ILNews

FBI shares hate crime statistics

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In late September 2010, as part of the FBI Citizen’s Academy in Indianapolis, agents passed around photos from a cross burning that took place four years earlier in Muncie.

Members of the class were appalled when they learned that not only did someone burn a cross as a way to intimidate a family – biracial children lived in the home – but they were also surprised that the offenders had taken photos of the cross burning and had shared those photos with family and friends.

It wasn’t until 2007 that someone who knew both the offenders and the victims gave those photos to law enforcement.

These and other types of hate crimes are regularly reported to the FBI, which annually compiles statistics. Statistics for 2009 were released in late 2010. Indiana ranked 27th, between Oklahoma at 26th and Wisconsin at 28th, in the number of hate crimes reported.

Kyle Shroyer ultimately pled guilty in November 2007 to the March 2006 cross burning, and in January 2008 he received a 15-month sentence, according to FBI reports. Kyle Milbourn was found guilty by a jury in May 2008, and was sentenced to 121 months.

In July 2008, another unrelated cross burning took place in Muncie, according to FBI reports. Three men involved with that incident pled guilty in September 2009, and each was sentenced to about a year in federal prison followed by two to three years of probation.

A number of other cross burnings have taken place around Indiana in the last few years, according to FBI reports. Other incidents include one in Mishawaka in September 2007, and another in Elkhart in May 2008.

Milbourn has since appealed, and the 7th Circuit affirmed his sentence in April 2010. In that decision, USA v. Kyle Milbourn, No. 08-2525, Judge Terence T. Evans gave a brief history of how cross burnings have symbolized racial hatred, and said that these kinds of acts will not be tolerated.

As hate crimes like these continue to make news, including a case in Bloomington in November where rocks were thrown at Chabad Jewish Student Center at Indiana University and other anti-Semitic acts took place near the student center in the course of a month, the FBI continues to collect this information and help local law enforcement when necessary.

While the FBI has released hate crime statistics since 1995, the bureau also cautions against using these numbers for statistical analysis.

The statistics likely don’t include every crime that could be considered motivated by discrimination, but it is the most comprehensive listing of its kind. It also serves as a reminder that crimes motivated by bias of a victim’s race, religion, sexual-orientation, ethnicity/national origin, or disability continue to occur.

In 2009, 2,034 law enforcement agencies reported 6,604 hate crime incidents involving 7,789 offenses, according to the FBI’s report. There were 6,598 single-bias incidents that involved 7,775 offenses, 8,322 victims, and 6,219 offenders.

The six multiple-bias incidents reported in 2009, what the FBI defines as “an incident in which more than one offense type occurs and at least two offense types are motivated by different biases,” involved 14 offenses, 14 victims, and six offenders.

California topped the list for number of hate crimes reported in 2009, with 1,015 incidents reported. It was followed by New York with 626 reported incidents, New Jersey with 549 reported incidents, Massachusetts with 322 reported incidents, and Michigan with 314 reported incidents. Ohio ranked sixth with 297 reported incidents, Kentucky ranked 14th with 150 reported incidents, and Illinois ranked 18th with 129 reported incidents.

hate crimeIn 2008, Indiana ranked 30th. The top five states were California with 1,381 reported incidents, followed by New Jersey with 744, New York with 570, Michigan with 560, and Ohio with 345. Illinois ranked 19th with 120 reported incidents, and Kentucky ranked 28th with 64 reported incidents.

In Indiana in 2009, 139 agencies participated in reporting. Of those, 17 reported a total of 55 hate crimes. The number of participating agencies has steadily increased in the last few years. In 2006, 124 agencies participated; in 2007, 127 agencies participated; and in 2008, 131 agencies participated.

The number of reported hate crimes in Indiana has also fluctuated. In 2006, 39 incidents involving bias were reported; in 2007, 40 incidents were reported; in 2008, 61 incidents were reported; and in 2009, 55 incidents were reported.

But it’s the number of agencies participating that really matters, said Andrew Northern, supervisory special agent for the Southern District of Indiana, based in Indianapolis.

“We caution people to take into account the fact that there’s different numbers of participating agencies from year to year,” which can also lead to varying interpretations of what fits the category, he said.

However, he added, “a larger number of agencies participated in 2009 – that number is growing. Those agencies provide the information voluntarily after it is brought to their attention. The primary objective is to generate reliable information.”

The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act was signed into law Oct. 28, 2009, and Northern said this act could affect the numbers reported in 2010 and future years.

The measure expands the 1969 United States federal hate-crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. The bill also gives federal authorities greater ability to engage in hate crimes investigations that local authorities choose not to pursue.

“It would provide more opportunities for prosecutions than in the past,” Northern said. “The Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the FBI work hard to make sure those who commit hate crimes are brought to justice.”

Indiana remains one of five states without its own hate crimes statute to protect victims. While Indiana law requires hate crimes to be reported, there is no law to affect sentencing in these cases. Hate crimes legislation has been introduced in recent sessions, but it has not ultimately passed.

It is unclear whether hate crimes legislation will be introduced in the 2011 session; no bill on this topic has been introduced as of Dec. 30. The latest bias crimes bill to be introduced in Indiana was in 2009.•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • other crimes not hateful enough?
    Are regular crimes not hateful? Hate crime counting and enhancement awards "privileged victim" status to some and not others. Moreover, it is the state punishing speech and though rather than conduct. From both perspectives, hate crimes smack of Orwellian Thought Crime. They are a tool of antagonistic characterization that is aimed not even at the perp but at whatever majority population the perp may come from and how that population may be in social conflict with another. Pure politics in other words and little to do with a just and ordered society.

    A study of differential racial statistics will also show that a disproportionate amount of crime happens cross-racially and that in itself is not "hate?" Look at the facts and tell me this is not something being used as propaganda.

    Finally about religious hate. There is so much religious discrimination and hate and war to go around in the middle east-- and not all of the aggression coming from Muslims, either, sorry folks; but there is so much to go around does the US really need to be in that business too?
  • Hate Crimes
    I must agree that we need better laws on hate crimes. So many things go unattended to, it is just sad.
  • hate crimes
    these article is so true we need better laws to help the people

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT