Dig deep into why people indulge in hate crimes

The inflammatory and provocative utterances against a minority community at a recent ‘Dharam Sansad’ have brought the debate on hate crimes, particularly hate speech, back to the centre stage. Though there are penal provisions to tackle hate crimes, studies show an uptick in the commission of hate speech. The recurrence of instances of hate speech is proof that law is no longer deterrence to such behaviour. Instead, hate speech must be studied as a behavioural manifestation and examined from the standpoint of the theories of hate behaviour for prevention.

The need is to delve into the human psyche to understand why people indulge in hate crimes. Hating offers sadism. People indulge in hating as it is easier to do that than to actually commit violence. It releases the frustration and aggression of the bearer. Criminologists believe that crimes are committed more often when the perpetrators are able to hide themselves. Social media platforms help the haters to hide their identity when they resort to extreme profanity.

The same would provide solutions to stem the recurrence of hate crimes, such as hate speech. The synonymity of hate speech with crime has created a situation where the understanding of the phenomenon of hate has been spearheaded by legal scholars.

It is imperative, however, to shift the understanding of hate crimes to a more holistic approach which goes beyond legal definitions and uncovers the fundamental causes of these crimes.

The existing laws hardly prescribe any ways to preventing hate crimes and the State’s imagination is woefully limited in this regard. The absence of any prevention programmes which mobilise communities speaks for itself. The laws also lack a victim-centric approach to hate crimes. Even as hate crimes affect victims of all races, religions, castes, regions, sexual orientations, etc, little is provided by way of law for their protection, healing, assistance and rehabilitation. The law must be oriented to meeting the victims’ requirements in this regard, including protection from further harm, mitigation of injury and harm, provision of services etc.

Edward Dunbar of the University of California studied 550 perpetrators and concluded that the haters have a defined pathology with troubled past histories. Haters are unique individuals, who are prone to violence and aggression. Hate speech, in particular, is an outlet for the frustration that they possess against a person or a group. Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime argues that individuals who lack self-control are more likely to indulge in crimes, including hate crimes. Mark Walters defines hate crimes as intimidation and harm motivated by a prejudice, based on a generalisation about the victim’s actual or perceived membership of an identity group. Typically, such generalisation is based on a fear or belief that the victim will encroach upon the offender’s group identity, cultural norms or socio-economic security.

Robert Merton’s strain theory suggests that deviant behaviour results from a ‘disequilibrium’ borne out of the gap between culturally prescribed goals and the means and opportunities of attaining these legitimately. For some, this resultant frustration is internalised as negative feelings about the ‘self’, but quickly resurfaces as a feeling of anger or hate, which is then directed towards ‘outsiders’. A kind of ‘othering’ happens in the hate expressions.

Barbara Perry argues that those who fall outside the societal construction of identity are seen as ‘different’ and are resisted because it is feared that they would encroach upon the ‘identity and cultural norms’ of the ‘in groups’. This results in feelings of helplessness and insecurity in some, which are then projected as animosity against the ‘different’. It is an emotive reaction which is used to gain a sense of control to temporarily deny the fear.

Taken individually, these theories fail to explain why only certain individuals indulge in hate crimes and while similar personality traits do not. However, when these theories are studied together, they present a rather robust explanation for triggering individuals to indulge in offensive hatred. Socio-economic strains and general fears of ‘difference’ then act as underpinning factors, promulgating a culture of prejudice against certain ‘others’, which in turn, ultimately triggers hate-motivated behaviours in individuals with low self-control.

When someone calls for genocide, lynching or leaving the country, he has to attribute to some exceptionally powerful justifications for the same. Radicalised individuals who exhibit extreme behaviour are invariably successful in neutralising their guilt by way of invoking extraordinary reasons, namely god, country, religion or honour. This is particularly true in the case of thrill-seekers and defensive, powerful, retaliatory and mission-oriented individuals.

The thrill-seekers are those who, in acquiring the thrill, use their prejudices — the result of constructions of difference, stereotyping and perceived threats posed by certain minority individuals — as a means of justifying their hate-motivated actions.

Similarly, the ‘defensive’ act in defence of what is perceived as a threat to their ‘territory’. They envision minority groups as ‘invaders’ who encroach upon the rights and resources of the indigenous population. Those with low self-control tend to be more intolerant of such ingressions. They are unable to control their animosity towards the said ‘invaders’ and are more likely to lash out when their socio-economic security is threatened.

Finally, some hate crimes are carried out by the most powerful people in society. They are fearful of the potential strain that ‘others’ might place on their socio-economic security in the future. Thus, they might act out, but rarely directly. They tend to incite hatred in an attempt to mobilise others, possibly those with low self-control, into acting against the ‘others’.

The failure of our laws and legal provisions must propel us to look at the fundamental cause of the problem which may very well be rooted in the psyche of human beings. The fact that their actions are motivated by fear, strain or insecurity and are triggered by a lack of self-control suggests the need for a different approach.

Our laws must account for such motivations and triggers. Additionally, measures like positive and community-based interventions to heal, protect and assist crime victims must be introduced in good measure. There is also a need to make it more difficult to commit these crimes by raising the probability of being identified and prosecuted.