Abstract:Latinx adults have become increasingly vulnerable to bias motivated victimization. The impact of such incidents on Latinx communities is severely understudied, particularly concerning whether or not victims will seek help as a result of such events. Evidence within other victimization contexts demonstrate Latinx populations may be less likely to seek formal help from police, medical providers, and other formal authorities, relying instead on informal support networks such as family and friends. The current stu… Show more
“…Eighty percent of interviewees discussed the police, and rarely was the discussion positive. Florinda explained that social media and news accounts of police violence create fear of the police: “You know cause the Facebook, they show the videos of law enforcement doing bad things to the Mexican community, the black community, you know, how do, how do they want us to respect and feel safe, you know, you can’t even call them.” These sentiments demonstrate a distrust and fear of the police that can decrease the likelihood of community members reporting crimes, in line with previous research which has shown lower levels of formal reporting among Latinx individuals who have experienced bias victimization (Lockwood et al, 2022).…”
Latinx adults are increasingly avoiding formal authorities, local services, and community engagement out of fear of victimization and deportation. Increased distrust and fear of authorities threaten to erode individual and community feelings of safety. While crime prevention scholarship identifies community efficacy, local engagement, and bonds to formal institutions as critical components to creating safety within local communities, there is little research to date on how avoidance in response to victimization impacts these processes. This study utilized data from 53 qualitative interviews of Latinx adults to understand the ways that bias victimization and discrimination alter feelings of community safety. Participants expressed distrust of formal institutions and decreased community engagement. They also leveraged informal networks like friends and family, emphasizing the nuanced impact of avoidance on community organization.
“…Eighty percent of interviewees discussed the police, and rarely was the discussion positive. Florinda explained that social media and news accounts of police violence create fear of the police: “You know cause the Facebook, they show the videos of law enforcement doing bad things to the Mexican community, the black community, you know, how do, how do they want us to respect and feel safe, you know, you can’t even call them.” These sentiments demonstrate a distrust and fear of the police that can decrease the likelihood of community members reporting crimes, in line with previous research which has shown lower levels of formal reporting among Latinx individuals who have experienced bias victimization (Lockwood et al, 2022).…”
Latinx adults are increasingly avoiding formal authorities, local services, and community engagement out of fear of victimization and deportation. Increased distrust and fear of authorities threaten to erode individual and community feelings of safety. While crime prevention scholarship identifies community efficacy, local engagement, and bonds to formal institutions as critical components to creating safety within local communities, there is little research to date on how avoidance in response to victimization impacts these processes. This study utilized data from 53 qualitative interviews of Latinx adults to understand the ways that bias victimization and discrimination alter feelings of community safety. Participants expressed distrust of formal institutions and decreased community engagement. They also leveraged informal networks like friends and family, emphasizing the nuanced impact of avoidance on community organization.
“…The combination of the prevalence of hate crime in the United States (FBI, n.d.; Kena & Thompson, 2021), inconsistent reporting (Lantz et al, 2019; Lockwood et al, 2022), and variation between states in what is covered by hate crime laws all point to the importance of studying hate crime legislation. States across the country have consistently changed aspects of their hate crime legislation, including recent substantial changes by Utah in 2019 and Georgia in 2020, making it difficult to follow for those not proximally involved with their amendment and enforcement.…”
Hate-motivated crime remains problematic in the United States. California passed the first hate crime law in 1978; Congress followed in 1990. States continue to amend their hate crime legislation, producing an amalgam of statutory provisions. This article creates a conceptual framework from which to classify hate crime legislation across the 50 states and Washington, DC. Laws were identified through Westlaw. Analyses compared the types of crimes covered, discrete and insular minorities protected, prosecutorial alternatives, mandates for law enforcement agencies, and additional rights provided to victims among states’ legislation. Considerable variation in scope and content of hate crime legislation exists among states, leaving several vulnerable groups unprotected, law enforcement underprepared, and victim rights and resources sparse. Future directions for hate crime policy and legislation are discussed.
“…As trust and confidence in formal support organizations (e.g., criminal justice agencies) remain relatively low due to historical and ongoing marginalization ( Feddes & Jonas, 2020 ; Walters, Paterson, Brown, et al, 2020 ), many victims of hate crime look to their “ingroup” communities for help and support ( Haynes et al, 2023 ; Lockwood et al, 2022 ). Within LGBT+ communities, emerging evidence suggests that hate crime victims are generally met with considerable empathy ( Paterson et al, 2019b ).…”
Crimes motivated by hatred toward a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity typically cause greater physical and emotional harm than comparative crimes not motivated by hate. Compounding these impacts, hate crime victims receive less empathy, less support, and are blamed more for their victimization both by society in general and by criminal justice agencies. However, as hate crimes are the epitome of intergroup hostility, the crimes are also likely to engender an ingroup empathy bias in which fellow LGBT+ people provide greater empathy to hate crime victims, potentially motivating greater support and reducing victim blaming for these particularly marginalized victims. Across three studies, we examined LGBT+ participants’ empathic reactions to hate crime victims, along with their willingness to help victims and blame victims. In the Pilot Study ( N = 131) and Study 1 ( N = 600), we cross-sectionally showed that indirect experiences of hate crimes predicted a stronger LGBT+ identity which, in turn, was associated with greater empathy that predicted greater willingness to help victims and blame the victim less. In Study 2 ( N = 657), we experimentally manipulated the motivation of a crime (hate vs. non-hate) and the group membership of the victim (ingroup-LGBT+ vs. outgroup-heterosexual) and found that crimes that had one or more group elements (i.e., involved an ingroup member and/or was motivated by hate) elicited greater empathy that, in turn, increased the willingness to help the victim and reduced victim blaming. Together, the findings provide cogent evidence that LGBT+ communities respond to anti-LGBT+ hate crimes with overwhelming empathy, and this ingroup empathy bias motivates helping behaviors and reduces victim blame, thereby buffering the marginalizing consequences of hate crimes. Policy implications include acknowledging and harnessing the importance of shared identities when practitioners and criminal justice agencies respond to anti-LGBT+ hate crimes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.