Hate crimes: evidence of lax prosecution?

[Zerbie]

Hi folks,

My senator opposes S1105, the federal hate crimes bill we've been arguing about so much.

Got a letter back already and there a couple of points I want the forum to help me find information on, for my own edification.

One of his stated objections is: "I also know of no evidence that any state has been reluctant to prosecute hate crimes."

I know that I have read of such things in books, various media sources over the years, but I don't have any such stories handy. Do we have evidence of state reluctance? I can provide a lot of "hearsay," including at least one incident experienced by someone on this forum. Can we point to anything remotely concrete or documented when someeone raises this objection? Books, site links, etc. all welcome!

There was also this, with which I am unfamiliar: "federal sentencing guidelines already provide for enhancements. . . for hate crimes based on race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation."

This appears to be a separate issue from the matter of enforcement, which is what S1105 provides, and why I got behind it. Can anyone clarify this "enhancement" issue?

Thanks so much!

[BrentRichards]

With regard to FSG ... Federal Sentencing Guidelines are just that: guidelines, not law. Your Senator will be aware that they are non-binding. A judge is supposed to consult them, but is not legally bound by them. Thought they were originally binding, the Supreme Court ruled that they could not be.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal...ing_Guidelines

Don't have any info to hand on evidence for laxity, but I'll keep my eyes open.

[tpdncr4christ]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

One of his stated objections is: "I also know of no evidence that any state has been reluctant to prosecute hate crimes."

Would reluctance to prosecute a hate crime be my school's reluctance to find the folks who wrote on my car? A few weeks ago someone wrote, in wash-off-able car paint, "No F***ing Fags" on the window of my car. I filed a report with the office and went on with my life, but last Friday when I went in to see if anything happened, they hadn't done anything about it yet. They seem quite content to let it go unfilled.

[tdogg]

Nice Austin. Love the support you are getting from your school...

The problem with guidelines is, it's not law, not a requirement. It's nice to have, but it's optional.

I believe there would be numerous examples of hate crimes going un-investigated and unpunished. It would take some researching. The problem you'll likely run into is, your senator (or whoever, insert name/title) will try to refute it by insisting it wasn't a 'hate crime', or it wasn't proven a hate crime.

Much like others who would say, well that guy punched him out but it was him hitting his own head on the concrete that killed him.

If I can get some time on the computer the next couple of days, I'll see what I can find. I'm sure others probably already have some links and examples. Antony maybe??

[Dash]

Don't rely on my excerpting, though...you'll want to read the entire report.

_____
2006 National Hate Crimes Report by the Anti-Violence Project


ANTI-LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER
VIOLENCE IN 2006
A Report of the
National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs

p12-13
Looking further at law enforcement reporting and response data, one
category that showed a substantial increase was the number of complaints
refused by police, which rose 17%, from 71 such incidents in
2005 to 83 in 2006.

There were changes in law enforcement response to those reports in
2006. Arrests were made in 15% of cases, down from 20% in 2005.
In 13% of cases, officers refused to take complaints from victims.

In 2005, complaints were only refused in 10% of cases. Complaints
were taken, but no arrests were made in 55% of cases reported to law
enforcement, this rate was unchanged between 2005 and 2006.
Attitude measures for law enforcement response also remained effectively
unchanged; in those cases where information was available, victims
described law enforcement response as “courteous” 49% of the
time, “indifferent” 34% of the time, verbally abusive 11% of the time,
and physically abusive 6% of the time. The most significant shift was
seen in a decline in victims rating law enforcement response as “courteous.”
Though as noted above that rate was 49% in 2006, it was
53% in 2005.

There were fluctuations in information relative to the disposition of
reports made to law enforcement. Thirty-six percent (36%) of
reports received bias classification by law enforcement - a decline
from 42% in 2005. Bias classifications were refused in 7% of cases,
only marginally higher than the 6% refusal rate in 2005, and the number
of cases reported in jurisdictions in which bias classifications are
not available declined slightly from 10% in 2005 to 8% in 2006.

p20
There are ongoing challenges in fashioning a comprehensive response
to anti-LGBT violence at the national level. For instance, there is still
not a meaningful federal effort to assess the true extent of anti-LGBT
violence in the United States, such that this report, covering approximately
27%2 of the nation's population, remains the most comprehensive
survey available.

p22
Other than by requiring its members to adhere to standardized and
verifiable reporting procedures, NCAVP makes little attempt to correct
for certain other variables likely to influence the extent of reporting
within each region. Because anti-LGBT violence has historically
been poorly addressed by law enforcement (and because law enforcement
officials remain one of the prime categories of offenders documented
by NCAVP each year), it is very often underreported to police
even in jurisdictions where relationships between law enforcement and
the LGBT population have improved.

p23-24
However, in 2005 (the last year for which FBI hate crime statistics
are available), only 1,017 bias-related incidents based on sexual
orientation (including 21 based on anti-heterosexual sentiment)
were contained in the FBI's data representing 82.6%3 of
the nation's population, whereas NCAVP captured 1,393 incidents
in areas representing only 26.6% of the nation's population.

