A mock juror investigation of blame attribution in the punishment of hate crime perpetrators

Revisiting the Harm of Hate: A Quasi-Experimental Approach Using the National Crime Victimization Survey

Early legal challenges to the 1990 Hate Crime Statistics Act were originally excused on the argument that hate crimes "hurt more," but there remain some empirical gaps on this topic. Although many works have concluded that biased offenders cause greater harms to their victims relative to unbiased perpetrators, this effect tends to be sensitive to individual and situational factors like victim and offender characteristics, bias motivation, weapon use, or crime location. This type of confounding has the potential to introduce selection bias in the estimation of victimization harms among biased criminal incidents. With data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (2010-2020), I use propensity scores and inverse-probability weighting to show that, on average, victims of bias motivated offenses are more likely to report later physical and emotional harms despite not suffering greater initial injury in incidence. Findings also demonstrate that the harm of hate varies across different bias motivations, with such crimes directed toward those on the basis of disability, gender, and sexual orientation causing greater short- and long-term individual trauma and damage.

Prototypes of Hate and Expectations of the Model Victim

This research explored the content of hate crime prototypes in a North American context, with particular attention to how such prototypes might influence blame attributions. In Study 1a, participants were recruited from a blended sample of universities (n = 110) and community members (n = 102) and asked to report their thoughts about typical hate crime offenses, victims, and offenders. These open-ended responses were coded, and common themes were identified. In Study 1b, a new group of participants (n = 290) were presented with these themes and asked to rate each for their characteristics of hate crimes. Studies 1a and 1b confirmed the presence of a clear prototype of hate crimes, such that (a) perpetrators were believed to be lower status White men with clear expressions of bias, (b) hate crime offenses were believed to be acts of interpersonal violence accompanied by slurs or verbal abuse, and (c) hate crime victims were thought to be members of a marginalized group who remain passive during the offense. Study 2 explored the consequences of victim prototypes on assessments of victim blame. Participants (n = 296) were recruited from York University and presented with a case vignette that varied the prototypicality of a victim of hate, depicting him as either Black or White and either passive, verbally responsive, or physically confrontational in the context of an assault. Participants showed greatest sympathy for the Black victim who passively ignored verbal harassment but increasingly assigned blame when the Black victim spoke or reacted physically. When the victim was White, participants showed little variation in their assessment of blame as a function of the victim's behavior. These results suggest that Black victims are subjected to greater behavioral scrutiny than White victims and that sympathy for victims of hate may be contingent on their passivity in the face of harassment.

The Effects of Victim Gender Identity, Juror Gender, and Judicial Instructions on Victim Blaming, Crime Severity Ratings, and Verdicts in Sexual Assault Trials

Transgender individuals may experience social discrimination and unfair legal considerations as crime victims. The current purpose was to investigate the relationship between the participant/jurors' gender, the victims' gender identity, and judge's instructions to ignore the gender identity of the victim on perceptions of the victim and the crime and verdicts rendered in a sexual assault case. Overall, crime severity ratings were significantly lower for the trans male victim compared to the cisgender female victim. Male participants reported lower crime severity ratings for trials involving transgender victims compared to cisgender victims. However, victim blaming, likelihood that the defendant committed the crime, sentencing recommendations, verdict confidence, and conviction rates did not vary by the victim's gender identity, the participant's gender identity, nor the judge's instructions. Participant gender as a predictor of verdict approached significance, indicating a trend for males to render more not guilty verdicts and females to render more guilty verdicts. In summary, male jurors perceived the crimes involving transgender victims as less severe and this may have impacted the rate of not guilty verdicts.

A Psychometric Investigation of the Hate-Motivated Behavior Checklist

Hate-motivated behavior (HMB) comprises a continuum ranging from microaggressions to criminal acts. The measurement of HMB is limited primarily to one or two minoritized groups in any given instrument. Current HMB research also lacks a way to assess the full range of acts and motivations for bias-based behavior. The present study fills gaps in HMB measurement by conducting a psychometric study of the Hate-Motivated Behavior Checklist (HMBC). The HMBC is a self-report instrument of HMB perpetration; the instrument also has sections capturing victim target group (e.g. race, sexual orientation, disability) and perpetrator motivation for HMB commission (e.g., perceived threat, impulsivity). We conducted an online cross-sectional survey of community-dwelling adults and college students (N = 463). Measures assessed demographic information, HMB, and social-political characteristics. Confirmatory factor analysis, item response theory analyses, between-groups analyses (e.g., Analysis of Variance), and descriptive statistics were used to examine HMBC properties. Primary findings included (1) poor model fit of the HMBC behaviors score; (2) good model fit with high reliability for an HMBC behaviors score adapted to binary (no/yes) scoring; (3) men reported meaningfully higher HMB scores compared to women; (4) the most common target classification for HMB was based on political affiliation; and (5) perceived intrusion was the most cited reason for committing HMB. Our findings are an important step in refining the HMBC. The instrument represents a potentially useful tool for HMB research, surveillance, and intervention evaluation. Future directions in HMBC research include application to extremist and criminal samples, replication and extension of the binary scoring to include cut-score derivation, and validation against behavioral outcomes.

White College Students' Racial Prejudice and Perceptions of Racial Hate Crime

This study investigated how racial prejudice influences White college students' perceptions of hate crime. We also examined the moderating effects of the race of the victim of hate crimes and the absence of hate crime laws. Our sample included 581 White students in a predominantly White university located in a state that does not have a hate crime law. The study was set up in a 2 (race of the victim and the perpetrator) × 3 (level of assault) factorial design. Participants rated their perceptions of three scenarios (i.e., non-racially biased simple assault, racially biased simple assault, and racially biased aggravated assault). The dependent variables were perceptions of hate crime and willingness to report. The key independent variable was participants' level of racial prejudice. The moderators included race of the victim in each scenario and whether participants' state of origin has a hate crime law. Results suggest that higher levels of modern racism were associated with lower perceptions of hate crime and lower willingness to report racially biased simple and aggravated hate crime. When the victim was White, participants with higher levels of racial prejudice were more likely to perceive a hate crime and more willing to report it. The opposite was true when the victim was Black. The absence of state hate crime laws and race of victim were significant moderators. Our study suggests that racial prejudice is associated with lower perceptions of hate crime and willingness to report. Furthermore, the moderating effect of the race of victims provides insights on how racial prejudice can lead to a differential perception of hate crime, depending on whether one's racial in-group is targeted. Our findings also highlight the importance of having state-level hate crime laws to mitigate the linkage between modern racism and perceptions of hate crime.

Attitudinal Predictors of Juror Decisions on Gender and Sexual Minority Defendants

This study examined whether defendants' gender identity and/or sexual orientation influenced jurors' decisions of guilt across several crimes and what juror attitudes predicted these decisions. In a mixed model design, mock jurors (N = 300) were randomly presented three crime vignettes (prostitution, vandalism, marijuana possession) and three types of defendants (cisgender heterosexual female, cisgender gay male, transgender heterosexual female). After making judgments of guilt, participants completed measures on sexism, homonegativity, transphobia, and trust in legal authorities. Jurors were more likely to believe transgender heterosexual females were guilty when compared to cisgender heterosexual females, but were not more likely to believe cisgender gay males were guilty compared to cisgender heterosexual females. Transphobia had a small association with these decisions and was not a stronger predictor for transgender defendants' guilt than for all defendants. Rather, trust in legal authorities was more strongly associated with the guilt decisions than transphobia for all defendants.

Moral Judgments

Research on morality has increased rapidly over the past 10 years. At the center of this research are moral judgments-evaluative judgments that a perceiver makes in response to a moral norm violation. But there is substantial diversity in what has been called moral judgment. This article offers a framework that distinguishes, theoretically and empirically, four classes of moral judgment: evaluations, norm judgments, moral wrongness judgments, and blame judgments. These judgments differ in their typical objects, the information they process, their speed, and their social functions. The framework presented here organizes the extensive literature and provides fresh perspectives on measurement, the nature of moral intuitions, the status of moral dumbfounding, and the prospects of dual-process models of moral judgment. It also identifies omitted questions and sets the stage for a broader theory of moral judgment, which the coming decades may bring forth.

Measuring Attitudes About Hate: Development of the Hate Crime Beliefs Scale

Employing the federal Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA) of 2009 and other such legislation as a backdrop, the present study evaluated the nature of beliefs about hate-crime legislation, offenders, and victims. In addition, it investigated construct validity (i.e., political beliefs and prejudice) and predictive validity (i.e., blame attribution and sentencing recommendations). A total of 403 U.S. adults completed measures of prejudice and an initial pool of 50 items forming the proposed Hate Crime Beliefs Scale (HCBS). Participants were randomly assigned to read one of four hate-crime vignettes, which varied in regard to type of prejudice (racial-, sexual orientation-, transgender-, and religion-based prejudices) and then responded to blame and sentencing questions. Factor analyses of the HCBS resulted in four sub-scales: Negative Views (i.e., higher scores reflect negative views of legislation and minority group protection), Offender Punishment (i.e., higher scores suggest endorsement of greater punishment), Deterrence (i.e., greater scores denote support for hate-crime legislation as a deterrent of more violence), and Victim Harm (i.e., higher scores reflect pro-victim attitudes). Greater pro-legislation and pro-victim beliefs were related to liberal political beliefs and less prejudicial attitudes, with some exceptions. Controlling for a number of demographic, situational, and attitudinal covariates, the Negative Views sub-scale displayed predictive utility, such that more negative views of legislation/minority group protection were associated with elevated victim blame, as well as lower perpetrator blame and sentencing recommendations. Results are discussed in the context of hate-crime research and policy, with additional implications considered for trial strategy, modern prejudice, and blame attribution theory.

Evaluations of Antigay Hate Crimes and Hate Crime Legislation: Independent and Differentially Predicted

Minimal studies have investigated individuals' evaluations of antigay hate crimes and hate crime legislation simultaneously, with most research focusing on one or the other. In a sample of 246 heterosexual undergraduates, the present study found that evaluations of antigay hate crimes and hate crime legislation were unrelated. Higher social dominance orientation (SDO) and crime control orientation scores were associated with more positive evaluations of antigay hate crimes. Positive evaluations of hate crime legislation were associated with more positive attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. We also found that the relationship between SDO and evaluations were mediated by crime control beliefs (for hate crimes evaluations) and antigay attitudes (for hate crime legislation evaluations). The present findings have possible implications for the manner in which organizations advocate for the extension of hate crime legislation to include sexual orientation.