Hate Crime Statistics: Challenges and Opportunities

Hate Crime Statistics: Challenges and Opportunities PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 146 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Objectives of Presentation. Overdue effort to collect national dataAddress recommendationsDescribe pertinent issuesDraw upon previous findingsData sources (potential and current)Outline of proposed study. History of Hate" in Canada. Criminalization of hate result of 1965 Cohen Committee1970:

Download Presentation

Hate Crime Statistics: Challenges and Opportunities

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


1. Hate Crime Statistics: Challenges and Opportunities Derek Janhevich Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics Statistics Canada

2. Objectives of Presentation Overdue effort to collect national data Address recommendations Describe pertinent issues Draw upon previous findings Data sources (potential and current) Outline of proposed study The purpose of this study is not only an effort to enhance our understanding of hate crime (in Canada), but it is also a long overdue attempt to collect statistics - through government sponsered surveys and activities - first attempt of this nature. This in turn should help alleviate a number of issues and help address a number of recommendations stemming from various federally funded reports. Discussion surrounding the fundamental nature and the harms that such crimes pose on society and affected groups will be kept at a minimum – such issues will be subject for further discussion, as well as the focus for other participants. Although no official numbers are yet available, this short presentation will describe some of the pertinent issues at hand, some previous findings, international comparisons, recent initiatives, current data sources, as well as the intended approach which will be considered for this study.The purpose of this study is not only an effort to enhance our understanding of hate crime (in Canada), but it is also a long overdue attempt to collect statistics - through government sponsered surveys and activities - first attempt of this nature. This in turn should help alleviate a number of issues and help address a number of recommendations stemming from various federally funded reports. Discussion surrounding the fundamental nature and the harms that such crimes pose on society and affected groups will be kept at a minimum – such issues will be subject for further discussion, as well as the focus for other participants. Although no official numbers are yet available, this short presentation will describe some of the pertinent issues at hand, some previous findings, international comparisons, recent initiatives, current data sources, as well as the intended approach which will be considered for this study.

3. History of “Hate” in Canada Criminalization of hate result of 1965 Cohen Committee 1970: Parliament amends Criminal Code to include hate propaganda as an offence 1970’s: hate takes on violent character 1980’s: Keegstra, Zundel, and Ross cases reach media attention 1990’s: renewed lobby and justice action against “hate crime” The criminalized notion of hate, as it pertains to the Canadian context emerged following the 1965 Report to the Minister of Justice of the Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada (Cohen Committee). In its agenda for legislative action, the Committee wanted to ensure that the fundamental principles of: the International Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and the Canadian Bill of Rights were all addressed. As a result, in 1970 Parliament undertook the effort to amend the Criminal Code, thus rendering hate propaganda as a punishable offence. Under the new provisions (currently sections 318-320 of the Code), it was now illegal to espouse religious, racial and ethnic hatred. The new hate propaganda laws prohibited the advocating of genocide, the public incitement of hatred, and the wilful promotion of hatred. In the 1970s, “hate” appeared to take on a more violent characteristic. This was especially noted in media accounts, as well as the academic literature surrounding the overall topic. The 1980s brought about more attention, and this was especially brought on by intense media attention in the Zundel, Keegstra and Ross cases. Details about these cases focused more on hate propaganda, however, it paved the way for more interest in the area of “hate” In the 1990s, there was renewed interest and lobby for justice action against hate. Those original groups that had lobbied for hate propaganda legislation embarked on a new venture, and they were accompanied by other affected groups. The focus was now on a “new” form of hatred coined as “hate crime”. This in turn would spawn some legislative changes, namely Bill C-41 (now S 718.2 of CC).The criminalized notion of hate, as it pertains to the Canadian context emerged following the 1965 Report to the Minister of Justice of the Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada (Cohen Committee). In its agenda for legislative action, the Committee wanted to ensure that the fundamental principles of: the International Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and the Canadian Bill of Rights were all addressed. As a result, in 1970 Parliament undertook the effort to amend the Criminal Code, thus rendering hate propaganda as a punishable offence. Under the new provisions (currently sections 318-320 of the Code), it was now illegal to espouse religious, racial and ethnic hatred. The new hate propaganda laws prohibited the advocating of genocide, the public incitement of hatred, and the wilful promotion of hatred. In the 1970s, “hate” appeared to take on a more violent characteristic. This was especially noted in media accounts, as well as the academic literature surrounding the overall topic. The 1980s brought about more attention, and this was especially brought on by intense media attention in the Zundel, Keegstra and Ross cases. Details about these cases focused more on hate propaganda, however, it paved the way for more interest in the area of “hate” In the 1990s, there was renewed interest and lobby for justice action against hate. Those original groups that had lobbied for hate propaganda legislation embarked on a new venture, and they were accompanied by other affected groups. The focus was now on a “new” form of hatred coined as “hate crime”. This in turn would spawn some legislative changes, namely Bill C-41 (now S 718.2 of CC).

4. Defining Hate Crime - Background Since 1990 Hate Crime Statistics Act, U.S. has had formal working definition In the past Canada has had no uniform definition Police services have used different definitions Aside from the theoretical debate on what constitutes a hate crime, a major contributing factor to the lack of quantifiable information has been the absence of a uniform definition. The United States has had a formal working definition which guides their Hate Crime Statistics Act since 1990; however, some would argue that since the problem is not as widespread in Canada, we have yet to reach a consensual definition of hate crimes (Hamm, 1994). It appeared as though the lobby effort may not have been as strong in Canada. As will be noted, this issue has been resolved to some degree; however, numerous issues surrounding this definition will likely spawn further debate. For some time now, police services across Canada have been using different definitions of hate crime. These were developed quasi-independently. Examples include the following:Aside from the theoretical debate on what constitutes a hate crime, a major contributing factor to the lack of quantifiable information has been the absence of a uniform definition. The United States has had a formal working definition which guides their Hate Crime Statistics Act since 1990; however, some would argue that since the problem is not as widespread in Canada, we have yet to reach a consensual definition of hate crimes (Hamm, 1994). It appeared as though the lobby effort may not have been as strong in Canada. As will be noted, this issue has been resolved to some degree; however, numerous issues surrounding this definition will likely spawn further debate. For some time now, police services across Canada have been using different definitions of hate crime. These were developed quasi-independently. Examples include the following:

5. Defining Hate Crime - Police Metropolitan Toronto Police: A hate crime is a criminal offence committed against a person or property that is based solely upon the victim’s race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, gender or disability.

6. Defining Hate Crime - Police Halifax Police: A hate crime is a criminal offence committed against a person or property, the motive for which is based in whole or in part upon the victim’s race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, gender, disability or sexual orientation.

7. Defining Hate Crime - Police Edmonton Police: Bias Crime: A criminal offence committed against a person or property, that is based solely upon the victim’s race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin or sexual characteristic.

8. Defining Hate Crime - Police Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police: A criminal offence committed against a person or property which is motivated by the suspect/offender’s hate/bias against a racial, religious, ethnic, sexual orientation or disability group.

9. Defining Hate Crime - Issues Differences between “inclusive” and “exclusive” definition Inclusion of property offences? Differences in identifiable groups Arriving at common definition would resolve a number of issues Although some of the definitions may seem somewhat similar, some are more stringent than others. For instance, if one compares the definition from the Halifax Police Department to the Metro Toronto one, the latter utilises a more restrictive definition that is based “solely” on the victim’s implied characteristics, while the former notes that hate crimes are offences motivated “in whole or in part” by the victim’s characteristics. Another thing worthwhile noting is whether or not the notion of property is automatically implied in the definition. Some jurisdictions spell it out; however, this does not necessarily mean that the concept is excluded in the others. Still another classification issue has to do with whom to include. Which identifiable group can be the victim of a hate crime? These issues were discussed at length in Julian Roberts’ 1995 Department of Justice report entitled “Disproportionate Harm: Hate Crime in Canada”. Although some of the definitions may seem somewhat similar, some are more stringent than others. For instance, if one compares the definition from the Halifax Police Department to the Metro Toronto one, the latter utilises a more restrictive definition that is based “solely” on the victim’s implied characteristics, while the former notes that hate crimes are offences motivated “in whole or in part” by the victim’s characteristics. Another thing worthwhile noting is whether or not the notion of property is automatically implied in the definition. Some jurisdictions spell it out; however, this does not necessarily mean that the concept is excluded in the others. Still another classification issue has to do with whom to include. Which identifiable group can be the victim of a hate crime? These issues were discussed at length in Julian Roberts’ 1995 Department of Justice report entitled “Disproportionate Harm: Hate Crime in Canada”.

10. Defining Hate Crime - Legislative Criminal Code Section 718.2 - Sentencing enhancement provision where: evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor. In his report, Professor Roberts discusses a number of issues concerning hate crime, including the collection of data as well as the associated definitional problems. He concludes with a number of recommendations (20 in all), many of which are currently being addressed through the recent resolution of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police’s (CACP) uniform definition of hate crime. This definition was aided by the 1996 amendements to the criminal code, which spells out sentencing enhancement principles for acts which are motivated by hate. As can be seen here, there are more groups identified by the Criminal Code than in most police definitions.In his report, Professor Roberts discusses a number of issues concerning hate crime, including the collection of data as well as the associated definitional problems. He concludes with a number of recommendations (20 in all), many of which are currently being addressed through the recent resolution of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police’s (CACP) uniform definition of hate crime. This definition was aided by the 1996 amendements to the criminal code, which spells out sentencing enhancement principles for acts which are motivated by hate. As can be seen here, there are more groups identified by the Criminal Code than in most police definitions.

11. Defining Hate Crime - Common definition Feb. 1998 Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police agree to common definition Use Section 718.2 identified groups Qualified by “a crime motivated by hate, but not vulnerability” Various services have begun to utilize new definition During their February 1998 discussions, the POLIS committee of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police agreed that the identified groups within this section be incorporated into the uniform definition of what constitutes a hate crime. A number of suggestions were raised in terms of whether the crime had to be motivated “in whole” or “in part” in order to be considered as a hate crime, and the recommended definition for a hate crime included the following: “a crime motivated by hate, not vulnerability” where the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor. Incidentally, this definition purposefully leaves it up to the investigating officer to determine if the crime was motivated by hate – posing numerous questions regarding reporting issues. This working definition has been recommended for almost two years; however, it is still unclear as to the full extent of its operational status. The following police services have incorporated the new definition: Windsor, York, Ottawa-Carleton, Toronto. During their February 1998 discussions, the POLIS committee of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police agreed that the identified groups within this section be incorporated into the uniform definition of what constitutes a hate crime. A number of suggestions were raised in terms of whether the crime had to be motivated “in whole” or “in part” in order to be considered as a hate crime, and the recommended definition for a hate crime included the following: “a crime motivated by hate, not vulnerability” where the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor. Incidentally, this definition purposefully leaves it up to the investigating officer to determine if the crime was motivated by hate – posing numerous questions regarding reporting issues. This working definition has been recommended for almost two years; however, it is still unclear as to the full extent of its operational status. The following police services have incorporated the new definition: Windsor, York, Ottawa-Carleton, Toronto.

12. Hate Crime Statistics - Other Jurisdictions Canada: no national hate crime statistics 1998 US police-reported 7,755 incidents; 9,235 offences; 9,722 victims, 7,489 offenders 1992 British Crime Survey reports over 100,000 racially-motivated incidents 1995 Department of Justice Canada report (Roberts) estimates 60,000 incidents In Canada, no national hate crime statistics exist. Data exists at some police agencies; however, this information is not passed on to a higher statistical agency such as Statistics Canada. In comparison, the United States have been collecting hate crime statistics since 1990, when Congress passed the Hate Crime Statistics Act – requiring states to collect such data and submit them to the federal government. In 1998 there were 7,755 hate crime incidents recorded by the FBI. The British Home Office also collects national statistics which are derived from their British Crime Survey. The most recent numbers reveal that 100,000 racially-motivated crimes occurred in Britain in 1992. Note that this only includes race and not all the other identifiable groups. Must mention that these two sources are quite different in nature. One is police-reported, while the other stems from victimization surveys. In Canada, no national hate crime statistics exist. Data exists at some police agencies; however, this information is not passed on to a higher statistical agency such as Statistics Canada. In comparison, the United States have been collecting hate crime statistics since 1990, when Congress passed the Hate Crime Statistics Act – requiring states to collect such data and submit them to the federal government. In 1998 there were 7,755 hate crime incidents recorded by the FBI. The British Home Office also collects national statistics which are derived from their British Crime Survey. The most recent numbers reveal that 100,000 racially-motivated crimes occurred in Britain in 1992. Note that this only includes race and not all the other identifiable groups. Must mention that these two sources are quite different in nature. One is police-reported, while the other stems from victimization surveys.

