Abstract
A swastika is spray painted on a synagogue; a rock is hurled through the window of a black family that recently moved into an all-white neighborhood; a man perceived to be gay is assaulted. When a hate crime occurs, the local police department is generally the first governmental agency to be notified. The victims of the hate crime, most often members of a minority group, call the police because they are afraid and because they hope that local law enforcement officials can do something to prevent future threats to their well-being. The police, on the other hand, often find themselves in an awkward position. In the minority community, they are frequently perceived not as allies or protectors, but as major violators of civil rights.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (New York: Bantam Books, 1968).
William Tafoya, “Rioting in the Streets: Deja Vu,” in Bias Crime: The Law Enforcement Response, ed. Nancy Taylor (Chicago: Office of International Criminal Justice, 1991).
National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders.
James N. Baker, “Los Angeles Aftershocks,” Newsweek, April 1, 1991, pp. 18-19; “Panel Probing L. A. Police Wants Chief to Resign: Cites Racism, Violence,” Jet, July 29,1991, p. 6; Seth Mydans, “Tape of Beating by Police Revives Charges of Racism,” New York Times, March 7, 1991, p. A18.
“King Protest Turns Violent in Toronto,” Boston Globe, May 5, 1992, p. 15.
Robert Hanley, “26 Arrested in Rampage in Jersey Town,” New York Times, August 30, 1989, p. B1.
“Police Shooting Sparks Violence in New Jersey,” Jet, September 18, 1989, p. 6.
John Kifner, “Teaneck Youths Say BB Gun Was Waved Just Before Killing,” New York Times, April 14, 1990, p. 1.
David Pitt, “Brutality Inquiry Looks at a Police Distress Call,” New York Times, March 22, 1989, p. A10.
“Rights Advocate Maintains Police Beat Him in a’ sting’ He Arranged,” New York Times, January 16, 1989, p. A11.
Arthur L. Kobler, “Police Homicide in a Democracy,” Journal of Social Issues 31 (Winter 1975): 163–184.
Miami Herald, March 27, 1983, p. 18A.
“Ohio Court Voids Hate Crime Law,” Boston Globe, August 27,1992, p. 11.
U.S. Department of Justice, Training Guide for Hate Crime Data Collection (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1990). Developing and using a specialized unit or officer who deals primarily or exclusively with hate crimes offers a number of advantages for local police agencies. First, the unit or officer (in smaller departments, one officer may be all that is necessary for the hate crime investigation unit) develops expertise in the phenomenon of hate crimes, which can be applied to future investigations. For example, hate crime officers may become sensitive to the anxieties that hate crime victims face—in particular, to the fear of retaliation from the offender or from the offender’s friends. Once alerted to these fears, the officer can provide the victim with additional protection.
Affording the police more time to determine if an incident is actually hate motivated is a second advantage of a separate hate crime investigating unit. By turning the investigation over to a specialized unit with expertise in conducting hate crime investigations, more time can be allocated to the investigation than would be available to the patrol officer who originally receives the call. Because these offenses are their primary responsibility, the hate crime officers can do a more complete inquiry, including canvassing a neighborhood for witnesses and interviewing the friends and family of any potential suspects.
A third advantage of a specialized unit is that it offers a check against hate crimes being misclassified by the police during the initial investigation. Many specialized units have a policy whereby they review all incidents that might be bias motivated. In Boston’s Community Disorders Unit, for example, the commanding officer reviews all interracial incident reports each day, whether bias is suspected or not. This procedure provides a check on cases that might be missed by the original responding officer, and affords a measure of accountability against bigoted officers who may feel that hate victims are not entitled to protection.
In Boston, for example, the policy works this way. For each case where hate may be a motivation, the responding officer forwards a Boston Police Incident Report Form to the hate crime unit or officer. In addition, all incidents that involve interracial or inter-ethnic crimes are forwarded to the unit as well. The descriptions of these latter incidents are reviewed by experienced hate crime investigators who, if they believe that bias or bigotry might be a motivation, can call the victim or the responding officer to begin an investigation.
A specialized unit also improves the likelihood that an arrest will result in a conviction by encouraging a relationship between the hate crime investigating officers and the local prosecutor’s office. Hate crime cases are difficult to prosecute because the state has to prove the offender’s intent in addition to elements of the crime that was charged. Specialized hate crime units learn from local prosecutors what types of evidence (e.g., witness testimony, use of defamatory language) are necessary to get a conviction. Once this is understood, the police can gear their investigation to collect the evidence that will be crucial to the case.
The existence of a specialized unit also promotes accountability in the police agency. Presently, in most police agencies throughout the United States, if a victim of hate violence who comes to the police is ignored, there is little that the victim or members of the local community can do. Even if they lodge a complaint with the police chief, the best victims can expect to get is an apology and a statement that the police will try to do a better job next time. Because the object of complaint was the action of a single officer, the police department in question may punish that officer, but no department-wide changes will generally occur. By contrast, if there is a specialized unit or officer on staff, the victim and the community can point to a place where the department is not doing its job and can more forcefully demand system-wide changes.
Finally, the formation of a specialized unit continues to send the message that hate crimes are a priority with that particular police agency. As a result, victims may feel more secure, police may be more careful, and potential offenders may think twice before they break the law.
Jack McDevitt, “The Study of the Characteristics of Civil Rights Crimes in Massachusetts 1983-1987” (Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology meeting, Reno, November 1989).
U.S. Department of Justice, “Training Guide for Hate Crime Data Collection” (Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1990).
McDevitt, “The Study of the Characteristics of Civil Rights Crimes in Massachusetts 1983-1987.”
Ibid.
Leslie Hatamiya, “Walk with Pride: Taking Steps to Address Anti-Asian Violence” (San Francisco: Japanese American Citizens League, August 1991).
Timothy Egan, “New Faces and New Roles for the Police,” New York Times, April 25, 1991, p. A1.
Ibid.
Bruce Berg, Edmond True, and Marc Gertz, “Police Riots and Alienation,” Journal of Police Science and Administration 12 (1984): 186–190.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1993 Jack Levin and Jack McDevitt
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Levin, J., McDevitt, J. (1993). Police Response. In: Hate Crimes. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-6108-2_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-6108-2_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-306-44471-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-4899-6108-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive