The Difference “Hate” Makes in Clearing Crime

Abstract

Studying hate crime clearance rates provides an opportunity to uncover the factors that influence police effectiveness for a relatively new legal category-one that was designed ostensibly to protect minorities, and that may pose unique challenges for police reporting, defining, and investigation. Using multiple years (2005-2010) of data from the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), we estimate event history models to compare the incident-level predictors and relative probability of arrest for hate and nonbias crimes. As an aggregate category, we find hate crimes are less likely to clear than nonbias crimes. However, the most prototypical hate crimes-White-on-non-White incidents motivated by racial and ethnic bias-are as likely to clear as the most successfully cleared nonbias crimes. Our results suggest that only hate crimes that fit popular constructions of "normal victims and offenders" receive investigative outcomes comparable with otherwise similar nonbias offenses.

The legislative context of prejudice motivated victimisation: perceptions of police legitimacy and citizen decisions to report hate crime incidents

“…The majority of United States jurisdictions have laws that either penalise hate crimes or increase civil liability (Lyons & Roberts, 2014). The origins of the term 'hate crime' are based in the United…”

“…According to Lyons and Roberts (2014) (Schneider, 2001, p. 458). According to Perry (2001), power hierarchies and power dynamics in society are based on dominance over 'difference' (for example, difference pertaining to gender, race, sexuality and class, etc.).…”

“…Police performance is, therefore, part of the Instrumental Perspective. According to Lyons and Roberts (2014), clearance rates are a measure of law enforcement effectiveness. Victims expect the police to arrest and charge the offender, which is called clearance (Lyons & Roberts, 2014).…”

“…According to Lyons and Roberts (2014), clearance rates are a measure of law enforcement effectiveness. Victims expect the police to arrest and charge the offender, which is called clearance (Lyons & Roberts, 2014). If clearance rates are poor, the deterrent effect is reduced and the trust in the police diminished (Lyons & Roberts, 2014).…”

“…Victims expect the police to arrest and charge the offender, which is called clearance (Lyons & Roberts, 2014). If clearance rates are poor, the deterrent effect is reduced and the trust in the police diminished (Lyons & Roberts, 2014). Lyons and Roberts (2014, p. 277) found that police less likely clear PMCs than non-PMCs (31.6% compared to 41.4%), and the lack of perceptions of seriousness by police and witnesses will influence these clearance outcomes.…”