The Politics of Social Regulatory Policy: State and Federal Hate Crime Policy and Implementation Effort

• Author: Donald P. Haider-Markel
• Published date: 01 March 1998
• Date: 01 March 1998
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/106591299805100103
• Subject Matter: Articles

69

The

Politics

of

Social

Regulatory

Policy:

State

and

Federal

Hate

Crime

Policy

and

Implementation

Effort

DONALD

P.

HAIDER-MARKEL,

UNIVERSITY

OF

KANSAS

Research

suggests

there

has

been

a

rise

in

the

number

of

hate

crimes

since

1985.

At

the

same

time,

legislatures

at

the

local,

state,

and

national

level

have

enacted

policies

that

both

track

and

regulate

hate

crime.

This

article

is

an

effort

to

determine

the

factors

influencing

hate

crime

policy

and

implementation

efforts.

The

project

is

divided

into

three

sections:

In

the

first

section,

the

characteristics

and

extent

of

hate

crime

are

discussed.

Section

two

describes

hate

crime

policy

as

social

regulatory

policy

and

uses

this

theoretical

framework

to

explain

state

variation

in

laws

con-

cerning

hate

crimes.

In

section

three,

I

present

a

model

of

policy

imple-

mentation

to

predict

state

implementation

efforts

of

federal

hate

crime

policy

Based

on

the

variables

suggested

by

these

theoretical

frameworks,

I

present

hypotheses

and

conduct

a

multiple

regression

analysis

using

a

fifty-state

data

set.

The

results

indicate

hate

crime

policies

and

imple-

mentation

efforts

are

largely

attempts

by

politicians

to

satisfy

organized

interests

in

competitive

political

systems.

I

discuss

the

implications

of

these

findings

and

suggest

avenues

for

future

research.

Everyday

in

the

United

States

someone

is

attacked

on

the

basis

of

his

or

her

race,

religious

affiliation,

ethnicity,

gender,

or

sexual

orientation.

These

attacks

often

take

the

form

of

verbal

harassment

but

some

end

in

violent

as-

sault

or

death.

Recent

studies

indicate

a

rise

in

the

number

of

&dquo;bias&dquo;

or

&dquo;hate

motivated&dquo;

crimes

since

1985

(Comstock

1991;

Jost

1993b;

McDevitt

and

NOTE:

An

earlier

version

of

this

article

was

presented

at

the

1996

annual

meeting

of

the

Midwest

Political

Science

Association.

I

would

like

to

thank

David

Pritchard,

Ken-

neth

J.

Meier,

and

the

editors

of

PRQ

for

their

comments

on

earlier

drafts

of

this

article.

70

Levin

1993;

Lutz

1987;

NGLTF

Policy

Institute

1993,

1994)

and

an

apparent

resurgence

of

hate

groups

(Anti-Defamation

League

1988;

Hamm

1993).

At

the

same

time

that

hate

crimes

appear

to

be

on

the

rise,

a

majority

of

the

American

states

have

passed

laws

that

regulate

bias

motivated

criminal

behavior.

The

passage

of

these

statutes

is

largely

viewed

as

a

response

to

in-

creasing

levels

of

hate

crime,

but

an

empirical

relationship

has

not

been

estab-

lished.

The

federal

government

has

taken

action

on

hate

crimes

as

well.

In

1990

President

Bush

signed

the

Hate

Crimes

Statistics

Act

into

law.

The

Act

instructed

the

FBI

to

collect

statistics

on

hate

crimes

in

the

United

States

and

asked

for

the

voluntary

cooperation

of

state

law

enforcement

agencies

in

col-

lecting

hate

crime

statistics.

This

discussion

raises

two

important

empirical

questions:

first,

what

fac-

tors

explain

the

high

level

of

state

legislative

activity

concerning

bias

moti-

vated

crime

and

second,

what

are

the

determinants

of

state

voluntary

participation

with

the

federal

Hate

Crimes

Statistics

Act

of

1990?

The

research

presented

here

uses

multiple

regression

analysis

on

a

fifty-state

data

set

to

examine

these

questions.

In

section

one,

I

define

and

describe

the

characteris-

tics

and

politics

of

hate

crime.

In

section

two,

I

characterize

hate

crime

policy

as

a

social

regulatory

policy

to

model

the

pattern of

politics

involved

in

the

adoption

of

hate

crime

laws.

The

social

regulatory policy

framework

suggests

that

hate

crime

policy

is

likely

to

result

from

the

level

of

hate

crimes

in

a

state,

potential

interest

group

strength,

bureaucratic

power,

party

competition,

and

issue

salience.

Finally,

in

section

three,

the

discussion

and

results

of

the

first

two

sections

are

used

to

guide

an

examination

of

state

law

enforcement

agency

participation

in

the

collection

of

statistics

for

the

Hate

Crimes

Statistics

Act

of

1990.

I

conclude

with

a

discussion

of

the

findings

and

their

implications

for

theories

of

policy

formulation

and

implementation.

SECTION

1:

THE

CHARACTERISTICS

AND

POLITICS

OF

HATE

CRIME

Hate

crimes

are

often

defined

as

crimes

that

are

committed,

wholly

or

in

part,

because

of

the

victim’s

race,

ethnicity,

religion,

or

sexual

orientation

(U.S.

Department

of

Justice

1993:

1).

As

with

most

crime,

less

violent

hate

crimes

are

committed

more

often

than

violent

crimes

but

no

matter

the

level

of

vio-

lence,

all

hate

crimes

are

thought

to

negatively

impact

both

the

victim

and

society.

Perpetrators

of

hate

crimes

are

often

characterized

as

young,

white,

lower-class

males

who

commit

the

crimes

for

excitement

or

because

of

resent-

ment

of

a

minority

group

(Comstock

1991:

60-62;

McDevitt

and

Levin

1993).

In

1992

there

were

8,106

hate

crime

offenses

reported

to

the

FBI

with

crimes

against

persons

accounting

for

74

percent

of

the

offenses

(U.S.

Department

of

Justice

1993:

7).

Table

1

indicates

that

over

80

percent

of

hate

crimes

are

directed

at

whites,

blacks,

Jews,

and

homosexuals,

with

offenses

against

blacks

constitut-