Silvina Ituarte
Chaos: Bias Crimes and Socially Mixed Messages

Prejudice is not a new phenomenon, yet little attention has been placed on how socially sanctioned discrimination against marginalized groups provides an advantage for offenders. On one hand, society wants to punish offenders for their bias motivated behaviors, yet on the other hand, rhetoric from prominent community leaders not only perpetuates a climate of intolerance toward marginalized groups, but also nourishes ignorance and fear. In some cases, officials espousing a zero tolerance against acts of bias exhibit a glaring contradiction with legislative efforts such as those that forbid same-sex marriage. Similarly, while some communities unite to speak out against prejudiced acts of violence, societal debates continue over whether or not to erect a wall between the Mexico - United States border. Socially sanctioned biases foster a climate of intolerance, stigmatize the victim, and lessen the victim's willingness to report a crime. Readers must ask themselves how bias motivated behaviors can be eradicated while socially endorsed prejudices persist. Is this Chaos or Community?

Bias crimes, unlike crimes for profit, such as robbery and burglary, cannot be divorced from the contextual and political framework elucidating the prejudicial tensions of the time. In analyzing the social context under which bias crimes take place, the reader must be aware that, although the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees life, liberty, and property to everyone, various members of society have historically been excluded from such protections. The history of the United States is full of examples in which various groups of people were exploited, manipulated, or cheated out of their rights or belongings. Yet, while history provides an essential framework from which to detect potential factors influencing and facilitating participation in bias-motivated incidents, it cannot explain why some people choose to express their prejudices in violent ways, while others do not. Individuals from various backgrounds share and live through similar economic, social, political, and personal struggles, yet not all turn to bias crimes as their solution (Allport, 1979, p. 209).

Bias acts include vandalism, defamation, harassment, intimidation, assault, other forms of abuse, arson, and homicide (Herek & Berrill, 1992). Each year, the Uniform Crime Report documents race-related bias as the category with the largest number of bias crimes, while antigay attacks are typically the most violent bias crimes (Miller & Humphreys, 1980). The majority of bias-motivated offenders are young men in their late teens and early twenties (Finn, 1988: Spillane, 1994) who are ordinary people not affiliated with organized hate groups (Finn, 1988; Herek & Berrill, 1992; Levin & McDevitt, 1993). Bias crime offenders, in comparison with non-bias offenders, are slightly younger and commit their crimes more often in groups.

In attempting to understand the origins of prejudice, scholars have advanced multiple theories emphasizing psychological, economic, and sociological explanations of prejudiced behaviors. In 1950, Adorno asserted that prejudiced people are personified by having "authoritarian personalities," which can be defined as a strict adherence to conventional standards and an unquestioning embrace of authority. Using a different approach, conflict theorists suggest that prejudice serves to further the subordination of marginalized groups, while sociologists propose that intolerance allows individuals to shift the responsibility for their misfortune onto vulnerable members of society. Normative theorists believe intolerance stems from societal norms that foster prejudice by promoting negative stereotypes about vulnerable groups which thereby enforce conventional standards. Other scholars perceive acts of bias as uniting groups of individuals seeking a peer group and a sense of belonging.

Bias crimes were first nationally addressed when the 1990 Hate Crime Statistics Act (HCSA) was enacted requiring the United States Justice Department to gather data on crimes committed due to the victim's race, national origin, religion, or sexual orientation. Documenting these crimes emerged as a priority in an effort to legitimize any further government response to the issue (Herek & Berrill, 1992). The Federal Bureau of Investigation was given the responsibility of creating and implementing the standards for assessing how law enforcement should determine whether an offense merits a bias classification. Statutes protecting individuals against hate-motivated violence were enacted, and they were closely scrutinized. The Act was much debated, since various legislators disagreed as to whom should be protected under the Act. Senator Jesse Helms refused to pass the Act, since it included protections for gay men and lesbians (Herek & Berrill, 1992).

The attention to bias crimes has been erratic, with some cases receiving tremendous attention and harsh sentences, while others are treated as pranks and receive minimal, if any, sanction. Often the media have perpetuated and sustained a perception of bias-motivated offenders, as well as most offenders, as "animals." As a society, the perception of bias-motivated offenders as "animals" allows each individual to avoid addressing his or her own prejudices by claiming that he or she is not like those people. In reality, close examination of the offenders demonstrates that many offenders are much like the rest of mainstream society: individuals struggling to cope with personal dilemmas through scapegoating or fulfilling a void through the use of destructive behaviors.

Thinking about ourselves, we would like to presume that hatred reflects a sick, pathological fringe element that has little, if anything, to do with the dominant American culture. We comfort ourselves by believing that vicious acts of bigotry originate outside of mainstream society, that they reside in only the darkest recesses of the marginal or abnormal mind. To the extent that this view is accepted, we see ourselves as innocent, blameless, and clean, whereas they [bias-motivated offenders] are guilty as sin. We are free of prejudice, while they are rednecks, racists, and bigots. We can continue to go about our business as usual, whereas they must change their evil ways. (Levin & McDevitt, 1993, p. 42)

Often, individuals separate themselves from those engaging in bias crimes in order to deny their own prejudices by asserting their difference from offenders of bias crimes. In his 1963 book, Outsiders, Howard Becker asserts that scholars not only seek answers to the question, "Who engages in deviant behaviors?" but also:

search for the factors in . . . [the offenders'] personalities and life situations that might account for the interactions. This assumes that those who have broken a rule constitute a homogenous category, because they have committed the same deviant act. Such an assumption seems to me to ignore the central fact about deviance: it is created by society. . . Students of deviance cannot assume that they are dealing with a homogeneous category [of offenders] because the process of labeling may not be infallible. (p. 8-9)

In 1921, Park and Burguess first addressed this issue when they defined social distance as the tendency to approach or withdraw from a racial group (Park & Burguess, as quoted in Schaeffer, 1998, p. 48). In 1968, Emory Bogardus created an empirical scale to measure and assess the hostilities and willingness of individuals to socially interact with diverse groups of people.

The scale asks people how willing they would be to interact with various racial and ethnic groups in specified social situations. . . . People are asked if they would be willing to admit each group: (1) to close kinship by marriage, (2) to my club as personal chums, (3) to my street as neighbors, (4) to employment in my occupation, (5) to citizenship in my country, (6) as only visitors to my country, and (7) would exclude from my country. (Schaeffer, 1998, p. 48)

A lower score would indicate that individuals do not experience much social distance from the group in question and therefore experience minimal prejudice toward that group, while a higher score indicates greater levels of prejudice toward members of the group. This scale examined approximately 30 racially and ethnically diverse groups in order to assess individual attitudes toward specific groups that were both similar and different from the individual ranking the groups. By comparing the different rankings of various groups during three time periods--1926, 1966, and 1991--one is better able to examine changing trends and attitudes across the years.

Although the societal levels of prejudice appear to be unevenly distributed among the various minority groups, studies show that those who are hostile toward one group are likely to be hostile toward others. E.L. Hartley studied college students and asked their attitudes toward thirty-two nations and races, including three fictitious groups, with respect to the Bogardus Social Distance Scale. He found that those prejudiced against real groups were also prejudiced against the fictional groups, with a high correlation of .80 (Allport, 1979, p. 68).

Social, situational, and personal factors act in a cyclical manner in which some offenders may originate their bias-motivated behaviors as a reaction to situational opportunities, while others originate their bias acts as a result of a combination of social factors. All three factors affect each individual, yet not every bias-motivated actor originates from the same starting point or experiences the same degree of effect from each of the variables.

When analyzing the popular rhetoric espoused by prominent political or societal leaders in contemporary American society, several public figures display the same prejudices expressed by bias-motivated offenders. The propagation of this type of rhetoric from prominent community, religious, and political leaders not only perpetuates a climate of intolerance toward a portion of the population, but also nourishes ignorance and fear.

