HATE CRIME PERCEPTION IN THE UK Do People of Different Ethnicities Perceive Hate Crime Differently?

Abstract

There is an argument that it is not clear whether all the victims of hate crime would have the same feelings, perception, responses, and attitudes towards hate crime. Therefore, including the perception of victims in hate crime recording procedure might miss many hate crimes that their victims or witnesses fail to identify them as such.

Furthermore, it would create injustice by reacting to similar scenarios in two different ways. The question arises from this situation that does letting the victim decide, would genuinely empower them, or is it merely transferring the responsibility from the criminal justice system to untrained ordinary vulnerable.

This research aims to explore whether people of different ethnicities would have a similar or different perception from any of the five strands of hate crime.

Full text

Student number: UP834422
Page | 1
HATE CRIME PERCEPTION
IN THE UK
Do People of Different Ethnicities Perceive Hate
Crime Differently?
John Anderson
UP 834422
10/02/2019
Supervisor: Dr Nathan Hall
Word Count: 9204

Student number: UP834422
Page | 2
Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment for the requirements
of the BSC (Hons) Criminology and Criminal Justice degree.
UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH
INSTITUTE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE STUDIES
• I hereby declare that this dissertation is substantially my own work;
• I do/do not (please delete as appropriate) consent to my dissertation in this
attributed format (not anonymous), subject to final approval by the Board of
Examiners, being made available electronically in the Library Dissertation Repository
and/or the Department’s digital repositories. Dissertations will normally be kept for
a maximum of ten years;
• I understand that if I consent, this dissertation will be accessible only to staff and
students for reference only;
• This permission may be revoked at any time by e-mailing data-
protection@port.ac.uk.
SIGNED:
PRINT NAME: JOHN ANDERSON
DATE: 10/02/2019

Student number: UP834422
Page | 3
Abstract
Hate crime is a social phenomenon that is very contested with social, cultural,
economic, and political factors. Therefore, it is tough to define what constitutes
hatred or whether it should be the focus of hate crime discourse rather than a biased
motive. There are disagreements about whether hate crime should be specific to
protected groups or the whole population. Some academics argue that the process
of group selection would mean identity politics. Other academics argue that the
hatred in hate crime should be punished regardless of which group it is being
targeted to avoid identity politics.
The Police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has adopted a definition for
identifying hate crimes that heavily relies on the perception of the victim and
witnesses. It would further complicate the already contested subject of hate crime. It
is admirable that the criminal justice system empowers the victims of hate crime by
giving them the agency and voice in determining their victimisation type. Tragic
cases of Stephen Lawrence in racially motivated murder, Fiona Pilkington in
disability hate crime harms to its victims, and Sophie Lancaster in murder with
biased motive towards alternative culture have driven the society to be accepting
and pleased with the empowerment of victims.
However, there is an argument that it is not clear whether all the victims of hate
crime would have the same feelings, perception, responses, and attitudes towards
hate crime. Therefore, including the perception of victims in hate crime recording
procedure might miss many hate crimes that their victims or witnesses fail to identify
them as such. Furthermore, it would create injustice by reacting to similar scenarios
in two different ways. The question arises from this situation that does letting the
victim decide, would genuinely empower them, or is it merely transferring the
responsibility from the criminal justice system to untrained ordinary vulnerable.
This research aims to explore whether people of different ethnicities would have a
similar or different perception from any of the five strands of hate crime.

Student number: UP834422
Page | 4
Table of Contents
Table of Figures .......................................................................................................................................... 6
Table of Tables ........................................................................................................................................... 6
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 7
Chapter1. Hate Crime .............................................................................................................................. 9
1.1. Definition ......................................................................................................................................... 9
1.2. Identity politics ............................................................................................................................. 11
1.3. Impact............................................................................................................................................. 12
1.3.1. Individual ................................................................................................................................ 12
1.3.2. Community ........................................................................................................................... 13
1.4. Response ....................................................................................................................................... 14
1.4.1. Individual response .............................................................................................................. 14
1.4.2. Community responses ........................................................................................................ 14
1.4.3. Criminal justice & Legal response .................................................................................... 15
1.4.4. Reporting and Perception .................................................................................................. 16
1.5. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 17
Chapter2. Research Methodology ....................................................................................................... 19
2.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 19
2.2. Aim ................................................................................................................................................. 19
2.3. Objectives ..................................................................................................................................... 19
2.4. Research Method ........................................................................................................................ 20
2.4.1. Aim, Approach, and Method ............................................................................................. 20
2.4.2. Questionnaire ....................................................................................................................... 20
2.5. Sample Group and its Representativeness ............................................................................ 21

Student number: UP834422
Page | 5
2.5.1. Sampling Challenge .............................................................................................................. 21
2.5.2. Sampling Solutions and implications for future studies ............................................... 22
2.5.3. Representativeness .............................................................................................................. 23
2.6. Ethical Consideration ................................................................................................................. 25
Chapter3. Findings ................................................................................................................................... 26
3.1. Initial ANOVA test ..................................................................................................................... 26
3.1.1. Findings .................................................................................................................................. 26
3.1.2. process ................................................................................................................................... 26
3.2. Tukey HSD test ........................................................................................................................... 27
3.2.1. findings ................................................................................................................................... 27
3.2.2. Recognition of Sexual Orientation Bias as Motivation in a Hate Incident .............. 28
3.2.3. Recognition of Responsibility in a Transgender Motivated Hate Incident .............. 29
3.2.4. Support for Harsher Punishment in a Transgender Biased Hate Crime ................ 30
3.3. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 31
Chapter4. Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 32
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 34
References ................................................................................................................................................. 35
Appendix 1. Ethical approval ...................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
icjsethics - <icjsethics@port.ac.uk> ....................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix 2. Ethical form ............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Student number: UP834422
Page | 6
Table of Figures
Figure 2.1 Ethnicity of Participants ....................................................................................................... 23
Figure 2.2 Gender of Participants ........................................................................................................ 24
Figure 2.3 Distribution of Participants by Age Group ..................................................................... 24
Figure 3.1Recognition of Sexual Orientation Bias in a Hate Incident .......................................... 29
Figure 3.2 RECOGNITION OF RESPONSIBILITY IN A TRANSGENDER MOTIVATED
HATE INCIDENT .................................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 3.3Support for Harsher Punishment in a Transgender Biased Hate Crime .................. 31
Table of Tables
Table 3-1One-way between groups ANOVA ................................................................................... 27
Table 3-2 Tukey HSD result for Recognition of Sexual Orientation Bias in a Hate Incident 28
Table 3-3Tukey HSD result for Recognition of responsibility in a transgender motivated hate
incident ....................................................................................................................................................... 29
Table 3-4Tukey HSD result for Support for Harsher Punishment in a Transgender Biased
Hate Crime ............................................................................................................................................... 30

Student number: UP834422
Page | 7
Introduction
Hate crime offenders target people because of their identity. The call for harder
punishments for hate crime offenders compared to perpetrators of non-biased crimes are
not due to the physical harms of hate crime (Pezzella & Fetzer, 2015, p. 724), but due to
the extensive wider effects of this social phenomenon. The biased motive towards victims’
cultural, ethnic, religious or sexual identity damages the individuals’ feelings of self-worth
and therefore inflicts extensive post-victimisation damage comparing to non-biased crimes
(Garland & Funnell, 2016, p. 17; Iganski & Lagou, 2015, p. 1715; Pezzella & Fetzer, 2015, p.
723). Hate crime further marginalises the ‘difference’ and shrinks the social boundaries of
marginalised groups (Chakraborti, 2018, p. 388).
Hate crimes are under-reported and under-recorded. Analysis of the Crime Survey for
England and Wales (CSEW) between 2015/16 and 2017/18 suggests that only 53% of the
estimated 184,000 hate crime incidents in each year have been recorded by the police
(Home Office, 2018). Similarly, other research projects (Chakraborti, Garland, & Hardy,
2014) report that less than a quarter of their participants had reported their hate crime
victimisation to police and more than half of them were not willing to report hate-motivated
verbal abuse and harassment (Chakraborti, 2018, p. 393; Chakraborti, Garland, & Hardy,
2014).
According to the College of Policing (2014), the five monitored strands of hate crime are
Disability, Race, Religion, Sexual orientation, and Transgender. Moreover, police and the
CPS have an agreed-upon definition in order to identify and flag hate crime which relies
heavily on the perception of the victim. However, the perception of a non-victim witness
might be different from the victim at the time that the hate incident occurs.
Furthermore, some victims from distinct ethnicities might hold different thresholds of values
and experience a variety of social situations. The result might be that a group may perceive
a hate incident as bias-motivated while the other does not. This division in perception
especially increases amongst the ethnically diverse and disadvantaged areas where the
broader community may not be able to accurately perceive such incidents as hate crimes
due to the socio-structural context influences (Wikes, Sydes, Benier, & Higginson, 2017).