13. Hate Crime Statistics - Other Jurisdictions Canada: no national hate crime statistics 1998 US police-reported 7,755 incidents; 9,235 offences; 9,722 victims, 7,489 offenders 1992 British Crime Survey reports over 100,000 racially-motivated incidents 1995 Department of Justice Canada report (Roberts) estimates 60,000 incidents In his 1995 report, Julian Roberts notes that hate crimes are not rare occurrences in Canada. He estimated that in 1994, close to 60,000 hate crimes may have been committed in Canada’s nine largest urban centres. This number is only an extrapolation; however, it does not appear to be inconsistent with what other jurisdictions report. His methodology for this extrapolation is as follows: 211 hate crime incidents recorded in Ottawa in 1994; Assuming that only one-third of all incidents are ever reported to the police (633); Ottawa accounts for 7% of the total number of Criminal Code offences for the major urban centres; Hate crime estimate would thus be approximately 60,000. The methodology may appear to be simplistic; some could argue that overall police-reported crime is severely under-reported; and the unreported rate of one-third could be disputed. However, these are issues that all crime statistics are presented with, and the main argument that Roberts makes, is that hate crime is a problem that warrants formal action by the criminal justice system. Since then, few rigorous attempts have been made to examine hate crimes at the national level. In his 1995 report, Julian Roberts notes that hate crimes are not rare occurrences in Canada. He estimated that in 1994, close to 60,000 hate crimes may have been committed in Canada’s nine largest urban centres. This number is only an extrapolation; however, it does not appear to be inconsistent with what other jurisdictions report. His methodology for this extrapolation is as follows: 211 hate crime incidents recorded in Ottawa in 1994; Assuming that only one-third of all incidents are ever reported to the police (633); Ottawa accounts for 7% of the total number of Criminal Code offences for the major urban centres; Hate crime estimate would thus be approximately 60,000. The methodology may appear to be simplistic; some could argue that overall police-reported crime is severely under-reported; and the unreported rate of one-third could be disputed. However, these are issues that all crime statistics are presented with, and the main argument that Roberts makes, is that hate crime is a problem that warrants formal action by the criminal justice system. Since then, few rigorous attempts have been made to examine hate crimes at the national level.

14. Hate Crime Statistics - Police, 1997 In a recent Working Group Report to Canadian Ministers of Justice, the Department of Justice Canada undertook the task of surveying the major police departments across Canada. Due to its Confidential Status the main purpose and recommendations stemming from this report cannot be discussed; however the methodology as well as some findings can be reported. Given the relatively short timeframe for the gathering of evidence, a simple, yet effective methodology was adopted. Essentially, the Working Group was aware that a number of police forces in Canada had already developed experience and expertise in the area of hate crime. Police forces were contacted and asked to provide: written materials relating to their hate crime work such as definitions and policies, and; statistical data on hate crimes within their jurisdictions, especially data broken down by target groups. The available data does not pretend to represent statistics from all police forces collecting such information. What it does represent is that hate crimes are committed against a range of identifiable groups. The table provides the data collected from participating police forces contacted over the summer of 1998. In 1997, there were at least a total of 588 police reported hate-motivated crimes in the 9 participating jurisdictions.In a recent Working Group Report to Canadian Ministers of Justice, the Department of Justice Canada undertook the task of surveying the major police departments across Canada. Due to its Confidential Status the main purpose and recommendations stemming from this report cannot be discussed; however the methodology as well as some findings can be reported. Given the relatively short timeframe for the gathering of evidence, a simple, yet effective methodology was adopted. Essentially, the Working Group was aware that a number of police forces in Canada had already developed experience and expertise in the area of hate crime. Police forces were contacted and asked to provide: written materials relating to their hate crime work such as definitions and policies, and; statistical data on hate crimes within their jurisdictions, especially data broken down by target groups. The available data does not pretend to represent statistics from all police forces collecting such information. What it does represent is that hate crimes are committed against a range of identifiable groups. The table provides the data collected from participating police forces contacted over the summer of 1998. In 1997, there were at least a total of 588 police reported hate-motivated crimes in the 9 participating jurisdictions.

