ASC Proposal 2007
However, proponents of the inclusion of gender argue that gender does fit within the hate
crime policy template. In response to the critics, proponents argue that offenses such as sexual
assault and domestic violence fit under the typical hate crime rational because of the presence of
gender animus within these crimes (Gaffney, 1997). Furthermore, proponents argue that the
inclusion of gender would not diminish the importance of other status categories; instead, it
would provide another tool for criminal justice professionals and victims of sexual assault and
domestic violence. “Placing gender in its proper place among hate crimes redefines the problem
as public and political, causing the victims to be viewed as worthy of legal redress instead of
blame” (McPhail, 2003, p. 272).
Despite the controversy surrounding the inclusion of gender in hate crime legislation,
little empirical research has been conducted on this topic. Indeed, the only known study
specifically focusing on the inclusion of gender was conducted with prosecutors in Texas (see
McPhail & DiNitto, 2005). Because of the scant research on this controversial issue, empirical
work needs to explore the complexities surrounding the creation and implementation of the
gender category within hate crime laws. Put simply, research needs to examine how and why
gender is included in some states but not others. By exploring this issue, research can inform
scholars interested in the hate crime debate and policy makers interested in combating gender-
motivated violence.
Jenness and Grattet (2001) elucidate the implications that hate crime legislation has for
theories of policy-making, and as the authors explain, “Traditionally, these theories have
emphasized three kinds of factors: demand factors, interest groups, and political context” (p.
168). According to the demand factors theory, legislation is created as a response to a pressing
social problem. In the case of hate crime policies, this theory would suggest that legislators and
2
Convention