Student number: UP834422
Page | 8
Aim
This research aims to critically explore whether participants of different ethnic backgrounds
perceive hate crime differently.
Objectives
The objectives of this study are to explore and compare the perception of hate crime as
well as the attitude to it between the people of different ethnicities within the UK through
empirical research in the form of an online survey.
The participants will:
• Read five short scenarios of a possible hate incident, each containing insensitivity
towards one of the protected characteristics;
• They would then be asked to judge whether in their opinion that incident would
amount to hate crime;
• Moreover, if they would support enhanced sentencing for perpetrators of that type
of crime.
Chapter Outline
Chapter one will discuss the conceptualisation of hate crime and some of the difficulties that
make it a complicated task. It will discuss identity politics in hate crime discourse and will
explore the impact of hate crime on individuals and communities. It will then explore the
responses of individuals, communities, and the criminal justice system to hate crime. Finally,
it will discuss the reporting of hate crime and the difficulties in reaching a sufficient one.
Chapter two will discuss the methodology, ethical issues, and implications for future studies.
Chapter three then follows by presenting the findings of the research with regards to the
demographics of participants and the different findings in the perception of hate crime
among participants. Chapter four will discuss the findings both from the survey and the
process of this research with relation to the reliance of the police and the CPS on victims’
perceptions.

Student number: UP834422
Page | 9
Chapter1. Hate Crime
1.1. Definition
There is no global definition for hate crime or a consensus among academics or lawmakers
partly due to the social, cultural, and political factors that have a large role in defining hate
crime (Boeckmann & Turpin-Petrosino, 2002, p. 208; College of Policing, 2014, p. 2;
Garland, 2011, p. 26; Hall, Hate Crime, 2013, p. 1). Various definitions of hate crime may
differ in terminology yet are similar in some parts such as (a) hate crime is a criminal act at
first; (b) is motivated by strong feelings such as hate, prejudice, or bias; and (c) is
perpetrated towards a particular person, group, or place (Green, Laurence, & Smith, 2001,
p. 480; Wickes, Pickering, Mason, Maher, & McCulloch, 2015, p. 240).
The police and the CPS (2017) use the terms ‘hostility’ and ‘prejudice’ instead of ‘hate’. They
use the following definition to identify and flag hate crimes:
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be
motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability;
race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or
perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
Police are also responsible for collecting data for hate incidents as well as hate crimes. Hate
incidents are any non-criminal acts that are motivated by hostility or prejudice towards one
or more of the protected characteristics (College of Policing, 2014, pp. 2-3).
However, the emphasis on the hate crime being a violation of an ‘existing code’ excludes
some groups and overlooks heinous yet legal actions of subtle racism or other forms of
discrimination which could deny or limit victims’ fulfilment of their lawful rights (Ahmed &
Hammarstedt, 2019, p. 16; Perry B. , 2001, p. 8). For Perry (2001, p. 10; 2009, p. 72) hate
crime is a mechanism of power and oppression that reaffirms the dominance of the
perpetrator group and ensures that the targeted group members remain at the ‘proper’
social state (Garland & Chakraborti, 2012, p. 40).

Student number: UP834422
Page | 10
Chakraborti (2015, p. 31) prefers another approach that protects hate crime victims as a
whole based on their vulnerability. He accounts in the experiences and motivations
connected to different expressions of hate and favours a definition that shapes a response to
the persecution of ‘Others’ rather than a particular group. His preferred definition is closer
to the ones of Gerstenfed (2004, p. 9) and Craig (2002, p. 86) whose definition of hate
crime are simple, and are focused on the victims and their group affiliation (Garland, 2011,
p. 26; Hall, 2013, p. 2).
Hate crime is contingent with social movements, historical events, cultural attitudes, and
political situations of a society (Boeckmann & Turpin-Petrosino, 2002, p. 208; Hall, 2013, p.
1). The followings are some of the hate crime related cases with social, cultural, and political
significance. The 1999 Macpherson report with 70 recommendations followed the racist
murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993 and its controversial investigation by Metropolitan
Police. College of Policing (2014) quotes Hall that the tireless efforts of Stephen's family
following the Macpherson report are one of the factors that led to significant improvement
in policing hate crime.
Moreover, the murder of Sophie Lancaster in 2007 who was a member of Goth subculture
triggered social movements such as the lobbying of the Sophie Lancaster Foundation. It has
resulted in several police forces such as Greater Manchester to monitor the alternative
culture as the sixth strand of hate crime (Garland & Funnell, 2016, pp. 24-25).
Furthermore, there was an upsurge in racially as well as religiously motivated hate crime in
the United Kingdom in 2017 following the terrorist attacks and the country’s vote to leave
the European Union (Home Office, 2018, p. 7). There are traces of historical racial
inequality in the case of Stephen Lawrence, cultural intolerance in the case of Sophie
Lancaster, and political party rivalry in the post Brexit hate crime surge.
It is the trace of such fluid and controversial elements that makes hate crime a highly
contested subject (Jenness, 2007, p. 143). Moreover, the ambiguity in the definition of
prejudice, and its extent of effect, i.e. discrimination (Hall, 2013, p. 81), to which an incident
would be considered a hate crime is another issue that make the conceptualisation of hate
crime a complex and challenging task (p. 18).

Student number: UP834422
Page | 11
1.2. Identity politics
The complexity in the conceptualisation of hate crime is not only about the controversy of
the bias motive but is also about the groups that are protected under hate crime legislation.
Jacobs and Potter (2000, p. 65) have pointed out the identity politics in hate crime
discourse. They have argued that hate crime legislation does not merely protect vulnerable
groups but are a response to advocacy groups for symbolic reasons and are forwarded by
politicians for political agendas (Bottoms, 1995; Hudson, 1997, p. 143; Jacobs & Potter,
2000, p. 65; Roberts, Stalans, Indermaur, & Hough, 2003, p. 5), and therefore not effective
(Pratt, 2007, p. 3).
Social and political situations can influence the hate crime laws which for example has
created resistance in recognition of gender-biased motive in crimes involving male
perpetrators (Jacobs & Potter, 2000, pp. 8-10; pp. 72-73). Barker and Jursz (2019) illustrate
the tipping point of women’s tolerance in the face of inequality and misogyny and point out
the need for ‘pressing reconstruction’ in legislation to counter gender biased hate crime and
hate speech. Merseyside police only received their budget to protect sex workers in 2017,
and their red umbrella project will run only until March 2020. Their initiative was a result of
a recent increase of migrant sex workers in Merseyside (Changing Lives, 2018; Thorp,
2017).
Chakraborti and Garland (2012, p. 40) point out to the arguments around the privilege that
hate crime laws bring to particular groups who have a historical background of
discrimination. Therefore, it is harder for other vulnerable groups to seek refuge under hate
crime legislation. The resistance to recognising less socially desirable groups such as sex
workers, paedophiles (Mason, 2014, p. 175), or subcultures is illustrated in the case of
Sophie Lancaster and the protection of sex workers in Merseyside. Despite the hate crime
conviction in Sophie’s case (Garland, 2010, p. 166), the U.K. government has not yet
included the alternative subcultures in the protected characteristic groups under the hate
crime legislation (Wickes, Pickering, Mason, Maher, & McCulloch, 2015, p. 241). Similarly,
Merseyside police are the only police force in the world that recognised violence against sex
workers as a hate crime (Changing Lives, 2018).
Furthermore, the government’s updated hate crime action plan (Home Office, 2018) does
not mention a word about either sex workers or homeless people. It perhaps suggests that