15. Hate Crime Statistics - Issues Low numbers compared to previous DOJ report Questions surrounding Ottawa versus Toronto numbers Low cell counts in other jurisdictions Even in applying the above under-reporting scheme, the 588 police-reported hate crimes would only translate to 1,764 incidents. Although the cities used in the Working Group’s exercise are not the same as in Roberts’ sample, the numbers are by no means comparable. One must also question the numbers reported by Toronto compared to those reported by Ottawa-Carleton – two cities remarkably different in size and demographic make-up. In addition, those hate crimes reported by Peel, York and Windsor, appear to be grossly under-represented. At the heart of these numbers are number of serious issues and problems, some of which will hopefully be resolved in the course of the current proposed study. Some of these issues include: willingness of victims to report; manner in which police record/report; demographic profile of communitiesEven in applying the above under-reporting scheme, the 588 police-reported hate crimes would only translate to 1,764 incidents. Although the cities used in the Working Group’s exercise are not the same as in Roberts’ sample, the numbers are by no means comparable. One must also question the numbers reported by Toronto compared to those reported by Ottawa-Carleton – two cities remarkably different in size and demographic make-up. In addition, those hate crimes reported by Peel, York and Windsor, appear to be grossly under-represented. At the heart of these numbers are number of serious issues and problems, some of which will hopefully be resolved in the course of the current proposed study. Some of these issues include: willingness of victims to report; manner in which police record/report; demographic profile of communities

16. Hate Crime Statistics - Sources Other statistical sources: League for Human Rights of B’Nai Brith collecting statistics since 1982 240 anti-Semitic incidents in 1998; 212 in 1997 Discrepancies between these numbers and police-reported Since 1982, the League for Human Rights of B’Nai Brith has been collecting data on anti-Semitic incidents in Canada. According to the 1998 audit, 240 incidents were reported to the League for Human Rights, an increase of 14% from the 212 incidents in 1997. Toronto alone accounted for 98 incidents in 1997 and 123 incidents in 1998. There are some obvious discrepancies when comparing these number with those reported by the Toronto Police; however, the categories and definitions are not the same – hate propaganda incidents would be captured in the League’s statistics. Unlike other jurisdictions, nothing much exists other than information collected by police, NGOs, as well as special reports. The aim behind this whole initiative is to finally act upon those various recommendations that call for a systematic data collection tool. We are aware of the various data quality issues that other jurisdictions have experienced, and it is perhaps for this reason that nothing at the national level exists. Since 1982, the League for Human Rights of B’Nai Brith has been collecting data on anti-Semitic incidents in Canada. According to the 1998 audit, 240 incidents were reported to the League for Human Rights, an increase of 14% from the 212 incidents in 1997. Toronto alone accounted for 98 incidents in 1997 and 123 incidents in 1998. There are some obvious discrepancies when comparing these number with those reported by the Toronto Police; however, the categories and definitions are not the same – hate propaganda incidents would be captured in the League’s statistics. Unlike other jurisdictions, nothing much exists other than information collected by police, NGOs, as well as special reports. The aim behind this whole initiative is to finally act upon those various recommendations that call for a systematic data collection tool. We are aware of the various data quality issues that other jurisdictions have experienced, and it is perhaps for this reason that nothing at the national level exists.

