The Case for Hate Crime Statutes-Putative Uniqueness of Injuries

  • Frank S. PezzellaEmail author
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Criminology book series (BRIEFSCRIMINOL)


Advocates of hate crime statutes suggest they are needed because hate crimes are fundamentally different than their ordinary crime counterparts. Hate crimes allegedly hurt more than comparable non-hate-motivated crimes on a number of levels. First, hate crimes have been found to be more physically injurious to primary victims. Second, advocates suggest hate crimes sustain multidimensional injuries including physical, emotional, psychological, and quality of life injuries. Third, hate crimes allegedly affect society at large by undermining democratic ideals of equality, intergroup trust and inclusion. Several scholars suggest hate crime uniquely perpetrate “in terrorum” effects on direct victims but also on proximal and distal victims who share group membership with the primary victim. Finally, proponents of hate crime statutes argue hate crimes are more likely to generate retaliatory victimizations that further polarize discrete groups within a heterogeneous society.


Severe hate crime injuries Multidimensional injuries Physical injuries Primary victims Secondary victims Vicarious victims In terrorum effects 


  1. Barnes, A., & Ephross, P. H. (1994). The impact of hate violence on victims: Emotional and behavioral responses to attacks. Social Work, 39(3), 247–251.Google Scholar
  2. Berrill, K. T. (1990). Anti-gay violence and victimization in the United States an overview. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5(3), 274–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boeckmann, R. J., & Turpin-Petrosino, C. (2002). Understanding the harm of hate crime. Journal of Social Issues, 58(2), 207–225.Google Scholar
  4. Dragowski, E. A., Kalkitis, P. N., Grossman, A. H., & D’Augelli, A. R. (2011). Sexual orientation victimization and post traumatic stress symptoms among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Jornal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 23(2), 226–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Erlich, H., Larcom, B., & Pervis, R. (1994). The traumatic effects of ethnoviolence. Towson, Md: Prejudice Institute, Center for the Applied Study of Ethnoviolence.Google Scholar
  6. Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., & Cogan, J. C. (1999). Psychological sequelae of hate-crime victimization among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(6), 945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Herek, G. M., Cogan, J. C., & Gillis, J. R. (2002). Victim experiences in hate crimes based on sexual orientation. Journal of Social Issues, 58(2), 319–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Iganski, P. (2001). Hate crimes hurt more. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(4), 626–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Iganski, P. (2002). Introduction: The problem of hate crimes and hate crimes laws. In P. Iganski (Ed.), The hate debate: Should hate be punished as a crime. (pp. 1–15). London: The Institute for Jewish Policy Research.Google Scholar
  10. Iganski, P., & Lagou, S. (2014). The personal injuries of ‘hate crime’. In The Routledge international handbook on hate crime, pp. 34–46.Google Scholar
  11. Lawrence, F. M. (2009). Punishing hate: Bias crimes under American law. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Levin, B. (1999). Hate crimes worse by definition. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 15(1), 6–21.Google Scholar
  13. Levin, Brian. (2002). From slavery to hate crime laws: The emergence of race and status-based protection in American criminal law. Journal of Social Issues, 58(2), 227–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Levin, J., & McDevitt, J. (1993). Hate crimes: The rising tide of bigotry and bloodshed (Vol. 5). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lim, H. A. (2009). Beyond the immediate victim: Understanding hate crimes as message crimes. Hate crimes: The consequences of hate crime, 2, 107–222.Google Scholar
  16. Martin, S. E. (1996). Investigating hate crimes: Case characteristics and law enforcement responses. Justice Quarterly, 13(3), 455–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McDevitt, J., Balboni, J., Garcia, L., & Gu, J. (2001). Consequences for victims: A comparison of bias and non-bias motivated assaults. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 697–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Messner, S. F., McHugh, S., & Felson, R. B. (2004). Distinctive characteristics of assaults motivated by bias. Criminology, 42(3), 585–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Perry, B. (2001). In the name of hate: Understanding hate crimes. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  20. Perry, B. (Ed.). (2009). Hate crimes (Vol. 2). Greenwood Publishing Group. Google Scholar
  21. Perry, B. (2014). Exploring the community impacts of hate crimes. In The Routledge international handbook on hate crime.Google Scholar
  22. Perry, B., & Alvi, S. (2012). ‘We are all vulnerable’ The in terrorem effects of hate crimes. International Review of Victimology, 18(1), 57–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pezzella, F. S., & Fetzer, M. D. (2015). The likelihood of injury among bias crimes: An analysis of general and specific bias types. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 0886260515586374.Google Scholar
  24. State v. Beebe. (1994). 67 Or. App. 738.Google Scholar
  25. Strom, K. (2001). Hate crimes reported in NIBRS, 1997–99. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  26. The Matthew Shepard & Robert Byrd Jr. Hate Crime Prevention Act 18 U.S. 249.Google Scholar
  27. Weinstein, J. (1992). First amendment challenges to hate crime legislation: Where’s the speech?.Google Scholar
  28. Wisconsin V. Mitchell. (1993). U.S. Supreme Court, 505 U.S. 476.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Criminal JusticeJohn Jay College of Criminal JusticeNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations