An examination of sexual orientation- and transgender-based hate crimes in the post-Matthew Shepard era.

Abstract

Recent state and federal legislation such as the Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA) addresses hate crime prevention and punishment. Two pivotal questions that arise in the development of such legislation are (a) should hate crime perpetrators be subject to penalty enhancements? and (b) should protections be extended to sexual and transgender minority individuals? This article presents two studies addressing these questions employing a two-step vignette methodology. Jury-eligible community members provided sentencing and blame attribution ratings for one of three hate crime scenarios (i.e., anti-African American, antigay, or antitransgender), as well as penalty enhancement agreement (i.e., yes/no) and measures of need for affect (Study 1) and need for cognition (Study 2). Patterns of findings across studies suggest that participants comply with hate crime legislation instructions in general, but sentencing decisions are consistently moderated by whether a participant agrees with the penalty enhancement aspect of hate crime legislation. Moreover, need for affect and need for cognition differentially impact perceptions of hate crimes; need for affect demonstrated predictive associations with victim blame, whereas need for cognition moderated relations with perpetrator sentence and blame judgments. Results are discussed with emphasis on the state of federal hate crime legislation, antigay and antitransgender prejudice, and future directions in research and policy.

Political Identity, Type of Victim, and Hate Crime‐Related Beliefs as Predictors of Views Concerning Hate Crime Penalty Enhancement Laws

“…Of the variety of morally, legally and theoretically based pro‐ and antipenalty enhancement arguments surveyed in the literature, the following find empirical support for their influence in our findings: (1) hate crime offenders should be punished for the depravity of their conduct (proargument; Adams, ; Cramer, et al., ); (2) hate crime victims and their larger subgroups should be provided a level playing field, potentially in light of the harm done by hate crimes (proargument; Gerstenfeld, ; Perry & Alvi, ); and (3) current punishment for crimes should be sufficient, as hate crimes are comparable to other types of crime (antiargument; Gerstenfeld, ; Sullaway, ). Our results extend empirical data on perceptions of penalty enhancements in two ways.…”

“…§ 12.47). A primary argument in support of sentence‐enhancing hate crime laws is that bias‐motivated offenders are morally abhorrent (Adams, ) because the targeting a victim based on minority status is morally reprehensible in the eyes of jurors (Cramer et al., ), and support the argument that hate crime laws send a symbolic message that hate crimes are not tolerated by society (Gerstenfeld, ). Supporters of penalty enhancements also argue that, because hate crime victims suffer more psychological harm than other types of victims (Gerstenfeld, ), hate crime perpetrators deserve additional punishment beyond that of a parallel crime (Adams, ).…”

“…Cramer et al. () describe further details. None of the analyses reported here have been previously examined or reported.…”

Preferences in Information Processing and suicide: Results from a young adult health survey in the United Kingdom

“…NFA and NFC, therefore, constitute attitudes or preferences concerning emotional (i.e., system 1) and cognitive (i.e., system 2) information processing (Cramer et al, 2016). NFC and NFA have, independently and jointly, been widely applied to a range of outcomes such as perceptions of hate crimes (Cramer et al, 2013) and political beliefs (Arceneaux & Vander Wielen, 2013).…”

“…system 2) information processing (Cramer et al, 2016). NFC and NFA have, independently and jointly, been widely applied to a range of outcomes such as perceptions of hate crimes (Cramer et al, 2013), perceptions of victim impact statements (Wevodau, Cramer, Clark, & Kehn, 2014), and political beliefs (Arceneaux & Vander Wielen, 2013).…”