17. Data Sources - CCJS Surveys Adult Criminal Court Survey (ACCS) Aggregate UCR Survey (UCR) Incident Based UCR Survey (UCR II) Homicide Survey General Social Survey (GSS) Data sources for this project will primarily draw upon information collected by the police, as well as a national victimization survey currently underway (GSS). Although some police services fall short of adequate standards for collecting hate crime data, this exercise should help enhance the data quality problem. Data issues also exist surrounding victimisation surveys. Current existing data sources at the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics include: Adult Criminal Court Survey, Aggregate UCR Survey, Incident Based UCR Survey, Homicide Survey, General Social Survey. Most of these cannot specifically address hate crime per se, but data on hate propaganda may be extracted. ACCS, UCR and UCR II – These three surveys could potentially tap into hate-motivated activity; however, currently, the limitations outweigh the advantages. Since no specific hate crime statutes (other than sentencing enhancement) exist, the only indicators in our surveys would have to deal with the hate propaganda (s.318-320) and sentencing enhancement (s.718.2) sections of the Criminal Code. Data sources for this project will primarily draw upon information collected by the police, as well as a national victimization survey currently underway (GSS). Although some police services fall short of adequate standards for collecting hate crime data, this exercise should help enhance the data quality problem. Data issues also exist surrounding victimisation surveys. Current existing data sources at the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics include: Adult Criminal Court Survey, Aggregate UCR Survey, Incident Based UCR Survey, Homicide Survey, General Social Survey. Most of these cannot specifically address hate crime per se, but data on hate propaganda may be extracted. ACCS, UCR and UCR II – These three surveys could potentially tap into hate-motivated activity; however, currently, the limitations outweigh the advantages. Since no specific hate crime statutes (other than sentencing enhancement) exist, the only indicators in our surveys would have to deal with the hate propaganda (s.318-320) and sentencing enhancement (s.718.2) sections of the Criminal Code.

18. Data Sources - CCJS Surveys Adult Criminal Court Survey (ACCS) Aggregate UCR Survey (UCR) Incident Based UCR Survey (UCR II) Homicide Survey General Social Survey (GSS) From a purely operational perspective, the main drawback to collecting information on hate propaganda is that too often such offences are not followed through by the Crown since Attorney General consent is needed to prosecute. From the ACCS perspective this will severely underestimate the overall counts. Although the Aggregate UCR survey has full coverage, breaking down the data by specific criminal code section is not possible. Although, the Incident Based UCR (UCR II) contains fields for specific criminal code sections, the data fields are not mandatory and are often left blank. Nonetheless, given the excellent coverage of the UCR II, some analysis can be made - however it is not all that promising. It was thought that data on sentencing enhancement could be extracted; however it is unclear at this point what can be generated. This is due to the fact that s.718.2 is not a specific offence and is merely added on. Homicide Survey – The Homicide Survey collects motivation of offence (of which hate crime is included); however given the fact that between 500 and 600 homicides are committed in Canada annually, extremely low numbers will be generated. Between 1991 and 1998 a total of 11 hate-related homicides were recorded (exact details of each incident have not been examined). From a purely operational perspective, the main drawback to collecting information on hate propaganda is that too often such offences are not followed through by the Crown since Attorney General consent is needed to prosecute. From the ACCS perspective this will severely underestimate the overall counts. Although the Aggregate UCR survey has full coverage, breaking down the data by specific criminal code section is not possible. Although, the Incident Based UCR (UCR II) contains fields for specific criminal code sections, the data fields are not mandatory and are often left blank. Nonetheless, given the excellent coverage of the UCR II, some analysis can be made - however it is not all that promising. It was thought that data on sentencing enhancement could be extracted; however it is unclear at this point what can be generated. This is due to the fact that s.718.2 is not a specific offence and is merely added on. Homicide Survey – The Homicide Survey collects motivation of offence (of which hate crime is included); however given the fact that between 500 and 600 homicides are committed in Canada annually, extremely low numbers will be generated. Between 1991 and 1998 a total of 11 hate-related homicides were recorded (exact details of each incident have not been examined).

