Custom Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/A-General-Outlook-On-Hate-Crimes-In-Tur 👈

1. Available Online at http://iassr.org/journal
2013 (c) EJRE published by
International Association of Social Science Research - IASSR
European
Journal of
Research on
Education
ISSN: 2147-6284
European Journal of Research on Education, 2014, Special Issue: Contemporary Studies
in Social Science, 85-93
A general outlook on hate crimes in Turkey
Itır Tarı Cömert a
*, Emel Hülya Yükseloğlu b
, Itır Erkan c
, Mehmet Kostek d
, Ahmed
Serkan Emekli d
, Melek Özlem Kolusayın Ozar e
a
Hasan Kalyoncu University Psychology Department, Havalimanı Yolu 27410 Şahinbey Gaziantep, Turkey
b
Istanbul University Forensic Science Institution, Istanbul Universitesi Cerrahpaşa yerleşkesi adli tıp enstitüsü Istanbul, Turkey
c
YeniYuzyil University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Cevizlibag, Topkapı, Istanbul, Turkey
d
Istanbul University, Cerrahpasa Medical Faculty, Istanbul, Turkey.
e
Istanbul University, Cerrahpasa Medical Faculty, Department Of Forensic Medicine , Istanbul, Turkey
Abstract
Essentially, hate crimes are ‘message’ crimes. Beyond the individual against whom such crime is committed, the group to which
the individual belongs tois given the message that they are not welcomed in the society. Due to these crimes, the group members
to whom the above-mentioned messages are directed feel themselves rejected and under threat, are seized with fear, and may
experience such serious results as psychological trauma, suicide, etc. Hate crimes disrupt the harmony of mistreated individuals
and groups with the society as well astheir social sense of justice, and shake people's faith in the state institutions, organizations
and the supremacy of law. They trigger hate and prejudice between different social groups. When hate crimes are not prosecuted
adequately, they encourage prejudiced people and groups to commit new crimes. They cause mistreated groups to be
marginalized and driven out of the social life. The purpose of this study is to determine the awareness about hate crimes of
individuals coming to university hospitals located in Istanbul due to various reasons, and find out whether they have been
subjected to any hate crime. To this end 495 questionnaires returned were evaluated and subjected to statistical examination.
While 56% (n: 277) of the participants were female, 44% (n: 218) of the participants were male. While 61.2% (n: 298) knew
what hate crime means, 32.4% (n: 158) were subjected to a hate crime. The most commonly experienced hate crime was found to
be physical violence (9.9 [n: 49]). Recently, various studies have been carried out in forensic/social sciences in order to
emphasize the importance of this subject in Turkey which has started to be used in new legal structures more frequently at the
present time.
© 2014 European Journal of Research on Education by IASSR.
Keywords: Hate crime, hate speech, racism, violent
1. Introduction
The aims of this paper are to discuss the dispersion of ‘hate crimes’ in Turkey and to reveal the factors that could
cause exposure or perpetration to any kind of hate crimes. Thus the findings obtained from our study can provide a
basis on the ongoing peace continuum in Turkey. In order represshate crimes from community, it is very important
to determine the effective factors that could result with offense. Understanding the hate offender’s cognitive
distortions also helps in developing therapeutic interventions with the victims.
Hate crime is described as a displeasure in which the victim is targeted because of victims race, colour, gender,
religion, handicap, sexual orientation or politics. Hate crimes, sometimes termed as “bias-motivated
*E-mail address: itirtari@gmail.com

2. Itır Tarı Cömert , Emel Hülya Yükseloğlu, Itır Erkan, Mehmet Kostek, Ahmet Serkan Emekli and Melek Özlem Kolusayın Ozar
86
crimes”,arecriminal offenses committed against a person or property that is guided, in whole or in part, by the
criminal’s prejudice (Sullaway, 2004; Petrosino, 1999). Recently there has been a noticeable interest in research and
legislative action given to the subject of hate crimes. This social problem was discussed through experiential and
practical studies, but, most of those researches dealt with case studies, presumption studies of hate crime
victimization, and some particularoffenderpopulations such as skinheads. A hate crime is a traditional offense like
murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. According to these crimes, the group members whom
arediscouraged by a gang or group are forced tofeel themselves sidelined and under threat, are possessed with fear,
and may encounterheavyconsequencessuchas drug addiction, psychological trauma, suicide, etc. (Herek, 1989).
On the basis of the legal definition, most hate crime researchers try to explain hate crime as anexpression of
intergroup conflict or violence and as triggered by the distinctiveness of the victim(s), because the offender only
targets victims with different group memberships (Levin &McDevitt, 2002; Levin &Rabrenovic, 2001). This
approach of hate crime has influenced both clinical concerns againsthate crime victims and researchers to focus on
the damage of hate crime. The theoretical bases for bias and prejudice are no different for disability than for other
targeted groups (Chesler, 1965; Yuker, 1965). The social identity model maintains that simple awareness of another
group’s existence leads to derogatory attitudes toward that group and favouritism toward one’s own group (Turner et
al., 1979).
Psychodynamic theory holds several explanations for bias: Motivational tension is seeded in authoritarian
personalities; aggression is displaced toward out groups perceived to have less power or status; and the perception
that disability is linked to fragile health and mortality gives rise to existential anxiety; and the view that disability
may result in a loss of attractiveness leads to aesthetic anxiety (Adorno et. al, 1950; Hahn, 1988; Sherif, 1964).
Public opinion assumes that hate crimes are more damaging to the social fabric than are crimes not motivated by
group animus. Hate crimes’ damage to intergroup relations is believed to generate a source of psychosocial stress
within the victims’ community and society at large. Increases in psychosocial stress create a less positive
environment for all citizens, including victims, and exert negative effects upon people’s mental health (Aneshensel,
1992, 1996; Thoits, 1983). Furthermore, damage to intergroup relationships might also make hate crime perpetrators
more hateful and aggressive, which contributes to an escalation of conflict and violence. This kind of “contagion
effect,” where the negative impact of a stressor is not limited to a single person but penetrates the entire social
network, has been demonstrated in previous research across various domains (Coyne et al., 1987; Johnson, 1991;
McLoyd, 1989; Noh &Avison, 1988).
Research regarding people’s beliefs about hate crimes sheds light on the kinds of attitudes that facilitate the
occurrence of hate crimes, as well as those that discourage them. (Craig, 1999; Craig & Waldo, 1996). Social
scientists, legal theorists, law enforcement, and laypersons have all struggled to understand and address these
problems on sometimes parallel and complementary courses. The juxtaposition of broad societal agreement on the
values of equality and tolerance and the presence of intergroup tensions arising from long-standing status
differences in society as well as increasing ethnic and social diversity have created a new category of criminalized
behavior: hate crime. (Garcia &McDevitt, 1999; Herek, 1999; Hamm, 1994; Levin &McDevitt, 1993; Miethe&
McCorkle, 1998).
Although a few researchers have started to address issues surrounding people’s perceptions of hate crimes, more
work needs to be done. Recently, various studies have been carried out in forensic/social sciences in order to
emphasize the importance of this subject in Turkey which has started to be used in new legal structures more
frequently at the present time.
Hate groups can be described as groups whose main purpose is to encourage and promote enmity, antagonism,
and, occasionally, violence against the people from a different race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, sex, or sexual
orientation than that of the hate group. In contrast to general belief, most hate crimesare not committed by the
organized hate groups or their members. Organized groups justify about the 8% to 15% of all hate crimes. Even
though many offenders of hate crimes do not consent to get into the uniforms or put on the symbols, they are still
inspired by the philosophy and symbols of white race superiority and other organized racialist groups. Most
offenders of hate crimes are male and white, 16 to 25 years of age. However, offenders, culprits and victims of hate
crime violence cover all ethnic and racial groups. Hate crimes generallycome out in the night and on specific

3. A general outlook on hate crimes in Turkey
87
holidays or celebrations. Approximately half of all assaultive hate crimes a weapon is involved, and victims of such
violence are likely to sustain severe physical and psychological injury than that of the victims of other types of
violent crime.
Hate crime represents a distinct form of interpersonal and intergroup hostility and assault and maycover
intimidation, terrorization, bullying,vandalism,molestation, physical and verbal assaults, and sometimes murder. A
hate crime is an illegal act comprising of intentional and planned selection of a victim depending on an offender’s
prejudice against the actual or perceived status of the victim. Victims of hate crimes featurereligious and ethnic
minorities, homosexuals including gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. Such crimes committed by reason of a person’s
actual or perceived membership in a colour, race, belief, credo, religion, gender, lineage and ancestry, physical
and/or mental disability, sexual orientation, or nationality. Hate crimes represent a unique type of aggression and
hostility including the intent to harm, butalso serves instrumental and symbolic functions for offenders. Another way
that hate crimes differ from other aggressive criminal offenses is that hate crimes generally involve multiple
offenders. The poor and marginalized groups of society increasingly continue to be pressured to renounce wealth,
power and control.
