Hate Crime Offender's Characteristics and Motivation - Research Paper Example

Criminology Name Institution Date Hate Crime Offenders Introduction The 21st century has witnessed advancement in technology, growth in infrastructural development, and rise in the global population rates and enhanced international integration, which has resulted in cultural integration. Be it as it may, the level of crimes particularly hate crimes has increased steadily but significantly as noted by McDevitt, Levin and Bennett, (2002). Although the crises of hate crimes are currently making headlines in the global media and press and it is among priorities in political agendas, hate crimes are hardly a new phenomenon. Good examples of the existence of hate crimes in history includes the persecution of Christians by the Romans, the killing of the Jews by the Nazis, the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, the civil wars in Sudan and the genocide in Rwanda among others, which have shaped and greatly defined world history. Levin, (1993) defines hate crime as acts of aggravation, terrorization or physical aggression which is motivated by prejudice against a victim’s attributes which are fundamental to their social identity. The concept of hate crime has generated much debate in regards on how to define it, identify it, understanding the actual prevalence rates, ways of prosecuting, punishing and preventing hate crime and ways of meeting the needs of victims of hate crime as indicated by Levin, (1999). Despite research into the motivation of hate crimes, no attention or definition has been given to hate crime offenders, with bias by the public against the offenders being as much as the bias of offenders against their victims (Perry, 2010). This report is the research methodology, which seeks to identify the most suitable research methods, strategies and techniques in examining the characteristics and motivation of hate crime offenders. Research Design Primarily, hate crimes are also described as bias motivated crimes and they entail hatred-motivated offences against a victim on the basis of their social characteristics such as cultural beliefs and ideals, sexual orientation, religious affiliations, nationality, ethnicity and race among others. Levin and McDevitt (1993) proposed that hate crime offenders could be arranged into three categories in accordance to the offender’s motivation, consequently, they developed a typology that identified three crucial offender’s motivation: (1) the thrill motivators, where offenders decide to have fun at someone else’s expense, (2) defensive crimes, where the offender reacts to what he considers to be an invasion of his territory, and (3) mission crimes, where the offender strives to save mankind from a particular type of people, who he believes to be evil. This last typology however, is the rarest of them all. However, in 2002, McDevitt, Levin and Bennett after observing some hate crime data, concluded that it would be proper to add another offender’s characteristic to their typology, and as a result, they added – retaliatory crimes to the list. This type of hate crime is based on hearsay, where the offender acts as revenge against a member of another group. The limited amount of research available relating to hate crime offenders lead to indicate that hate crime offending may be related to poor parenting, as well as, to personality traits (Ezekiel, 2002). Dunbar (2003), however, indicates that hate crime offending may be more related to the situation in which the offender finds himself, rather than his personality, which suggests that social groups occupy an important part in the explanation of hate crime In this research methodology, the report will establish the research aims and objectives, problem statement, research questions, research approach, research design, proposed data collection methods and variables, sampling strategy and ethical considerations. 1. Problem Statement Following the high rates of recidivism among hate crime offenders and the significant negative impact hate crimes have not only on the individual but also on the social group, the victims comes from, establishing and understanding the main characteristics of hate crime offenders and what motivates them to commit this crimes are important (Herek, et al., 1997). This is because, such information is crucial in helping developing effective, efficient, appropriate and relevant preventive strategies and policies on hate crimes. In addition, such information is crucial for law enforcement agencies and policy makers in their efforts to combat hate crimes (Perry, 2010). The epistemological structure, the researcher’s ontological (belief) preferences, hypothetical frameworks and the methodology strategy used in this study are in synchronous agreement, which ensures that the research aims and objectives are achieved and the research problems are resolved. 2. Research Aims The main aims of this research are To establish the distinct characteristics of hate crime offenders To find out what motivates hate crime offenders To establish if hate crimes are similar to other forms of criminal offences 3. Research Objectives The main objectives of this research are To identify common elements across all hate crimes To establish the most suitable and effective mechanisms and strategies to prevent hate crimes To identify the type of environment that motivates an offender to act on their hatred and commit a crime To identify the main causes of hate crimes 4. Research Questions The main questions of this study are Do all hate crime offenders have similar traits? What environment motivates people with biases to commit a criminal act? What motivates people to commit hate crimes? 5. Research Approach/ Research Paradigm The research approach suitable in identifying the characteristics and motivation of hate crime offenders is an interpretivist approach by applying a case study. The interpretivist approach is suitable because it will ensure representativeness, where the sample chosen will represent typical and factual information regarding the general population which allows generalizations, reliability where the findings of the research can reliably be replicated and validity where the research outcomes offer the true picture of reality, where the study is able to measure what it is expected to measure (Connaway & Powell, 2010). The interpretivist approach has been selected over a positivist approach because the former provide in-depth insights that are fundamental for drawing up information and conclusions as echoed by (Streubert & Carpenter, 2003). 