Hate Crime

VIOLENCE, INTIMIDATION & HATE CRIME
"Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness" (Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.)

All violence is aggression, but not all aggression is violence. Intimidation, for example, is a case of nonviolent aggression. Violence is a case of aggression where physical, not psychological harm, results. Aggression is the concept that has been studied the most by psychologists, so much that it's a standard topic of discussion in undergraduate social psychology (e.g., Feldman 2001; Kendrick et. al. 2002), but also because aggression is "social" by nature in its determinants and consequences. Sociologists have also not been remiss in studying the topic (e.g., Meadows 2000; Barak 2003), and of course, criminology, as a field, has always seemed interested in expanding the domain for what's considered violent crime. Criminal justice, for its part, has made significant inroads with an understanding of domestic violence and stalking. What is not so clearly understood is the persistence of group-based hate. The consensus of the literature is that there are approximately 450 organized hate groups in the United States, and most of them not only view the federal government as their enemy, but regularly intimidate and harass targeted ethnic or religious groups.

There are probably an infinite number of types of aggression; people are probably always going to come up with new ways of hurting one another; and future scholars of the problem are probably going to deal with more bizarre cases of violence than ever before. What's needed is a definition that combines the best features of what is already known about aggression and what is yet to be known about it. Such a definition would be "behavior intended to injure or harm another person or group of persons either physically or psychologically" (Baron & Richardson 1994; Bartol 2002; Bartol & Bartol 2004; Berkowitz 1993). There are three crucial components to this composite definition:

Violence and aggression may be committed for a variety of reasons, and sorting out the motivational mechanisms behind all these reasons is a rather large academic research enterprise too long to be adequately summarized here. There are literally dozens of theories about the causes of aggression, and such theories cover the full spectrum of psychological schools of thought. To cite just a few examples, Freudian or psychoanalytic theory holds that there is a basic human instinct toward aggression because rather than kill ourselves (to be finally rid of all life's irritations), we redirect our self-destructive impulses toward others. The ethologist Karl Lorenz (1966) put forth the catharsis theory of aggression that built-up aggressive energy just needs to be released sometimes. John Dollard et. al. (1939) proposed the frustration-aggression hypothesis, which holds that aggression is an automatic response to any blocking of goal-directed behavior. Albert Bandura (1973) created a popular social learning theory of aggression, which held that rewards, either direct or indirect (in the form of observation of models), were the influencing factors in aggression. Numerous other theories exist, implicating concepts as diverse as Type A personality, territoriality, self-esteem, and intrinsic appeal (Baumeister & Campbell 1999). Suffice it to say that aggression has been extensively studied, but forensic psychologists are most likely to be called upon to consult or testify about research stemming from Bandura's (1973) social learning theory, as it relates to the effect of glamorized violent role models, such as those in the media, on computer games, in cyberspace, and in music. Forensic psychiatrists, on the other hand, are most likely to be called upon to address the issue of whether people, especially children, can tell the difference between reality and fantasy. Expertise in this area is, of course, not limited to any one discipline.

What is most generally known about violence is that it is predominantly a male phenomenon. It has always been universal (across societies and across history) that murder, for instance, is committed by males at least 90% of the time. The "maleness" of serious violence and aggression has led most researchers to suspect that either biology (testosterone) or socialization (how males are raised) might be involved as causal factors. Racial or ethnic differences have also been studied, but the results are often controversial and caught up in politics (Hawkins 2003). For example, whenever someone tries to suggest that biology or socialization factors should be looked into for blacks (who account for well over 50% of arrests for violent crime in America), they are usually accused of being a racist who doesn't understand the many forms of discriminatory treatment at the hands of the criminal justice system. Research on Latino and Asian American violence is very inconclusive, as some studies report lower levels of overall aggression, and other studies report higher levels, especially with school failure-related pathways for Latinos and intimate or family violence with Asians (Bartol & Bartol 2004). It is important for any aspiring scholar on the topic to rid themselves of any ethnocentrism and educate themselves about how American society sometimes gets "locked into" historical traps.

Among the biological factors that have been looked at, much of forensic psychology has focused on the significance of early life experiences, such as -- birth trauma; alcohol or drug ingestion by the mother while pregnant; other prenatal dietary deficiencies; traumatic head injury via abuse or accident; and exposure to toxic materials such as lead or cadmium as a child. This list, in no way, exhausts all the biological factors which exist, and battles over which government and medical research reports, for example, have the most credibility are a matter of contention in most courts of law.

Among the more sociological, or social psychological, factors which have been looked at, the list would include: socialization "scripts" (patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving from early life experiences); glamorization of violence in TV, games, sports, music, and art; hostile attribution bias (which is a misreading of cues to fight when there is no reason to fight); stress (which is sometimes called strain in criminology); the influence of pornography; and the influence of unintentional encouragement of aggression by being raised around guns and weapons. It should be noted that weather, overcrowding, and other ecological conditions frequently trigger aggression in people.

The criminological literature on homicide has much to say about violence and aggression in general. However, generalizing from what is known about a "typical murder" (single incident, usually committed while engaging in another offense against an intimate or acquaintance, and usually involving people between the ages of 18 and 25) to an "atypical murder" (like homicide-suicide terrorism, mass murder, spree murder, serial murder) can be a tricky business. Terrorists and serial killers, for example, don't frequently "telegraph" their warnings like a typical killer or mass murderer might, and serial killers tend to be older, usually between the ages of 25 and 35. Nevertheless, there may be enough overlap with certain explanatory factors (e.g., pornography, stress, etc.) to at least build on the criminology of two atypical crimes: school shootings and workplace violence. The following summarizes what is known about these two phenomena.

*The Criminology of Two Atypical Violent Crimes*
School Violence =	Some offenders are straight-A, all-American students, but others are loners and losers; probable hypotheses include school fatigue, bullying, teen romance, contagion (imitation) effects, and mental health problem in schools.
Workplace Violence =	Threats occur more often than acts of violence, but about 1,000 workers are murdered in the workplace each year, and events are usually categorized by the legitimacy of the offender's relationship to the workplace or the victim.

Popular explanations of violence and aggression often rest on ideas about the corrupting influence of television, movies, music videos, video games, computer games, rap/hip hop music, or whatever happens to be the latest scapegoat du jour. The fact is that TV is much more pervasive, and has become the de facto babysitter in many homes, with little or no parental monitoring. Where there is strong parental supervision in other areas, including the teaching of moral values and norms, the effect of prolonged exposure to violence on TV is probably quite minimal. When TV becomes the sole source of moral norms and values, this causes problems. Our nation's children watch an astonishing 19,000 hours of TV by the time they finish high school, much more time than all their classroom hours put together since first grade. By eighteen, they will have seen an extraordinary number of acts of violence (200,000), including at least 40,000 senseless acts of murder, with every hour of prime time TV continuing to expose them to at least 6 acts of violence (Huston & Donnerstein 1992; Gerbner 1996).

Feldman (2001) summarizes much of the scientific research in this area, and correctly points out that there are many research hypotheses that make up ongoing lines of study. To name a few, there is: (1) the catharsis effect, which means that society could be getting it out of their system via exposure to media violence, particularly during wartime when most of the violence occurs abroad; (2) the brutalization, or desensitization effect, which means we become so desensitized it doesn't bother us anymore or we have no negative reactions to it; (3) the disinhibition effect, which means that exposure to media violence reduces inhibitions against behaving aggressively because we see no negative consequences to it; (4) the attributional effect, which means that we produce self-made attributions or justifications for senseless violence when we see it; (5) the cultural or normative effect, which means that we create beliefs about the world as a hostile place and come to see societal violence as normal; and (6) the social learning effect, which holds that we learn long-term violent scripts which are played out in the future. With exposure to unusually extreme acts of violence, there are a variety of other trauma effects; for example, there are various "survivor" syndromes, "sleeper" effects (seven years or more), and lagged-time effects (one or two years later). The results of research on extreme trauma effects are too mixed to make any definite conclusions, but the notion of sleeper effects is indeed supported by a piece of relatively famous twenty-year longitudinal research known as the Rip Van Winkle study (Eron et. al. 1972). Further research by Huesmann et. al. (2003) has also produced some hard evidence for the criminogenic effects of exposure to media violence, and the model used was not unlike that of Bandura's (1973) popular social learning theory.

