, the numbers that were returned in these studies consisted of a relatively small number
of incidents. In the terms of the studies, 250 participants stating that they have been victimized
because they are homosexual or bisexual sounds like a great deal of people; however, when
scaled back, 250 is not a very large number in terms of total populations. Therefore, the literature
reviewed for this research, at first, seems to strengthen and support the research but further
examination reveals that it, in fact, may not.
This review of literature serves as a brief overview of the different studies and research
conducted to help give a better understanding of hate crimes, particularly against sexual
minorities. The literature has helped with the researchers understanding of sexual minority hate
crimes and is now aware that hate crimes including race, religion, etc. happen much less
frequently than once thought. The next section of this research will look at research conducted by
the researcher in order to obtain data to support the research question of hate crime prevalence
and the impact on communities.

Methodology
For the completion of the research a 15 item survey was developed. This survey
contained 11 Likert items with answer choices strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, and
strongly disagree. Some examples of questions are: “I have a good understanding of what a bias
motivated offense consists of”, “Hate Crimes are not important to me”, and “The number of bias
motivated offenses is relatively low compared to other street crimes”. The survey also contained
four demographic questions with closed answers. These questions included: Major, Politics,
Race, and Sex. The survey was given to two senior seminar classes by the instructor. The sample
was a convenience sample of 32 students enrolled in senior seminar. The instructor handed out
the survey to each class and looked away while they completed it. The instructor collected each
survey and placed it in an envelope. The procedure was the same for each class.
The questions were designed so that participants could give personal insight into hate
crimes. The terms bias motivated offenses and hate crimes are used interchangeably so that
participants have a better understanding of what the phrase bias motivated offenses means. In
looking at the prevalence of hate crimes I designed several questions to be personalized to the
participant. The questions “Hate crimes are not important to me” and “I will never be affected by
a hate crime” are two good indicators of the prevalence of hate crimes if they respond positively.
The full survey is available and is marked in the appendix.
For the second part of my research I interviewed five experts. The experts consisted of
two police chiefs, one police sergeant, one counselor and one other that has not been identified as
of yet. Each interview is kept confidential and each interviewee was notified of that.
Interviewees were informed that each interview would last from 30 to 45 minutes; however most

interviews lasted about 20 minutes. Each expert was given a label to protect their identity. The
labels ranged from Expert A to Expert E.
Interviewees were asked 11 questions. The first three were designed to allow the
interviewees to feel comfortable speaking with the interviewer. These questions included “What
is your educational background?”, “What types of training have you had?”, and “How long have
you been in this position?”.
Questions four through 11 were designed to look at the prevalence of hate crimes. These
questions included: “From personal experience, do you feel that hate crimes are more about
religion, sexual orientation or race?”, “Does your law enforcement office have the proper
training to respond to hate crimes?”, and “Were there any claims that a hate crime took place that
turned out not to be a true hate crime?”.
Expert A and Expert C were interviewed at different times in the same building of a local
police department. The two experts were interviewed in different rooms. Both rooms happened
to be conference type rooms. Expert B was interviewed within their office in a local police
station. Expert D was interviewed within his office at the college. Expert E was interviewed
within her office at the college.
Secondary data was also used in the research. The FBI’s Breakdown of 5,922 Single Bias
Hate Crime Incidents Reported in 2013 was used to supplement my findings. The breakdown
included 15,016 law enforcement agencies across the country. Each agency provided one to 12
months of data on hate crime incidents in their jurisdiction. Each agency submitted data
regarding hate crime statistics to the Uniform Crime Report. Each law enforcement agency
voluntarily participates in submitting their data.

The UCR states that incidents may be made up of multiple offenses. One offense was
counted for each victim in crimes against persons; one offense was counted for each offense type
in property crimes, and one offense was counted for each crime against society.

Findings
The responses to the survey data were very underwhelming and not what I had expected
at all. Participants were asked four Likert type questions with 1 equaling strongly agree and 5
equaling strongly disagree. Participants were asked to answer questions based on their
knowledge and to the best of their ability.
The first question participants were asked was “All races experience injustice”. Out of the
32 participants 18% (6) strongly agreed with the statement, 59.4% (19) agreed with the
statement, 12.5% (4) responded neutral, and 9.4% (3) disagreed with the statement. The mean for
the total number of responses (n=32) was 2.13 signifying that the total number of responses
leaned more towards agreeing with the statement.
The question was then broken down into terms of gender. For females (n=15) 26.6% (4)
strongly agreed with the statement, 60% (9) stated that they agree, 6.66% (1) answered neutral,
and 6.66% (1) disagreed with the statement. The mean for the female responses was 1.93
signifying that females agree with this statement. For men (n=17) 11.8% (2) strongly agreed with
the statement, 58% (10) agreed, 17.6% (3) responded neutral, and 11.8% (2) disagreed with the
statement. The mean for the men was 2.29 indicating an average of agreeing answers.
The next question participants were asked was “Hate crimes do not matter in the criminal
justice system”. Out of the total participants (n=32) 3.1% (1) agreed with the statement, 3.1% (1)
responded neutral, 59.4% (19) disagreed with the statement, and 32.4% (11) strongly disagreed
with the statement. The mean for the statement was 4.25 indicating a disagreeing mean. It is
worth noting that I was hoping that the responses for this question would disagree.

For females (n=15) 6.67% (1) agreed with the statement, 73.33% (11) disagreed with the
statement, and 20% (3) strongly disagreed with the statement. The mean for the females for this
statement was 4.07 indicating that the majority of answers leaned towards disagreeing with the
statement. For men (n=17) 5.88% (1) responded to the question neutrally, 47.05% (8) disagreed
with the statement, and 47.05% (8) strongly disagreed with the statement. The mean for the men
was 4.41 indicating a disagreeing opinion and one that is slightly higher than the females.
The next question participants were asked was “The number of bias motivated offenses is
relatively low compared to other street crimes”. For the total number of participants (n=32)
15.62% (5) agreed with the statement, an outstanding 59.4% (19) responded neutral to the
statement, 21.9% (7) disagreed with the statement, and 3.13% (1) strongly disagreed with the
statement. The mean for the total was 3.13 indicating a very neutral average.
For females (n=15) 20% (3) indicated that they agreed with the statement, 53.33% (8)
indicated a neutral response, and 26.7% (4) indicated that they disagreed with the statement. The
mean for the females was 3.07 indicating an almost spot on neutral average. For the men (n=17)
11.8% (2) indicated that they agreed with the statement, an overwhelming 64.7% (11) responded
neutrally, 17.6% (3) indicated that they disagreed with the statement, and 5.9% (1) indicated that
they strongly disagree with the statement. The mean for the men was 3.17 indicating a neutral
response but one that is slightly higher than the females.
The final question that participants were asked to respond to was “Law enforcement has
proper training to handle bias motivated offenses”. For the total number of participants (n=32)
25% (8) agreed with the statement, 46.9% (15) indicated a neutral response, 25% (8) indicated

that they disagree, and 3.13 (1) indicated that they strongly disagree with the statement. The
mean for the total was 3.06 indicating a very neutral response.
For females (n=15) 13.33% (2) agreed with the statement, 53.33% (8) indicated a
neutral response, and 33.33% (5) indicated that they disagree. The mean for the females was 3.2
indicating a neutral average. For men (n=17) 35.3% (6) agreed with the statement, 41.2% (7)
indicated a neutral response, 17.64% (3) disagreed with the statement, and 5.88% (1) indicated
that they strongly disagreed with the statement. The mean for the men was 2.94 indicating a
neutral average but lower than the females and the total number of participants.
Next, five interviews of criminal justice experts were conducted (at the time of writing
this draft I still have only completed three, this is just a note and will not appear in any further
versions of the paper). Two interviews were conducted with police chiefs, and one was
conducted with a police sergeant. Interviewees were asked 11 open ended question about hate
crimes and asked to respond to them using the best of their abilities. Each interview lasted about
15 to 20 minutes. Each expert was given a letter in order to maintain confidentiality. These
consisted of the letters A through E.
All three of the law enforcement professionals stated that there are very few, if any, hate
crimes in their area. The three experts stated that if they had to choose between race, sexual
orientation, or religion as motivators for a hate crime they said that race would be the most
common. I them asked if hate crimes were more common than typical street crimes and all three
said that since they deal with very few hate crime cases that they are nowhere near the typical
levels of street crime. Expert B stated that any hate crime his department has handled typically

deals with high school age kids; Expert A stated that many of the crimes in his area are crimes of
opportunity.
When asked if hate crime policies should be mandated from the state or if each individual
department should handle policies, each expert stated that while it would be very beneficial to
have the uniformity two experts stated that it would be difficult to maintain it. Specifically both
Expert B and C stated that statewide policies would be very difficult for smaller departments that
do not have the man power to set aside a certain number of officers or detectives to investigate
hate crimes and only hate crimes.
Each expert stated that the department where they were employed had proper training for
hate crimes. Expert A stated that his department goes through 16 hours of in-service training on
how to investigate hate crimes, how to follow up, and what to be aware of in terms of any
sensitive issues. Expert B stated that his department has mandatory training and updates.
I then asked each expert if hate crimes damage the community more than a typical street
crime. Expert B stated that street crimes typically impact a small group while a hate crime
impacts the whole community. He goes on to say that these people are not involved in any direct
way with the crime but are upset that people view their community negatively. Expert A agreed
and stated that hate crimes definitely impact the community more so than typical street crimes.
Expert B, however, stated that hate crimes are more emotionally damaging to the victim rather
than damaging the community.
All three experts were able to give information about past experiences and any instances
of hate crimes. Experts A and C recounted about a black family that had racial slurs written on
their garage door and Expert B stated that he has dealt with cross burnings on the lawns of

people. The other question I asked was that if there had been any times where a claim was made
about a hate crime where it did not turn out to be true. Expert A stated that he has never heard of
any. Expert B stated that there is a fine line when claims like these happen. He stated that they
need to prove intent and reason for the incident. He gave me an example of a black man and a
white man who get into a fist fight and the white man uses some sort of racial slur during the
fight. He stated that this would not be considered a hate crime since the reason for the fight was
not based off that racial slur; rather the slur came up in the heat of the moment. He went on to
say that the victim may feel that sometimes it is the case where a hate crime took place but it is
very difficult to prove on some occasions. I gave the fight scenario to Expert C and he agreed
and stated it happens a lot and he also sated it is difficult proving it. He stated that the evidence
for proving a hate crime in this instance would be more of what they said rather than any
physical evidence.
Experts D and E were not involved in law enforcement but still provided excellent
feedback. Instead of asking about hate crimes the researcher decided to ask more about
discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. since it seemed more relevant to the
experts. Both experts provided feedback about race being the primary motivator for hate crimes
and Expert E stated that they had also seen gender and sexual orientation discrimination.
Both Experts D and E stated that one of the main causes behind hate crimes was the
offender’s upbringing and background. Expert E stated that socialization factors with family and
friends and the environment that they grew up in plays a large factor on their attitudes. Expert E
also cited the theory of differential association where individuals tend to learn more in smaller
social settings and that individuals learn criminal behavior through communication.

Both interviews eventually strayed away from the questionnaire that was being used and
a less formal discussion took place. Expert D stated that communities could benefit from having
certain individuals who have insight into the dynamics of psychology and sociological trends. He
also stated that law enforcement has a lack of understanding about the issues of hate crimes. He
stated that gender views when dealing with crime is also not adequate enough.
Expert E commented on an event where she had experienced discrimination by
association. She stated that she was at a job fair and one of her friends she was walking around
with was black.
“…I was standing in line and there was a bunch of people in front of me and we sat down in
front of either the woman who owned it or her husband…they had a clipboard and there was an
application on the clipboard and there was a pen on top of the clipboard. So I can see the woman
kind of eyeing me up standing there talking to my friend and when I sat down to fill out the
application, she did this (Expert E had taken the pen off the paper) and I go to pick up the
clipboard and I ask may I borrow your pen please? She said ‘if you don’t come to a job fair
without a pen then you’re irresponsible and I wouldn’t want you to work for me.’”
Expert E was also asked about the use of the word “gay” meaning stupid and how certain
words are now being used without consideration. She stated that many people were sick of being
politically correct. She also stated that there is an irritation with people over what to call certain
groups of people. She stated that there is a frustration with individuals who are in privileged
groups, white straight men for example, who do not have one word to refer to the entire group of
people they are referring to. Expert E gave the example of certain black people not wanting to be