Student number: UP834422
Page | 12
not any form of prejudice or hostility can be a base for hate crime but only the ones that
are targeting historically marginalised and discriminated against groups (Garland & Funnell,
2016, p. 23). The above cases highlight the role of social and political textures of society and
the willingness of its government in recognising the selected vulnerable groups to include in
the hate crime legislation (Mason-Bish, 2013, p. 301).
Hate crime law and the way it was defined has perhaps created a competition, and therefore
a resentment between vulnerable groups for gaining recognition as their ‘vulnerability’ or
‘worthiness’ is tied to the strength of their social campaign (Garland & Funnell, 2016, p. 25;
Garland & Hodkinson, 2014, p. 629; Jacobs & Potter, 2000, p. 133). The key to avoiding
identity politics is to recognise all groups as potential hate crime victims, replacing identity
politics with the politics of justice (Mason, 2014, p. 176). It would eliminate the unequal
battle for recognition between the vulnerable groups and would prevent the use of political
exploitation for inclusiveness (Garland & Funnell, 2016, p. 27). Otherwise, as Perry (2016)
suggests, due to the ever-changing social and political contexts of a society, the definition of
hate crime would also be constantly under construction (Mason, et al., 2017, p. 155).
1.3. Impact
1.3.1. Individual
Hate crime can bring psychological harm to its victims. Research has shown that many of
the hate crime victims tend to retract from social activities as the psychological damages to
their self-worth prevents them from social participation on similar terms as other members
of the society (Vedeler, Olsen, & Eriksen, 2019). Perpetrators of hate crime strip their
victims from their human worth and define them by their visible or perceived identity
characteristics. Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) shows that harms of hate
crimes would often isolate the victims from the wider society, leaving them with anxiety,
depression and emotional exhaustion (Home Office, 2018; Kayali & Walters, 2019).
Leicester Hate Crime Project (Chakraborti, Garland, & Hardy, 2014) similarly shows that
hate crimes can affect the victims’ quality of life through depression. High numbers of the
learning disability and transgender biased hate crime victims are reported to have thoughts
of suicide. Many of hate crime victims try to avoid public spaces or conceal their identity to
avoid the unpleasant experience of hate crime. They are always in fear of different types of
victimisation, particularly from harassment and verbal abuse (p. 36).

Student number: UP834422
Page | 13
Sussex Hate Crime Project (Paterson, Walters, Brown, & Fearn, 2018, p. 6) point out the
significant psychological and physical consequences of hate crime in comparison with other
forms of crime. The report repeatedly found increased feelings of anger and injustice among
victims of hate crime as well as increased suspicion and social withdrawal (p. 17).
1.3.2. Community
Hate crime harms go beyond the immediate individual victim. They extend to the families
and communities of the victims like ‘domino effect’, waving through the extended group.
This damage inherent the threat to the community that they might get victimised if they
continue to present themselves in the way that the perpetrators deem ‘unacceptable’
(Feagin & Sikes, 1994, p. 16; Garland & Funnell, 2016, p. 17).
Leicester Hate Crime Project similarly has reported that the harm of hate extends to the
family of the victim too, creating inner arguments and anxiety. It also creates fear of
victimisation throughout the wider community or among the community members that
share the same identity characteristics (Chakraborti, Garland, & Hardy, 2014, pp. 47-49).
Sussex Hate Crime Project found out that more than 80% of a community is likely to know
about the hate crime victimisation of one of their members. It also reported that this
awareness would lead to an increased feeling of anger and injustice, feelings of anxiety and
vulnerability, and increased sense of security consciousness. The report shows that the
indirect victimisation of hate crime is very likely to cause the community members to avoid
certain places and location (Paterson, Walters, Brown, & Fearn, 2018, p. 18).
The extent of the indirect impact of hate crime is not only the fractions between the
minority communities and the rest of the society but also resentment and division within
the minority communities. It is considerable in the way that it reduces the solidarity and
cohesion amongst members of the community. The Sussex Hate Crime Project shows that
community members are blaming many of the hate crime victims for ‘being too visible’ or
‘walking in the wrong places or at the wrong times’. The report suggests that this reaction is
due to the increased sense of fear and threat from hate crime victimisation inside the
community (Paterson, Walters, Brown, & Fearn, 2018, p. 26).

Student number: UP834422
Page | 14
1.4. Response
1.4.1. Individual response
Leicester Hate Crime Project reports that one in half of the hate crime victims are reported
to have retaliatory thoughts; one in ten tried to change or conceal their identity, nearly the
same amount has turned to alcohol, prescribed, and non-prescribed drugs. Furthermore,
over half of the hate crime victims are reported to avoid walking or passing certain public
places. Moreover, one-third of them do not go out at night and a quarter of them have
locked themselves at home under increased security (Chakraborti, Garland, & Hardy, 2014,
p. 51).
Akhtar (2014) argues that hate crime forces the victims to isolation, forcing them to refrain
from social activities and appearing in public spaces as a defence mechanism to protect
themselves from victimisation. Their realisation of being in minority would then produce
chronic mental pain. Akhtar (2014)argues that to discharge this pain, some victims seek
relief in retreat, nostalgic idealisation of a society where they can be safe, and sometimes,
move towards retaliation, fundamentalism and terrorism (p. 150).
1.4.2. Community responses
Similarly, the Sussex Hate Crime Project found that the anger and anxiety emotions caused
by hate crime victimisation have direct relations with victims’ methods of response. It found
that anger was predominantly related to confrontational and retaliatory responses while
anxiety was consistent with public space avoidance and seeking improved security (Paterson,
Walters, Brown, & Fearn, 2018, p. 29).
Furthermore, hate crime can damage the relationship between communities and the
criminal justice system (CJS), and in particular, the police. The Sussex Hate Crime Project
(Paterson, Walters, Brown, & Fearn, 2018, p. 32) has shown that the communities who are
aware of the victimisation of one of their members show more resentment towards CJS
than the immediate victims themselves.
According to their research, this relationship is more weakened between police and the
Muslim communities as they showed less confidence in the police and the CPS effectiveness
and indicated that the government should do more to address hate crime. Their qualitative
study (Paterson, Walters, Brown, & Fearn, 2018, p. 34)showed that majority of the

Student number: UP834422
Page | 15
participants would not report verbal abuse to police because of many reasons some of
which are:
• Lack of trust in the police
• Fear that police might misuse personal details (Muslim participants only)
• The responding police officer might be prejudiced
1.4.3. Criminal justice & Legal response
The state of criminal justice attitudes and procedures towards bias-motivated crimes have
improved since the murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993 and specifically after the
publication of the McPherson report in 1999. Including academic research into the
improvement process of police responses to hate crime, creating Community Safety Units in
London, and establishing the Independent Advisory Groups (IAG) are some of the elements
of the improvement process (Chakraborti & Garland, 2015, p. 118; Hall, 2014, pp. 15-19).
Sections 29 to 32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provides the grounds for enhanced
sentencing in racially or religiously motivated assaults, criminal damages, public order
offences, or harassments. These legislations are built on previous ones such as sec.20 and
sec.47 of Person Act 1861 for assault and bodily harm, which allows up to 7 years of
imprisonment.
Comparing the two forms of legislation, the sentencing discretion for the racially or
religiously aggravated assaults and bodily harm does not exceed the limitations of the not-
aggravated crimes under the previous Acts. The only place where the new legislation allow
the court to implement enhanced sentencing for racially or religiously aggravated crimes is
the damage to property under Sec.30 of the CDA 1998 with a maximum of 14 years of
imprisonment which was previously tried under sec.1(1) of Criminal Damage Act 1971 with
a 10-year limitation on sentencing.
Other protected characteristics such as sexual orientation, disability, or transgender identity
are covered under sec.146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 that implicates that crimes
motivated by these factors should be treated as aggravated offences.
Enhanced penalties for perpetrators of hate crime allows the criminal justice system to give
hate crime offenders longer sentences comparing to the non-biased crime offenders.
However, it is suggested to use restorative and rehabilitator programmes along enhanced

