STRATEGIES FOR PREVENTION OF HATE CRIMES (excerpted from CALCASA’s Focusing on Pride: Prevention of Sexual Assault as a Hate Crime in the LGBT Community”)

  There is no single solution to the prevention of prejudice and hate.  Prevention is a concerted effort that must be undertaken by everyone in the community.  Hate crimes not only affect an individual, but also affect the community to which the person belongs (e.g., the Asian community as a whole).  A community response to incidents of hate is essential to the reduction of hate crimes.   Reducing fears, preventing retribution or additional hate crimes, and creating a safe space for those in the community who have possibly been previous victims of hate crimes to come forward and report incidents, is a responsibility that should involve every level of partnership.  

  Community partnerships should involve the necessary components, such as community organizations (e.g., rape crisis centers), law enforcement, and legislative efforts.  Unfortunately, it has taken incidents of hate to bring about any intervention and prevention efforts by legislative, law enforcement and community organizations.  However, it is important to note that many agencies, including law enforcement, rape crisis centers and LGBT centers have existed for decades.  Recognizing their efforts and positive practices, is necessary when describing the efforts that must be undertaken in order to prevent and reduce hate crimes against the LGBT community.

  In order to work on the prevention of hate crimes, we must first discuss the history of hate crime laws and the enactment of certain bills that have led to the creation of these laws; thereby increasing the awareness of hate crimes, hate crime prosecution and data collection that have begun to pave the way for the recognition of the effect of hate crimes on the LGBT community, and ways to prevent it.  

1.   Legislation/Laws

  The term “hate crime” was first introduced in the late 1980s as an attempt to enhance existing criminal and civil laws.  The purpose of the introduction of “hate crime” to existing law was to capture those crimes that were motivated by a person’s bias against an individual or group.  Initially, civil rights groups lobbied to include the collection of data on crimes motivated by race, religion, and ethnicity, and later other groups including The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force joined in the lobbying efforts.  Through revision and resubmission in Congress, the Hate Crime Statistics Act (HCSA) was passed into law in 1990.  Although the HCSA included the statement,”[n]othing in this Act shall be construed…to promote or encourage homosexuality,” the Human Rights Campaign fund director hailed it as “the first time in history that sexual orientation would be included in a federal civil rights law” (see Appendix B:  Hate Crime Statistics Act).    The HCSA would now require the Attorney General to collect data on hate crime acts (and provide a yearly report) motivated by an individual’s bias based on “crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including where appropriate the crimes of murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and destruction, damage or vandalism of property.”

  Unfortunately, as the Act covers sexual orientation, it does not cover gender.  This not only excluded women, but transgender persons, as well.  In the following four years, women’s advocacy groups lobbied to include gender as a motivation for hate crimes, but in vain.  The HCSA failed to recognize gender as a motive, which in turn motivated women’s advocacy groups to lobby Congress again into amending the HCSA or have the creation of a new law that would cover gender bias.  Women’s rights groups, already lobbying for the creation of a law that focused on addressing and ending violence against women, now had a new addition to their bill.  Finally, in 1994, The Violence Against Women Act was passed into law, creating gender as a basis for hate crimes based on the violation of the victim’s right to be free from discrimination.

  HCSA prompted other more specific hate crime laws throughout the United States.  Since the HCSA was designed simply to include the collection of data based on hate crimes and not to penalize them on a federal level, many states took the initiative to create state hate crime laws that would penalize hate crimes and protect lesbian, gay and bisexual persons; some even including gender identity, which would cover transgender persons.  Below is a listing from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force on hate crime laws per state:

Hate Crime laws include crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity:

• California

• Minnesota

• Missouri

• New Mexico

• Pennsylvania

• Vermont

• Washington, D.C

Hate Crime Laws do not include crimes based on sexual orientation:

• Alabama

• Alaska

• Colorado

• Idaho

• Maryland*

• Michigan*

• Mississippi

• Montana

• North Carolina

• North Dakota

• Ohio

• Oklahoma

• South Dakota

• Virginia

• West Virginia

Hate crime laws include crimes based on sexual orientation:

• Arizona            

• Connecticut

• Delaware

• Florida

• Hawaii

• Illinois

• Iowa

• Kansas

• Kentucky

• Louisiana

• Maine

• Massachusetts

• Nebraska

• Nevada

• New Hampshire

• New Jersey

• New York

• Oregon

• Rhode Island

• Tennessee

• Texas

• Washington

• Wisconsin

Hate Crime laws address crimes motivated by bias or prejudice and do not list categories:

• Georgia

• Utah^

Do not have hate crime laws that include crimes based on any characteristics*:

• Arkansas

• Indiana*

• South Carolina

• Wyoming

*MD, MI, & IN hate crime data collection laws include sexual orientation, but hate crime penalty laws do not include it.

◊The states mentioned still have some forms of non-discrimination laws; however, not necessarily include sexual orientation in those laws.  None have hate crime laws specific to sexual orientation or gender identity.

^Utah hate crime law addresses crimes with intent to “intimidate or terrorize” and does not list specific categories. 

2. Courts and Cases

  As a result of legislation formulated in the United States, courts have an obligation to apply the laws set forth in prosecuting hate crimes.  Unfortunately, many of the laws are difficult to enforce, as many key elements are necessary to incite prosecution of a hate crime.  For example, Matthew Shepard, a 21-year old University of Wyoming student was murdered in 1998 as a result of his sexual orientation.  Fortunately, his assailants were prosecuted and given life sentences for kidnapping and/or felony murder.  Ironically, neither one of them was prosecuted for a hate crime, as Wyoming does not recognize hate crime laws. 

  On December 31, 1993, John Lotter and Marvin Thomas Nissen murdered Teena Brandon, a.k.a. Brandon Teena (a transgender person) in a farmhouse in rural Richardson County, Nebraska. The murder(s) occurred one week after both Loter and Nissen kidnapped, assaulted and raped Teena Brandon to prove she was really a woman, as she had been living as a man.   Lotter was convicted for first-degree murder and is currently on death row.  Nissen, having testified against Lotter, was convicted of second-degree murder and is serving life without parole.  In both cases, the issue of hate crimes was unable to be introduced as part of the prosecution.

  In California, there are several laws in which hate crimes can be used as part of the prosecution and many courts are beginning to utilize them  (see Appendix C: California Hate Crime Laws).  Unfortunately, since proving the crime was based on hate is very difficult, some cases have been difficult to prosecute under hate crime laws.  As a result, in several states, including California, much needs to be done to educate, not only judges or prosecution teams, but also juries (who are critical in convicting someone of a hate crime) and society at large.

3. Law Enforcement

  It is important that law enforcement be trained to sensitively deal with hate crime victims of all types.  It is equally important that officers understand how to recognize hate crimes and document them properly.  Law enforcement must examine their views about LGBT persons and the possibility of homophobia.  This self-examination will improve their response to LGBT survivors of a sexual assault as a hate crime.  

  Unfortunately, even in major cities, homophobia and transphobia still exist.  According to incidents reported to CUAV in San Francisco, 50% of hate crimes against transgender people were committed by law enforcement.  

  This serves as a wake-up call for law enforcement to re-examine their training of officers and set up protocols for educating and informing new and existing officers to help reduce the incidents of hate crimes against the LGBT community.

  The National Center for Hate Crime Prevention Education Development Center, Inc. funded through the United States Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime, has developed “Responding to Hate Crime: A Multidisciplinary Curriculum for Law Enforcement and Victim Assistance Professionals” as a “best practices” model in recognizing, responding and providing sensitive treatment to victims of hate crimes.  A copy of the curriculum is available through the Rape Prevention Resource Center at CALCASA and through the National Center for Hate Crime Prevention (see Appendix D: Resources).  The booklet is a first step in responding to hate crimes; however, more must be done to help in the prevention of hate crimes before they occur.  Law enforcement officers are in a unique position as they are usually seen as role models in the community.  In their everyday encounters with victims of hate crimes, being able to acknowledge the crime exists and becoming a part of the prevention effort, usually with local community activists or organization, would send a message that hate crimes of any kind will not be tolerated.   Crime victims, especially those who may have been sexually assaulted as a result of a hate crime against them, need to feel that law enforcement is on their side.  Law enforcement must convey to the public that they are aware of hate crimes and are working with the community to prevent them.  Working with local Hate Crimes Registries or organization that collect hate crime statistics will give law enforcement a better sense of what is happening in the community and ways to help in the prevention of any further hate crimes.

4. Community Organizations/Rape Crisis Centers/Rape Prevention Educators

  Anti-violence projects, such as CUAV and the New York City Anti-Violence Project, are well-known organizations that provide crisis intervention and prevention efforts against hate crimes in the LGBT community, with many members focusing on helping survivors of hate crimes. 

Through community efforts, these agencies can help in identifying victims of sexual assault as a hate crime and rape crisis centers can help in this collaboration.  As we know, rape is not just an issue that affects women, but the entire community.  For example, if a person is sexually assaulted as a result of being a lesbian, then rape crisis centers have an obligation to collaborate with centers that work with survivors of hate crime.  Since some centers may not be aware of local hate crime prevention centers, there may be many survivors of sexual assault that are unaware of the services available to them as survivors of a hate crime.   It is, therefore, important for rape crisis centers to contact local hate crime registry organizations or local LGBT centers to help in identifying existing and potential survivors.

Rape crisis centers and rape prevention educators (RPE) are also in a unique and important position to influence positive attitudes and behavior related to hate and bias among children, youth, teachers, etc.  Since humans are not born prejudiced, but rather receive our information via our environment, reaching children at a young age is a necessary opportunity to educate and prevent hate crimes.  By creating collaborations with school administrators and stressing the importance of providing rape prevention education, hate crime prevention education, and the importance of diversity, rape crisis centers and rape prevention educators will be in a better position to reach those school-aged children and youth who, statistically, perpetrate most of the hate crimes against the LGBT community.  Studies have shown that the younger a person is exposed to diversity, the more likely it is that s/he will view it as less threatening, and anything different they encounter will be seen as a strength.  Below are some key recommendations suggested by the organization Partners Against Hate that can be used when providing rape prevention education:

  - Confront prejudicial attitudes and actions before they escalate.

  - Identify, understand, and effectively combat bias-related incidents and hate crimes.

  - Enhance students’ self-esteem by creating school climates where youth feel secure, accepted, independent, and responsible.

  - Help students connect their own experiences with others’.

  - Teach youth how to promote critical thinking by identifying overgeneralizations and stereotypes.

  - Teach youth the history of discrimination, hate crimes, and bias.

  - Provide youth with examples of individuals whose lives counter the stereotypes.

  - Assist youth in becoming empowered to make positive social change.

  - Help youth resist prejudice and bias.

  - Help young people recognize hate and bias on the Internet.

  Jacobs, James B and Potter, Kimberly.  Hate Crimes: criminal law & identity politics.  NY: Oxford University Press. 1998.  p.71.

  U.S. Department of State: International Information Programs website.  The Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990.  http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/race/hate/28usc534.htm.

  Public Law No. 102-322, 108 Stat. 1796, tit. IV (September 13, 1994.).

  National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.  Hate Crime Laws in the United States. 2003.

  Communities United Against Violence.  Anti-GLBT hate crime report. 2000.  www.cuav.org.

  Strategies and Resources.  Partners Against Hate Website.  2002.  www.partnersagainsthate.org