Despite several explanations thatmay be applicable to hate crime occurrents and incidents, neither can fully
account for all types of hate crimes. The reason is that factors that promote and play a part in ahate crime differ
remarkably for each case. In order to explain hate crimes, a consideration and concern of all potentially relevant
justifications is necessary.
2. Methodology
The questionnaire included both likert-type scalingand open ended questions, which consisted of hate crime,
exposure to hate crime and committed hate crime with some different variables. Scales were consisted of 37
questions. It also contained demographic characteristics questions. Sample size was of495 people. In aresearch with
this sample size, acceptable precision frequencies differ between 1% and 50% and this could be applied to thewhole
population. (Power %90,estimated precision limit from %1to %50 ±5). Selection of samples is actualized randomly.
Field survey is performed between June-December 2012. Questionnaires were applied to population by special
instructed medicine school students named as pollsters in random regions. In analysis, to make the evaluation of
questionnaires easier, likert-type answers were converted to dichotomy. During statistical analysis, descriptive
analysis was applied to dispersion of demographical data Crosstab and chi-square was performed for questions
related to hate crimes. Statistical operations were performed via SPSS 18.0 package.
3. Results
Participants were consisted of 495 people. 56% (n: 277) of the participants were female, and 44% (n: 218) were
male. The ages of participants varied between 17 and 66. 17.75% (n: 81) of the participants were 21 years old.
Based on the educational statuses of the participants, it was observed that 66.7% (n: 324) of the participants had
bachelor degree.86.3 % (n: 427) of the participants were single, 13.1% (n: 65) were married, and 0.6% (n: 3) were
divorced. According to the monthly income of the participants, 6.3% (n: 30) had a monthly income ofat least
12,000 TL while 30.3% (n: 145) had a monthly income of at most 3000 TL. 22% (n: 105) of the participants did not
want to answer this question. 73.6% (n: 359) of the participants were unemployed, 17% (n: 83) had a full-time job, and
9.4% (n: 46) had a part-time job. While 2.8% (n: 14) of the participants were housewives, 65.7% (n: 325) were
students.
Corresponding to dispersion of ethnic origin of the participants 72.3% (n: 358) were Turkish-origin, 6.9% (n: 34)
were Kurdish-origin, and 1.4% (n: 7) were immigrants. The rest of the participants were members of Azerbaijani,
Laz, Armenian, Rum, Jewish and Arabic origin. Also 85.9% (n: 425) of the participants were Muslims, 11.1% (n:
55) were Christians, 1.2% were atheists and the rest were members of other religions. The most prominent sects
among the Muslim participants were sunnism 22.6% (n: 112) and shafiism 2.6% (n: 13). Among the political

4. Itır Tarı Cömert , Emel Hülya Yükseloğlu, Itır Erkan, Mehmet Kostek, Ahmet Serkan Emekli and Melek Özlem Kolusayın Ozar
88
choices, where 18.3% (n: 101) of the participants had a choice of left-wing politics 12.9% (n: 64) had a choice of
right-wing politics.
However 61.6% (n: 300) of the participants stated that they knew what hate crime meant, 38.4% (n: 195) claimed
that they did not know that it meant. 32.6% (n: 159) of the participants were subjected to hate crime, 67.4% (n:
336) were not exposed to such crime. While 15.8% (n: 80) of the participants were subjected to a hate crime due to
their ethnic origin, 83.8% (n: 415) were not exposed to any hate crime because of their ethnic origin. 4.9% (n: 29) of the
participants committed a hate crime against someone else for his/her ethnic origin, 95.1% (n: 466) didn’t commit a hate
crime against someone else for his/her ethnic origin.
Whereas 19.8% (n: 98) of the participants were subjected to a hate crime due to fanaticism, 11.2% (n: 55) of the
participants committed a hate crimedue to fanaticism. 88.8% (n: 440) of participants committed a hate crime due to
someone’s ethnic origin. When the participants were asked whether they had been exposed to any hate crime due to their
religious preference, 16.8% (n: 83) said "yes", 83.2% (n: 412) said "no". When the participants were asked whether they
had committed any hate crime against someone else due to his/her religious preference, 16.8% (n: 9) said "yes" even as
98.2% (n: 486) said "no".
