PLANTEAMIENTO DEL PROBLEMA 1 1 Situación problemática

The following chapter discusses several shortcomings of prior research. First, previous studies of bias crimes have relied heavily on police data. Prior studies have found that official data sources often do not identify all bias crimes and contain discrepancies across states (Nolan & Akiyama, 1999; Perry, 2001), in addition to discrepancies across specific agencies (Boyd, Berk, & Hamner, 1996; Cronin et al., 2007; Haider-Markel, 2002; McDevitt et al., 2000; Nolan & Akiyama, 1999; Walker & Katz, 1995). Within departments, it is likely that bias crimes are not always labeled as bias-motivated, because if other motivesii are present, crimes have been found to be more easily identified as routine violence, trumping bias elements of a particular crime. Second, the data used by McDevitt et al. (2002) to conceive the typology was

geographically limited. These first two limitations may affect the representativeness of findings from prior bias crimes research.

Third, previous research has also failed to disaggregate bias violence by crime or bias type. Assuming homogeneity across crime types (e.g., homicide, robbery, and assault) may lead researchers to miss important distinctions across types of lethal and non-lethal violence.

Assuming homogeneity across bias types (e.g., anti-sexual orientation, gender identity, race, and religion) also fails to recognize unique patterns of violence occurring across different offender biases or victim selection processes. A fourth shortcoming of the McDevitt et al. (2002) typology is that it relied on the determination of offender motive in order to place bias crimes into distinct categories. While other studies have also attempted to determine offender motive (e.g., Block & Block, 1992; Decker, 1993; Miethe & Drass, 1999; Riedel, 1987), research has shown that identifying motive is problematic (see Boyd et al., 1996; Haider-Markel, 2002; Nolan & Akiyama, 1999). Fifth, the work of McDevitt et al. (2002) also failed to utilize quantitative

20

comparisons to systematically identify similarities and differences across situational

circumstances or to incorporate theory into their discussion of differences, thus limiting the typology’s explanatory power.

Other researchers have critiqued the bias crimes typology proposed by McDevitt et al. (2002) (e.g., Fisher & Salfati, 2009; Phillips, 2009). In addition to the aforementioned

limitations, those who have empirically tested this bias crimes typology have found that it has severe limitations; however, both studies failed to suggest improvements to the typology or to propose a new typological schema. Phillips (2009) exposed the limitations of McDevitt, Levin, and Bennett’s work by examining criminal cases prosecuted as bias crimes from one New Jersey County. Applying the typology to other crimes, she found that more than one-third of the cases analyzed fell outside of the four designated motivational categories. While it was clear that crimes involved motives of bias, for instance, due to verbal comments made by the offender to the victim, it was often not possible to determine if offenders’ motives fell into thrill, defensive, mission, or retaliatory categories. Bias crimes deemed unclassifiable by Phillips (2009) were often cases in which bias was not the only motivating factor, thus demonstrating the typology was incapable of classifying cases in which bias motives are combined with other routine

motives. Also problematic, Phillips (2009) found that the categories were not mutually exclusive. Offenders committing crimes under very different circumstances could be classified similarly, thus glossing over potentially important offender differences. Importantly, Phillips found that only the most obvious bias cases could be easily categorized into one of the four categories.

Fisher and Salfati (2009) also found several limitations of the McDevitt et al. (2002) bias crimes typology. Using Smallest Space Analysis (SSA), Fisher and Salfati (2009) empirically tested the typology to see if particular crimes could be separated into meaningful categories

21

based on crime scene characteristics of 91 bias-motivated homicides reported to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report. Using crime scene variables, as well as variables that were previously found to be associated with behaviors similar to those described by McDevitt et al. (2002) to conduct their analysis, they found that the SSA results failed to differentiate between the four categories of bias crime. Overall, there was an “exceptional amount of variable sharing” between the different categories (2009, p.126). Like Phillips (2009), Fisher and Salfati (2009) concluded that the typology proposed by McDevitt et al. (2002) was inadequate because its categories were not mutually exclusive. The only clear division found by the researchers was between thrill- and retaliatory-related variables, demonstrating how bias homicides may be divided into categories of those committed to obtaining power and those committed to restoring honor. Despite its limitations, Fisher and Salfati (2009) believed it important to empirically test the categorization scheme as it continued to represent the standardly used bias crimes typology in the United States.

As violent bias crimes appear to be “intensifying and diversifying,” it is important to create typologies and categorize crime to assist law enforcement and policy makers in

performing their jobs more efficiently (Fisher & Salfati, 2009, p.106). While incidents of bias crime have decreased, they have increased in intensity (Fisher & Salfati, 2009; National

Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, 2011). Considering that a majority of the research on anti- LGBT violence has focused on the experiences of victims and disaggregation approaches that rely on offender motives remain problematic, there is a need for further research concerning other elements of LGBT homicide.

22