Of the incidents for which NCAVP collected data, there were at
least 1035 "arrest-able" offenses such as murder, assault or rape
that if reported to local law enforcement should have been documented
as hate incidents and submitted to the FBI under
Uniform Crime Reporting. Additionally, the FBI identified no
anti-LGBT murders in 20054, while in the same year, NCAVP
documented 9.

It is important to add that for the most part, participation in federal
tracking efforts by local and state law enforcement agencies is voluntary.
Those that do submit data to federal authorities do not utilize a
standard survey instrument, and there is not even a consistent definition
of bias violence. In the absence of mandates for the identification
and collection of data on hate crimes, voluntary compliance with
the Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990 is often lackadaisical, and FBI
annual statistics are rendered meaningless. For example, in the
entire state of California, only 252 of 725 participating law
enforcement agencies reported any hate crimes during all of
2005 (based on the 7 categories covered), and those 252 participating
agencies only reported 255 hate-motivated incidents
based on sexual orientation -- Community United Against
Violence in San Francisco alone submitted data for this report
on 285 incidents which contained 165 arrest-able offenses.

In looking at a state with a far smaller population, the disparities
continue: in Colorado, only 43 of 205 participating law
enforcement agencies reported any hate crimes during all of
2005, and those agencies only reported 16 hate-motivated incidents
based on sexual orientation -- the Colorado Anti-Violence
Program, based in Denver, which also participated in this report
submitted data on 127 incidents which contained 115 arrest-able
offenses.

In New York, the picture was much the same with only 61 of
520 participating law enforcement agencies reported any hate
crimes during all of 2005, and those agencies only reported 24
hate-motivated incidents based on sexual orientation -- the New
York City Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project, also a participant
in this report submitted data on 486 incidents primarily in
the Downstate region, which contained 356 arrest-able offenses.

p33-34 (New York)
The number of LGTB hate crime victims choosing to report bias
incidents to law enforcement continued to decline in 2006. The
reporting dropped by 28% (from 275 in 2005 to198 in 2006). While
victims gave a variety of reasons for not reporting the anti-LGTB
hate crimes to the authorities, one most often cited reason was a fear
of bias attitude from and revictimization by the police. These statements
are paralleled by 25% drop in reported courteous attitude
exhibited by the police. Reports of incidents of verbal and physical
abuse by police remained relatively even as compared to 2005. There
was a considerable increase of 118% (from 11 in 2005 to 24 in 2006)
in reported incidents that were refused hate crime classification by
police. Getting the law enforcement to properly classify incidents as
hate crimes continues to be a challenge and a source of frustration for
many LGTB hate crime victims. To further complicate the matter, the
vast majority of those who commit bias crimes against LGTB people
are never caught and their acts of hate go unpunished. In 2006, just
23% (45) of 197 anti-LGTB hate crimes reported to the police resulted
in arrests, a 25% decline from 60 arrests in 2005.

pp63-65
Data tables for Police Response.

In the margins of the report are numerous case incidents such as the following:

Two friends, a gay man and a trans-
genderedwoman, were accosted by
a group of 12 teenage males on
their way home. One of the male
perpetrators threatened to stab
the gay man.Then the rest of the
group joined in and began swinging
at him with hands and punching
him.Victim's friend tried to aid him
and was punched in the face. She
suffered a split lip and was bleeding.
The perpetrators yelled anti-gay
slurs during the attack and threatened
to kill both of them.The victims
ran for help to the precinct
located across the street from
where the incident took place, but
the police were indifferent and
refused to intervene. The Anti-
Violence Project met with precinct
commanders. p.12

[Zerbie]

Dash!

That report is really awesome! I remember hearing about it but didn't want to try to download a 70 page report, didn't know you could view it online. It's very informative.

I was especially interested that Wingspan, here in AZ, had some statistics in the 2006 report. Anti-LGBT violence rose in Arizona while that marriage amendment was being debated.

Thanks for the info. I won't be responding to the senator's office about this again (no point) but I now have some relevant (and even local) statistics for future conversations.

I really like the AVP's position. I've never been gung-ho about hate crimes laws that are just enhancement penalties. AVP is more interested in investigation, prosecution, justice (not necessarily with enhancements), and also about education, awareness, and prevention. That's where I'm throwing my support.