6. Research Design The main aim of a research design to ascertain that the evidence collected allows the researcher to not only achieve the set research and objectives but also, ensure that the researcher is able to effectively and sufficiently answer the research questions (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). Important to note is that a research design is distinctly different from the research method used to collect the required data (Connaway & Powell, 2010). A research design is described as a framework which guides the researcher in choosing the research sample which will be utilized to generate the data required and in so doing help depict the hypothesis and establish steps necessary in achieving reliable, relevant, accurate and valid conclusions, which answers the research questions (Streubert & Carpenter, 2003). For this reason, qualitative research methodology will be applied to ensure that the data collected does not generate incorrect causal inferences. A case study is a form of qualitative research methodology (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). Qualitative research methodology; will be suitable in this study in identifying the distinct characteristics of hate crime offenders and establishing the main motivation both environmental and personal that drives people with a bias to commit a crime (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). The main reason for using this methodology is its ability to provide specific answers to specific questions that answers the research problem as argued by Wengraf, (2001). The semi structured interviews will be the qualitative data collection method used to provide data from the case study. Important to note is that the study will not only utilize primary data only but will also incorporate secondary information from secondary sources such as information from hate crime police case files. Sampling Strategy In developing a sampling strategy it is ideal to establish various sampling elements among them the population sample which is the portion of the population that is identified and chosen from the general population (Tongco, 2007). The population sample for this study comprises of both male and females with varied social cultural differences who include 200 participants who are convicted hate crime offenders. The population sample shall be drawn from two local penitentiary institutions. Another element of sampling is the sampling frame which is the definite list of sampling units, where the population sample is drawn from (Connaway & Powell, 2010). On the other hand, there is the sample size which is the number of elements in the chosen sample as defined by Saris & Gallhofer, (2007). For this study, the sampling size is a total of two hundred participants. According to Wengraf, (2001), an appropriate sample size is greatly determined by the probable frequency of the element of interest, margin of error and the desired level of confidence. For this study, the sample size selected is suitable in providing clarity, ample and multiplicity of data that is necessary to answer the research questions. Tongco, (2007) defines a sampling strategy to the plan set to ensure the selected population represents the population from which it is drawn. Developing an effective sampling strategy helps prevent use of biased samples and ensures representativeness, which are crucial in presenting research errors. Sampling designs; often, a sampling strategy is developed after establishing the sampling design and sampling size (Connaway & Powell, 2010). There are two types of sampling designs namely probability and non probability sampling. Probability sampling entails selection of the elements randomly, where every element in the population has equal autonomy and opportunity of being selected. The main advantage of probability sampling is the ability to ensure representativeness of the samples selected (Connaway & Powell, 2010). Among probability sampling methods includes simple random, stratified random, cluster and systematic sampling. Non-probability sampling entails selection of the elements using non random methodologies (Tongco, 2007). The main limitation of this sampling design is the inability to ensure representativeness. Among non- probability sampling methods include convenience sampling, quota sampling and purposive sampling. Since this research uses the interpretivist approach by using a case study to collect data, it will apply a non probability sampling method and the most suitable is purposive sampling. The purposive sampling is used to select specific group of people, which in this study are hate crime offenders, who it might be hard to locate and recruit (Tongco, 2007). According to Tongco, the technique is often used when the information required is not only held by specific people but also, it requires high level of interpretation pertaining cultural significance (Tongco, 2007). Eligibility criteria for the sample To qualify as a respondent in this study, the participants should Be convicted of a hate crime The hate crime must have been committed within the last five years be between the ages of 18-65 either be male or female Those convicted of other crimes do not qualify Data Collection Methods and Variables The main data collection method suitable for this research is the use of semi-structured interviews to generate information for the case study. Denzin & Lincoln, (2000) indicates that case studies, analyze an event or elements in their natural environment, applying varied data collection techniques. A case study provides adequate opportunity and environment for the researcher to link their theory and hypothesis to empirical realities (Tongco, 2007). Case studies provide the ease in utilizing various ethnographies and research methodologies based on the phenomenon being studies (Streubert & Carpenter, 2003). For this study, this permits the researcher the opportunities to use varied data collection methods which are crucial in providing more information about the subject matter and further improves the flexibility of the researcher to capture emerging