Hate Crimes Against LGBT People in the United States

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liz Coston
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Sexual Orientation ◽  
Gender Identity ◽  
Social Group ◽  
The United States ◽  
Hate Crimes ◽  
Medical Attention ◽  
Bias Crimes ◽  
Criminal Penalties ◽  
Lgbt People

Hate crimes (or bias crimes) are crimes motivated by an offenders’ personal bias against a particular social group. Modern hate crimes legislation developed out of civil rights protections based on race, religion, and national origin; however, the acts that constitute a hate crime have expanded over time, as have the groups protected by hate crimes legislation. Anti-LGBT hate crimes, in which victims are targeted based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. LGBT people are highly overrepresented as victims of hate crimes given the number of LGBT people in the population, and this is especially true of hate crimes against transgender women. Despite the frequency of these crimes, the legal framework for addressing them varies widely across the United States. Many states do not have specific legislation that addresses anti-LGBT hate crimes, while others have legislation that mandates data collection on those crimes but does not enhance civil or criminal penalties for them, and some offer enhanced civil and/or criminal penalties. Even in states that do have legislation to address these types of hate crimes, some states only address hate crimes based on sexual orientation but not those based on gender identity. The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act gives the federal government the authority to prosecute those crimes regardless of jurisdiction; however, this power has been used in a limited capacity. Hate crimes are distinct from other crimes that are not motivated by bias. For example, thrill seeking, retaliation, or the desire to harm or punish members of a particular social group often motivates perpetrators of hate crimes; these motivations often result in hate crimes being more violent than other similar crimes. The difference in the motivation of offenders also has significant consequences for victims, both physically and mentally. Victims of hate crimes are more likely to require medical attention than victims of non-bias crimes. Likewise, victims of hate crimes, and especially anti-LGBT hate crimes, often experience negative psychological outcomes, such as PTSD, depression, or anxiety as a result of being victimized for being a member of an already marginalized social group.

scholarly journals LGBT Discrimination, Subnational Public Policy, and Law in the United States

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christy Mallory ◽  
Brad Sears
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Sexual Orientation ◽  
Gender Identity ◽  
State Government ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
The United States ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
State And Local ◽  
Lgbt People ◽  
And Gender

LGBT people in the United States continue to experience discrimination because of their sexual orientation and gender identity, despite increasing acceptance of LGBT people and legal recognition of marriage for same-sex couples nationwide. This ongoing discrimination can lead to under- and unemployment, resulting in socioeconomic disparities for LGBT people. In addition, empirical research has linked LGBT health disparities, including disparities in health-related risk factors, to experiences of stigma and discrimination. Currently, federal statutes in the United States do not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in employment, housing, or public accommodations, leaving regulation in this area primarily to state and local governments. This creates a limited and uneven patchwork of protections from discrimination against LGBT people across the country. Despite public support for LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination laws across the country, in 28 states there are no statewide statutory protections for LGBT people in employment, housing, or public accommodations. To date, only 20 states and the District of Columbia have enacted comprehensive non-discrimination statutes that expressly prohibit discrimination based on both sexual orientation and gender identity in all three of these areas. One additional state has statutes that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination, but not gender identity discrimination, in these areas. One other state prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment and housing, but not in public accommodations. In states without statutes that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity, there are other policies that afford LGBT people at least some limited protections from discrimination. In some of these states, state executive branch officials have expanded non-discrimination protections for LGBT people under their executive or agency powers. For example, in three states, state government agencies have expanded broad protections from sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination through administrative regulations. And, in 12 states without statutes prohibiting discrimination against LGBT people, governors have issued executive orders that protect state government employees (and sometimes employees of state government contractors) from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In addition, local government ordinances provide another source of protection from discrimination; however, these laws are generally unenforceable in court and provide much more limited remedies than statewide non-discrimination statutes. In recent years, lawmakers have increasingly attempted to limit the reach of state and local non-discrimination laws, which can leave LGBT people vulnerable to discrimination. For example, some states have passed laws allowing religiously motivated discrimination and others have passed laws prohibiting local governments from enacting their own non-discrimination ordinances that are broader than state non-discrimination laws. While most of these bills have not passed, the recent increase in the introduction of these measures suggests that state legislatures will continue to consider rolling back non-discrimination protections for LGBT people in the coming years. Continued efforts are required at both the state and federal levels to ensure that LGBT people are fully protected from discrimination based on their sexual orientation and gender identity throughout the United States, including federal legislation and statewide bills in over half the states.

