Hate Crime Victimization and Weapon Use

• Date: 01 August 2021
• Published date: 01 August 2021
• DOI: 10.1177/0093854820983848
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2021, Vol. 48, No. 8, August 2021, 1148 –1165.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820983848

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2020 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

1148

HATE CRIME VICTIMIZATION AND WEAPON

USE

ZACHARY T. MALCOM

BRENDAN LANTZ*

Florida State University

Prior research has suggested that hate crimes hurt more, in that they are more physically severe than other crimes. A separate

body of research has focused on the role of weapons in exacerbating violence; yet, no research has considered the role of

weapon use in bias crime victimization. Following this, this research examines the relationship between weapon use, bias

motivation, and victimization in the United States. On one hand, weapons may play an important role in hate crime by exac-

erbating violence. On the other hand, weapons may be unnecessary for facilitating hate crime violence, given the animus

associated with bias motivation. Using data from the National Incident-Based Reporting System, we find that bias crimes are

both (a) less likely than nonbias crimes to involve weapons and (b) more likely than nonbias crimes to involve serious or

lethal victim injury. These patterns are particularly pronounced for antisexual orientation hate crimes.

Keywords: hate crime; bias crime; violence; victimization; weapon use

A

number of scholars have argued that hate crimes, which are crimes motivated by bias

toward the characteristics of the victim (i.e., race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, dis-

ability, etc.), are more severe than other crimes; in other words, hate crimes “hurt more”

(Iganski, 2001; Lantz & Kim, 2019). In general, scholars have pointed to three ways in

which hate crimes hurt more than other crimes. First, hate crimes have a more significant

impact on the community than other crimes. Put another way, hate crimes often function as

a message crime, in that they are intended to convey a threatening message to a victim group,

resulting in a broader community impact (Perry & Alvi, 2012). Second, hate crimes have

more negative psychological and emotional effects on victims than other crimes (Herek

et al., 1997). Finally, research has indicated that hate crimes are more physically severe than

other crimes (Messner et al., 2004; Pezzella & Fetzer, 2017). Masucci and Langton (2017),

for example, found that while approximately 90% of all hate victimizations involved physi-

cal violence (i.e., aggravated assault, simple assault, robbery, rape, or sexual assault), vio-

lence was only present in about 25% of reported nonhate crime victimizations.

*Primary contact.

AUTHORS’ NOTE: The authors would like to thank Beth Huebner, Robert Morgan, Marin Wenger, and

the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on this and earlier drafts of this research.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Brendan Lantz, College of Criminology and

Criminal Justice, Florida State University, 112 S. Copeland Street, Eppes Hall, Tallahassee, FL 32306;

e-mail: blantz@fsu.edu.

983848CJBXXX10.1177/0093854820983848Criminal Justice and BehaviorMalcom, Lantz / Hate Crimes and Weapon Use

research-article2020

Malcom, Lantz / HATE CRIMES AND WEAPON USE 1149

One reason that hate crimes are more physically traumatic than other crimes may be that

the animus behind the offense increases the brutality of bias-motivated violence (J. Levin &

McDevitt, 1993). Other research, however, has noted that weapon use plays an important

role in exacerbating the severity of violent victimization by facilitating increased injury and

making violence easier (Wells & Horney, 2002). Indeed, while prior research has largely

neglected to consider the role that weapon use may play in bias crime relative to other

crimes, recent policy conversations seem to imply that weapons—and firearms in particu-

lar—may be colloquially assumed to be an important factor in such violence. More specifi-

cally, recent proposed legislation like the Disarm Hate Act has attempted to enact legislation

that would prohibit individuals who have been convicted of misdemeanor hate crimes from

purchasing or possessing firearms (Stockler, 2019). The legislation has been vocally

opposed by those who argue that the legislation would violate the Second Amendment by

expanding disarmament to misdemeanor conviction. While such legal ramifications and

debates are beyond the scope of the current research, these policy efforts speak to the impor-

tant need to understand what role weapons may play in hate crime violence; extant research,

however, provides little empirical basis on which to structure an informed debate regarding

such policy efforts.

Following this, the present research posits that it is important to consider the role that

weapon use plays in hate crime and victimization. Based on prior research, the current study

posits that hate crime weapon use may function in one of two ways. On one hand, given that

hate crimes are often more physically severe than other crimes, and weapons relate to more

severe physical trauma, it is possible that weapons play an integral role in hate crime sever-

ity. On the other hand, however, it is also possible that weapons are not a necessary compo-

nent for hate-motivated violence, given that hate crimes already involve significant animus

and bias toward the victim, a factor which may itself increase offense brutality. That is,

weapons may play either (a) a substantial role in the increased severity of physical violence

associated with hate crimes or (b) a less significant role in hate crime violence, given a

willingness among those who commit hate crimes to inflict serious violence without the

assistance of a weapon. Yet, despite these differential possibilities, very little research has

explicitly considered the role that weapons play in hate crime violence and victimization,

compared with other violent offending.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Prior research has consistently demonstrated hate crimes to be quantitatively and quali-

tatively more severe (i.e., violent) than other types of nonbias crimes (Harlow, 2005; Lantz

& Kim, 2019; B. Levin, 1999; J. Levin & McDevitt, 1993; Messner et al., 2004; Perry,

2001; Pezzella & Fetzer, 2017; Strom, 2001; Weisburd & Levin, 1993). Strom (2001), for

example, examined National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) data on aggra-

vated assaults and found that 60% of bias crimes resulted in serious injury to the victim.

Harlow (2005) similarly found that 84% of hate crimes in the National Crime Victimization

Survey (NCVS) involved violent offenses while only 23% of nonhate crimes involved a

violent offense, indicating that hate crimes are more than 3 times more likely than nonbias

crimes to involve a violent offense. Likewise, a study by Pezzella and Fetzer (2017) indi-

cated that the odds of severe physical injury in hate-related assaults were 23% greater than