Huesmann et.al.'s Findings on Exposure to Violence on TV

The long-term effects of repeated, or heavy, exposure to dramatic violence on TV can be explained as follows. Young children, at certain developmental periods, have a strong tendency toward what Bandura called observational learning, which is the tendency to imitate any human being or person they admire (role model). When such a role model displays specific aggressive behaviors, the learning of this consists of the aggressive material being stored into the cognitive system where it eventually "crystallizes" and becomes difficult to change as the child grows older. This crystallized cognitive structure has three components: (1) schemas, which form a sort of outlook on life or characterization of the world as a dangerous or hostile place; (2) scripts, which become part of the child's inventory of problem-solving skills for when they face a situation like the one their role model faced; and (3) beliefs, which consist of rationalizations, justifications, or moral statements that violence is all right under certain circumstances.

In short, Huesmann et. al. (2003) found that media violence tends to have short-term effects on adults, and long-term effects (as described above) on children. Furthermore, the specific kind of violence that has the most long-term impact on children may NOT be of the more brutal, senseless variety. Any kind of "subtle" violence (e.g. where the role model wins and the losers are only psychologically harmed in the process) may produce the criminogenic effect. However, observations of "unnecessary" violence still tends to produce the strongest effect, and a steady diet of observed aggression clearly has severe consequences.

For the effects of playing violent video games, Anderson & Bushman (2001) have reviewed most of the literature on this subject, and the crux of their findings suggest that exposure to first-person shooter action games like Doom, Duke Nukem, Wolfenstein, Postal Dude, Halo, and the like tend to produce a consistent increase in aggression-related thoughts and feelings along with a corresponding decrease in prosocial behavior. This effect occurs regardless of age, and it doesn't matter if those exposed are children, young adults, or middle-aged adults. Boys, of course, are influenced more than girls (as they are in most studies of media violence), but there is also some research indicating that those who are already prone to aggression are the ones who play violent video games, and since there is NO cross-cultural support for an effect (in Japan, for example), some researchers say there is "no solid evidence" as of yet regarding a criminogenic effect from playing video games (Cooper & Mackie 1986; Griffiths 1997). Likewise, there have been no strong effects found in research on cyber-online gaming, nor much on rap music. A few sensational cases exist which make up documentary or anecdotal evidence, however.

For the effects of watching pornography, there is evidence suggesting that exposure to some types of sexually arousing material leads to increases in aggression (Allen, D'Alessio & Brezgel 1995). A model known in the literature as Zillman's excitation transfer model (Zillman 1984) is frequently used in most studies of a pornography and violence connection. According to this line of research, it depends upon how the pornography links sex with violence, and it doesn't have to be any kind of "slasher" film, either, because viewing that kind of pornography usually just leads to a general state of desensitization and a slight decrease in empathy. More "subtle" forms of pornography are influential because they portray myths that women enjoy being used (victimized) for sex, and regular viewers of this kind of pornography tend to develop schemas, such as beliefs, attitudes, and justifications for aggression; and there is even the possibility of long-term "scripts" being developed. A word of advice -- obscenity issues and the pornography-violence connection are two very separate areas of study, usually requiring separate expertise.

As far as the topic of weapons go, the leading psychological research on a weapons effect (that the mere presence of guns or an enthusiasm about them is linked to violence) is a line of studies that mostly uses Leonard Berkowitz's revised frustration-aggression hypothesis (Berkowitz & LePage 1967; Berkowitz 1993). This line of research only suggests that guns produce a "priming" of aggressive associations in the mind, and that is not the same thing as the formation of any schema or script, for which research on a gun-violence connection is inconclusive. The revised frustration-aggression model requires some "triggering" mechanism, like a stressful life event or one of the other painful stimuli which make people mad, as outlined in Agnew's general strain theory (Agnew 1992).

