“To Protect and to Serve?”: An Exploration of Police Conduct in Relation to the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Community

Abstract

While there are studies that focus specifically on hate crimes, especially anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual, and/or transgender motivated violence, little research has been done to examine the role that law enforcement officials play in responding to crimes related to the Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender (GLBT) community. This study, therefore, attempts to do just that. Using traditional content-analysis techniques, we examine 1,896 incident reports that were collected by a GLBT advocacy group in Minnesota, between 1990 and 2000, to begin to understand the range of police responses in relation to the GLBT community. Results indicate that while police conduct improved, negative responses and behaviors on the part of law enforcement officials outnumbered positive responses. The most common complaint by Helpline callers was inadequate response by the police; there were also numerous callers indicating that they were further victimized at the hands of the law enforcement officials. The data suggest a continued need for the education of law enforcement officials regarding issues facing the GLBT community, advocacy for victims of crime who are many times reluctant to report an incident to the police and increased attention to issues of oversight and accountability for officers who are responding to calls for help from the GLBT community.

Policing Diversity: Examining Police Resistance to Training Reforms for Transgender People in Australia

“…This finding has broad relevance since past research shows that police agencies in the USA have been criticised for identity-relevant policing of minority groups that has typically resulted in transgender people being treated in an unfair manner (See Alliance for a Safe & Diverse DC, 2008;Berman & Robinson, 2010;Edelman, 2014;Grant et al, 2011;Heidenreich, 2011;Herek & Berrill, 1992;Miles-Johnson, 2013b;Redfern, 2014;Wolff & Cokely, 2007, Woods et al, 2013. It also clearly shows that any potential contact between the police and transgender people would more than likely be This idea is supported by Milner (1996) who also concluded that SIT could offer a clear explanation regarding why many minority groups (such as the transgender community)…”

“…Throughout the 1990s, increased attention to crimes and harassment of the LGBT community resulted in many US police organisations implementing training programs for police officers to respond appropriately. However critics argued that few police training programs in the US offered specialised training modules that sensitised police officers to these types of crimes (Sloan, King & Sheppard, 1998), and although many states participated in this type of training (for example, Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan, New York, Texas, and West Virginia) less than half of the programs mentioned sexual orientation in the training (Sloan et al, 1998) or gender diversity (Wolff & Cokely, 2007). More recently, multiple police agencies in cities such as Washington D.C., New York City and San Francisco have trimmed policing programs tailored to suit specific community needs (such as liaison units created to respond to specialty calls from members of the transgender community) (Bagby , 2012;Israel, Harkness, Delucio, Ledbetter and Avellar, 2013).…”

“…Although value systems about transgender people have changed in recent times, past studies (See Berrill, 1992;Herek, 1989;Finn & McNeil (1987) Berman & Robinson, 2010;Edelman, 2014;Grant, Mottet, Tanis, Harrison, Herman and Keisling, 2011;Heidenreich, 2011;Miles-Johnson, 2013b;Redfern, 2014;Wolff & Cokely, 2007, Woods, Galvan, Bazargan, Herman & Chen, 2013, with groups of police officers who collectively express negative language towards transgender people or dispense negative treatment to members of this community during engagement (See Grinc, 1994;Parker, Onyekwuluje, & Murty, 1995;Sadd & Grinc, 1994).…”

“…According to Rubin and Hewstone (2004), SIT makes clear references to both in-group favouritism and out-group favouritism in its explanation of intergroup behaviour. SIT also specifies when members of in-groups and outgroups will and will not show favouritism to their own group, and can also explain institutional discrimination in terms of consensual discrimination because specific social and behavioural norms embodied in an institution may contribute to the nature and extent of discrimination that is expressed or displayed by the members of the institution (Rubin & Hewstone, 2004 A c c e p t e d M a n u s c r i p t Edelman, 2014;Grant et al, 2011;Heidenreich, 2011;Miles-Johnson, 2013b;Redfern, 2014;Wolff & Cokely, 2007, Woods et al, 2013.…”

Disparate risks of conviction under Michigan’s felony HIV disclosure law: An observational analysis of convictions and HIV diagnoses, 1992–2010

“…Indeed, Amnesty International (2005: 3) concludes in a report on police brutality against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Americans that ''in the U.S., LGBT people continue to be targeted for human rights abuses by the police based on their real or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity''. Empirical studies back up these claims, suggesting, for example, that many police officers hold antigay attitudes (Bernstein and Kostelac, 2002); that many LGBT victims of hate crimes do not report their crimes to police because they fear police mistreatment (Herek et al, 2002); and that reports of police misconduct and inaction in cases involving LGBT crime victims are persistent over time (Wolff and Cokely, 2007). As such, MSM potential complainants in HSCS cases may not trust the police to take their case seriously.…”