Hate Crimes in America: Worse than we thought?

[Czarcasm]

According to this New York Times article, quite a few areas have been under-reporting, or even not reporting at all, incidents of hate crimes. For clarification,

Under FBI guidelines, an incident should be reported as a suspected hate crime if a “reasonable and prudent” person would conclude a crime was motivated by bias. Among the criteria for evaluation is whether an incident coincided with a significant holiday or date, specifically citing the King holiday. A suspect need not be identified to meet the threshold for reporting.

Now, while the article goes on to say that the majority of these non-reporting areas are small towns, there are some major metropolitan areas, like my own Multnomah County, and a number of larger cities, " including Birmingham, Alabama; Jackson, Mississippi; and Baton Rouge, Louisiana."
I’m not buying a lot of the excuses given in the article by the various agencies at fault, like “clerical errors”, or “we thought our agency didn’t have to report if we didn’t have cars on the streets.” I think it’s more a case of “See No Evil-Report No Evil-No Evil Comes Up At Election Time”.

[Shodan]

Under FBI guidelines, an incident should be reported as a suspected hate crime if a “reasonable and prudent” person would conclude a crime was motivated by bias.

What is the evidence that would lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the car fire reported in the article was motivated by bias? It was set on MLK Day, and Ms. Hicks’ father used to be active in the civil rights movement. Is that supposed to be enough?

Regards,
Shodan

[Czarcasm]

@Shodan

What is the evidence that would lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the car fire reported in the article was motivated by bias? It was set on MLK Day, and Ms. Hicks’ father used to be active in the civil rights movement. Is that supposed to be enough?

According to the official guidelines, apparently yes. That’s why I went through the trouble of reprinting them from the article.

[up_the_junction]

No organisation in the US even keep stats on policing killings until The Guardian started collecting data last year.

You’re going to find a lot of hurt in the data if the country ever gets itself modernised.

[Czarcasm]

@up_the_junction

No organisation in the US even keep stats on policing killings until The Guardian started collecting data last year.

You’re going to find a lot of hurt in the data if the country ever gets itself modernised.

1. That’s not true.
2. I’d like to focus in on the subject of this thread-the under(and non)reporting of hate crimes.

[Shodan]

@Czarcasm

According to the official guidelines, apparently yes. That’s why I went through the trouble of reprinting them from the article.

I don’t think the official guidelines say “any crime that happens on January 15th should be reported as a hate crime”.

Here (pdf) are the actual guidelines. Could you show the specifics from those guidelines that would lead a prudent and reasonable person to conclude that the car fire from your article was a hate crime?

Regards,
Shodan

[Bricker]

@Shodan

I don’t think the official guidelines say “any crime that happens on January 15th should be reported as a hate crime”.

Here (pdf) are the actual guidelines. Could you show the specifics from those guidelines that would lead a prudent and reasonable person to conclude that the car fire from your article was a hate crime?

Regards,
Shodan

From Shodan’s link:

1. The offender and the victim were of a different race, religion, disability, sexual
   orientation, ethnicity, gender, and/or gender identity. For example, the victim was
   African American and the offender was white.
2. Bias-related oral comments, written statements, or gestures were made by the
   offender indicating his or her bias. For example, the offender shouted a racial epithet at
   the victim.
3. Bias-related drawings, markings, symbols, or graffiti were left at the crime scene. For
   example, a swastika was painted on the door of a synagogue, mosque, or LGBT center.
4. Certain objects, items, or things which indicate bias were used. For example, the
   offenders wore white sheets with hoods covering their faces or a burning cross was left
   in front of the victim’s residence.
5. The victim is a member of a specific group that is overwhelmingly outnumbered by
   other residents in the neighborhood where the victim lives and the incident took place.
6. The victim was visiting a neighborhood where previous hate crimes had been
   committed because of race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or
   gender identity and where tensions remained high against the victim’s group.
7. Several incidents occurred in the same locality, at or about the same time, and the
   victims were all of the same race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity,
   gender, or gender identity.
8. A substantial portion of the community where the crime occurred perceived that the
   incident was motivated by bias.
9. The victim was engaged in activities related to his or her race, religion, disability,
   sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity. For example, the victim was a
   member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) or
   participated in an LGBT pride celebration.
10. The incident coincided with a holiday or a date of significance relating to a particular
    race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity, e.g.,
    Martin Luther King Day, Rosh Hashanah, or the Transgender Day of Remembrance.
11. The offender was previously involved in a similar hate crime or is a hate group
    member.
12. There were indications that a hate group was involved. For example, a hate group
    claimed responsibility for the crime or was active in the neighborhood.
13. A historically-established animosity existed between the victim’s and the offender’s
    groups.
14. The victim, although not a member of the targeted racial, religious, disability, sexual
    orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity group, was a member of an advocacy
    group supporting the victim group.

[Richard_Parker]

The important language, I think, is that those are factors to be considered. None of them is individually determinative, nor do they necessarily carry equal weight.

If these or other factors indicate that the offender may have been motivated by bias to commit the crime, the incident should be classified as a “suspected bias-motivated crime” and sent on to the second-level judgment officer/unit for review. While the mere utterance of a racial epithet by the offender does not provide sufficient basis to report a crime as a “suspected bias-motivated crime,” it, combined with other factors indicating bias, could do so. For the purpose of first-level bias crime reporting, the old adage of “when in doubt, check it out” should be followed, i.e., questionable cases should be referred to the second-level judgment officer/unit for resolution.