The participants were asked whether they had been exposed to any hate crime due to their language, 6.3% (n: 31)
marked "yes" meanwhile 93.7% (n: 464) marked "no". When the participants were asked whether they had committed
any hate crime against someone else due to his/her language, 1.8% (n: 9) marked "yes”.According to the twenty first and
twenty second questions, 3% (n: 15) and 4% (n: 20) of the participants marked "yes" respectively. Even though 97% and
95.9% (n: 475) of the participants (n: 480) stated "no”. As regardsquestions 23 and 24, 16.3% (n: 80) and5.9% (n: 29)
answered "yes", 83.7% (n: 415) and 94.1% (n: 466) answered "no"respectively.
When the participants were asked whether they wanted towork with a person or people from different ethnic origin
and religion, 90.5% (n: 477) and89.55 (n: 437) of the participants answered as "yes", 9.5% (n: 48) and 10.5% (n: 58)
answered as "no"respectively. Also 72.4% (n: 354) and 57.9% (n: 281) answered the questions 28 and 30 as "yes" while
27.6% (n: 141) and42.1% (n: 214) said "no"respectively. Moreover 13.8% (n: 68) of the participants had to hide their
ethnic origin, language, or religion during their school or business life, 86.2 (n: 427) did not have to hide such
characteristics. Disability was determined as a detractive factor on commitment or exposure to hate crimes. 1.2% (n: 6)
and1.2% (n: 6) of the participants answered the questions 25 and 26 as “yes" respectively. Based on the consequences
of the thirty second question, hate crimes were encountered commonly in Turkey, 90.3% (n: 446).As 17.5% (n: 86)
of the participants stated that family was the most important factor in the proliferation of "hate crime", 39.7% (n:
195) mentioned community and 42.8% (n: 218) media as the most important factor. Also 88.8% (n: 438) of the
participants declared that TV series and films had an effect on the proliferation of hate crimes, 11.2% (n: 57)
declared that series and films did not have such an effect. The results of question 36 stated the most frequent
location that have been exposed a hate crime was “neighbourhood” and “school” with 19.6% (n: 97) and 11.3% (n:
56). When the participants were asked whether there was any regulation about hate crimes in Turkey, 45% (n: 201)
answered as "yes" while 55% (n: 294) answered as "no".
Table 1. Types of the exposed hate crime
Table 1.shows the possible types of exposed hate crimes. The results indicate that the most frequent type was
detected as physical assaults with 25.5% (n: 249) whereas visual harassment were rarely encountered.
Freq %
Physical assault 249 25.5
Violence or assault threats 188 15.6
Abuse (verbal, sexual, physical) 28 14.6
Damaging property or belongings 59 9.9
Racist, detesting or aggressive vandalism 30 15.6
Visual Harassment (Offensive brochures and posters) 19 7.3
Extortion at school or work place 122 11.5

5. A general outlook on hate crimes in Turkey
89
Table 2.The statistical evaluation of the exposed hate crimes via age. (P<0.05)
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 495.054a
80 .000
Likelihood Ratio 63.736 80 .908
Linear-by-Linear Association .062 1 .804
Table 2.showed that there was a statistical significance between age and hate crime exposure. A negative
correlation was established between participant’s age and exposure. As the age of the participants decreased, the
exposure rate to hate crimes increased.
Table 3.The statistical evaluation of the exposed hate crimes due to age via ethnic origin. (P<0.05)
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 78.059a
40 .000
Likelihood Ratio 68.316 40 .003
Linear-by-Linear Association 19.322 1 .000
Table 4.The statistical evaluation of the committed hate crimes due to age via mental and physical disabilities. (P<0.05)
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 84.275a
40 .000
Likelihood Ratio 23.486 40 .983
Linear-by-Linear Association .878 1 .349
A negative correlation was determined on exposed hate crimes among age via participant’s ethnicity and gender
preferenceon Table 3. and 4. respectively. Decrease on age causes an increase on exposure of hate crimes related
with both ethnicity and disability.
Table 5.The statistical evaluation of the committed hate crimes due to age via sexual preferences. (P<0.05)
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 83.085a
40 .000
Likelihood Ratio 35.617 40 .668
Linear-by-Linear Association 2.099 1 .147
Following statistical comparisons a significant difference between age via sexual preference. The commitment
rate of hate crimes increases, as the age of the participant’s increases.
Table 6.The statistical evaluation of the committed hate crimes due to age via mental and physical disabilities. (P<0.05)
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 77.447a
40 .000
Likelihood Ratio 19.609 40 .997
Linear-by-Linear Association .984 1 .321

6. Itır Tarı Cömert , Emel Hülya Yükseloğlu, Itır Erkan, Mehmet Kostek, Ahmet Serkan Emekli and Melek Özlem Kolusayın Ozar
90
The statistical relation for age via disability was significant. Higher rates of the committed hate crimes were
connected with the growing ages.
Table 7.The statistical evaluation of the exposed hate crimes due to educational status via ethnicity. (P<0.05)
Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 15.571a
4 .004
Likelihood Ratio 12.324 4 .015
Linear-by-Linear Association 3.375 1 .066
According to the relation between exposed hate crimes due to educational status via ethnicity, asignificant
correlation was established. As the educational status increases, the rate of hate crime exposure increases.
4. Discussion and Conclusion
Hate crime is an unfortunate expression of negative stereotypes, prejudice, discrimination, and intergroup
tensions. Politics, social values, and the related Dynamics of public opinion play a role in responses to such
aggression. Arguably, the voice and experiences of minority victims of hate crime have not played a sufficiently
central role in the debates that have raged and continue to rage concerning justifications for special treatment of hate
crime and hate speech. Instead the voices of vested power and privilege have been more central to this debate and
have thusfar heavily influenced its course. The work collected in this issue is one significant step toward rectifying
that imbalance. A common thread in the diverse approaches to understand hate crime presented in this issue is a
verification of the profound and complex nature of the victim’s experience as set in the broader context of social
forces that discourage or tacitly facilitate hate crime. Thus, we view each of these articles as a significant
contribution to the literature and anticipate, as a result, stimulus to further empirical inquiry into these and other
related areas of hate crime research.
Different types of violence that occur frequently have created a serious threat for sanity of the public and
individuals. Recently hate crimes were determined as the most often type of the committed crimes in improved
society. No advanced researches were performed about occurrency rate of hate crimes in Turkey contemporarily.
Hate is a strong term to use in this context. According to most researchers in this area, hate crime activity is likely to
continue (Jenness& Broad, 1997; Levin &McDevitt, 1993; Tryman, 1992). This dire prediction results from
recognition of the interaction of two separate, though significant, factors: one having to do with forecasted
demographic trends, and the other having to do with the seemingly collective endorsement of violence. Hate crime
is an unfortunate expression of negative stereotypes, prejudice, discrimination, and intergroup tensions. Politics,
social values, and the related dynamics of public opinion play an important role in respondents to such aggression.
Arguably, the voice and experiences of minority victims of hate crime have not played a sufficiently central role in
the debates that have raged and continue to rage concerning justifications for special treatment of hate crime and
hate speech. Instead the voices of vested power and privilege have been more central to this debate and have thus far
heavily influenced its course. The work collected in this issue is one significant step toward rectifying that
imbalance. A common thread in the various approaches to understanding hate crime presented in this issue is a
verification of the profound and complex nature of the victim’s experience as set in the broader context of social
forces that discourage or tacitly facilitate hate crime (Craig, &Waldo, 1996).
In our study, a positive correlation was detected between age and exposure to a hate crime. All of the previous
studies were focused on specific structured groups and neither of them implied the interaction between age factors
and hate crime. Thus creates an important deficiency on general scanning about hate crime generations (Sullaway,
2004).
Most of previous researchespoint out that the bonds among the ethnicity and hate crimes are typical. Inquired
literature suggests that different ethnicities like Hispanic, Asian and African were threatened by exposure to hate

7. A general outlook on hate crimes in Turkey
91
crimes. We determined that individuals that have different origins except Turkish origin are under the risk of hate
crime subjection(Weiss, 2005).
Franklin finds relatively high rates of self-reported antigay offending and name-calling, as our findings are
similar to them, this means future research should explore more directly how individual perceptions of hate crimes
and/or support for hate crime legislation translate into reporting and other actions, such as the commission of bias-
motivated behaviour (Franklin, 2000).