Student number: UP834422
Page | 16
sentencing to address hostile bigotry (Walters, Wiedlitzka, Owusu-Bempah, & Goodall,
2017, p. 16). The successful response of any kind (punitive or restorative) to hate crime
from CJS depends on several factors, one of which is the public’s support for these
measures (Paterson, Walters, Brown, & Fearn, 2018, p. 36). Majority of the victims from
LGBT and Muslim communities prefer restorative justice methods to the enhanced punitive
sentencing. They believe it is more beneficial for both victims and offenders (p. 38).
1.4.4. Reporting and Perception
The police recognise the importance and seriousness of hate crime and its impacts on
society and community cohesion. The devastating effects of hate crime on individuals who
are often from minority groups mean that the police has a small window of opportunity to
deliver efficient services to that community or risk losing the trust and confidence of those
particular individuals or the community they belong to. Unfortunately, report (HMRCFRS,
2018) indicates that although the police have come a long way in recognising these issues,
there are still far too many inconsistencies in the effective initiatives in response to hate
crimes. It can undermine the relationship between the police and minorities.
One of the improvements in police response to hate crime following the McPherson report
is the increased focus on the experience and perception of the victim in bias-motivated
crimes. The police are now obliged to record an incident as prejudice motivated if the
victim or the witness perceives that the crime has occurred because of the bias towards
one the protected characteristics (Garland & Funnell, 2016, p. 24). It is evident in the
following definition that police and the CPS (2017) have agreed upon in order to flag hate
crimes:
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be
motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability;
race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or
perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
The emphasis on the perception and experiences of victims of hate crime and the bystander
citizens who may potentially report the incidents to police, is one of the factors that would
empower the public, strengthen the police/citizen relationships, and would probably
enhance the reporting and processing the hate crime cases (Wickes, Pickering, Mason,
Maher, & McCulloch, 2015, p. 243). This approach has led to increased reporting evident by

Student number: UP834422
Page | 17
the high numbers of hate crime reports in recent years which might translate into a fear of
increasing crime, but is indeed apart from the post-Brexit and recent terrorist attacks
(Chakraborti, 2018, p. 388; Home Office, 2018, p. 3), partially a result of the enhanced
reporting (Garland & Funnell, 2016, p. 20).
However, the same emphasis on the perception of the victim and the witnesses to flag
incidents as hate crime can also be the obstacle in an efficient reporting and recording
process. Hate crimes are underreported comparing with the non-hate crimes due to many
issues one of which is the lack of sufficient positive perception of police legitimacy and
cooperation amongst minority groups (Pezzella, Fetzer, & Keller, 2019, p. 18; Wiedlitzka,
Mazerolle, Fay-Ramirez, & Miles-Johnson, 2018, p. 91).
Lack of willingness by the victim or the witness to report the hate incident is evident in
recent research. Leicester Hate Crime Project, Hertfordshire, and West Midlands- based
research projects all report that less than five per cent of their participants were planning to
report their hate incident experience to a non-government organisation, less the 25% said
that they had reported the incident to police, and more than half of them were not willing
to report verbal abuse or harassment (Chakraborti, 2018, p. 393; Chakraborti, Garland, &
Hardy, 2014).
Furthermore, what constitutes a crime for some group might not be the case for another.
With regard to the complexities in defining crime and particularly hate crime (Hall, 2013, p.
1; Perry B. , 2001), this research argues that the emphasis of legislation on the perception of
the victims opens the practice to multiple interpretations of a similar incident based on time,
situation and the cultural attributes of the parties involved. Therefore, it will explore the
perception of different strands of hate crime amongst a variety of ethnicities to explore
whether the perception of the third parties unites them in identifying a hate crime and
whether they are all holding same levels of support towards the punishment of that crime.
1.5. Conclusion
Hate crime is a criminal act with a biased motive that targets its victims because of their
known or perceived affiliation to specific groups. Some of the identity characteristics of such
groups are protected, and biased motive towards them would flag a criminal act as a hate
crime. The police and the CPS follow the agreed upon definition of hate crime which heavily
relies on the perception of the victim or the witnesses to identify the biased motive towards

Student number: UP834422
Page | 18
one of the protected identity characteristics of race, religion, disability, sexual orientation,
or transgender.
There are disagreements among practitioners, policy makers and academics as to which
groups should be protected under hate crime laws and which one does not. Pressure
groups usually arose following social tragedies such as the cases of Stephen Lawrence,
Sophie Lancaster, or Fiona Pilkington seek to including more characteristics to be protected.
Conversely, some would argue that selecting some groups and not others would mean
identity politics and awarding victim status to a particular part of society. Therefore, some
academics like Chakraborti takeaway the arguments from identity politics and argue for
protecting all groups and punishing hate as the motive.
Hate crime differs from other crimes in terms of its extent of the damage. Its ripple effects
would deter the individuals form social participation, driving them into anxiety, depression
and destroys the bond of trust between minority communities and the police. It would
increase the social gap between minority and majority communities in the society as well as
creates fractions within the minority communities.
Many legislations give power to criminal justice system for enhanced sentencing, but to
record an incident as a hate crime in the first place, ultimately it is up to the victim or the
witnesses to declare it as such. It would highlight the importance of the perception-based
definition of hate crime and this research questions its reliability.
In the following chapter, the methods of the research into whether participants of different
ethnicities would have the same perception of a possible hate crime incident are explained.
The results of this study would be beneficial for understating the characteristics of each
ethnic group unique to them in terms of hate crime perception, as better understanding
from service users, would bring the chance for more efficient reporting and recording of
hate crime incidents.

Student number: UP834422
Page | 19
Chapter2. Research Methodology
2.1. Introduction
This chapter presents the methodology that this project has adopted to address its aim and
objectives. It explains the research and sampling methods and its challenges with regard to
the number of participants and their representativeness. Furthermore, it discusses the
developments of the questionnaire and the ethical considerations around it. Finally, it
evaluates the adopted methodology with regards to its reliability, validity, and limitations.
2.2. Aim
This research aims to critically explore whether participants of different ethnic backgrounds
perceive hate crime differently.
2.3. Objectives
The objectives of this study are to explore and compare the perception of hate crime as
well as the attitude to it between the people of different ethnicities within the UK through
empirical research in the form of an online survey.
The participants will:
• Read five short scenarios of a possible hate incident, each containing insensitivity
towards one of the protected characteristics.
• They would then be asked to judge whether in their opinion that incident would
amount to a hate crime,
• Moreover, if they would support enhanced sentencing for perpetrators of that type
of crime.

Student number: UP834422
Page | 20
2.4. Research Method
2.4.1. Aim, Approach, and Method
This research aims to explore the differences and similarities in the perception of hate crime
among people of different ethnicities for two reasons. The first one is to answer the
research question which is whether there is a difference in the perception of hate crime
amongst different ethnic groups. The second one is to develop a typology that explains how
the ethnicity variable relates to the perception of hate crime in any of its forms. Therefore,
the arguable assumption that individuals can be categorised in different groups based on
their mere ethnic variable moves the research into a positivistic epistemological path.
Therefore, this project adopts a quantitative method of research which is usually more
suitable with this kind of approach (Matthews & Rozz, 2010, p. 142).
Moreover, it is vital to provide the participants with identical questions in order to gather
reliable data that can be analysed and compared together. Therefore, this project has
designed a questionnaire using the Online Survey to gather the primary data. Surveys are
beneficial means in terms of gathering large amount of data when it comes to information
such as public perceptions (Robson, 2007). The online distribution of the survey provides
the participants with anonymity and privacy (Caulfield & Hill, 2014). Moreover, it allows the
researcher to gather, analyse, and compare and cross-check many forms of answers in a
variety of ways.
2.4.2. Questionnaire
The designed questionnaire has two parts. The first part collects the gender, age, and
ethnicity of the participant for demographic purposes. The second part is comprised of five
sections each related to one of the protected characteristics under hate crime legislation.
The five strands of hate crime that the survey has covered are Disability, Race, Religion,
Sexual orientation, and Transgender. The participant will read a short scenario involving two
people one of whom has supposedly one of the protected characteristics. The scenarios are
intentionally designed to be short and vague to encourage the participants to use their own
perception of the situation, imagination, and attitudes towards those characteristics for
making a judgment.
There is the possibility that some of the scenarios are more leading than the other and
differ in terms of vagueness and biases. However, all the participants are to be presented

Student number: UP834422
Page | 21
with the same scenarios to remove the potential bias. Furthermore, this research is not
interested in finding that which side of the spectrum each ethnic group falls but merely aims
to see whether there are any significant differences in their answers of ethnic groups to the
same scenarios.
There are three questions following each scenario:
1-The first one asks the participants about the degree to which they agree that the potential
perpetrator is responsible for a crime. This question aims to find out how the third parties
to an incident judge a potential crime situation.
2-The second question asks the participants whether they feel the motive behind the
potential crime was bigotry towards the particular protected characteristic. This question
aims to compare the recognition of bias motives among different ethnic groups.
3-The final question asks about the degree to which participants would support harsher
punishment for perpetrators of hate crime. This question aims to explore the attitudes of
different ethnic groups towards each of the protected characteristics of each section.
2.5. Sample Group and its Representativeness
2.5.1. Sampling Challenge
Ethnic groups are comprised of many unique individuals. They all have different
characteristics and therefore, cannot individually be the only representative of their ethnic
group. Therefore, the ideal way to compare the ethnic groups would have been to choose
the same number of people who have extreme characteristics at each side of the spectrum
as well as the ones who fit in the middle (Walliman, 2011, p. 93).
However, building the ideal sample pool is relied on gathering information about the
participants before conducting the online survey to either include or exclude them from the
study. This is problematic in terms of having access to a large population of each ethnicity.
As a rule of thumb, it is recommended to have a minimum of 100 participants per subgroup
to lower the errors in generalisation (Borg & Gall, 1989; Robson, 2013, p. 271). Therefore,
the initial sample pool would be almost two thousand people.
With regards to the eight different ethnic groups that this study attempted to compare, and
considering the five different strands of hate crime, the process of initial sampling would

Student number: UP834422
Page | 22
have required a significant amount of time. Moreover, the people of different ethnicities
apart from the Caucasians, are in the minority with regards to the whole UK population. It
magnifies the difficulty in accessing enough participants for the initial sampling.
2.5.2. Sampling Solutions and implications for future studies
This research has shared and promoted the online survey on the FaceBook for users in the
UK who are above 18 years old and whose first language is correlated with each ethnic
group that this research aimed to compare. For the short period of time that the survey
was available online, over 60,000 potential valid users have interacted with the link.
However, the number of participants who have successfully completed the survey is 92.
Some people would not like to participate in the online survey, and they might have
characteristics and opinions about the research subject which will not be included in the
results. Therefore, a smaller sample size might have a more focused result than a bigger one
which seems more representative but overlooks all the differences between the participants
and non-participants (Robson, 2013, p. 276). This research has identified that language
barrier is the biggest obstacle in reaching out to minority communities and therefore, would
suggest future studies to prepare their surveys in multiple languages to include a more
balanced pool of participants.
This research has also used the Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) to recruit participants
from its vast sample pool. This is a beneficial tool for studies that include participants who
live in the United States. However, it offers the possibility to address its clients from all over
the globe. One of the suggestions that this research may provide for future studies that
want to use the MTurk system is to be wary of the participants’ profile in terms of race and
ethnicity.
From the requested 20 participants in MTurk who participated in this research, all were
White, and the average time used to fill the online survey for them has been little over 6
minutes which is arguably too short for a survey with five scenarios and 15 questions. This
has a potential impact on the reliability of the data relating to the participants recruited
through this service. Apart from this issue, this research has found the Mturk a valuable pool
of participants that can be hired for a very small cost.
Furthermore, due to the exclusiveness of the online surveys, this research suggests that
future ethnographic studies consider mixed approaches and include qualitative technics to

Student number: UP834422
Page | 23
reach participants of a wider sample pool in terms of their social status and socio-economic
situations.
2.5.3. Representativeness
Figure 2-1 below shows that 92 participants managed to complete the online survey, about a
third of which are Caucasian. The rest of the participants are divided throughout other
ethnic groups with more or less 9 participants per each. The proportion of the participants
in terms of ethnicity is not representative of the whole UK population. However, its lower
numbers comparing to the Caucasians can be a fair projection of minority population
distribution across the UK.
FIGURE 2.1 ETHNICITY OF PARTICIPANTS
Figure 2-2 below shows that from the total 92 participants little over half (53%) are female
and the rest (47%) are male which are very near to the UK populations of male (49%) and
female (51%).
12
12
6
8
36
10
8
Arab
Persian
Pakistani
Asian
Caucasian
African
Hispanic
Number of participants
Ethnic Group

Student number: UP834422
Page | 24
24
33
16
12
8
18-24
25-35
36-45
46-55
55-70
Number of Participants
Age Group
FIGURE 2.2 GENDER OF PARTICIPANTS
Figure 2-3 below shows the distribution of participants based on their age group. The
participants are not representative of the whole UK population in terms of age group
distribution. The biggest difference is that more than 62% of the participants belong to the
under 35 years old age groups while this number for the UK population as a whole is only
29%. The reason for this disproportionality might be that the survey was distributed through
social media and only in the English language. Therefore, this method did not provide ease of
access for the more mature range of population whose first language is not English and
might not have access to social media. Conversely, hate crime perpetrators are usually
known to be from the younger and middle-aged individuals, and in this case, the participants’
age group numbers can be a small representative of the hate crime perpetrators’ age profile.
Male
47%
Female
53%
FIGURE 2.3 DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICIPANTS BY AGE GROUP

Student number: UP834422
Page | 25
2.6. Ethical Consideration
This research has acquired ethical approval from the Ethics Committee of the Universe of
Portsmouth and has conducted its study according to the approved application which can be
found in Appendix 1. This research has used online questionnaires to ensure participants
anonymity. It has refrained from collecting name, address, contact number, or any other
information that can be used to identify the participant. Reaching out to the communities of
the ethnic minority groups were initially discussed. However, some possible risks of invading
participants’ privacy, anonymity or their social and religious values and the potential risk for
the researcher was identified. Therefore, this project only used social media to promote the
questionnaire.
The scenarios presented to the participants were designed to be short and vague and refer
to the participant as the third party who is not either the offender or the victim. It was to
protect the participants from possible emotional distress and re-victimisation in the case
that they have been a victim of a hate crime before. However, the contact information for
the Police, hate crime report website, victim support, and Samaritans were provided at the
end of the survey to assist the participants should they feel the need to contact any of those
organisations.

Student number: UP834422
Page | 26
Chapter3. Findings
The participants belong to 7 different ethnic groups. Each group had read five different
scenarios, each related to one of the protected characteristics. Each scenario was followed
by three questions aiming to explore participants’ reflection on the scenario with regards to
holding the perpetrator responsible, recognising the bias motive in the incident, and finally
supporting the harsher punishment for bias-motivated hate crime.
3.1. Initial ANOVA test
3.1.1. Findings
Although they were seemingly different range of answers to the scenario questions, the
initial ANOVA test, showed that only the answers to some of the strands of hate crime
were statistically significant. These strands were:
• Recognising the responsibility of the offender in religion biased motivated hate
incidents
• Identifying the biased motive towards the sexual orientation of the victim
• Recognising the responsibility of the offender in transgender biased motivated hate
incidents
• Supporting enhanced sentencing for offenders of transgender biased motivated hate
incidents
3.1.2. process
Table 3-1 on the next page shows the result of a one-way between groups ANOVA that
was conducted to compare the answers of the participants regarding the hate incident

Student number: UP834422
Page | 27
scenarios. There was a statistically significant difference between groups at the p<.05 level
on four occasions:
1) Recognition of responsibility in a religiously motivated hate incident [F(6, 85)=2.48,
p=0.029];
2) Recognition of sexual orientation bias as motivation in a hate incident [F(6, 85)=4.11,
p=0.001];
3) Recognition of responsibility in a transgender-motivated hate incident [F(6, 85)=3.47,
p=0.004];
4) Support for harsher punishment in a transgender biased hate crime [F(6, 85)=3.47,
p=0.004];
TABLE 3-1ONE-WAY BETWEEN GROUPS ANOVA
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Religion
responsibility
Between Groups
27.546
6
4.591
2.477
.029
Within Groups
157.531
85
1.853
Total
185.076
91
Sex Bias
Between Groups
48.148
6
8.025
4.114
.001
Within Groups
165.808
85
1.951
Total
213.957
91
Trans
Responsibility
Between Groups
64.046
6
10.674
3.471
.004
Within Groups
261.389
85
3.075
Total
325.435
91
Trans
Punishment
Between Groups
75.190
6
12.532
3.786
.002
Within Groups
281.364
85
3.310
Total
356.554
91
3.2. Tukey HSD test
3.2.1. findings
A post hoc comparison using Tukey HSD (Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference) test that
compared the mean differences of the above four between different ethnic groups.

Student number: UP834422
Page | 28
However, there was only statistically significant differences between the mean score of the
seven ethnic groups in three of the above four:
• The participants of the Arab ethnic group scored much lower in recognising biased
motive toward the sexual orientation of the victims in the scenarios.
• The Hispanic participants gained greater score for recognising transgender bias
motivation in hate crime incidents
• The Arab participants showed the least amount of support comparing to other
groups for enhanced sentencing for the offenders of transgender bias-motivated
crimes.
3.2.2. Recognition of Sexual Orientation Bias as Motivation in a Hate Incident
The Tukey HSD test results in Table 3-2 on the next page indicated that in relation to
recognising the sexual orientation bias as motivation in a hate incident, there was a
statistically significant difference in mean scores of the Arab group vs the Persian group
(M=-2.00, SE= 0.57), Arab group vs. Caucasian group (M=-2.25, SE=0.47), and whether they
think the crime in the scenario was motivated by sexual orientation bias. Arab group vs.
African group (M=-2.05, SE=0.60).
TABLE 3-2 TUKEY HSD RESULT FOR RECOGNITION OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION BIAS IN
A HATE INCIDENT
Dependent
Variable
Ethnicity Ethnicity Mean
Difference (I-J)
Std.
Error
Sig. Lower
Bound
Lower
Bound
Recognition
of Sexual
Orientation
Bias
Arab Persian -2.000* .570 .012 -3.72 -.28
Caucasian -2.250* .466 .000 -3.66 -.84
African -2.050* .598 .016 -3.86 -.24
*The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
Figure 3-1 illustrates the extent of difference in the answers of the participants of Arab
ethnicity comparing to African, Caucasian, and Persians in response to whether they think
the crime in the scenario was motivated by sexual orientation bias. The participants of the

Student number: UP834422
Page | 29
Arab ethnic group scored much lower in recognising biased motive toward the sexual
orientation of the victims in the scenarios.
FIGURE 3.1RECOGNITION OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION BIAS IN A HATE INCIDENT
3.2.3. Recognition of Responsibility in a Transgender Motivated Hate Incident
The Tukey HSD test indicated that in relation to recognising the sexual orientation bias as
motivation in a hate incident, there was a statistically significant difference in mean scores of
the Hispanic group vs the Arab group (M=-2.88, SE= 0.80), Hispanic group vs. Persian group
(M=-2.63, SE=0.80), and Hispanic group vs. Caucasian group (M=-2.24, SE=0.69).
TABLE 3-3TUKEY HSD RESULT FOR RECOGNITION OF RESPONSIBILITY IN A
TRANSGENDER MOTIVATED HATE INCIDENT
Dependent
Variable
Ethnicity Ethnicity Mean
Difference (I-J)
Std.
Error
Sig. Lower
Bound
Lower
Bound
Responsibility-
Transgender
Hispanic Arab 2.875* .800 .010 .46 5.29
Persian 2.625* .800 .024 .21 5.04
Caucasian 2.236* .685 .026 .17 4.31
*The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
Figure 3-2 illustrates the extent of difference in the answers of the participants of Hispanic
ethnicity comparing to Arab, Persian, and Caucasian in response to whether they hold the
perpetrator in the transgender motivated hate incident scenario responsible. The Hispanic
participants gained a greater score for recognising transgender bias motivation in hate crime
incidents.
4.25
6.25
6.5
6.3
01234567
Recognising the Bias Motivation
Ethnicity
African
Caucasian
Persian
Arab

Student number: UP834422
Page | 30
FIGURE 3.2 RECOGNITION OF RESPONSIBILITY IN A TRANSGENDER
MOTIVATED HATE INCIDENT
3.2.4. Support for Harsher Punishment in a Transgender Biased Hate Crime
The Tukey HSD test indicated that in relation to recognising the sexual orientation bias as
motivation in a hate incident, there was a statistically significant difference in mean scores of
the Arab group vs the Pakistani group (M=-3.17, SE= 0.91) and Arab group vs. Caucasian
group (M=-2.31, SE=0.61).
TABLE 3-4TUKEY HSD RESULT FOR SUPPORT FOR HARSHER PUNISHMENT IN A
TRANSGENDER BIASED HATE CRIME
Dependent
Variable
Ethnicity Ethnicity Mean
Difference (I-J)
Std.
Error
Sig. Lower
Bound
Lower
Bound
Support
harsher
punishment
in
transgender
bias
Arab Pakistani -3.167* .910 .013 -5.91 -.42
Caucasian -2.306* .606 .005 -4.14 -.47
*The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
Figure 3-3 illustrates the extent of difference in the answers of the participants of Arab
ethnicity comparing to Pakistani and Caucasian in response to whether they support harsher
punishments for offenders of transgender bias-motivated hate crime. The Arab participants
showed the least amount of support comparing to other groups for enhanced sentencing for
the offenders of transgender bias-motivated crimes.
3.75
4
4.39
6.63
01234567
Holding the perpetrator responsible
Ethnicity
Hispanic
Caucasian
Persian
Arab

Student number: UP834422
Page | 31
FIGURE 3.3SUPPORT FOR HARSHER PUNISHMENT IN A TRANSGENDER BIASED HATE
CRIME
3.3. Conclusion
Therefore, the results of this research show that the participants of this project have
different opinions to whether a person is responsible for a crime or not in the transgender
bias-motivated hate incidents. As a result, some of this project’s participant might proceed
to report that incident as hate crime where the others might not.
The same results apply to situations where a possible sexual orientation bias-motivated hate
crime has happened. The answers of some ethnic groups have pointed towards biased
motivated crime where the answer of others did not or were less sure by a significant
distance.
Finally, some ethnic groups supported harsher penalties for offenders of transgender hate
crime, whereas some other ethnic groups did not support this idea. Therefore, the results
of this research point to the likely possibility that different ethnic groups witness, process,
and respond to hate crime differently. However, due to the small sample group, this
research only found differences in three hate crime strands and exploring the other areas of
hate crime perception remains to be conducted through larger sample groups and mixed
methods.
3
6.17
5.31
01234567
Support for harsher punishment
Ethnicity
Caucasian
Pakistani
Arab

Student number: UP834422
Page | 32
Chapter4. Discussion
The impact of hate crime extends much further than the individual victim. It strikes at the
heart of the society. Weakens the relationship between minority and dominant groups.
Furthermore, it creates conflict within the minority groups and threatens their hegemony.
That is why legislation has protected five identity characteristics under hate crime with
enhanced sentencing of its perpetrators to deter biased motivated crime. However, these
legislations do not protect other vulnerable groups such as homeless, alternative culture,
and sex workers. It raises the identity politics discourse and has caused some social
movements to pressure the government into protecting those groups under the hate crime
legislation. However, apart from a few police forces that record crimes against sex workers
or people with alternative culture, the government is still reluctant to formally include them
under the hate crime laws.
Defining hate crime is a complex task due to the social, cultural, and political factors that
play a role in its discourse. However, there is an agreed-upon definition that police and CPS
use to flag hate crimes. For good or bad, this definition relies on the perception of the
victims and witnesses to recognise an incident or crime as one with a biased motive.
However, what might constitute a crime for one group might not be the same for another.
The emphasis on the perception of the victims and witnesses empowers the victims and is a
forward step to strengthen the trust and relationship between police and minority groups
which could enhance the reporting. However, judging by the result of this research, the
perception of people of different ethnicities do not necessarily align with each other when it
comes to certain strands of hate crime. Therefore, the same element that was meant to be
a factor in enhancing reporting might be an obstacle in reaching an efficient and justifiable
one.