Prior to it being called stalking, this crime was referred to as harassment, threats, annoyance, or domestic terrorism (as well as a number of other names), and like harassment, stalking is a crime that depends upon the victim's perception of fear, uncertainty, or disruption. It all started in 1990 in California with the first antistalking law. Since then, all 50 states have something similar. Famous celebrities have been killed or injured by stalkers, and have led the victim's movement in this regard. Even women in domestic violence shelters often report being stalked. There are an estimated 200,000 serial stalkers in America, and all stalking is serial crime, involving repeat victimization by definition. Every year, there are an estimated 1.4 million people who are the victims of stalking. Women are four times more likely to be stalked than men. The majority of stalkers have been in relationships with their victims, which is to say, most victims know their stalker, but a significant percentage either never met their victims, or were just acquaintances - neighbors, friends or co-workers. Stalking can be considered a type of antisocial behavior bordering on sociopathy. Many serial killers and rapists engage in stalking. Stalking is like a long-term rape. The following is a list of stalking behaviors:

Stalking always begins innocently, in what appears to be a chance encounter. Initial contacts are at the most innocent of places -- health clubs, church meetings, schools, day care centers, etc., and then the relationship quickly becomes a nightmare. After about three weeks or so, the would-be stalker typically asks the victim to marry him. Then, the stalker begins to invade the victim's place of work. Then, the stalker tries to take control of the victim's finances, the victim's vehicle, the victim's house or apartment, any and all possessions or things that need fixed up or taken care of. Stalkers try to move quickly (possibly in order to be quicker than the criminal justice system) and are continually forcing the victim into early decisions, yes or no situations, and then they do what they want anyway. Most stalkers fit into three broad categories: (1) intimate partner stalkers; (2) delusional stalkers; and (3) vengeful stalkers.

1. Intimate partner stalkers are usually the guy who "can’t let go." They are men who refuse to believe that a relationship has really ended. Often, other people - even the victim - feels sorry for them. Many have extensive criminal histories. About 50% of all stalkers fall into this category. With these types, the victim often unwittingly encourages the stalker by trying to "let him down easy," or agreeing to talk to him "just one more time." Such stalkers are just interested in dominance and control.

2. Delusional stalkers frequently have little, if any, contact with their victims. They have major mental illnesses like schizophrenia, manic-depression or erotomania, and come from an abusive or emotionally barren family background with a poor sense of their own identity. They hold tight to some false belief that keeps them tied to their victims. In erotomania, the stalker’s delusional belief is that the victim loves him. This type of stalker actually believes that he is having a relationship with his victim, even though they might never have met. The woman stalking David Letterman, the stalker who killed actress Rebecca Schaeffer and the man who stalked Madonna are all examples of this.

Another type of delusional stalker believes he is destined to be with someone, and that if he only pursues her hard enough and long enough, she will come to love him as he loves her. These stalkers know they are not having a relationship with their victims, but firmly believe that they will some day. John Hinckley Jr. and his obsession with Jodi Foster is an example of this type of stalker.

Delusional stalkers are typically unmarried and socially immature loners who are unable to establish or sustain close relationships with others. They rarely date and have had few, if any, sexual relationships. Since they are both threatened by and yearn for closeness, they often pick victims who are unattainable in some way; married women, a therapist, clergyman, doctor or teacher. Those in the helping professions are particularly vulnerable to delusional stalkers. Any kindness shown to this kind of stalker will be blown out of proportion into a delusion of intimacy. What these stalkers cannot attain in reality is achieved through fantasy

While some seek out a victim of higher status (doctors, lawyers, teachers), others seek out celebrities. Celebrity stalkers often psychotically "hear" or "see" something in the words or appearances of the victim. They are often convinced that the celebrity is sending them cryptic messages intended only for them to understand. Erotomanic delusions last an average of ten years.