Roulstone et al. draw out key aspects of hate crime policy, practice, and challenges the constructions of disability
by the approach and defects of the British criminal justice system. They assumed that when the nature of a person's
disability makes it easier for the offender to commit a particular offence, police and prosecutors often focus on the
victim being "vulnerable", an "easy target" and no further thought is given to the issue of hostility. Also we
suggested that disability was defined as an important point on hate crime commitment and exposure. Vulnerability
issue was brought out in our study in the same way. Protective roles of justice system were insufficient to apply
suitable touch. (Roulstone et al., 2011).
The most frequent type of hate crime exposure action was determined as physical assault and violence in this
paper. Past researches suggest that highly educated family structure creates a positive protective factor on sensitivity
against hate crimes. Family acquired attitude created a decisive awareness against physical assault and violence
related hate crime actions. Also social learning theory suggests such idea of created awareness thus comes out with
negative interaction between education level of family and hate crime actions. (Lyons, 2008; Bandura, 1971).
Sensitivity to the status of victims and offenders is also conditioned by witness race and gender. This is more
likely to all hate crime studies. Specifically, findings suggest a degree of in-group protectionism among minorities.
As suggested by social identity theory individuals may be motivated toward ethnocentric bias. Incidents involving
victims with in-group characteristics may be viewed as more personally threatening than incidents involving out-
group victims and our finding are similar to literature (Tajfel& Turner, 1986).
Sexual oriented studies pointed outthat lesbian, gay, and bisexual people might be particularly vulnerable to the
commitment of hate crimes. Although no significant differences were observed among the bisexual or homosexual
victims via hate crime rate, survivors manifested different types of hate crime actions and responses. Hate crimes
were less likely than nonbiased crimes to have been reported to police authorities. Similar findings were detected in
our present paper. This situation recommends that victims had experienced criminal victimization because of their
sexual orientation (Herek et al., 1999).Antigay attitudes played an important role in how the victim of an intended
antigay hate crime was perceived. In accordance with our hypotheses, we found that antigay attitudes were
significant predictors of anger against the hate crime victim, disapproval of the hate crime victim, and support of the
hate crime perpetrators. People with negative attitudes toward gays were more inclined to be angry and disapproving
of the hate crime victim and his actions.
Recently, the general situation of Turkey manifests that there is an increase on the rate of hate crimes due to
increasing racism, nationalism and adamant of society. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
(OSCE) reported that extensive hate crime commitment resides in Turkey; however mentioned crimes had been
ignored or covered improperly by the Turkish government. No official records or cases about the presence of the
hate crimes were noted, also governmental corporations were not formed and no present exploration about bias or
nonbiased crimes for taking precautions were performed by Turkish government. Moreover legal regulations about
punishment of the hate crime acts were not established in Turkish Criminal Justice System, this situation created a
loop hole about hate crime committers and remained them un-penalized or guilty about another type of crime.
According to the criminal records of Turkish Criminal Justice System legislation, no individuals were trailed against
the commitment of hate crime by racism or discrimination.
In spite of the articles in the Constitution and laws in Turkish legislation, nobody has so far been tried for
engaging in racist or discriminatory acts or committing a hate crime. Almost all of the people tried for this crime
have consisted of writers, scholars and human rights advocates who opposed the hate crimes in Turkey stemming
from racism, nationalism and intolerance apart from a couple of exceptions. Therefore, the law has been enforced in
reverse direction. The crimes that actually had to be judged have not been heard at courts, but the people who wrote
about and expressed their thoughts on the law itself or acted for the law to be enacted have been put on trial.

8. Itır Tarı Cömert , Emel Hülya Yükseloğlu, Itır Erkan, Mehmet Kostek, Ahmet Serkan Emekli and Melek Özlem Kolusayın Ozar
92
Recently the most important issue on approaching bias crimes was not the laws or penal code but the accession of
the society from the beginning of 2006, Turkey has hosted to series of felonies exposed by ethnical or religious
minorities and groups with different sexual orientation or preferences. Physical assaults and violence against
communities with different political opinions represent another vintage point of the motivated bias crime issue.
Minority groups may have good reasons for claiming that Turkey is in the throes of an epidemic. An "epidemic"
demands attention, remedial actions, resources, and reparations. The electronic and print media also have reasons to
support the existence of a rampant hate crime epidemic. Crime sells—so does racism, sexism, and homophobia.