called African- American and that age variations between certain minority groups have different
ways of referring to themselves.
Expert E’s insight on the sociological perspective on hate crimes gave new insight on the
research. While Experts D and E did not specifically speak on hate crimes, their insight into what
makes a hate crime occur is very valuable. Experts A, B, and C provided valuable information on
first hand dealings with hate crimes and how each department handles them differently.
The final section is secondary data gathered from the FBI’s UCR Breakdown of 5922
Single Bias Hate Crime Incidents Reported in 2013. The total number of victims involved within
these incidents was 7,242 and the total number of offenses consisted of 6,933 (Federal Bureau of
Investigation, 2014). Of the 6,933 offenses 63.9% were crimes against persons, 35% were
property crimes, and any remaining percent were considered crimes against society (Federal
Bureau of Investigation, 2014).
The UCR found that of the 5,922 incidents 48.5% were racially motivated, 20.8% were
motivated by sexual orientation, 17.4% had religious motivation, 11.1% dealt with ethnicity, .5%
involved gender identity, and .3% involved gender specifically (Federal Bureau of Investigation,
2014). 3,407 offense were reported to have been motivated by race; of these 66.4% were
motivated by anti-black and 21.4% were motivated by anti-white (Federal Bureau of
Investigation, 2014). Of the 1,402 hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation 60.6% were
against gay men (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2014).
The law enforcement agencies that reported the statistics identified 5,814 offenders
(Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2014). Out of these 5,814 offenders, 52.4% were white and

24.3% were black (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2014). The data does not specify what the
remaining percent is in this case.

Limitations
This research was conducted to show that hate crimes happen more frequently than one
would tend to believe. This research was conducted using a 50 item questionnaire where the
researcher placed three of his own questions on it and also used one other. This survey was
administered to 32 criminal justice seniors currently enrolled in senior seminar. The researcher
also conducted five expert interviews.
This questionnaire contained some limitations. Firstly, there was no comparison group to
compare any data to. This would have made answer choices easier to understand if there had
been another group. Secondly, this was a non-probability sample, a convenience sample, and was
not random. Due to this fact, the survey data cannot be generalized to a population since the
participants are college age students who are seniors in criminal justice.
Another major limitation is that the questionnaire only contained four items usable by the
researcher. More items would have meant more data and the researcher could have gotten a
better understanding for participants feelings. The last limitation is that even though the
questionnaire was anonymous, participants may still have completed the items with socially
desirable answers.
Many of the limitations for the questionnaire are also applicable for the expert
interviews. The interviews were a convenience sample of local experts. Again, socially desirable
answers may have been given from the experts; this may be more prevalent since the interviews
were face to face and it may be more difficult to give an answer to someone’s face that is not
socially desirable.

One of the more interesting points to note is that every expert told the researcher that race
was the most common motivator for hate crimes. While this may be true, previous research
indicates that sexual minority discrimination is rising the fastest. All of the experts gave
examples of racially motivated hate crimes or discrimination and none gave commentary on any
sexual orientation hate crimes. This may be due to the region in which the experts are situated.
Historically, York is more racially diverse than it is diverse in terms of sexual orientation.

Discussion/Conclusion
Many of the questionnaire answers came back either neutral or the way the researcher
thought they would come back. There were no results that shocked the researcher. The researcher
looked at four items: “All races experience injustice”, “Hate crimes do not matter in the criminal
justice system”, “The number of bias motivated offenses is relatively low compared to other
street crimes”, and “Law enforcement has proper training to handle bias motivated offenses”.
The answers for “all races experience injustice” came back as expected. Nineteen out of
32 (59.4%) stated that they agree with the item. What was surprising was the three participants
answered by stating they disagree with the statement. There were two males and one female who
disagreed. From conducting the research the researcher can conclude that either these three
participants did not read the item correctly and answered incorrectly from what they actually
wanted to answer or that the participants actually do feel this way and socially desirable answers
were not obtained in this case.
The results for “hate crimes do not matter in the criminal justice system” came back as
expected. Thirty out of 32 (93%) indicated that they disagree or strongly disagree with the
statement. These results are not surprising in the least; what is surprising is the one female
participant who indicated that she agreed with the statement. The only conclusion that the
researcher can draw is that the one participant read the item incorrectly since 93% of the
participants disagreed or strongly disagreed with the item.

