Research Acoy
Research Acoy
Research Acoy
The term ‘hate crime’ is widely used in the media and the criminal
justice system in Britain. Yet it is not always clear what the term actually
means. In particular, differences in opinion have arisen as to what the emotion
of ‘hate’ encapsulates, in what circumstances can hate be attached to criminal
offences, and which groups are deserving of special protection from it (Hall,
2013, ch. 1; see Chakraborti and Garland, 2015, ch. 1). While some of these
debates continue, it has become clear that the word ‘hate’ is to a large extent
a misnomer. A person who commits a ‘hate crime’ need not actually be
motivated by hatred for his or her victim, but rather it is his or her expression of
prejudice or bias against the victim’s (presumed) group membership that more
properly characterises such crimes (Hall, 2013, ch. 1). This approach to
understanding hate crime is reflected in the criminal justice system’s (England
and Wales) agreed working definition of hate crime as: ‘any criminal offence
which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a
hostility or prejudice…’ (College of Policing, 2014). Currently there are five
officially protected characteristics (race, religion, disability, sexual orientation
and transgender) that are monitored by the police as ‘strands’ of hate crime,
though a number of police services also monitor hate crimes directed towards
members of alternative subcultures, such as goths and punks (for example,
Greater Manchester Police, 2014; see Garland, 2010). In Scotland the police
define hate crime slightly differently from the definition used in England and
Wales, as a ‘crime motivated by malice or ill will towards a social group’ –
covering the same five protected characteristics listed above (Police Scotland,
2016). Both England and Wales and Scotland also record ‘hate incidents’
which are defined as ‘[a]ny non-crime incident which is perceived, by the
victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice…’ (Police
Scotland, 2016; College of Policing, 2014). Again, all five protected
characteristics are covered. Defining hate crimes and hate incidents allows
justice agencies to monitor both criminal activity involving prejudice or hostility
and other activities (such as anti-social behaviour) that may not officially
amount to a crime (at least when viewed as isolated incidents) but which may
result in severe harms, and/or escalate over protracted periods of time into
more serious forms of emotional, sexual and/or physical abuse. Responding to
hate incidents therefore enables law enforcement agencies to capture
escalation, trends and repeat incidents.
HATE SPEECH
The United Kingdom has a duty under EU law to legislate against the
incitement of hatred directed towards a group of people or member of the
group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or
ethnic origin.4 In England/Wales and Scotland, section 18 of the Public Order
Act 1986 (POA) prohibits the use of words or behaviours that are ‘threatening,
abusive or insulting’ and that are intended ‘to stir up racial hatred’ or where
‘having regard to all the circumstances, racial hatred is likely to be stirred up
thereby’. Section 29B of the POA proscribes ‘threatening words or behaviour’
intended to stir up religious hatred5 or hatred on the grounds of sexual
orientation6 (England and Wales only). In Scotland section 6 of the Offensive
Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012
provides a separate offence of communicating material that is capable of
being read, looked at, watched or listened to which is intended to stir up
religious hatred.7 This patchwork of hate crime provisions has left disability
and transgender hatred outside the scope of the stirring up of hatred offences
in both jurisdictions, 8 while in Scotland the stirring up of hatred based on
sexual orientation remains absent from the legislation (see Figures 1 and 2 in
appendix9 for a visual representation of what is covered by current hate crime
legislation in England/Wales and Scotland). We are left with a complex
framework of criminal law and sentencing provisions for hostilitybased
offences in both jurisdictions which has resulted in uneven legislative
protection across the five strands of hate crime (Law Commission, 2014). A
full-scale review of the impact of the differential legislation was recommended
bythe Law Commission in their 2014 report.
INTERNET HATE CRIME
The Internet has had profound effects on society, both positive and
negative. In this paper we examine the effect of the Internet on a negative
spillover: hate crime. In order to better understand the link, we study the extent
to which broadband availability affects racial hatecrimes in the US from 1999 –
2008. To address measurement error, we instrument for broadband availability
using slope of terrain. We find strong evidence that broadband availability
increases racial hate crimes. The results are stronger in areas with greater
racial segregation and with more online searches for racist words, suggesting
that the direct effect of the Internet on hate crime is primarily due to a
heightening of pre-existing propensities to engage in hate activity. We find no
evidence that the Internet has affected crime reporting. The results are robust
to alternative specifications and falsification tests. These results shed light on
one of the many offline spillovers from increased online access, and suggest
that governmental and private regulation of online content may help reduce
hate crime.
