The prevention of bias crimes in Germany. Results from a nationwide task group

By Marc Coester (Institute of Criminology, University of Tübingen) and Dieter Rössner (Institute of Criminology, University of Marburg)

 

The article presents an overview of results of a task group in Germany. This group has been working for the last three years in order to find new solutions and better concepts for the handling and especially the prevention of right wing violence and bias crimes[1] respectively. Before illustrating substantial results two important as-

umptions should be outlined that show the initial point of the establishment of this task group. The starting point relates to the fundamental significance of this topic for Germany in general. Due to the special historical situation characterized by both the rising numbers of right wing crime and young people joining groups of the German right extremist subculture, politics as well as science and society are dealing constantly with this particular social problem[2]. Already absolute numbers are able to demonstrate the importance of this problem. As can be seen in figure 1[3] the amount of right wing crime in Germany as registered by the police rose immensely between 1969 and 2002, especially during the last decade and therefore in coincidence with the process of German reunification which started in 1989.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A similar increase shows the data from the federal office for the protection of the constitution (figure 2[4]). In this case the number of members from subgroups (skinheads for example) which are considered to be disposed towards violence has also risen from 2.500 to 10.700 between 1987 and 2002.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notwithstanding the usual and well known limitations of official registered crime records the current research in the field of right wing crime in Germany confirms this trend consistently[5].

The second assumption for the establishment of the task group - next to the understanding of a constant rise of right wing violence and particularly in respect of the German history - is a new trend in social studies of right wing crime. Until the beginning of the new millennium the empirical and theoretical work focused on the offence and offender. Therefore data, research, practical and preventive implications with regard to the victim did not exist. Of course the offender oriented approach and its theoretical framework was and will remain important for the understanding of xenophobic violence. Relevant insights pertain to the sociological and psychological background of the offender. Profiles help categorizing different groups[6]. Focusing on preventive measures and the view to the genesis and escalation of socially conflicts create a better knowledge of the offence itself[7]. But leaving the victim out of the scope creates a scientific vacuum and a lag behind international research. When in 2001 the statistical coverage of right wing crime among the German police forces was renewed and improved it combined for the first time victim related data[8]. The analysis of this material as possible so far and other victim oriented research demonstrates a shift that widens the focus: from right wing or xenophobic to bias crime[9] or group-focused enmity[10]. The victim is no longer a 'faceless part' of the crime but portrays the variety of society and therefore reflects the casual, inhuman and bias motivated selection of the innocent. In a forthcoming dissertation[11] the author can show the importance of distinctive differences between the offender and victim as well as the group context of the victims and the consequences of these insights for research and practice. Figure 3[12] illustrates the variety of different characteristics of victim groups.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The background of this change in the perception of this topic derives from international studies, especially the hate crime research in the United States. The term hate crime was coined there in the mid 1980s by the introduction of special laws in several states and in particular the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990[13]. This act obligated the federal attorney general to collect and publish data about the causes and the prevalence of crimes committed by prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation and ethnicity[14]. So the U.S. became the first nation worldwide to create and implement a state-wide strategy against hate crimes[15]. In Germany the research focused on the right wing or right extremist crime and criminal which developed simultaneous to the hate crime debate in America[16]. Particularly because of the xenophobic excesses in the beginning of the 1990s the social science and practice concentrated increasingly on this area and blinded out the considerations and results of the hate crime research[17]. While in Germany the focus was on the disintegration theory by Wilhelm Heitmeyer[18] and the situational theory approach by Helmut Willems[19] which concentrated on the offender and his socialization[20] the theories about hate crimes took the victims in their group specific context and as a selected object of hate into consideration.

With this in mind the German Federal Ministry of Justice[21] established in August 2001 the German Forum for Crime Prevention[22] with the request to set up a task group which discusses the concept of the so called hate crimes for the German situation with a special focus on its prevention. By doing so the international research on this important topic was to be appreciated and implicated with the right wing and xenophobic violence that convulses the German public consistently[23]. The name of the project 'primary prevention of violence against group members - especially: young people' is aiming exactly on this widening view: the hated groups - foreigners, homosexuals, disabled etc. - are becoming victims just because of their symbolic status and the affiliation to a social group with which the offender does not agree[24]. The impacts of these offences can be described as devastating because they aim at attributes which the victim can't affect; they send a frightening and fearing message of hate to the entire victims group; and they suggest an invitation for more violence to the offenders group[25].

Following this model the 14 constant members of the German task group studied in regularly sessions different aspects of theory and prevention of violence against group members. In accumulation the work process was complemented by speeches of well known experts in specific areas, a criminological documentation[26], a social psychological report[27], a workshop 'primary prevention of hate crimes in Germany' on December, 2 2002 in Bonn as well as the international symposium 'national and international strategies for the prevention of hate crimes' on march, 7 2003 in Berlin[28]. Besides that the work of the group was externally evaluated.

 

In the following the results of the working process of the task group will be introduced. At first the definition and the connotation with worldwide used termini was the main focus. The international term hate crime (see above)^[29] which is textual mistakable because of its focusing on the offenders motivation and which leaves the societal dimension of the community damage out of sight wasn't chosen. More accurate to capture the implication of the phenomenon is the term bias crime^[30] which can be found in the actual discussion. This term was chosen by the task group and translated into Vorurteilskriminalität or Vorurteilsverbrechen to describe this criminological and political topic[31].

 

 

Another aspect of definition appeared to be important: the name of the project refers to primary prevention and follows the classical arrangement oriented around medicine that categorizes the risk stadium in primary, secondary and tertiary prevention. In this scheme primary is understood to affect known causal factors of bias crime in the sense of a general prevention while secondary prevention is aiming at a specific treatment for certain risk factors and constellations and finally tertiary refers to the re-socialisation of already delinquent persons[32]. As obvious as this scheme seems it only reflects a gross pattern because the development of criminality follows a gradual development process with many passages in one or the other direction[33]. Therefore a strict schematic categorisation wouldn't meet the task to find effective strategies to prevent bias crimes.

 

In this perspective of primary prevention it is clear that the exertion of influence on risk groups that are affected by deficiencies are taken into account as well as the control by criminal law with which the value patterns of the general public are stabilised in the end and therefore the fortification of the potential victims[34].

Following the results of the task group prevention of bias crime has to consider mainly three basic conditions that promote its development and therefore has to be influenced positively: disposition of violence, mostly high and aggressive affinity of the offender for prejudice as well as situational factors of the opportunity to commit an offence and pressure on members in peer group situations. Aggressive behaviour as well as group related prejudice is developing in an early stage and steps on in an accumulation process of present risk factors and resultant problems in direction to social disintegration. In this context primary prevention includes the influence on socialisation processes and social cultural deficiencies as well as attitude and value patterns. In doing so the assured perception can be assumed that appropriate learning processes work the best in the early basis socialisation and within a close personal reference. The effectiveness of every intervention gets weaker from the family to the kindergarten and school until the state alternatives of a tertiary encroachment. The loss of effectiveness can be shown by the picture of a pyramid from its wide and bearing basis up to the small and attached peak which is grounded on the fundaments underneath.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The resources for prevention of general disposition of violence and affinity to prejudice can be extracted from the knowledge of effectiveness research. Firstly the constant focusing, isolating and sanctioning on and of violent behaviour are to be mentioned. This must happen in every important area of education. Most important is that this process is taking place within a climate that is addressed to the child and juvenile and with the goal of social integration and not exclusion (integrative sanctioning). Definite norm demanding and consequence in the application is asked. When the conspicuity of children and juveniles has emerged, the cognitive dispute over the violent behaviour is most important especially by taking the victims position into account. This is also true for efforts from the behaviour therapy. Within the institutional education (kindergarten and school) so called multi-level-concepts has been approved worldwide[35]. Also sport plays an important role because like nowhere else physical energy and power of young men can be directed and adopted normative and socially acceptable. Contra productive are family and life circumstances in which the child feels declined, receives a violent and hostile education through punishment and if it receives no attention at all.

 

On a societal level the message and demanding character of bias crimes are calling for explicit assistant signals towards the victims and a strict action against the offenders. Against fear creating messages a powerful anti message from the society must be the reaction to encourage potential victims. Like nowhere else the criminal law acts in cases of bias crime as a shield for human rights. Accordingly visible norm clarification through sanctioning serves the victims right and norm stabilisation and is important compared to offenders that legitimate their justification by blaming the victims.

Recapitulating the basic considerations of preventing bias crimes the following issues should be noticed:

 

Focal issues for the prevention of bias crime:

 

o       Prevention must contain the reduction of the risk- and enhancement of the protective factors during childhood and youth. This means the reinforcement of primary or social prevention respectively that social structural lacks, attitude patterns and values can be influenced positively.

o       Successful programs address to several systems at the same time (family, school etc.), integrate different services (youth welfare office, school, youth work etc.) and are installed at an early stage, consequently and long termed.

o       Most effective in national and particularly international evaluation studies turned out contact programs[36] as well as approaches in schools[37]. Besides that especially programs are to be rated positively which focus on the prevention of personal development[38].

o       In respect to the message and demanding character of bias offences the legal answer requires a clear signal of support to the victim(s) as well as a strict procedure against the offender(s).

 

Furthermore the task group compiled recommendations for the prevention of bias crime[39]. These contain for example:

 

-         Modular structuring and evaluation of internationally established education programs (mentoring models and multi-systematic family treatment programs) as well as therapeutic approaches and their adjustment to the German situation.

-         The development of intercultural learning in kindergarten/day care centres for children on the basis of successful models from national and international level. Therefore expert advisors have to be available area wide. Projects are to be monitored scientific and evaluated from the beginning.

-         Since internationally positive results are present it is recommended to implement a research agenda for cooperative contact programs which compile five examples of cooperative group education and its effects on prejudice in elementary and secondary school. A scientific monitoring as well as documentation should guarantee the quality and transferability.

-         Promotion and scientific monitoring of school multi-level concepts for the prevention of violence. Sufficient financial support, the development of a German manual, the control of the implementation and a methodically appropriate process and effect evaluation is needed.

-         Multi-level concepts within the field of sport clubs which are proved successful on national and international level for the prevention of violence and conflicts. They contain among other things the training of the coaches as conflict mediators, referee training or co-operation strategies on local level. These concepts should be promoted and accomplished especially by the sport federations.

-         A wide co-operation between the institutions of education among themselves and independent institutions as well as the police and justice for the bundling of resources and integration of the preventive measures which are only effective in cooperation; this cannot be attained without a change of laws. In this context practice deplores about the legal data protection situation. Therefore a new § 4a has to be included in the Code of Social Law VIII that - similarly to Denmark - obligates kindergartens, schools, youth welfare offices, agencies of the juvenile welfare service as well as the police and justice to co-operate within the field of primary prevention. This also includes the co-operation in context with individual cases and not only in the stage of planning an action as before described in § 81 Code of Social Law VIII.

-         In principle assured insights about the manifestation and cause of bias crimes are missing to a large extent. The effectiveness of prevention programs is often not controlled systematically. Looking at the implementation and quality assurance of educational approaches these should be examined by external process evaluations.

 

In summary we can say that especially primary or social prevention which on the one hand addresses to the young members of our society and on the other hand is situated in institutions which have the largest influence on these persons seems to be very effective. This is also true for the prevention of negative attitudes and aggressiveness against members of foreign groups. Secondary prevention is not excluded but the development of early interventions must be advanced in particular by the state. Clear rules against intolerance and violence and strict application of sanctions have obviously larger effectiveness within the primary scope than the criminal law. At this point financial funds are very important for the evaluation of such measures. Without any quality assurance a funding is not recommended.

A lasting prevention requires more than a deterring punishment or short term offer of social measures if a spectacular bias crime has convulsed society. In every respect primary prevention of bias crime is necessary.

 

Literature:

Banks, J.A. (1988): Ethnicity, class, cognitive, and motivational styles: Research and teaching implications. In: Journal of Negro Education, 57, P.452-466

Bender, D. (Ed.) (1996): Hate crimes. San Diego

Bufkin, J.L. (1996): Toward an understanding of bias crimes and bias groups: A theory of masculinity and power. Ann Arbor

Coester, M./Gossner, U. (2002): Rechtsextremismus - Herausforderung für das neue Millennium. Marburg

Coester, M. (2003): Nationale und internationale Präventionsstrategien zur Verhütung von Hasskriminalität. In: Forum Kriminalprävention, Heft 2, 3.Vol., P.3-5

Conklin, J.E. (2001): Criminology. 7th Edition. Boston

Dollase, R. (2001): Die multikulturelle Schulklasse - oder: Wann ist der Ausländer­anteil zu hoch? In: Zeitschrift für Politische Psychologie, 9, P.113-126

Fuchs, M. (2003): Rechtsextremismus von Jugendlichen. Zur Erklärungskraft verschiedener theoretischer Konzepte. In: Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, Issue 4, 55.Vol., P.654-678

Grattet, R./Jenness, V. (2001): Examining the boundaries of hate crime law: Disabilities and the "dilemma of difference". In: The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Issue 3, 91.Vol., P.653-697

Heitmeyer, W. (1994): Das Gewalt-Dilemma. Gesellschaftliche Reaktionen auf fremdenfeindliche Gewalt und Rechtsextremismus. Frankfurt a.M.

Heitmeyer, W. (2002): Rechtsextremistische Gewalt. In: Heitmeyer, W./Hagan, J. (Ed.): INternationales Handbuch der Gewaltforschung. Wiesbaden. P.501-546

Howell, J.C./Hawkins, J.D. (1998): Prevention of youth violence. In: Tonry, M./Moore, M.H. (Ed.): Youth violence. Crime and justi­ce. Band 24. Chicago/Lon­don, P.263-315

Jacobs, J.B./Potter, K. (1998): Hate crimes. Criminal law & identity politics. New York/Oxford

Kazdin, A.E. (1994): Interventions for ag­gressive and antisocial children. In: Eron, L.E./Gentry, J.H./Schlegel, P. (Ed.): Reason to hope. A psy­chosoci­al perspec­tive on vio­lence and youth. Washington. P.341-382

Knaack, R./Hanewinkel, R. (1999): Das Anti-Mobbing-Programm nach Olweus. In: Pädagogik, Issue 1, 51.Vol., P.13-16

Kube, E. (1999): Kriminalprävention – konkrete Ansätze für die Praxis. In: Rössner, D./Jehle, M. (Ed.): Kriminalität, Prävention und Kontrolle. Heidelberg. P.71 et.sqq.

