Unique Characteristics of Bias Crimes Committed By Males or Females in the United States

Background: Although there is clear evidence of a “gender gap” in criminality, where men are consistently found to be responsible for a great proportion of crime than women, research has also shown that the gap differs by crime type. A gender gap in bias crimes may in fact be smaller than other types of crime; the percentage of female perpetrators in bias crimes ranges from one quarter to one third of bias crime offenders each year in federal data. This finding is particularly striking given research that demonstrates women consistently report lower levels of prejudicial attitudes. Despite evidence of women’s participation, no theories currently exist to explain when, how, or why females commit bias crimes and whether males and female offenders have different bias crime characteristics. To address this gap, this study examines bias crime incidents that are considered crimes against persons to a) describe female involvement in bias crimes, b) to determine along what characteristics females and males demonstrate similarities or differences in bias crime offending, and c) to determine which characteristics best differentiate bias crimes committed by female and male offenders.

Methods: To analyze trends among male and female bias crime offenders, data from the National Incident-Based Reporting System was utilized from 2009-2012. From the over 12 million incidents reported that were marked as bias crimes (n = 10,051), that were also considered crimes against persons and that had sex information about suspects (n = 4,698) were included in the study. Victim characteristics (e.g., group of victims or alone, bias type), suspect characteristics (e.g., signs of AOD use before incident, a group or lone suspect), and incident characteristics (e.g., location, weapons used, injuries) were compared in a binary logistic regression to determine which were more closely associated with male and female suspects.

Results: Logistic regression showed that males and female bias crime offender shared many similar characteristics in regard to suspect characteristics and incident characteristics. However, important differences emerged in regard to suspect characteristics. Female bias crime suspects were more likely to target other women as victims, to target known-others (such as family, friends, coworkers, etc.) as opposed to strangers, and were more likely to be involved in incidents targeting a victim based on their race/ethnicity rather than sexual orientation or religion than male suspects.

Conclusions: Current theories around bias crime has centered around men, both as victims and as offenders, but these results highlight that bias crimes are not inherently the domain of men. Males primarily targeted males who are strangers, and females primarily targeted females who are "known others", suggesting that bias crimes have an additional gendered feature that is not clearly predicted by existing theories on the gendered nature of crime in general. These findings also demonstrate how current bias crime theories do not adequately describe the pattern of female offending. By highlighting these discrepancies, this study lays a foundation for the future development of a bias crime offending model that includes gender as an important component that should not be ignored.