Often legislators focus on extreme acts of hate as the pivotal point for enacting legislation against bias-motivated offenses but neglect to address the numerous daily acts of bias-motivated intimidation. National and local official records indicate that bias-motivated behaviors typically include acts of bias legally defined as less serious, such as intimidation and harassment. Table 2 indicates that between 93% to 98% of reported bias motivated incidents occurring from 1995-2004 involved intimidation, vandalism, or assault.

In a society, each individual needs to become more accountable and socially responsible for his or her actions. In recent years, social discourse has led to a backlash, as many individuals have become resentful of discussions compelling "political correctness." One's social responsibility does not have to stunt individuality and freedom of expression through a series of constraints, but rather promote learning about diversity so as to not fall victim to misguiding influences that perpetuate intolerance. As society grows more complex and young people face intense and complicated issues at earlier ages, children require assistance in absorbing, interpreting, understanding, and deciphering information.

Young Americans are frequently targeted as the primary audience for the culture of hate, especially for its films, music, and humor. Partially because they are lacking in diverse personal experiences, young people are generally unprepared to reject prejudiced claims coming from sources they regard as credible. Moreover, because they are less likely to handle their frustrations with tolerance and self-control, young Americans are more likely to resort to violence to resolve conflicts. (Levin & McDevitt, 1993, p. 43)

Offenders of bias-motivated behaviors do, in fact, engage in horrible acts that must be reprimanded, yet they quite often mimic societal prejudices. Many of the offenders frequently classified as "evil monsters" share the same prejudiced ideals and beliefs as individuals living within mainstream culture. These prejudiced ideals are unacceptable from offenders, community leaders, or ordinary citizens who disguise their prejudices with subtlety. In seeking to eradicate bias motivated violence, one must take action against the so-called “smaller acts of bias” in order to prevent them from escalating into more serious offenses. Socially endorsed discrimination is at odds with efforts to attain safety and equality for all United States residents. While examining social, political, and historical events, it is essential to remain analytical in seeking to answer “Is this Chaos or Community?”

Works Cited

Adorno, Theodor. The Authoritarian Personality. New York, NY: Harper and Row Publishers, 1950.

Allport, Gordon W. The Nature of Prejudice. New York, NY: Doubleday Books, 1979 [1958].

Becker, Howard S. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York, NY: Free Press, 1963.

Bogardus, Emory. "Comparing Racial Distance in Ethiopia, South Africa, and the United States." Sociology and Social Research 52 (January 1968).

Federal Bureau of Investigations. Uniform Crime Report. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, 1990-2005.

Finn, Peter. "Bias Crime: A Special Target for Prosecutors." Prosecutor 21.4 (1988): 9-15.

Herek, Gregory M. and Berrill, Kevin T. (Eds.). Hate Crimes: Confronting Violence Against Lesbians and Gays. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1992.

Levin, Jack and McDevitt, Jack. Hate Crimes: The Rising Tide of Bigotry and Bloodshed. New York, NY: Phelum Press, 1993.

Miller, Brian and Humphreys, Laud. "Lifestyles and Violence: Homosexual Victims of Assault and Murder." Qualitative Sociology 3 (1980): 169-85.

Schaefer, Richard T. Racial and Ethnic Groups (7th). New York, NY: Addison, Wesley Longman, Inc., 1998.

Spillane, Lori A. "Hate Crimes; A Legal Perspective." Multicultural Perspectives in Criminal Justice and Criminology. Ed. J. E. and Byers Hendrichs, Brian. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1994.



Silvina Ituarte began teaching for the Department of Criminal Justice Administration at CSUEB in 2003. Dr. Ituarte began her academic training as an undergraduate student at University of California at Irvine where she double majored in Social Ecology and Humanities (emphasis in Women's Studies). Then, she received her masters and doctorate in Criminal Justice from Rutgers University where she initiated her ethnographic study of bias-motivated offenders.