3. Vengeful stalkers are angry with their victims over something, real or imagined. Politicians, for example, get many of these types of stalkers who become angry over some piece of legislation. Disgruntled ex-employees also stalk their former bosses, co-workers or the entire company. Some of these types are psychopaths; others are delusional (most often paranoid), and all believe that they are really the victims. They stalk to "get even."

In general, for any type of stalker, the less of a relationship that actually existed prior to the stalking, the more mentally disturbed the stalker.

Hate crime is basically bias-motivated crime. A bias-motivated crime is "a crime in which the offender is motivated by a characteristic of the victim that identifies the victim as a member of some group toward which the offender feels animosity" (Garofalo & Martin 1992). The criminological literature is scarce on hate crime (Berk, Boyd & Hamner 1992). Recent years have seen a movement to collect data and define terms more thoroughly, but with few exceptions, few advances have been made in theoretical criminology. The sociological literature on collective violence (Smelser 1962) is somewhat helpful in explaining hate crime, but much of it is restricted to analysis of related, but different, social behavior like mobs, lynchings, crowds, and riots. As a summation of that literature, three (3) sociological explanations have existed historically, all revolving around the presumed "social" or symbolic status of the victim; i.e., victims being sought out primarily because their social group is seen in some negative light:

These are all explanations of the behavior, not necessarily of the stereotypical thought processes behind the behavior. Although the study of stereotypes can provide useful information (Stephan & Rosenfield 1982), there are a number of other, more important attributes of hate crime that make them more than symbolic. It can be argued that most hate crime is NOT committed by members of organized hate groups but by individual citizens, and in fact, Justice Department sponsored research (BJS 1997) supports the fact that most hate crime is not committed by members of organized hate groups but by individual citizens. Some perpetrators resent the growing power of a particular racial or ethnic group; others engage in random targeting of interchangeable representatives of minority groups; and still others believe they are on a mission to rid the world of some perceived evil. The most frequent group are believed to be spur-of-the-moment offenders, and very often, alcohol or drug use is involved.

Regarding spur-of-the-moment offenders, one of their more interesting characteristics involves the role of uncertainty, or what researchers like Berk et. al. (1992) call the "actuarial" dimension of hate crime. For the perpetrator, it doesn't matter what specific race or nationality the victim is, only that they're different or a stranger, as if the crime was driven by some kind of xenophobia, which is a factor playing a large part in crime against immigrants and the crime of genocide. In many ways, it's the absence of information, the uncertainty about the social status of the victim, or lack of knowledge about the victim all together that is important. In this respect, this leaves some kind of guessing along with actuarial or accounting-like thinking going on in the perpetrator's mind. The victim is rightly or wrongly identified or classified and then seen as "the last straw" in a long-imagined count of many insults, economic defeats, or lost opportunities the perpetrator (and his or her social group) have had. The manner and methods used in the violent attack usually tell whether the crime was expressive (satisfying for the perpetrator) or instrumental (to teach "those people" a lesson). Premeditation may be present by the offender planning the crime for weeks, or there may be none at all, with the crime being a spur-of-the-moment event. That's why legislators have been busy passing extensive hate crime and hate-motivated crime statutes that attempt to make clear exactly what is involved by way of motive. Unfortunately, most hate-crime legislation doesn't consider the role of "stranger crime", uncertainty, and lack of premeditation.

A critique of legislative approaches: most hate-crime legislation doesn't consider the role of "stranger crime", uncertainty, and lack of premeditation. It makes it appear that the sole motivation is hate toward a specifically-targeted member of a known social group. The understandable, predominant concern of politicians is to reduce racial, ethnic and religious tensions; to do something about RRES (racial, religious, ethnic, and sexual) crime, not hate, or the more commonly-seen RRE (religious, racial, and ethnic - ignoring gays and lesbians as the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force has been arguing for years). Seen in this light, hate crime legislation is more a part of community policing's effort to restore minority relations than it is to get at the underlying problem of hate. It explains much of the "special response" required of police agencies. Critics like Jesse Helms have also said that the idea of protecting certain groups goes against the notion that the law must remain blind to social status characteristics and concentrate on the acts themselves. Also, the issue of additional penalty enhancements for hate crime is controversial, and there are serious free speech constitutionality issues at stake. The key case in the constitutionality of hate crime legislation is R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) which argued whether governments have the right to prohibit fighting words in a selective way. Another important case is Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993) which legalized the admission of evidence concerning prejudice and beliefs at sentencing.

The key criterion in hate crime legislation is motivation. The act must be bias-motivated. Its purpose must be to harm a person or property because of race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. In some cases, the bias will be apparent; in other cases, the motive will have to be inferred from crime scene clues or other evidence, such as:

Hate Crime Stats for 2006 (FBI figures)

Anti-Black 3,136
Anti-Jewish 1,027
Anti-White 1,008
Anti-Male Homosexual 881
Anti-Hispanic 770
Anti-Female Homosexual 192
Anti-Islamic 191

State governments are the best place to launch anti-hate crime initiatives (Coldren 1992). State-level nonprofits have been quite influential. The Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990 (see below) directed the states to start collecting information, but tied it into the voluntary reporting system of the FBI's UCR (Uniform Crime Reports). Only about half of all states and law enforcement agencies report hate crime data. Legislation and enforcement is another problem. Only about 39 states have enacted laws against hate crime violence and intimidation, and most of these followed the ADL's model statute on intimidation laws. A number of states (like California, Florida, and Ohio) have passed specific laws banning vandalism at places of worship, but the church burning episodes (which started appearing about 1996) are still treated mostly as arson, although a few states have criminalized interference with religious worship, and in most states, a (presumably ineffective) reward structure for information is set up. Other states (like Wisconsin) have passed penalty enhancements for bias crime (the maximum penalty and perhaps up to an additional 5 years on the sentence). Some hate crime laws overlap with domestic violence laws - a serious problem making it difficult to determine what charges to bring against a gender-biased offender. The BJS (1997) publication lists a few examples of the diverse state initiatives, including interstate response networks, statewide tracking units, and some diversity awareness campaigns. Mediation centers from the private sector have also been involved in some programs.

Federal initiatives take place. The Justice Department has made grant money available, and a special unit exists in the Justice Department, called the CRS (Community Relations Service), to assist communities in helping to identify and prevent hate crimes. There are also presidential initiatives focusing upon racial reconciliation and well-being, a rather novel approach to quality of life issues.

A good briefing on this piece of legislation can be found at the ADL site. It essentially gives the federal government more jurisdiction in helping to increase prosecutions for hate crime.

The historical legacy of hate crime legislation goes like this: 18 U.S.C. Sec 245 (1968) was limited to crimes against individuals on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. The Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990 added sexual orientation, disability, or ethnicity. The Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act of 1994 added gender and "actual or perceived race". The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 provided penalties for traveling across state lines in connection with abusing a spouse or violating a protection order. Many states do not have laws regarding gender, disability, or sexual orientation. The 1999 legislation would give the federal government jurisdiction and produce more Justice Dept. prosecutions under Sec 245.

Within the field of criminology, there is no lack of concern for organized hate groups (e.g., Ronczkowski 2004) since many such groups, like the Ku Klux Klan, have been long seen as a crime threat, and in more recent years, as a domestic terrorist threat, or "security threat group" (in intelligence parlance). Organized hate groups tend to involve numerous splinter factions which spawn off from larger groups. Therefore, local group structure tends to be loose while the appearance exists, at least, of a strong, cohesive front nationally and internationally. The typical criminological inquiry focuses upon the similarities and differences between a street criminal and the average hate-oriented terrorist, and progress toward that inquiry has not yielded much more than simple typological distinctions. For example, McDevitt, Levin & Bennett (2002) offer the following "hate crime typology:"