Jason Chan & Anindya Ghose & Robert Seamans, 2013. "The Internet and
Hate Crime: Offline Spillovers from Online Access," Working Papers 13-02,
NET Institute.
1
Typology of Internet Hate Crime
Browser
A Browser views hate material online, but does not interact with the online
community. Browsing covers a wide spectrum of behaviors, from accidental
viewing of hate online to deliberate searches for large amounts of hate
material. Viewing hate online is not illegal; however, browsing is likely to make
up a large proportion of the activity relating to hate material (Schafer, 2002).
As such, it is important to consider the impact of browsing on those who
engage in it as a separate construct within this typology. We note too, that
people may browse hate material for a variety of purposes and not always
intentionally. Accidentally viewing hate messages online is unlikely to
influence a non-prejudiced individual significantly. However, socialization is a
dynamic process and the more hate content is seen, the more it will be viewed
as acceptable and normal (Court, 2003). If hate content is viewed by those
who are already prejudiced, it may have a more dramatic impact, encouraging
further involvement with hate on or offline. Simple online searches are likely to
find material to support Browsers’ biased explanations for their own situation
and extremist views. Further, as searches become more focused and search
engines become ever more tailored to individual preferences (Pariser, 2009),
the likelihood of viewing self-reinforcing information will increase whilst
countervailing narratives will become ever more dissipated.
Jacks, William & Adler, Joanna. (2016). A Proposed Typology of Online Hate
Crime. Open Access Journal of Forensic Psychology. 7. 64-89.
Commentator
An Activist is an Internet user who adds overt hate content online and is
more likely to be engaged with organized hate groups offline. Activists are
more entrenched in their extremist prejudices and beliefs than Browsers or
Commentators. They will be more likely to display cognitive distortions (Bar-
Tal, 1998) such as denial, minimization, and dehumanization, which will
themselves aid moral disengagement (Bandura, 1999). Also, emotion and
shame may be important to understanding why Activists promulgate hate
(Ray, et al., 2004). Activists may use the Internet to promote their views, as an
organizational tool to plan offline activities, to network with other Activists, and
to celebrate and relive hate incidents. Here too, the proposed typology is less
reliant on dividing people by their motivations and more according to their
behaviors. In terms of the previous typology, activists could be motivated to
act in retaliation to a perceived hate incident against their in-group or their
motivations may make them closer to a "mission offender" (Levin & McDevitt,
1993). Others may be motivated to protect their community from what they
perceive to be outsiders or intruders--outlined by Levin and McDevitt (1993) as
“defensive offenders.” Activists are unlikely to have the same reserve as
Commentators about committing hate actions in the real world, and therefore
may respond to online hate incidents with a retaliatory incident offline or vice
versa. Real-world activities may be initiated, developed, or planned online,
and the ideology driving them forward can be reinforced virtually (Mann,
Sutton, & Tuffin 2003). The Internet can be used as an organizational tool to
confirm venues, attendance at events, and to co-ordinate people’s
movements. Activists are likely to be affiliated with or to belong to specific
extremist groups; being involved in a group helps to create a collective identity
(Perry, 2000). The group can provide reassurance to both neophytes and
acolytes that their views are acceptable, normal, or even commendable
(Gerstenfeld, et al., 2003). As social divisions deepen, people’s understanding
of nuance and complexity of situations diminishes, and can give way to
dichotomous reasoning (Castano, 2008). Alternatively, Activists may
increasingly commit hate crimes as a way to appear more socially acceptable
towards an ingroup that considers committing hate crime desirable (Brewer,
1999). Activists use the Internet to engage with other extremist groups.
Despite a history of disjunction and infighting among extremist groups,
differences in ideology or purpose
are often only minor (Perry, 2000). Gerstenfeld, et al. (2003) suggested that
extremist groups are increasingly using the Internet to form a collective
identity, providing links from one Website to another, which contains similar
rhetoric and spleen, particularly when using peer-to-peer, social networking,
and other sites to celebrate, promote, and re-live incidents. This provides
content for sites which can again promote moral disengagement (Bar-Tal,
1998) and help to socialize individuals (Beck, 2000), promoting indifference
towards victims and allowing others to experience and indulge in hate without
being directly or physically involved (Marsh & Melville, 2009).