The US Supreme Court and the Future of Sexual and Gender Minority Health

2021 ◽  
pp. e1-e3
Author(s):  
Michael Liu ◽  
Jack L. Turban ◽  
Kenneth H. Mayer
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Sexual Orientation ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Gender Identity ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Physical And Mental Health ◽  
Gender Minority ◽  
Sexual And Gender Minority ◽  
And Gender

Over the past decade, the United States has made substantial progress in advancing the rights of sexual and gender minority (SGM) people. In 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision in Obergefell v. Hodges provided same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry across the United States.1 In 2020, the landmark Bostock v. Clayton County decision extended the interpretation of “on the basis of sex” under title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to prohibit workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.2 This sweeping decision sets the precedent that other sex-based antidiscrimination laws should be interpreted to include SGM people. However, explicit and broad protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity are not common features of federal laws, and existing SGM protections remain tenuous, as they rely on judicial interpretation. With recent shifts in the composition of SCOTUS, there is the increasing possibility that the hard-earned protections for SGM people in the United States will be reversed through recently argued and upcoming cases. Based on the available empirical evidence, we are concerned about the possible physical and mental health sequelae. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print May 20, 2021: e1–e3. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306302 )

Ten Harms of the “Equality” Act

2019 ◽  
Vol 44 (7) ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
Jozef Zalot ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Sexual Orientation ◽  
Gender Identity ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
The United States

On May 17, 2019, the United States House of Representatives passed the Equality Act by a vote of 236 to 173. This bill is touted by supporters as a necessary measure to protect individuals from unjust discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Yet, when one reads the bill it very quickly becomes evident that it goes far beyond this stated claim. There are many harms that arise from the so-called Equality Act.

scholarly journals Victimization rates and traits of sexual and gender minorities in the United States: Results from the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2017

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (40) ◽  
pp. eaba6910 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew R. Flores ◽  
Lynn Langton ◽  
Ilan H. Meyer ◽  
Adam P. Romero
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Sexual Orientation ◽  
Gender Identity ◽  
The United States ◽  
National Crime Victimization Survey ◽  
Sexual And Gender Minorities ◽  
Crime Victimization ◽  
Victimization Survey ◽  
Gender Minorities ◽  
And Gender

Do sexual and gender minorities (SGMs) in the United States encounter disproportionate rates of victimization as compared with their cisgender, heterosexual counterparts? Answering this question has proved elusive because nationally representative victimization data have not included victims’ sexual orientation or gender identity. The National Crime Victimization Survey, the nation’s primary source of representative information on criminal victimization, began documenting sexual orientation and gender identity in 2016 and released data publicly for the first time in 2019. We find SGMs disproportionately are victims across a variety of crimes. The rate of violent victimization for SGMs is 71.1 victimizations per 1000 people compared with 19.2 victimizations per 1000 people for those who are not SGMs. SGMs are 2.7 times more likely to be a victim of violent crime than non-SGMs. These findings raise the importance of further considering sexual orientation and gender identity in victimization and interventions.

scholarly journals The problem of hate crimes in the United States of America

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-30
Author(s):  
Ewelina Bachera ◽  
Stephan V. Jupinko
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Sexual Orientation ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Hate Crime ◽  
The United States ◽  
Hate Crimes ◽  
Equal Protection ◽  
Extended Projection ◽  
The Law ◽  
The U.S

The aim of this article is to draw attention to an issue that has a long history: the problem of hate crimes in the United States of America. There is no doubt that hate crimes are the type of crime that attack the very principle of individuality that is an entitlement under the equal protection of the law (in the U.S.). Bearing the foregoing in mind the above, and that the number of such crime has increased at an alarming rate, this article describes and discusses types of hate crimes such as: Racist and Religious Hate Crimes, Sexual Orientation-Based Hate Crimes and Disability Hate Crimes as an extended projection of the analysis, several solutions have been proposed to mitigate tensions and combat the prevalence and severity of hate crime in all its forms.

The Empire of Disgust

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Drinking Water ◽  
Sexual Orientation ◽  
Change Point ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Life ◽  
Swimming Pools ◽  
Economic Class ◽  
Group Resistance

All known societies exclude and stigmatize one or more minority groups. Frequently these exclusions are underwritten with a rhetoric of disgust: people of a certain group, it is alleged, are filthy, hyper-animal, or not fit to share such facilities as drinking water, food, and public swimming pools with the ‘clean’ and ‘fully human’ majority. But exclusions vary in their scope and also in the specific disgust-ideologies underlying them. In this volume, interdisciplinary scholars from the United States and India present a detailed comparative study of the varieties of prejudice and stigma that pervade contemporary social and political life: prejudice along the axes of caste, race, gender, age, sexual orientation, transgender, disability, religion, and economic class. In examining these forms of stigma and their intersections, the authors present theoretically pluralistic and empirically sensitive accounts that both explain group-based stigma and suggest ways forward. These forward-looking remedies, including group resistance to subordination as well as institutional and legal change, point the way towards a public culture that is informed by our diverse histories of discrimination and therefore equipped to eliminate stigma in all of its multifaceted forms.

scholarly journals Evaluating associations between area-level Twitter-expressed negative racial sentiment, hate crimes, and residents' racial prejudice in the United States

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 100750
Author(s):  
Thu T. Nguyen ◽  
Dina Huang ◽  
Eli K. Michaels ◽  
M. Maria Glymour ◽  
Amani M. Allen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Hate Crimes ◽  
Racial Prejudice
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document