Hate Crime Reporting: Understanding Police Officer Perceptions,Departmental Protocol,and the Role of the Victim is There Such a Thing as a “Love” Crime?
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online June, 2001
Hate Crime Reporting: Understanding Police Officer Perceptions,Departmental Protocol,and the Role of the Victim is There Such a Thing as a “Love” Crime?
Due to sporadic and often perfunctory compliance with the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990, official data on hate crime currently tell us little about the prevalence of hate crime nationally. Reasons for this include lack of departmental infrastructure to support accurate reporting, lack of training, officer disincentives to accurately report, and, perhaps most importantly, hesitation on the part of victims to involve law enforcement in these matters. Using a survey of law enforcement officers from a stratified national sample, as well as interviews with advocacy and human rights professionals, this article will discuss all of these factors and their impact on hate crime reporting. Suggestions for improvement involve working on police/minority group relations, as well as building appropriate departmental infrastructure.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BlockR. (1974). Why notify the police: The victim's decision to notify the police of an assault. Criminology, 11, 555–569.
2.
DillmanD. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total research design method. New York: Wiley.
3.
EhrlichH.LarcomB., & PurvisR. (1994). The traumatic effects of ethnoviolence. Towson, MD: Prejudice Institute, Center for the Applied Study of Ethnoviolence.
4.
EphrossP. H.BarnesA.EhrlichH.SandnesK. R., & WeissJ. C. (1986). The ethnoviolence project: Pilot study. Baltimore, MD: National Institute Against Prejudice and Violence.
5.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1995). Uniform crime reports: Hate crime reporting statistics. Washington, DC: Author.
6.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1996). Uniform crime reports: Hate crime reporting statistics. Washington, DC: Author.
7.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1997). Uniform crime reports: Hate crime reporting statistics. Washington, DC: Author
8.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1998). Uniform crime reports: Hate crime reporting statistics. Washington, DC: Author.
9.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1999). Uniform crime reports: Hate crime reporting statistics. Washington, DC: Author.
10.
GarciaL.McDevittJ.GuJ., & BalboniJ. (1999, December). The psychological and behavioral effects of violent hate crime victimization. Submitted to the National Institute of Justice.
11.
GoveW. R.HughesM., & GeerkenM. (1985). Are uniform crime reports a valid indicator of the index crimes? An affirmative answer with minor qualifications. Criminology23, 451–501.
12.
GrattetR.JennessV., & CurryT. R. (1998). The homogenization and differentiation of hate crime law in the United States, 1978–1995: Innovation and diffusion in the criminalization of bigotry. American Sociological Review, 63, 286–307.
13.
Harvard Law Review. (1993). Hate is not speech: A constitutional defense of penalty enhancement of hate crimes. Harvard Law Review, 106, 121–129.
14.
HindelangM. (1974). Decisions of shoplifting victims to invoke the criminal justice process. Social Problems, 21, 580–593.
15.
JabobsJ. B. (1993). Should hate crime be a crime?The Public Interest, 113, 3–14.
16.
JacobsJ. J., & HenryJ. S. (1996). The social constructing of a hate crime epidemic. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86, 366–391.
17.
KimJ.-O., & MuellerC. W. (1978). Introduction to factor analysis: What it is and how to do it. California: Sage Publications.
18.
LevinJ., & McDevittJ. (1993). Hate crimes: The rising tide of bigotry and bloodshed. New York: Plenum Press.
19.
LipskyM. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
20.
MartinS. E. (1995). “A cross burning is not just an arson”: Police social construction of hate crimes in Baltimore County. Criminology, 33 (3), 303–326.
21.
MartinS. E. (1996). Investigating hate crimes: Case characteristics and law enforcement responses. Justice Quarterly, 13 (3), 455–480.
22.
McDevittJ.BalboniJ. M.BennettS.WeissJ.OrchowskyS., & WalboltL. (2000). Improving the quality and accuracy of bias crime statistics nationally: An assessment of the first ten years of bias crime data collection. Final report submitted to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC.
23.
McDevittJ.ShivelyM.BennettS.BalboniJ., & BuergerM. (1999). The Boston police department's strategic planning process, phase one. Report submitted to the Boston Police Department and the National Institute of Justice.
24.
NolanJ. J., & AkiyamaY. (1999). An analysis of factors that affect law enforcement participation in hate crime reporting. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice15, 111–127.
25.
NorusisM. (1994). Guide to data analysis. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
26.
WalkerS., & KatzC. M. (1995). Less than meets the eye: Police department bias-crime units. American Journal of Police, XIV (1), 29–48.