For the item “the number of bias motivated offenses is relatively low compared to other
street crimes”, answers did not come back as expected. Nineteen out of 32 participants were
neutral on the subject. Being that the participants are seniors in criminal justice currently
enrolled in senior seminar, the researcher believed that the participants had a good understanding
of the prevalence of street crimes and understood the term “bias motivated offenses”. The only
conclusion for the high number of neutral responses is that participants did not understand the
term “bias motivated offenses”.
The final item that participants were asked to respond to was “law enforcement has
proper training to handle bias motivated offenses”. Fifteen out of 32 (46%) responses came back
neutral. Strangely, it seems that the male respondents have more trust in law enforcement since
six agreed with the statement while five females disagreed with the statement. The researcher
concludes that the participants are not very aware of the term “bias motivated offenses” just as in
the last item. The only reason that the researcher can think of for the split between males and
females is that out of experience and speaking with students for about four years is that more
men want to be involved in law enforcement than women but this is just speculation from past
experiences of the researcher.
In the interviews with the five experts, all stated that they have not witnessed very many
hate crimes. These interviews and the survey data do not support the hypothesis of hate crimes
are more prevalent than one would be lead to believe. However, the interviews with the law
enforcement experts do support the second part of the hypothesis stating hate crimes damage the
community more than typical street crimes.

More research is recommended within this area. Subsequent research should contain a
larger and more diverse sample size for questionnaire data as well as easier to understand and
shorter items to be placed on the questionnaire. Expert interviews should be spread out
geographically than the ones conducted in this research. The literature that was reviewed for this
research contained only sexual orientation studies, subsequent research should look at all hate
crimes to be able to have a better understanding of all of the different forms of hate crimes.

References
Bell, J., & Perry, B. (2015). Outside Looking In: The Community Impacts of Anti-Lesbian, Gay,
and Bisexual Hate Crime. Journal of Homosexuality, 62, 98-120.
D’hause, L., Dewaele, A., & Van Houtte, M. (2015). The Relationship Between Childhood
Gender Nonconformity and Experiencing Diverse Types of Homophobic Violence.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1-27.
Dunbar, E. (2006). Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation in Hate Crime Victimization: Identity
Politics or Identity Risk?. Violence and Victims. 21 (3), 323- 337.
Herek, G. M. (2009). Hate Crimes and Stigma-Related Experiences Among Sexual Minority
Adults in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 54-74.
Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., & Cogan, J.C. (1999). Psychological Sequelae of Hate-Crime
Victimization Among Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Adults. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 67, 945-951.
Miller, A. (2001). Student Perceptions of Hate Crimes. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 25
(2), 293-307.
Plant, E. A., Zielaskowski, K., & Buck, D. M. (2014). Mating Motives and Concerns About
Being Misidentified as Gay or Lesbian: Implications for the Avoidance and Derogation
of Sexual Minorities. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 633-645.
Plumm, K. M., & Terrance, C. A. (2014). Not All Hate Crimes are Created Equal: An
Examination of the Roles of Ambiguity and Expectations in perceptions of Hate Crimes.
Curr Psychology, 33, 321-364.

Rothman, E. F., Exner, D., & Baughman, A. L. (2011). The Prevalence of Sexual Assault
Against People Who Identify as Gay, Lesbian, or Bisexual in the United State: A
Systematic Review. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 12, 55-66.
Szymanski, D. M., & Balsam, K. F. (2011). Insidious Trauma: Examining the Relationship
Between Heterosexism and Lesbians’ PTSD Symptoms. Traumatology, 17, 4-13.
United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (December
2014). Breakdown of the 5,922 single-bias hate crime incidents reported in
2013. Retrieved (17 March 2015), from
(http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/december/latest-hate-crime-statistics-report-
released/latest-hate-crime-statistics-report-released).

Appendix A
Please do not write your name on the questionnaire. This is a completely voluntary survey and
you may stop completing it at any time. The information will be used in research by a criminal
justice senior in criminal justice at York College of Pennsylvania. It will only take 5-10 minutes
to complete. Thank you for your time.
Please circle the answer that applies best to you.
Strongly Agree - SA Agree - A Neutral - N Disagree - D Strongly Disagree - SD
1. I have a good understanding of what community oriented policing is SA A N D
SD
2. The police in my community have good relationships with the residents SA A N D
SD
3. The police in my community are adequately funded SA A N D
SD
4. All races experience injustice SA A N D
SD
5. Gender influences how someone is treated throughout the justice process SA A N D
SD
6. I know a lot about cults SA A N D
SD
7. Cults are typically violent in nature SA A N D
SD
8. Media coverage accurately depicts crime SA A N D
SD
9. Crime shows like “CSI” accurately depict police investigation SA A N D
SD
10. I know a lot about technology SA A N D
SD
11. Taxpayers should pay more to enhance technology in our prisons SA A N D
SD
12. Early education about the dangers of gang activity would have no effect
on gang recruitment SA A N D
SD
13. Community policing is an effective way to decrease gang activity SA A N D SD

