Bias Crime Versus “Normal” OffensesBias offenses differ from other similarly egregious
offenses in several ways. First, because bias crimes
indicate an offender’s bias, they serve symbolic and
instrumental functions. The targeted victim is symbolic
of a despised out-group. An out-group is a social group
composed of people whom an offender perceives to be
outsiders. Symbolically, the bias crime effectively com-
municates a message to an entire community, neighbor-
hood, or group. The message is extremely negative and
reminds anyone who identifies as a member of the vic-
tim’s social group of their own vulnerability.
Bias crime serves an instrumental function in that
it curtails the behaviors and movement of members of
large numbers of people, including members of the
victim’s and offender’s groups. Bias offenses restrict
the behaviors and choices of people because members
of the victim’s and offender’s groups will tend to
avoid certain locations and interactions with out-
groups. For example, people who are personally unac-
quainted with the victim but who perceive themselves
to be members of the victim’s social group are likely
to restrict their activities. They will think twice about
being in geographic proximity of the location where
the bias offense is known to have occurred. Members
of the offender’s group who sympathize with victims
are also likely to be anxious about the prospect of
intergroup interaction. Without realizing it, offenders
can affect far greater numbers of people than the
actual victim(s) of the offense.
The bias crime is also distinguished from the “nor-
mal” offense (i.e., the nonbias crime) in that the bias
crime is a reflection of a perpetrator’s bigotry or
hatred, or both. Such clarity about an offender’s think-
ing is a feature of the bias crime and not readily appar-
ent in many other types of offenses. However, it
should be noted that legal scholars debate the consti-
tutionality of bias crime statutes because they argue
that characterization of an offense as a bias offense is
based on penalizing thoughts and motives. Although
there may be some ambiguity for certain offenses, law
enforcement, legislators, and prosecutors generally
consider the presence of one or more specific indica-
tors during the commission of an offense to be evi-
dence of a bias motive. These indicators serve to
disambiguate the circumstances surrounding the inci-
dent because they suggest that the offender’s actions
were motivated, in whole or in part, by bias.A clear difference in group status between the vic-
tim(s) and offender(s) that has historically involved
relations fraught with strife is often taken as an indica-
tor of a bias motive. When the incident occurs in the
context of an event that makes the group status of the
victim particularly salient, prosecutors will likely sus-
pect a bias motive. Moreover, when there are obvious
items present, used in, or produced as a result of the
offense (e.g., graffiti, bias-related gestures or expres-
sions, and written materials) or when the offenders are
members of organized hate groups (e.g., the Ku Klux
Klan), the incident is likely to be characterized as a bias
offense.Costs Incurred
There are a number of costs associated with bias crimes.
Those who are targeted by offenders (i.e., victims) may
incur physical, psychological, and financial costs.
Victims of hate crime who are physically assaulted suf-
fer injuries that may lead to permanent bodily damage,
and in several high-profile cases (e.g., the murders of
James Byrd and Mathew Sheppard), these injuries have
resulted in death. Psychologically, the victim of a bias
crime may experience posttraumatic stress disorder
(PTSD). In fact, research by Gregory Herek and col-
leagues provides evidence of long-term PTSD symp-
toms. That research examined the experiences of
victims of antigay bias crimes and found that in some
cases the victims needed as many as 5 years to over-
come the effect of their victimization.
Even when victims are able to function “normally”
following a bias crime, they may harbor intense fear.
They may fear their attackers, and they may also fear
anyone who resembles their attackers. Although this
can be debilitating, it can be most problematic for the
fearful victims who feel compelled to move from their
residence, change jobs, or restrict their activities. Thus,
an additional outcome of bias crime victimization can
involve very real financial costs. To the extent to which
victims decide to suddenly change their place of
employment or residence, there is likely to be a signif-
icant change in financial well-being. In addition, bias
crime involving property offenses creates financial
costs for property owners who resolve to return their
property to its original state.
Although the most obvious costs are incurred by the
actual victims of the offense, there are also societal
costs associated with bias crime activities. Bias crimesBias Crime——— 49B-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:41 PM Page 49