Skip to main content

Solvability Factors and Investigative Strategy for Faith Hate Crime: Anti-Semitic and Islamophobic Assault, Criminal Damage and Public Order Offences in London

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Crime Solvability Factors

Abstract

This chapter examines faith hate offences in London, UK. It is based on Metropolitan Police Service records of 4723 Islamophobic and 3967 anti-Semitic assaults and criminal damage and public order offences that occurred between January 2000 and April 2017. Only 22% of Islamophobic and 15% of anti-Semitic offences were detected, with more assaults than public order offences, and more public order offences than criminal damage offences, being detected. Jewish victims experienced more criminal damage offences and fewer assaults and public order offences than Muslim victims, and this helps explain why fewer anti-Semitic offences were solved. Significant solvability factors included police witnessing offences, offences involving police officers, drivers or security workers, incidents with more eyewitnesses, fewer reporting delays and residential venues. Other factors concern the ways in which offences were policed, with local borough investigating officers and investigations by police constables rather than more senior officers boosting detections. Solvability factors and detections differed for both faith-type and offence-type subgroups. There was a higher level of statistical explanation of detection outcomes for anti-Semitic than Islamophobic assaults and criminal damage, though the explanation of public order offences was lower for Jewish than Muslim victims. By comparing the significant solvability factors using binary logistic regression analyses, it is possible to identify and predict those incidents that are more solvable, and which may therefore be solved more cost-effectively, and the least solvable incidents—which commonly constitute up to half of all incidents—with poorer detection odds, which may only be solved with considerably more resources per case. This provides a basis for decisions about prioritisation and the improved targeting of resources. Whereas Islamophobic crimes were distributed widely across the 32 London boroughs, anti-Semitic offences were concentrated in nine boroughs with 44% occurring in the two boroughs of Hackney and Barnet, where there are large orthodox Jewish communities. Offence solvability varies spatially, and this helps explain geographical variations in detection rates, which varied more for Jewish than Muslim victims. There was no significant relationship between borough detection rates for Islamophobic and anti-Semitic crimes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Black, D. (1976). The behavior of law. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyes, R. (2017, December 17). Muslim migrants behind rise in anti-Semitism. The Times.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, W., Ickes, W., & Kenworthy, J. B. (2013). The phenomenon of hate crimes in the United States. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(4), 761–794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deloughery, K., King, R., & Asal, V. (2012). Close cousins or distant relatives? The relationship between terrorism and hate crime. Crime & Delinquency, 58(5), 663–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubnow, S. M. (1918). History of the Jews in Russia and Poland, from the earliest times until the present day. Bergenfield, New Jersey: Avotaynu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodhart, D. (2017, December 10). No, there isn’t a surge in hate crime. It’s confusion that’s running riot. The Sunday Times, p. 28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harlow, C. W. (2005). Hate crime reported by victims and police. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report NCJ 209911. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iganski, P. (2007). Too few Jews to count? Police monitoring of hate crime against Jews in the United Kingdom. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(2), 232–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenness, V., & Grattet, R. (2001). Making hate a crime: From social movement to law enforcement. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kielinger, V., & Paterson, S. (2007). Policing hate crime in London. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(2), 196–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leicester Centre for Hate Studies. (2014). The Leicester Hate Crime Project. Leicester, UK: University of Leicester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, C. J., & Roberts, A. (2014). The difference ‘hate’ makes in clearing crime: An event history analysis of incident factors. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 30(3), 268–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macpherson, W. (1999). The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Report of an inquiry by Sir William Macpherson of Cluny. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messner, S. F., McHugh, S., & Felson, R. B. (2004). Distinctive characteristics of assaults motivated by bias. Criminology, 42(3), 585–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metropolitan Police Service. (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  • Office for National Statistics. (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, N. D. (2009). The prosecution of hate crimes: The limitations of the hate crime typology. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(5), 883–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, B. (2010). The rise and fall of British fascism: Sir Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Intersections, 11(2), 323–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandholtz, N., Langton, L., & Planty, M. (2013). Hate crime victimization, 2003–2011 (US Department of Justice Special report NCJ 241291). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walfield, S. M., Socia, K. M., & Powers, R. A. (2017). Religious motivated hate crimes: Reporting of law enforcement and case outcomes. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(1), 148–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M. (2014). Hate crime victimization, 2004–2012—Statistical tables (US Department of Justice Special Report NCJ 244409). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simon Rose .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Rose, S., Coupe, R.T., Ariel, B. (2019). Solvability Factors and Investigative Strategy for Faith Hate Crime: Anti-Semitic and Islamophobic Assault, Criminal Damage and Public Order Offences in London. In: Coupe, R., Ariel, B., Mueller-Johnson, K. (eds) Crime Solvability Factors. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17160-5_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17160-5_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-17159-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-17160-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics