Search results

The purpose of this paper is to present an econometric analysis of hate crime against older people based on data for England and Wales for 2010-2011 disaggregated by Crown Prosecution Service area – a geographical unit which is co-terminus with local authorities.

The authors ran different specifications of structural regression models including one latent variable and accounting for a number of interactions between the covariates.

The paper suggests that the higher the level of other types of hate crime is in an area, the higher the level of hate crime against older people. Demographics are also significant: a higher concentration of older and young people partially explains hate crime levels against the former. Employment, income and educational deprivation are also associated with biased-crime against older people. Conviction rates seem to reduce hate crime against older people, and one indicator of intergenerational contact is not significant.

Due to data availability and quality, the paper only studies one years worth of data. Consequently, the research results may lack generalisability. Furthermore, the proxy variable for intergenerational contact may not be the most suitable indicator; however, there will not be any other indicators available until Census data come out.

The paper suggests that factors underlying hate crime would also influence hate crime against older people. Besides, the results would not support the “generational clash” view. Tackling income, educational and employment deprivation would help significantly reduce the number of episodes of biased criminal activity against older people. Improving conviction rates of all types of hate crime would also contribute to the reduction of hate crime against older people.

This paper presents the first econometric analysis of hate crime against older people.

This article argues that while the hate crime model has accelerated criminal justice agencies' understanding of the importance of the victim‐centred approach to investigating and prosecuting hate crime, at the same time it risks oversimplifying the victim experience. Recent reports published by the Metropolitan Police Service and the Equality and Human Rights Commission suggest that the victim experience of hate crime is very complex, with a number of impacts and risks at the intersections of identity. The concept of intersectionality, as explained by Horvath and Kelly (2008), is applied to identify some improvements that can be made in criminal justice policy to better recognise and address ‘what is really going on’ for victims of hate crime.

There is a real paucity of evidence relating to homophobic hate crimes in Britain. This has hampered intelligence‐led approaches by the police and other criminal justice agencies in tackling the issues facing many lesbian, gay and bisexual people. This article reports on evidence generated by Stonewall's Homophobic Hate Crime: The gay British crime survey 2008 (Dick, 2008). In particular, it demonstrates the importance of good quality and up‐to‐date evidence by highlighting the fact that under‐reporting of homophobic hate crimes is caused by far more complex factors than previously assumed. Yet, numerous initiatives to tackle hate crime have been based on outdated assumptions around reasons for under‐reporting. The article also contends that the move towards a ‘cross‐strand’ approach and local priority setting threatens the embryonic work on homophobic hate crimes.

So‐called ‘faith hate’, or religiously aggravated crime stands out starkly as being the uncharted territory in hate crime scholarship and policy research. When the evidence about the problem in the United Kingdom is unfolded, it suggests that there may be valuable policy learning to be gained. There are some fundamental questions that need to be addressed, however. Are victims really targeted because of their faith or because of something else? Are such crimes different to other acts of hate crime, such as racist crime? And who are the perpetrators of ‘faith hate’ crime? Are they any different from those who commit race hate crime? These questions have important implications for policy and practice learning.

This article considers the experiences of people with learning difficulties as victims of hate crime. It considers how the Crime and Disorder Act and No Secrets can help identify and prevent hate crime, and examines an example of good practice designed to produce an effective response.

This study tests assumptions implicit in many of the policy developments around hate crime reporting that concern the social context and some of the psychological processes behind decisionmaking on victim reporting. Results suggest that official concern over reporting all hate crimes for service planning requirements is not shared by the overwhelming majority of respondents and would not be feasible to deliver. If reporting is to be increased it needs to deliver a more tangible and personally experienced outcome for the individual.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the phenomenon of mate crime and attempts to assess its practical as well as its theoretical implications.

It begins with an account of the short history of the concept and then positions mate crime within academic theorising around general hate crime and disability.

Particular reference is made to the significance of the issue of vulnerability and how its interpretation might affect understanding of this phenomenon.

This is followed by some observations on how agencies of social policy and the legislature are responding to the issue of mate crime.

Particular reference is paid to the impact of safeguarding adults procedures.

It concludes that, although “mates” can (and do) “hate”, further research is required on the subject in order to gain better knowledge of the issue from both a theoretical and a practice position.

Third party reporting (TPR) services provide a route for victims of hate crime to report their experiences to an organisation other than the police. There is repeated evidence of under-reporting of hate crimes within the UK, and many victims of hate crime are unaware of the existence of TPR mechanisms. Little research attention has been given to understanding of the merits of TPR, beyond evaluating how often they are used. This study aims to explore the delivery of TPR from an advisor perspective.

The research evaluated a small TPR centre based within a charitable organisation. The research, part of an undergraduate study, analysed the experiences of volunteer advisors working on the service through a semi-structured questionnaire.

Results were mixed. Findings indicated the service contributed to an enhanced awareness of hate crimes in the community; however, greater promotion of the TPR centre was advocated. The results also indicated a significant lack of understanding and knowledge by trained volunteer advisors about hate crimes.

A lack of informed awareness of what hate crimes are could result in victims of hate crime not being recognised or supported as such.

Most hate crime research is victim centred, and this study is innovative in looking at those receiving hate crime reports. There is limited evidence on TPR service provision in the UK, particularly on service delivery staff, and this research contributes to the gap in knowledge.

This article aims to give a brief background and overview of the current discourse surrounding hate crime. The author discusses the difficulties of defining hate crime how agencies such as the police can deal with the issue. Different characteristics and motivations for the perpetrators of hate crime will be analysed. The victims of hate crime and members of their community can be deeply affected by their victimisation, these affects will be described and possible policy implications discussed.

This paper aims to examine the extent to which police services are set up to deal with hate crime against people with learning disabilities; looking at infrastructure, policies, procedures and levels of awareness and understanding.

Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with representatives from 14 police services in England. Key documents submitted by the police services were reviewed, and a focus group with eight people with learning disabilities was conducted.

Many police services are committed to tackling hate crime against people with learning disabilities. A wide variety of individuals have responsibility for dealing with hate crime and accountability structures are often unclear. Many services do not have hate crime policies that deal specifically with people with learning disabilities, or even disabled people in general. More training is required to ensure relevant staff are equipped to deal with the issues. Hate crime statistics are regarded as unreliable due to significant under‐reporting, although a few services have implemented innovative interventions to encourage reporting through awareness‐raising and multi‐agency working.

The Coalition Government has called for greater efforts at combating disability hate crime. It is widely acknowledged that the police are still failing disabled victims and witnesses. This paper identifies specific areas for improvement as well as innovative and effective practice that should be shared more widely.