[Little_Nemo]

@Shodan

What is the evidence that would lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the car fire reported in the article was motivated by bias? It was set on MLK Day, and Ms. Hicks’ father used to be active in the civil rights movement. Is that supposed to be enough?

You collect data first and then you look for patterns. This is basic law enforcement because it gives you insights into who might be committing crimes and allows you to predict when and where crimes might occur.

[Shodan]

@Little_Nemo

You collect data first and then you look for patterns. This is basic law enforcement because it gives you insights into who might be committing crimes and allows you to predict when and where crimes might occur.

OK - what data were collected that would show a prudent and reasonable person that the car fire was a hate crime?

AFAICT the topic for debate is whether or not hate crimes are under-reported. The example of the car fire was given, apparently, as an example of how that is happening (along with the example of the gay guy with the pink poodle who got beat up). The gay basher was charged with a federal hate crime according to the article although not convicted of it. I can see reporting the gay bashing as a hate crime even if he wasn’t convicted, but I don’t see anything beyond that it happened on MLK Day to indicate that the car fire was a hate crime. Is there anything more? The FBI guidelines mention a lot of other circumstances that would affect such a determination. Do any of them apply?

Regards,
Shodan

[yellowjacketcoder]

If I can be permitted a side question:

If something is reported as a hate crime, and the crime is later found to be unrelated to hate, how is that reported?

I’m thinking of a scenario like “On the anniversary of Stonewall, a gay dude active in GLAD was beat up at the site of a previous hate crime. We reported this as a hate crime. Later, upon finding the perp, it turned out he was blotto drunk and thought he was defending the shire from a rampaging Ent.” Does the reporting have a mechanism to handle that, and how often does it happen?

[John_Mace]

@yellowjacketcoder

I’m thinking of a scenario like “On the anniversary of Stonewall, a gay dude active in GLAD was beat up at the site of a previous hate crime. We reported this as a hate crime. Later, upon finding the perp, it turned out he was blotto drunk and thought he was defending the shire from a rampaging Ent.” Does the reporting have a mechanism to handle that, and how often does it happen?

Hmmmmmm. Looks like they may have been too hasty in the original report.

[yellowjacketcoder]

@John_Mace

Hmmmmmm. Looks like they may have been too hasty in the original report.

…yes? That is the whole point of my question.

[John_Mace]

Ents. Hasty. Get it?

[yellowjacketcoder]

@John_Mace

Ents. Hasty. Get it?

I wonder how much Skald charges to lease his BEES! BEES! BEES!

[Nava]

In your case, shouldn’t they be yellow jackets?

[mistymage]

@yellowjacketcoder

If I can be permitted a side question:

If something is reported as a hate crime, and the crime is later found to be unrelated to hate, how is that reported?

A student at the University of Iowa reported a hate crime that was later found to not be one. The following news story says he didn’t get charged for “false-report charge”

No charges against University of Iowa student Marcus Owens for fabricating...

He’s also lucky because “Johnson County and Iowa City authorities said they could have sought restitution through a civil action against Owens — as they spent extensive resources and time digging into his allegations and pulled people away from other pressing investigations.”

But he might not be so lucky although we, the public, won’t know “UI spokeswoman Anne Bassett said Owens could face university sanctions as the Student Conduct office is investigating to determine if he violated the Code of Student Life. But, she said, any outcomes from that investigation will be kept private.”

[Czarcasm]

@mistymage

A student at the University of Iowa reported a hate crime that was later found to not be one. The following news story says he didn’t get charged for “false-report charge”

http://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/public-safety/johnson-county/no-charges-against-university-of-iowa-student-marcus-owens-for-fabricating-hate-crime-the-events-as-reported-by-marcus-just-did-not-happen-20160517

He’s also lucky because “Johnson County and Iowa City authorities said they could have sought restitution through a civil action against Owens — as they spent extensive resources and time digging into his allegations and pulled people away from other pressing investigations.”

But he might not be so lucky although we, the public, won’t know “UI spokeswoman Anne Bassett said Owens could face university sanctions as the Student Conduct office is investigating to determine if he violated the Code of Student Life. But, she said, any outcomes from that investigation will be kept private.”

Thank you for that follow-up. I think the thrust of the article though isn’t that there are a bunch of “false positives” to worry about-it’s that there are a bunch of areas that aren’t submitting reports at all.

[Barkis_is_Willin]

From the article, it seems there is a good amount of confusion regarding who reports what to whom. Apparently, law enforcement agencies are supposed to file a report even if they aren’t investigating any hate crimes. For example, if the FBI is investigating a hate crime in your town, your local police should file the hate crime report even though they’re not handling the case.

The article also notes that many states have perfect filing records. So maybe some training consultation would be helpful for those states delinquent in their report filings.

[octopus]

@Czarcasm

According to this New York Times article, quite a few areas have been under-reporting, or even not reporting at all, incidents of hate crimes. For clarification,
Now, while the article goes on to say that the majority of these non-reporting areas are small towns, there are some major metropolitan areas, like my own Multnomah County, and a number of larger cities, " including Birmingham, Alabama; Jackson, Mississippi; and Baton Rouge, Louisiana."
I’m not buying a lot of the excuses given in the article by the various agencies at fault, like “clerical errors”, or “we thought our agency didn’t have to report if we didn’t have cars on the streets.” I think it’s more a case of “See No Evil-Report No Evil-No Evil Comes Up At Election Time”.

Hate crimes will never be accurately reported as that would be counterproductive for the political reasons of inventing hate crimes. It’s a useless metric especially when it’s rare for black on white to be labeled hate crimes.