Victim Blame in a Hate Crime Motivated by Sexual Orientation

Abstract

A jury simulation paradigm was employed for two studies exploring levels of victim blame in a case of bias-motivated assault based on sexual orientation. In the first study, participants were grouped according to their score on the Index of Homophobia (IHP) scale as either reporting high or low support for gay and lesbian community members. The label of the crime (i.e., bias-motivated assault versus first-degree assault) as well as the gender of the victim were systematically varied. Results indicated that attributions of blame against the victim varied as a function of participants' attitudes toward minority sexual orientation. As extra-legal factors likely contribute to victim blame in these cases, the second study explored such factors as location and “provocation.” Jurors in the second study read a transcript depicting an attack on a gay man by a man in either a local bar (i.e., not a gay bar) or a gay bar. Within location conditions, jurors were presented with either “provocation” by the victim (i.e., asking the perpetrator to dance and putting his arm around him) or alternatively no provocation was presented. Results revealed significant differences of victim blame depending on condition. Participants in both the local bar and provocation present conditions were more likely to blame the victim for the attack than those in the gay bar or provocation-absent conditions. Implications for hate crime law and attribution theory within the courtroom are discussed.

KEYWORDS:

• Hate crime
• victim blame
• extra-legal factors
• juror attitudes
• sexual orientation

Notes

Vanessa Henderson and Heather Ellingson were both undergraduate students at the University of North Dakota during the time these studies were conducted. Their input and time spent conducting the study and helping to present findings were major contributions to this manuscript.

1. Although it is commonly believed that hate crime victims may “provoke” the attack against them, it is important to note that these crimes are inflicted rather than “provoked.” To ensure that readers do not lose site of this distinction, in this section, the terms “provocation” and “provoked” will appear in quotations (Kristiansen & Giulietti, 1990).

2. The case of Schick v. State (1991) involved the murder of a gay man. The facts of the case were that a non-gay man solicited a sexual favor from a gay man and afterward beat him to death. Defense in this case claimed that the non-gay man was so shocked by his actions that his fear and anger overwhelmed him and, therefore, his behavior (beating a gay man to death) was justifiable. The jury in this case agreed and found the defendant not guilty.