Although previous research has examined arrests for intimate partner violence (IPV), most of these analyses focus exclusively on physical assault and intimidation. Research on arrests for sexual assault have examined arrests for cases of stranger and/or acquaintance sexual assault, but have not included sexual IPV. Using data from the 2010 National Incident-Based Reporting System, this analysis is the first to calculate and compare arrest rates for sexual IPV, physical IPV, and intimidation. Results indicate that after controlling for other factors, police are less likely to make an arrest in cases of sexual IPV than in cases of physical IPV or intimidation. These findings are discussed in the context of the consequences of sexual assault on IPV victims.

No abstract

In 2009, President Barack Obama signed the Mathew Sheppard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Protection act and thereby extended the list of previously protected classes of victims from actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, disability and sex orientation to gender and gender identity. Over 45 states, the District of Columbia and the federal government now include hate crime statutes that increase penalties when offenders perpetrate hate crimes against protected classes of victims. Penalty enhancement statutes sanction unlawful bias conduct arguably because they result in more severe injuries relative to non-bias conduct. We contend that physical injuries vary by bias type and are not equally injurious. Data on bias crimes was analyzed from the National Incident Based Reporting System. Descriptive patterns of bias crimes were identified by offense type, bias motivation and major and minor injuries. Using Multivariate analyses, we found an escalating trend of violence against racial minorities. Moreover, relative to non-bias crimes, only anti-White and anti-lesbian bias crimes experienced our two prong "animus" criteria of disproportionate prevalence and severity of injury. However, when compared to anti-White bias, anti-Black bias crimes were more prevalent and likely to suffer serious injuries. Implications for hate crime jurisprudence are discussed.

The study describes implementation of legislation that excludes youth offenders from juvenile court jurisdiction and examines two elements of deterrence theory that underscored the legislation’s rationale. Between-court analyses comparing youths decertified to juvenile court with those remaining in criminal court report no between-court differences concerning the certainty of punishment. Although the criminal court was more likely to impose more severe sentences, controls on legal sentencing factors explained the between-group differences. Legal and extralegal factors predicted the likelihood of certainty and severity of punishment within the juvenile and adult systems respectively. Implications for the restorative justice model are discussed.

The core justification of bias crime statutes concerns whether bias-motivated crimes are qualitatively different from otherwise motivated crimes. We test the hypothesis that bias crimes are more detrimental than non-bias crimes by testing for multi-dimensional injuries to victims of bias and non-bias-motivated criminal conduct. Using National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) Extract 2013 Collection Year Incident-level Extract File, we analyzed physical injuries and psychological trauma to NCVS victims during 2013. We found a range of covariates consistent with the likelihood of physical injury and psychological trauma. These included whether the incident was bias motivated, whether weapons (firearms, knives, other or unknown type of weapons) were involved, whether the incident involved multiple offenders or strangers, or whether drugs or alcohol were involved. Our findings reinforce previous studies that detected empirical evidence of multi-dimensional physical and psychological injuries to bias crime victims.