19. General Social Survey Equivalent to NCVS and BCS Third cycle of criminal victimization - captures victims’ perspective Two questions on hate crimes Problems and limitations surrounding questions Best secondary source of data This is equivalent to the BCS in Britain and the NCVS in the US. Sample size of approximately 25,000 individuals 15 years and older with an 80% or better response rate. Over-sampled in three largest cities. This is the third cycle of the victimisation component (1993 and 1988). Added to 1999 GSS: A question to measure the race/cultural background of victims/respondents and questions to assess whether respondents felt incidents were motivated by hate. Obvious limitations to victimisation surveys include: sample size limits analysis of detailed information (target populations, small areas); excludes crimes against organisations; however includes property crimes. There are also some drawbacks to the actual hate crime questions, something we’ll examine in just a moment. Other than what the police will be providing, the GSS will be the best data source to analyse hate incidents in Canada. Now, to the actual hate crime questions. This is equivalent to the BCS in Britain and the NCVS in the US. Sample size of approximately 25,000 individuals 15 years and older with an 80% or better response rate. Over-sampled in three largest cities. This is the third cycle of the victimisation component (1993 and 1988). Added to 1999 GSS: A question to measure the race/cultural background of victims/respondents and questions to assess whether respondents felt incidents were motivated by hate. Obvious limitations to victimisation surveys include: sample size limits analysis of detailed information (target populations, small areas); excludes crimes against organisations; however includes property crimes. There are also some drawbacks to the actual hate crime questions, something we’ll examine in just a moment. Other than what the police will be providing, the GSS will be the best data source to analyse hate incidents in Canada. Now, to the actual hate crime questions.

20. General Social Survey - Question on Hate There is a growing concern in Canada about hate crimes. (By this I mean crimes motivated by the offender’s hatred of a person’s sex, ethnicity, race, religion, sexual orientation, age, disability, culture or language.) Do you believe that this incident committed against you could be considered a hate crime? The hate crime question reads as follows: There is a growing concern in Canada about hate crimes. (By this I mean crimes motivated by the offender’s hatred of a person’s sex, ethnicity, race, religion, sexual orientation, age disability, culture or language.) Do you believe that this incident committed against you could be considered a hate crime? The problem that we may encounter is that people may not know exactly what a hate crime involves. Issues that the NCVS encountered are that generally the questions didn’t work well: Respondents don’t understand what is meant by hate crime. They are currently revising their questionnaire.The hate crime question reads as follows: There is a growing concern in Canada about hate crimes. (By this I mean crimes motivated by the offender’s hatred of a person’s sex, ethnicity, race, religion, sexual orientation, age disability, culture or language.) Do you believe that this incident committed against you could be considered a hate crime? The problem that we may encounter is that people may not know exactly what a hate crime involves. Issues that the NCVS encountered are that generally the questions didn’t work well: Respondents don’t understand what is meant by hate crime. They are currently revising their questionnaire.

21. General Social Survey - Question on Hate Was this because of the person’s hatred of your … Sex; Race/Ethnicity; Religion; Sexual Orientation; Age; Disability; Culture; Language; Other (specify) Hopefully, we’ll be able to have some indication as to what people think a hate crime is, based on the second question that is asked. It reads as follows: Was this because of the person’s hatred of your …Sex; Race/Ethnicity; Religion; Sexual Orientation; Age; Disability; Culture; Language; Other (specify) - here, we’ll be able to discern if the bias was based on identification with a specified group versus dislike of a particular person. Don’t know; Refused; No other The results are not yet available, however, we’ll have a preliminary file ready this month, and the final results will be analyzable this summer. We should also be able to verify based on the victim’s characteristics (race, ethnicity, country of origin). Again, although these data will be valuable, we must be cautious in interpreting. Hopefully, we’ll be able to have some indication as to what people think a hate crime is, based on the second question that is asked. It reads as follows: Was this because of the person’s hatred of your …Sex; Race/Ethnicity; Religion; Sexual Orientation; Age; Disability; Culture; Language; Other (specify) - here, we’ll be able to discern if the bias was based on identification with a specified group versus dislike of a particular person. Don’t know; Refused; No other The results are not yet available, however, we’ll have a preliminary file ready this month, and the final results will be analyzable this summer. We should also be able to verify based on the victim’s characteristics (race, ethnicity, country of origin). Again, although these data will be valuable, we must be cautious in interpreting.

22. General Overview of Study Part of larger initiative on diversity in the criminal justice system Goal to possibly develop hate crime survey National Justice Statistics Initiative identify hate crime as major data gap Study is result of various recommendations This research endeavour is actually a four year funded project which is part of a much larger initiative on diversity issues in the criminal justice system. The ultimate aim of this project, is to develop a survey to collect data on hate-motivated crime - through police services or at least the larger urban centres. The National Justice Statistics Initiative, through the Justice Information Council and the Liaison Officer Committee (explain), identified hate-motivated crime as a major data gap. This data gap however, had been identified by other federal committes and departments such as the Policy Research Initiative, Heritage Canada, Justice Canada, etc - years ago. As well, data on the experiences of persons from various racial or ethnic backgrounds within the justice system is critical to the development and maintenance of effective policies and programs. The Cole-Gittens Report, 1995 raised numerous issues and demonstrated the importance of further study. Other DOJ funded reports (Etherington, Roberts, Gilmour, Kiefl & Nelson) which deal more specifically with hate crimes have also made numerous recommendations in terms of future research, policy directions, and legislative options. This study is an indirect result of such recommendations. This research endeavour is actually a four year funded project which is part of a much larger initiative on diversity issues in the criminal justice system. The ultimate aim of this project, is to develop a survey to collect data on hate-motivated crime - through police services or at least the larger urban centres. The National Justice Statistics Initiative, through the Justice Information Council and the Liaison Officer Committee (explain), identified hate-motivated crime as a major data gap. This data gap however, had been identified by other federal committes and departments such as the Policy Research Initiative, Heritage Canada, Justice Canada, etc - years ago. As well, data on the experiences of persons from various racial or ethnic backgrounds within the justice system is critical to the development and maintenance of effective policies and programs. The Cole-Gittens Report, 1995 raised numerous issues and demonstrated the importance of further study. Other DOJ funded reports (Etherington, Roberts, Gilmour, Kiefl & Nelson) which deal more specifically with hate crimes have also made numerous recommendations in terms of future research, policy directions, and legislative options. This study is an indirect result of such recommendations.

23. Outline of Proposed Study Two phased project Who collects data Criteria used to collect hate crimes Quality of data Other data sources Limitations Phase two - data collection strategy As part of our outcomes for this fiscal year, the project would consist of an initial survey of police departments which currently collect hate crime data. This first phase would include: An examination of what criteria are being used to code hate crime incidents; Who collects what data; Which definition is being used (CACP or Departmental); How data are being collected; Quality of the data; Other potential data sources (GSS; Homicide Survey; ACCS, other international jurisdictions, B’Nai Brith Canada) Limitations of police as well as alternative data sources Phase two of the study would begin next fiscal year, and would involve actual data collection, creation of various variables, database development, feasibility of enhancing the Incident Based UCR Survey. Possible Data Sources – Modifying the UCR II would evidently generate some high quality data. Coverage is still only 50%, however the sample is largely urban, incorporates the major cities (169 police services) and once OPP and RCMP (mostly rural detachments) are on board, it will be almost full coverage.As part of our outcomes for this fiscal year, the project would consist of an initial survey of police departments which currently collect hate crime data. This first phase would include: An examination of what criteria are being used to code hate crime incidents; Who collects what data; Which definition is being used (CACP or Departmental); How data are being collected; Quality of the data; Other potential data sources (GSS; Homicide Survey; ACCS, other international jurisdictions, B’Nai Brith Canada) Limitations of police as well as alternative data sources Phase two of the study would begin next fiscal year, and would involve actual data collection, creation of various variables, database development, feasibility of enhancing the Incident Based UCR Survey. Possible Data Sources – Modifying the UCR II would evidently generate some high quality data. Coverage is still only 50%, however the sample is largely urban, incorporates the major cities (169 police services) and once OPP and RCMP (mostly rural detachments) are on board, it will be almost full coverage.

24. Conclusion Next steps Similar projects Experiences of other jurisdictions Questions / Discussion

  • Login