14. Police brutality happens often SA A N D
SD
15. Police are too aggressive when dealing with minorities SA A N D SD
16. Parenting programs should be offered in prison SA A N D SD
17. Children are stigmatized by having an incarcerated parent SA A N D SD
18. Drug use and violence go hand in hand SA A N D SD
19. Most criminals do not use drugs SA A N D SD
20. Laws should be stricter for the possession of illegal drugs SA A N D SD
21. An international gang information center would be effective
in controlling gang activities in the U.S. SA A N D SD
22. Substance abuse is inherited SA A N D SD
23. If parents consume drugs children will too SA A N D SD
24. Quality of family ties is the most important factors in a child’s
development SA A N D SD
25. Money plays an important role in determining a juvenile’s behavior SA A N D SD
26. Alternative sentencing is the future of criminal justice SA A N D SD
27. Alternative sentences should be used more often in place of prison time SA A N D SD
28. Only wealthy people commit white collar crimes SA A N D SD
29. White collar crimes are just as damaging to our society as violent crimes SA A N D SD
30. I am in favor of the death penalty SA A N D SD
31. The death penalty does not provide enough closure for victims’ families SA A N D SD
32. The criminal justice system treats every person equal regardless of race SA A N D SD
33. I have used marijuana at least once in my life SA A N D SD
34. Marijuana should be legal in all 50 states SA A N D SD
35. Illegal drug use is not a big deal SA A N D SD
36. Hate crimes do not matter in the criminal justice system SA A N D SD
37. The number of biased motivated offenses is relatively low compared to
other street crimes SA A N D SD
38. Law enforcement has proper training to handle bias motivated offenses SA A N D SD
39. I support prison programs SA A N D SD

40. Group counseling is ineffective in the prison setting SA A N D SD
41. There are not enough correctional facility’s offering programs SA A N D SD
42. Substance abuse counseling should be mandated for all released inmates SA A N D
SD
43. Having job skills is not important during the reentry process SA A N D
SD
44. Acquiring housing is a challenge that most released inmates face SA A N D
SD
45. The mentally ill are mistreated by law enforcement SA A N D
SD
46. Most criminals in prison have a mental illness SA A N D
SD
Please circle the answer that applies or fill in the blank.
1. I live in a: Large city (like Baltimore) Medium-sized city/town of more than 50, 000 people
Smaller sized city/town Rural area
2. Gender: Male Female
3. Politics: Democrat Republican Independent
4. Religion: Catholic Protestant Evangelical Church Protestant Mainline Church
Protestant Historically Black Church Muslim Jewish Other:______________ (please
specify)

Appendix B
Preamble:
My name is Ryan Callahan, I am a senior at York College of Pennsylvania conducting
research on the prevalence of hate crimes and how they are recorded. This interview will take 30
to 45 minutes of your time. This interview will be kept confidential. I will refer to you in my
research as (…) and your job occupancy will be referred to as (…). This interview will be
recorded, if you have any problem with that please let me know and the recording will stop. I
would like to thank you in advance for your time.
***Questions 5a, 6a, 7a, and 8a were asked to Expert D in place of the original question, while
questions 5b, 6b, and 7b were asked of Expert E in place of the original question.***
1. What is your educational background?
2. What types of training have you had?
3. How long have you been in this position?
4. From personal experience, do you feel that hate crimes are more about race, or religion?
5. Does your law enforcement office have the proper training to respond to hate crimes?
a. Have there been any hate crimes that have occurred on campus?
b. What drives people to dislike others that are different from them?
6. Are hate crimes more common in your area than typical street crimes?
a. Is there any mediation done between the parties?
b. Why do people feel the need to act on these feelings of hate?
7. Do you believe that hate crime policies should be implemented by each individual department
or mandated by the state?
a. What are some motivations you’ve seen?
b. What brings about these biases?
8. Do you feel that hate crimes should be a separate category of crime?
a. Have you played a role in hate crimes as mediation?
9. Do hate crimes seem to damage the community more than a typical street crime would?
10. Could you describe any examples of hate crimes that have taken place in this area?
11. Were there any claims that a hate crime took place that turned out not to be a true hate crime?

Appendix C

Hate Crimes Impact Communities More Than Street Crimes

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (17)

En vedette

En vedette (15)

Similaire à Hate Crimes Impact Communities More Than Street Crimes

Similaire à Hate Crimes Impact Communities More Than Street Crimes (20)

Hate Crimes Impact Communities More Than Street Crimes