themes and analyze case features. Semi structured interviews The use of semi structured interviews as a research tool in this study is important because, the researcher will have an opportunity to not only noting the non-verbal aspects of communication, which are essential but also be able to seek clarifications from the respondents (Streubert & Carpenter, 2003). Semi structured interviews are open for adjustments since the researcher can develop new questions based on emerging themes, which are critical in developing a rich research portrait as argued by Denzin & Lincoln, (2000). Nevertheless, the semi structured interviews are susceptible to researcher bias and respondent bias, they require substantial amount of time, energy and money to carry them out. In regards to the resource of time, respondents may lack sufficient time to respond to all the questions and clarifications the researcher may seek (Tongco, 2007). Despite these limitations, the advantages of semi structured interviews outweigh their limitations in analyzing the characteristics of hate crime offenders and motivation for hate crime. Secondary Data Collection As earlier indicated, the study will not rely on primary data only but will incorporate secondary data from secondary sources. Secondary data are not only readily accessible but also, they help validate data collected using primary sources (Streubert & Carpenter, 2003). Other than hate crime case files, documented hate crime police records and peer reviewed journal articles on hate crime shall be used as secondary sources for secondary data. Ethical Considerations Since the research involves dealing with convicted offenders, it is paramount that prior to, during and after the research process, the respondents are made aware of their rights to engage or withdraw their participation in the study as supported by (Tongco, 2007). The main constraints to the study are the difficulty in convincing the participants, who are crime offenders, to share their experiences, which will help in the assessment of their character and motivation to commit a hate crime. For this reason, the researcher will have to assure and reassure the respondents that all the information collected, shall be used for the intended research purposes only and they shall be safely discarded. This can effectively and efficiently be achieved by submitting confidentiality forms to the respondents, committing the researcher to confidentiality as supported by Denzin & Lincoln, (2000). It is important that every respondent participate in the study out of their own free will. To facilitate this, they shall be requested to sign consent forms establishing their approval to engage in the research process. Since the research involves security-related issues, authorization forms from relevant parties such as the Officers in Charge of the two penitentiaries shall be sought to ensure safety of both the researcher and the respondents. To improve accuracy, reliability and validity of data used, the researcher shall use both secondary and primary data. Other obstacles concerning accuracy, reliability and validity of the findings will are researcher and respondent bias. To ensure the researcher is not biased, structuring of the interview questions and shall engage three key people, the researcher, an expert and an authority member from the penitentiary. To limit respondent bias, participants shall be assured and reassured the data collected shall be used to help develop effective hate crime preventive strategies and they will need to sign consent forms. Use of both secondary and primary data will ensure the research methodology is accurate, reliable, suitable, and effective in answering the research questions and achieving the research aims and objectives (Tongco, 2007). Conclusion The limited amount of literature relating to hate crime offenders, indicate the existence of some discrepancies in how some theorists describe hate crime offenders. Dunbar (2003), and Ezekiel (2002), argue that hate crime offenders come from dysfunctional families, with a history of violence, whereas, Perry (2010), argues that hate crime offenders come from privileged and socially powerful families. Because of the complexity of the subject there is an urgent need for a community-wide commitment to properly address hate crime and provide effective preventions, in order to either reduce or eliminate hate crime occurrences. Society must be educated to correct many of the existing problems related to racial superiority, religious differences and other cultural and ethnic minorities. This can be achieved with fully analyzing the characteristics and motivation of hate crime offenders. References Connaway, L.S. & Powell, R.R. 2010. Basic Research Methods for Librarians. New York: ABC- CLIO. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage Publications. Dunbar, R. (2003). Social brain, distributed mind. London: UK. Oxford University Press. Ezekiel, R. S. (2002). An ethnographer looks at Neo-Nazi and Klan groups: The Racist Mind Revisited. American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 46, pp. 51-71. Herek, G. Gillis, R. Cogan, J. and Glunt, E. (1997). Hate crime victimization among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12(2), 195-215. Levin, B. (1993). “Bias Crimes: A Theoretical and Practical Overview.” Stanford Law and Policy Review. Levin, J. and McDevitt, J. (1993). Hate Crimes: The Rising Tide of Bigotry and Bloodshed. New York: Plenum Press. Levin, B. (1999). Hate crimes: Worse by definition. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 15, 6-21. McDevitt, J., Levin, J. and Bennett, S. (2002). Hate Crime Offenders: An Expanded Typology. Journal of Social Issues, 58: 303–317. doi: 10.1111/1540-4560.00262 Perry, B. (2010). In the name of hate: Understanding hate crimes. New York: Routledge. Saris, W.E. & Gallhofer, I.N. 2007. Design, Evaluation, and Analysis of Questionnaires for Survey Research. Sidney: Wiley-Inter science. Streubert S. H. J., & Carpenter, D. R. (2003). In Qualitative research in nursing (3rd ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Tongco, .M.D.C. (2007). Purposive Sampling as a Tool for Informant Selection. Ethnobotany Research & Applications, 5:147-158 Wengraf, T. (2001). Qualitative research interviewing: biographic narrative and semi-structured methods. London: SAGE Read More