The last type, mission-oriented, is most likely to resemble most terrorist types. However, there are exceptions to hate crime typologies. One problem involves so-called "special issue" offenders, like ecoterrorists and abortion bombers. With the latter, it may very well be that a simple dichotomous typology will suffice, such as:

Race-related hate can be profound, but carries no direct relationship to terrorism (unless of course, the racial hate group develops the ability to control the political climate - see Wikipedia Entry on Hate Group, esp. the psychopathology thereof and links to terrorism). In this regard, one of the groups which is most closely looked at is the New Black Panther Party, currently headed by one Malik Shabazz who often spews anti-American and anti-Semitic rhetoric. Shabazz is a Howard University law school graduate who regularly wears a dark Goebbels-like uniform with patches and stripes, close-cropped hair, and Malcolm X designer glasses. Often surrounding him are bodyguards wearing black berets and paramilitary gear, who defiantly chant "Black power" on cue. Shabazz has defended Osama bin Laden, blamed President Bush for the 9-11 attacks, called the founding fathers "snakes" and likened them to terrorists, lambasted Catholicism, Christians, and Jews, and repeated his avaricious call for societal reparations to blacks. This is old hat for Shabazz, who rose to power under ex-Nation of Islam exile Khalid Muhamad. Other Shabazz highlights include: stoking the 2001 Cincinnati race riots; organizing legal support group for O.J. Simpson; leading a boycott of a D.C.-based Korean grocery store that was later firebombed; urging followers in Maryland to "crush" any "straw-chewin', tobacco-chewin' racist redneck" that assaults blacks; and threatening to kill whites and police officers if they interfere with any of his events. Shabazz has been quoted as saying things like: "the only solution any time there is a funeral in the black community is a funeral in the police community" and at marches and events, the chant "kill whitey" is frequently overheard.

According to an FBI model (Schafer & Navarro 2003), there are seven stages by which hate speech escalates into hate crime. They are as follows:

PRINTED RESOURCES
Agnew, R. (1992). "Foundation for a general strain theory." Criminology 30(1):47-87.
Allen, M., D'Alessio, D. & Brezgel, K. (1995). "A meta-analysis summarizing the effects of pornography." Human communication research 22:258-283.
Anderson, C. & Bushman, B. (2001). "Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior." Psychological science 12:353-359.
Archer, D. & Gartner, R. (1984). Violence and crime in cross-national perspective. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.
Arrigo, B. (2000). Introduction to forensic psychology. NY: Academic Press.
Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification. NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barak, G. (2003). Violence and nonviolence: Pathways to understanding. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Baron, R. & Richardson, D. (1994). Human aggression, 2e. NY: Plenum.
Bartol, C. (2002). Criminal behavior: A psychosocial approach, 6e. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bartol, C. & Bartol, A. (2004). Introduction to forensic psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Baumeister, R. & Campbell, W. (1999). "The intrinsic appeal of evil." Personality & social psychology review 3:210-221.
Berk, Richard, Elizabeth Boyd & Karl Hamner. (1992). Thinking more clearly about hate-motived crimes. Pp. 123-43 in G. Herek & K. Berrill (eds.) Hate crimes Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Berkowitz, L. & LePage, A. (1967). "Weapons as aggression-eliciting stimuli." Journal of personality and social psychology 7:202-207.
Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression. NY: McGraw Hill.
Bureau of Justice Assistance. (1997). A policymaker's guide to hate crimes. Washington DC:BJS.
Coldren, J. David. (1992). Bias crimes. Pp. 165-73 in Kelly, Robert (Ed.) (1991) Bias crime. Chicago: OICJ.
Cooper, J. & Mackie, D. (1986). "Video games and aggression in children." Journal of applied social psychology 16:726-744.
Dollard, J., Miller, N., Doob, L., Mowrer, O. & Sears, R. (1939). Frustration and aggression. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.
Eron, L., Huesmann, L., Lefkowitz, M. & Walder, L. (1972). "Does television violence cause aggression?" American Psychologist 27:253-263.
Feldman, R. (2001). Social psychology, 3e. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Garofalo, James & Susan Martin. (1992). The law enforcement response to bias-motivated crimes. Pp. 64-80 in Kelly, Robert (Ed.) (1991) Bias crime. Chicago: OICJ.
Gerbner, G. (1996). Violence in cable-originated television programs. Philadelphia: Univ. of PA School of Communication.
Gerstenfeld, P. (2003). Hate crimes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage [available online]
Griffiths, M. (1997). "Video games and aggression." Psychologist 10:397-401.
Grimshaw, A. (1969). Racial violence in the United States Chicago: Aldine.
Hawkins, D. (Ed.) (2003). Violent crime: Assessing race and ethnic differences. NY: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Huesmann, L., Moise-Titus, J., Podolski, C. & Eron, L. (2003). "Longitudinal relations between children's exposure to TV violence and their aggressive and violent behavior in young adulthood." Developmental psychology 39:201-221.
Huston, A. & Donnerstein, E. (Eds.) (1992). Big world, small screen. Lincoln: Univ. of Nebraska Press.
Jenness, V. & Grattet, R. (2001). Making hate a crime. NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Kelly, Robert. (Ed.) (1991). Bias crime. Chicago: OICJ.
Kendrick, D., Neuberg, S. & Cialdini, R. (2002). Social psychology, 2e. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Lawrence, F. (2002). Punishing hate: Bias crimes under American law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
Levin, J. & McDevitt, J. (1993). Hate crimes: The rising tide of bigotry and bloodshed. NY: Plenum Press.
Levin, J. & Rabrenovic, G. (2004). Why we hate. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Lorenz, K. (1966). On aggression. NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
McDevitt, J., Levin, J. & Bennett, S. (2002). "Hate crime offenders." Journal of social issues 58: 303-317.
Meadows, R. (2000). Understanding violence and victimization. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Meloy, J. (1998). The psychology of stalking. NY: Academic Press.
Nieberg, H. (1972). Agonistic rituals of conflict. Pp. 82-99 in J. Short & M. Wolfgang (eds.) Collective violence Chicago: Aldine.
Perry, B. (2001). In the name of hate. NY: Routledge.
Ramsland, K. (2002). The criminal mind. Cincinnati: Writer's Digest Books. [author's website]
Reiss, A. & J. Roth. (eds.) (1993). Understanding and preventing violence. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.
Ronczkowski, M. (2004). Terrorism and organized hate crime. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Schafer, J. & Navarro. J. (March 2003). "The seven-stage hate model: The psychopathology of hate groups." FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin.
Smelser, Neil. (1962). Theory of collective behavior New York: Free Press.
Stephan, W. & Rosenfield, D. (1982). Racial and ethnic stereotypes Pp. 112-48 in A. Miller (Ed.) The eye of the beholder. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Sterba, R. (1969). Some psychological factors in anti-negro race hatred. Pp. 408-13 in A. Grimshaw (ed.) Racial violence in the United States. Chicago: Aldine.
Towl, G. & D. Crighton. (1996). The handbook of psychology for forensic practitioners. NY: Routledge.
Walker, L. & Shapiro, D. (2004). Introduction to forensic psychology. NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Widom, C. (1989). "The cycle of violence" Science 244: 160-66.
Wrightsman, L., M. Taflinger & M. Linsenman. (2000). Forensic psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Zillman, D. (1984). Connections between sex and aggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zuravin, S. (1989). "The ecology of child abuse and neglect." Violence and victims 4(2):101-20.

Last updated: Nov. 19, 2007
Not an official webpage of APSU, copyright restrictions apply, see Megalinks in Criminal Justice
O'Connor, T. (Date of Last Update at bottom of page). In Part of web cited (Windows name for file at top of browser), MegaLinks in Criminal Justice. Retrieved from http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/rest of URL accessed on today's date.