Victim Blame in a Hate Crime Motivated by Sexual Orientation

Abstract

A jury simulation paradigm was employed for two studies exploring levels of victim blame in a case of bias-motivated assault based on sexual orientation. In the first study, participants were grouped according to their score on the Index of Homophobia (IHP) scale as either reporting high or low support for gay and lesbian community members. The label of the crime (i.e., bias-motivated assault versus first-degree assault) as well as the gender of the victim were systematically varied. Results indicated that attributions of blame against the victim varied as a function of participants' attitudes toward minority sexual orientation. As extra-legal factors likely contribute to victim blame in these cases, the second study explored such factors as location and "provocation." Jurors in the second study read a transcript depicting an attack on a gay man by a man in either a local bar (i.e., not a gay bar) or a gay bar. Within location conditions, jurors were presented with either "provocation" by the victim (i.e., asking the perpetrator to dance and putting his arm around him) or alternatively no provocation was presented. Results revealed significant differences of victim blame depending on condition. Participants in both the local bar and provocation present conditions were more likely to blame the victim for the attack than those in the gay bar or provocation-absent conditions. Implications for hate crime law and attribution theory within the courtroom are discussed.

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

“…Consistent with literature concerning victim blaming and perceptions of victims in hate crimes (e.g., , victim-related beliefs were phrases that refer to beliefs about the victims of hate crimes (e.g., "gay people should/should not be protected" [leveling the playing field] or "the victim was partially responsible for what happened" [victim blaming]). Consistent with literature demonstrating negative perceptions of hate crime offenders (e.g., Plumm, Terrance, Henderson, & Ellingson, 2010), offender-related beliefs were phrases that refer to beliefs about the offenders of hate crimes (e.g., "all deserve to be punished" or "these perpetrators are bigots"). The "other" category included personal reasons, extra-legal factors, study-related reasons, or phrases that did not fit with any of the previous categories.…”

“…For example, while Plumm and Terrance (2013) did not examine whether qualitatively coded statements predicted verdict decisions, frequencies showed that the majority of the legal arguments were made in favor of a not guilty verdict in a hate crime, and most of the morality statements were made in favor of a guilty verdict. Indeed, jurors tend to attribute more blame and punishment in bias-motivated cases (e.g., Cramer, Chandler, & Wakeman, 2010;Plumm, Terrance, Henderson, & Ellingson, 2010). Jacobs and Potter (2000) reasoned that hate crime offenders are viewed as more culpable due to the severe impact on the victims, members of the victim's minority group, and society as a whole.…”

Gender‐bias hate crimes: what constitutes a hate crime from a potential juror's perspective?

“…In fact, it may have been that the scenario used was viewed as unwanted sexual overtures that may have created an implicit threat to a female more so than to a male. Using a similar scenario, however, Plumm, Terrance, Henderson, and Ellingson () found that a case of same‐gender hate crime including an unwanted sexual overture was viewed as a hate crime. Therefore, it is likely that the gender dyad is creating the differential responses in this study rather than the scenario itself.…”

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

“…While antiracial hate crimes have been the center of most research, anti-GLB hate crimes are beginning to gain researchers' interest. The burgeoning literature on lay and student mock juror perceptions of hate crimes against sexual minorities shows two consistent findings: (a) perpetrators of anti-GLB hate crimes are punished and blamed more compared with other types of crimes (e.g., Cramer et al, 2010;Cramer, Wakeman, Chandler, Mohr, & Griffin, in press;Rayburn, Mendoza, & Davison, 2003), and (b) certain participant attitudes influence sentencing and blame judgments of victims and perpetrators in these situations (e.g., Lyons, 2006;Plumm, Terrance, Henderson, & Ellingson, 2010;Rayburn et al, 2003). Perceiver characteristics most relevant to these judgments to date include sexually prejudiced or homophobic beliefs (e.g., Rayburn & Mendoza, 2002), authoritarianism (Cramer et al, in press), and perceptions of the victim (e.g., Plumm et al, 2010).…”