Leader
Users engaging in hate on the Internet could engage with the online
world in several ways. Firstly, they may progress through the stages of this
typology as their prejudices become more pronounced. Internet users may
start out as Browsers and only view online content. However, as their
prejudices develop by what they view, they may move on to become
Commentators, Activists, or even Leaders, as they increasingly identify with an
extremist ideology, and disengage from the moral significance of acting
negatively towards a stigmatized group (Bandura, 1999), or come to believe
that extreme negativity towards that group is the morally right belief (Haslam &
Reicher, 2005). This gradual change would incrementally strengthen a sense
of belonging to the in-group (Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner, Hogg, Oakes,
Reicher, Wetherell, 1987), clearly favoring that in-group and seeking its
glorification, in part through denigration of an out-group (Tajfel & Turner,
1986). Viewing hate online would allow individuals to re-interpret their
perception of violent acts toward a stigmatized group; minimize and
misconstrue negative effects of actions on victims; and eventually devalue,
delegitimize, and dehumanize the victims (Bandura, 1999). An individual could
engage with these processes exclusively online (Browsers, Commentators) or
through a combination of online and offline activities (Activists, Leaders).
Alternatively, it would also be possible for individuals with pre-existing beliefs
developed offline, to access the Internet and express their extremist views
immediately. Lastly, we note that people’s life circumstances and the context
in which they find themselves will also change; it is possible that external
influences will mean that they lower their level of involvement or potentially
even change their attitudes. There is nothing to say that moves through this
typology are inevitable, inexorable, nor even linear.
Understanding the nature and dynamics of hate crime
This next section explores the different types of prejudices that are
linked to hate crimes and the relationships that commonly exist between
perpetrators and victims. We highlight, in particular, that hate crimes are not
always caused by a single type of prejudice, that incidents can often form part
of a process of ongoing victimisation, and that multiple social and situational
factors are likely to underlie any single hate crime. First, it is important to note
that there have been a number of complexities, in both defining and dealing
with hate crime, that arise when attaching prejudice-motivation, or
demonstrations of hostility, to criminal offences (see Burney and Rose, 2002;
Law Commission, 2014). Perhaps of greatest difficulty for criminal justice
practitioners to ascertain is whether ‘prejudice’ forms a key element of a
reported crime or incident. The problem is that the levels of prejudice
motivating perpetrators can vary drastically. At one end of the spectrum, a
perpetrator may have intense feelings of prejudice against an entire identity
group leading to him or her feeling disgust and even hatred towards members
of that group. These perpetrators will be motivated by deep-seated prejudice,
with some making it their mission in life to target and eradicate certain identity
groups from society (for example, when David Copeland unleashed nail bomb
attacks against various minority groups in London during 1999 (McLagan and
Lowles, 2000)). At the other end of the spectrum, a perpetrator may feel just a
mild dislike of members of that group or view members with suspicion based
on his or her ignorance about who these individuals are or what they stand for
(Hall, 2013). These perpetrators may feel little hostility towards the victim’s
group identity (a group or category that the victim belongs to, or is perceived
to belong to), instead demonstrating identity-based hostility towards the victim
because of some other perceived grievance or conflict with the victim. The
following two examples help to illustrate the difficulties that will be faced by
practitioners when dealing with cases where prejudice and hostility is, on the
surface, a less evident part of the motivation. frustration at the victim, often
occurring while the perpetrator is intoxicated (Gadd, 2009; Walters, 2014a). In
such a case the perpetrator may not be motivated solely by prejudice but has
still ‘demonstrated’ hostility based on the victim’s group identity, meaning that
the incident should still be recorded as a ‘hate crime/incident’. In these types
of cases it can be very difficult to ascertain whether identity-based prejudice is
partly causal to the incident, or whether the hostility demonstrated is incidental
to the crime committed. Regardless, the courts have made it clear that a
demonstration of this type must still fall within the meaning of hostility under
hate crime legislation (Walters, 2014a).
Intersecting prejudices
Victim–perpetrator relationships
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/research-report-102-
causes-and-motivations-of-hate-crime.pdf