Student number: UP834422
Page | 33
Participants whit Arab ethnicity had much lower scores in recognising crimes with sexual
orientation biased motive comparing with Africa, Caucasian, or Persians. They also support
harsher punishment for transgender hate crime much less than other ethnic groups namely,
Caucasian and Pakistanis. Conversely, Hispanic participants have the highest scores in
supporting harsher penalties for transgender hate crimes compared with Caucasian, Persian,
or Arabs. The number of participants, their representativeness of their ethnic group and
socio-economic of their life were issues that need to be addressed and improved upon in
future studies. However, the very sign of the difference in perception of hate crime among
this research’s ethnic groups shows there are room for further research into the extent of
these differences.
One possible conclusion from the results of this research is that to identify a hate crime,
one should be able to know what it is and what it means. Raising awareness among public,
therefore, might need to be tailored to their particular audience. With regard to the result
of this research perhaps the awareness campaign among Arab communities should focus
more on the differences between sexual orientation and transgender identities, what their
nature are, and what they mean for the wider society.
Another outcome can be further study to explore why one ethnic group such as Hispanics
support the harsher penalties for transgender bias-motivated hate crimes. There might be
lessons learnt that could help shape the awareness programs for other communities. A
successful campaign is not the one that learns the lessons from the past failures, but the one
that also identifies the strengths, embrace them, and imply them in future plans.
Finally, and in terms of including other vulnerable groups, this research indicated that Arab
ethnic groups differ in perception of hate crime with regards to sexual orientation and
transgender identity which both have connections with sexual intimacy. Therefore, the
pressure from advocacy groups for the inclusion of sex workers under the hate crime
legislation might face some difficulties when it comes to victims, offenders, or witnesses of
these types of hate crimes.
It is due to these difficulties and the assumption of the researcher that because of the
complicated nature of hate and its implication in real life and crime, a feasible deterrence
strategy for reducing hate crimes in the UK cannot rely solely on the perception of the
victims. Therefore, hate crime deterrence strategies should shift their focus from protecting

Student number: UP834422
Page | 34
the vulnerable groups to condemning hatred as motive towards any and all forms of
indifference.
The main difficulty that this research faced in order to communicate with participants of
different ethnicities was the language barrier. Therefore, it is also recommended that in
future research involving multiple ethnicities, the survey or questions be translated into
multiple languages beforehand.
Conclusion
This research was set out to explore the possibility that there might be a difference in
perception of hate crime amongst people of different ethnic groups. It started off in the first
chapter by discussing the definition of hate crime and the difficulties in agreeing upon one
for practitioners, policymakers, and academics. Different discourses and obstacles such as
identity politics and awarding victim status on the one hand, and the extent of the harms of
this phenomenon, on the other hand, were discussed.
The first chapter presented a summary of hate crime discourse from three perspectives.
Following the review of literature in terms of defining hate crime concept, it explored the
harms of hate for individuals and the community. Finally, the responses to hate crime were
explored through multiple channels such as the individual victim, community, legislation, and
the criminal justice system. This chapter concluded the hate crime discourse review by
pointing out that the current practice for recording hate crimes heavily relies on the
perception of the victim and witnesses and set out to explore whether people of different
ethnic groups would all have similar perception to such incidents.
The second chapter of this research discussed the methods that were used and the reason
why they were chose. It explained the process of designing the questionnaire and how it
was promoted and how the data were gathered. There were some obstacles to conducting
a full-scale research with regards to the extensive number of ethnic groups and the variety
of external factors that could impact participants’ opinion other than their ethnic
background. Finally, the second chapter made many recommendations and implications for
future studies.
The third chapter presented the findings of the research through statistical analysis and
explained them through graphs and charts and discussed them in the fourth chapter with

Student number: UP834422
Page | 35
relation to the hate crime discourse and the reliance on victims’ perceptions. It concluded
that with regards to the results of this research and the differences in perception of hate
crime among different ethnic groups, an efficient hate crime deterrence strategy would
reasonably be focusing on punishing hatred as a motive rather than protecting vulnerable
groups due to the different perceptions that the society can adopt from the nature of the
said groups.
References
Ahmed, A., & Hammarstedt, M. (2019). Ethnic Discrimination in Contacts with Public Authorities:
A Correspondence Test Among Swedish Municipalities. Stockholm: IFN.
doi:https://www.ifn.se/wfiles/wp/wp1271.pdf
Akhtar, S. (2014). The Mental Pain of Minorities. British Journal of Psychotherapy, 30(2), 136-
153. doi:10.1111/bjp.12081
Aspinall, P. J. (2018). What Kind of Mixed Race/Ethnicity Data is Needed for the 2020/21
Global Population Census Round: The Cases of The UK, USA and Canada. Ethnic and
Racial Studies, 41(11), 1990-2008. doi:10.1080/01419870.2017.1346267
Barker, K., & Jurasz, O. (2019). Online Misogyny as Hate Crime: A Challenge for Legal
Regulation? London: Routledge.
Boeckmann, R. J., & Turpin-Petrosino, C. (2002). Understanding the Harm of Hate Crime.
Journal of Social Issues, 58(2), 207-225. doi:10.1111/1540-4560.00257
Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational Research. New York: Longman.
Bottoms, A. (1995). The Philosophy and Politics of Punishment and Sentencing. In C.
Clarkson, & R. Morgan (Eds.), The Politics of Sentencing Reform (pp. 17-49). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Caulfield, L., & Hill, J. (2014). Criminological Research for Beginners: A Student's Guide. Oxon:
Routledge.

Student number: UP834422
Page | 36
Chakraborti, N. (2015). Framing the Boundaries of Hate Crime. In N. Hall, A. Corb, P.
Giannasi, & J. G. Grieve (Eds.), The Routledge International Handbook on Hate Crime
(pp. 25-33). Oxon: Routledge.
Chakraborti, N. (2018). Responding to Hate Crime: Escalating Problems, Continued Failings.
Criminology & Criminal Justice, 18(4), 387-404. doi:10.1177/1748895817736096
Chakraborti, N., & Garland, J. (2015). Hate Crime: Impact, Causes and Responses (2nd ed.).
London: Sage.
Chakraborti, N., Garland, J., & Hardy, S. (2014). The Leicester Hate Crime Project: Findings and
Conclusions. Leicester: University of Leicester. Retrieved from
https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/criminology/hate/documents/fc-full-report
Changing Lives. (2018). New Innovative Support Project in Partnership With Merseyside Police
Already Changing Lives. Retrieved from Changing Lives: https://www.changing-
lives.org.uk/news-stories/red-umbrella-merseyside/
College of Policing. (2014, May). Hate Crime Operational Guidance. Retrieved from College of
Policing: http://www.college.police.uk/What-we-
do/Support/Equality/Documents/Hate-Crime-Operational-Guidance.pdf
College of Policing. (2014). New Hate Crime Guidance Published. Retrieved 02 20, 2019, from
College of Policing:
https://www.college.police.uk/News/archive/2014may/Pages/New-hate-crime-
guidance-published.aspx
CPS. (2017). Hate Crime. Retrieved 02 19, 2018, from The Crown Prosecution Service:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/hate-crime
Craig, K. M. (2002). Examining Hate-Motivated Aggression: A Review of the Social
Psychological Literature on Hate Crimes as a Distinct Form of Aggression. Aggression
and Violent Behaviour, 7(1), 85-101. doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(00)00039-2
Feagin, J., & Sikes, M. (1994). Living With Racism. Boston: Beacon Press.
Garland, J. (2010). ‘It's a Mosher Just Been Banged for no Reason’: Assessing Targeted
Violence Against Goths and the Parameters of Hate Crime. International Review of
Victimology, 17(2), 159-177. doi:10.1177/026975801001700202

Student number: UP834422
Page | 37
Garland, J. (2011). Difficulties in Defining Hate Crime Victimization. International Review of
Victimology, 18(1), 25-37. doi:10.1177/0269758011422473
Garland, J., & Chakraborti, N. (2012). Divided by a Common Concept? Assessing the
Implications of Different Conceptualizations of Hate Crime in the European Union.
European Journal of Criminology, 9(1), 38-51. doi:10.1177/1477370811421645
Garland, J., & Funnell, C. (2016). Defining Hate Crime Internationally: Issues and
Conundrums. In J. Schweppe, & M. A. Walters (Eds.), The Globalization of Hate:
Internationalizing Hate Crime? (pp. 15-30).
doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198785668.001.0001
Garland, J., & Hodkinson, P. (2014). ‘F**king Freak! What the Hell Do You Think You Look
Like?’: Experiences of Targeted Victimization Among Goths and Developing Notions
of Hate Crime. The British Journal of Criminology, 54(4), 613-631.
doi:10.1093/bjc/azu018
Gerstenfeld, P. B. (2004). Hate Crimes: Causes, Controls and Controversies. London: Sage.
Gilroy, P. (2004). After Empire: Melancholia or Convivial Culture? Abingdon: Routledge.
Green, D. P., Laurence, H. M., & Smith, J. K. (2001). Hate Crime: An Emergent Research
Agenda. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 479-504. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.479
Hall, N. (2013). Hate Crime (2nd ed.). Oxon: Routledge.
Hall, N. (2014). The Adventures of an Academic in 'Policy-Land': A Personal Reflection on
Bridging Academia, Policing and Government in a Hate Crime Context. In N.
Chakraborti, & J. Garland (Eds.), Responding to Hate Crime: The Case for Connecting
Policy and Research (pp. 13-27). Bristol: Policy Press.
Hamby, S. (2015). On the Use of Race and Ethnicity as Variables in Violence Research.
American Psychological Association, 5(1), 1-7.
Hamby, S., Nix, K., De Puy, J., & Monnier, S. (2012). Adapting Dating Violence Prevention to
Francophone Switzerland: A story of Intra-Western Cultural Differences. Violence
and Victims, 27(1), 33-42. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.27.1.33

Student number: UP834422
Page | 38
HMRCFRS. (2018). Understanding the DIfference. London: HMRCFRS. Retrieved from
https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/wp-content/uploads/understanding-
the-difference-the-initial-police-response-to-hate-crime.pdf
Home Office. (2018, October 16). Hate crime, England and Wales, 2017 to 2018. Retrieved
from GOV.UK: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crime-england-and-
wales-2017-to-2018
Home Office. (2018, 10 16). Hate Crime, England and Wales, 2017/18. Retrieved from
GOV.UK:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachme
nt_data/file/748598/hate-crime-1718-hosb2018.pdf
Home Office. (2018, October 16). Hate crime, England and Wales, 2017/2018: Statistical
Bulletin 20/18. Retrieved from GOV.UK:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachme
nt_data/file/748598/hate-crime-1718-hosb2018.pdf
Howard, K. (2010). Using a Free Online Questionnaire to Determine the Skills,
Competencies and Knowledge Required to Work in a Digital Library Environment in
Australia. In A. Katsirikou, & C. H. Skiadas (Eds.), Qualitative and Quantitative Methods
in Libraries: Theory and Application. London: World Scientific.
Hudson, B. A. (1997). Social Control. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, & R. Reiner (Eds.), The
Oxford Handbook of Criminology (2nd ed., pp. 451-472). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Iganski, P., & Lagou, S. (2015). Hate Crime Hurt Some More Than Others: Implications for
the Just Sentencing of Offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(10), 1696-1718.
doi:10.1177/0886260514548584
Jacobs, J. B., & Potter, k. (2000). Hate Crimes: Criminal Law & Identity Politics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Jenness, V. (2007). The Emergence, Content, and Institutionalization of Hate Crime Law:
How a Diverse Policy Community Produced a Modern Legal Fact. Annual Review of
Law and Social Science, 3, 141-160. doi:10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.3.081806.112733

Student number: UP834422
Page | 39
Kayali, L., & Walters, M. (2019). Prejudice and Hate on University Campuses: Repairing Harms
Through Student-Led Restorative Dialogue. Retrieved from University of Sussex:
http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/81958
Mason, G. (2014). Victim Attributes in Hate Crime Law: Difference and the Politics of
Justice. British Journal of Criminology, 54(2), 161-179. doi:10.1093/bjc/azt073
Mason, G., Maher, J. M., McCuloch, J., Pickering, S., Wickes, R., & McKay, C. (2017). Policing
Hate Crime: Understanding Communities and Prejudice. Oxon: Routledge.
Mason-Bish, H. (2013). Examining the Boundaries of Hate Crime Policy: Considering Age
and Gender. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24(3), 297-316.
doi:10.1177/0887403411431495
Matthews, B., & Rozz, L. (2010). Research Methods: A Practical Guide for the Social Sciences.
New York: Pearson Longman.
Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, Home Office, Ministry of Justice.
(2016, July 26). Hate Crime Action Plan 2016 to 2020. Retrieved from GOV.UK:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachme
nt_data/file/748175/Hate_crime_refresh_2018_FINAL_WEB.PDF
Paterson, J., Walters, M. A., Brown, R., & Fearn, H. (2018). The Sussex Hate Crime Project.
Sussex: University of Sussex.
Perry, B. (2001). In the Name of Hate: Understanding Hate Crimes. New York: Routledge.
Perry, B. (2009). The Sociology of Hate: Theoretical Approaches. In B. Perry, & B. Levin
(Eds.), Hate Crimes Volume 1: Understanding and Defining Hate Crime (pp. 55-76).
London: Praeger.
Perry, J. (2016, 04 28). An Interdisciplinary Thought About Hate Crime. Retrieved from
International Network for Hate Studies:
http://www.internationalhatestudies.com/3033-2/#comment-34115
Pezzella, F. S., & Fetzer, M. D. (2015). The Likelihood of Injury Among Bias Crimes: An
Analysis of General and Specific Bias Types. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(5),
703-729. doi:10.1177/0886260515586374

Student number: UP834422
Page | 40
Pezzella, F. S., Fetzer, M. D., & Keller, T. (2019). The Dark Figure of Hate Crime
Underreporting. American Behavioral Scientist, Online First, 1-24.
doi:10.1177/0002764218823844
Pratt, J. (2007). Penal Populism. Oxon: Routledge.
Roberts, J., Stalans, L., Indermaur, D., & Hough, M. (2003). Penal Populism and Public Opinion.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Robson, C. (2007). How to do a Research Project: A Guide for Undergraduate Students. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Robson, C. (2013). Real World Research (3rd ed.). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
The Crown Prosecution Service. (2017). Hate Crime. Retrieved 08 02, 2018, from The
Crown Prosecution Service: https://www.cps.gov.uk/hate-crime
Thorp, L. (2017). Merseyside's Sex Worker Crisis and What is Being Done About it. Retrieved
from Liverpool Echo: https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/
Vedeler, J. S., Olsen, T., & Eriksen, J. (2019). Hate Speech Harms: A Social Justice Discussion
of Disabled Norwegians' Experiences. Disability & Society, Advanced Online
Publication. doi:10.1080/09687599.2018.1515723
Walliman, N. (2011). Research Methods: The Basics. London: Routledge.
Walters, M., Wiedlitzka, S., Owusu-Bempah, A., & Goodall, K. (2017). Hate Crime and the
Legal Process: Options for Law Reform. Sussex: University of Sussex. Retrieved from
http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/70598/3/FINAL%20REPORT%20-
%20HATE%20CRIME%20AND%20THE%20LEGAL%20PROCESS.pdf
Walters, M., Wiedlitzka, S., Owusu-Bempah, A., & Goodall, K. (2017). Hate Crime and the
Legal Process: Options for Law Reform. Sussex: University of Sussex.
Wickes, R. L., Pickering, S., Mason, G., Maher, J. M., & McCulloch, J. (2015). From Hate to
Prejudice: Does the New Terminology of Prejudice Motivated Crime Change
Perceptions and Reporting Actions? The British Journal of Criminology, 56(2), 239-255.
doi:10.1093/bjc/azv041

Student number: UP834422
Page | 41
Wiedlitzka, S., Mazerolle, L., Fay-Ramirez, S., & Miles-Johnson, T. (2018). Perceptions of
Police Legitimacy and Citizen Decisions to Report Hate Crime Incidents in Australia.
International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 7(2), 91-106.
doi:10.5204/ijcjsd.v7i2.483
Wikes, R., Sydes, M., Benier, K., & Higginson, A. (2017). "Seeing" Hate Crime in the
Community: Do Resident Perceptions of Hate Crime Align With Self-Reported
Victimisation? Crime & Delinquency, 63(7), 875-896. doi:10.1177/0011128715625079