Lawrence, F.M. (1994): The punishment of hate: Toward a normative theory of bias-motivated crimes. In: Michigan Law Review, Issue 2, 93.Vol., P.320-381

Levin, J./McDevitt, J. (1993): Hate crimes: The rising tide of bigotry and bloodshed. New York

Levin, J./McDevitt, J. (2002): Hate crimes revisited: America's war against those who are different. Cambridge

Lösel, F. (1987): Psychological crime prevention: Concepts, evaluations and perspectives. In: Hurrelmann, K./Kaufmann, F.X./Lösel, F. (Ed.): Social intervention: Potential and constraints. Berlin. P.289 et.sqq.

McLaughlin, K.A./Brilliant, K.J. (1997): Healing the hate: A national hate crime preven­tion curriculum for middle schools. Wa­shington

Neidhardt, F. (2002): Besprechungsessay. Rechtsextremismus - ein Forschungsfeld. In: Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, Issue 4, 54.Vol., P.777-787

Neureiter, M. (1996): Rechtsextremismus im vereinigten Deutschland. Marburg

Perry, B. (2001): In the name of hate: Understanding hate crimes. New York

Pettigrew, T.F./Tropp, L.R. (2000): Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Recent meta-analytic findings. In: Oskamp, S. (Ed.): Reducing prejudice and dis­crimination. Mahwah. P.93-115

Riedel, C. (2003): Situationsbezogene Kriminalprävention. Frankfurt

Rössner, D./Coester, M. (2003a): Vorurteilsbedingte Hasskriminalität und ihre Prävention. In: Kube, E./Schneider, H./Stock, J. (Ed.): Kriminologische Spuren in Hessen. Freundesgabe für Arthur Kreuzer zum 65. Geburtstag. Wiesbaden. P.243-255

Rössner, D./Coester, M. (2003b): Der entscheidende Schutz gegen Hasskriminalität ist das Mitgefühl. In: Stuttgarter Zeitung, Issue 125, 59.Vol., 2.Juni 2003, P.7

Rössner, D./Coester, M. (2003c): Die Prävention von Hasskriminalität. In: Forum Kriminalprävention, Heft 1, 3.Vol., P.15-17

Schneider, H. J. (2001): Opfer von Hassverbrechen junger Menschen: Wirkungen und Konsequenzen. In: Monatsschrift für Kriminologie und Strafrechtsreform, Issue 5, 84.Vol., P.357-371

Shaw, M. (2002): Preventing hate crimes: International Strategies and Practice. Online publication: http://www.crime-prevention-intl.org/publications/pub_3_1.pdf

Slavin, R.A./Cooper, R. (1999): Improving intergroup relations: Lessons learned from cooperative learning programs. In: Journal of Social Issues, 55, P.647-663

Stephan, W.G./Stephan, C.W. (1984): The role of ignorance in intergroup rela­tions. In: Miller, N./Brewer, M.B. (Ed.): Groups in contact. Orlando. P.229-278

Tonry, M./Farrington, D.P. (Ed.) (1995): Building a safer society. Crime and Justice. Band 19. Chicago/Lon­don

Wallace, H. (1998): Victimology. Boston/Lon­don/Toronto

Wasserman, G.A./Miller, L.S. (1998): The pre­ven­tion of serious and violent juvenile of­fending. In: Loeber, R./Far­rington, D.P. (Ed.): Serious and vio­lent ju­venile of­fen­ders. Thousand Oaks/London/New Del­hi. P.197-247

Wilson, D.B./Gottfredson, D.C./Najaka, S. (2001): School-Based prevention of problem behaviors: A meta – analysis. In: Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 17, P.268 et.sqq.

Willems, H./Würtz, S./Eckert, R. (1994): Analyse fremdenfeindlicher Straftäter. Bonn

Willems, H. (1995): Development, patterns and causes of violence against foreigners in Germany: Social and biographical characteristics of perpetrators and the process of escalation. In: Terrorism and political violence, Issue 1, 7.Vol., P.162-181

Zigler, E./Taussig, C./Black, K. (1992): Early childhood interven­tion. In: American Psy­chologist, 47, P.997-1006

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The authors:

Dieter Rössner is Professor at the Faculty of Law, and Director of the Institute of Criminology of the University of Marburg [Philipps-Universität], State of Hessen, Germany

Marc Coester is pedagogue and research associate at the Institute of Criminology of the University of Tübingen [Eberhard-Karls-Universität], State of Baden-Württemberg, Germany