Garden variety crime has become mundane. The law and order drama has to be revitalized if it is to command
attention. Clearly, violence motivated by racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and other biases is not new. Perhaps
what is new is greater intolerance against prejudice. The conclusion that hate crime has reached epidemic
proportions today simply evinces the fact that bias crime is now much less acceptable and that victimized groups
have a special social and political status. Thus, we view each of these articles as a significant contribution to the
literature and anticipate, as a result, stimulus to further empirical inquiry into these and other related areas of hate
crime research. Hate crimes creates a deeper physical and emotional impact affecting the victims and groups with
same social characteristics than non-motivated crimes. Related deeper social impacts were determined an important
issue that hate crimes should be evaluated more carefully and separately than the non motivated crimes by official
foundations.
In consideration of the reason why the results of the this study do not overlap with the results from other studies,
one may conclude that the parameters used for the analysis and the lack of knowledge about hate crimes in Turkey
on a conceptual basis may have had an impact on this. The studies conducted on hate crimes demonstrate that the
individuals define an act of crime as a hate crime and show a positive and protective attitude towards the victim in
cases where a victim was the subject of a hate crime on account of a personal characteristic (39, 43, 44, 57, 61, 62,
68).
In that respect, this study also purported to investigate especially the effect of the sex as well as the sexual
orientation of the victim on the mentioned attitude. Accordingly, it is seen that the participants demonstrate a more
positive attitude if the victim is from the female sex regardless of the sexual orientation of the victim. However, it is
still considered that the most positive attitudes by the participants are reserved for heterosexual female victims. On
the other hand, in cases where the victim is male, a heterosexual victim is again seen in a more positive light as
compared to a homosexual victim. It is possible to summarize this result as follows: the most positive attitude was
shown towards a female heterosexual victim, whereas the most negative attitude was shown towards a male
homosexual victim. Additionally, it was observed that female participants found male homosexual victims more
negative as compared to female homosexual victims and that the male participants showed a significantly more
positive attitude towards heterosexual female victims. One can mention the existence of a protective attitude towards
women as the reason behind this positive attitude shown by the participants for victims of the female sex. The fact
that homosexual female victims are seen in a more positive light as compared to male victims can be explained as
being a result of the same protective attitude as well as the perception that being a lesbian is perceived to be less
dangerous than male homosexuality (8). The fact that the most negative attitude was shown to male homosexual
victims manifests itself as a result which is in parallel with the perception of male sexuality as the most dangerous
mode with respect to gender roles as discussed above.
References
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., &Sanford, R. N. (1950).The authoritarian personality.New York: Harper Brothers.
Aneshensel, C. S. (1992). Social stress: Theory and research. In J. Blake & J. Hagan (Eds.), Annual reviewof sociology (pp. 15–38). Palo Alto,
CA: Annual Reviews.
Aneshensel, C. S. (1996). Consequences of psychosocial stress. In H. B. Kaplan (Ed.), Psychosocial stress:Perspectives on structure, theory, life-
course, and methods (pp. 111–136). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory.New York: General Learning Press.
Bartle E E. Lesbians and Hate Crimes.Journal of Poverty. (2000). Vol. 4 (4)
Chesler, M. A. (1965). Ethnocentrism and attitudes toward the physicallydisabled.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 877–882.

9. A general outlook on hate crimes in Turkey
93
Coyne, J. C., Kessler, R. C., Tal, M., Turnbull, J., Wortman, C. B., &Greden, J. F. (1987).Living with a depressed person.Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 55, 347–352.
Craig, K. M., Waldo, C. R. (1996). “So what’s a hate crime anyway?” Young adults’ perceptions of hate crimes, victims, and perpetrators.Law
and Human Behavior, 20, 113–129.
Craig, K. M., &Waldo, C. R. (1996). “So what’s a hate crime anyway?” Young adults’ perceptions of hate crimes, victims, and perpetrators.Law
and Human Behavior, 20, 113–129.
Craig, K.M. (1999). Retaliation, fear or rage: An investigation of African American andWhite reactions to racist hate crimes. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 14, 138–151.
Franklin, K. (2000). Antigay behaviors among young adults.Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15(4), 339–362.
Garcia, L., McDevitt, J. (1999). The psychological and behavioral effects of bias and nonbias motivated assault. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute ofJustice.
Hahn, H. (1988). Can disability be beautiful? Social Policy, 18(3), 26–32.
Hamm, M. S. (1994). Conceptualizing hate crime in a global context.In M. S.
Hamm (Ed.), Hate crime:International perspectives of causes and control (pp. 173–194). Cincinnati, OH: AndersonPublishing and Academy of
Criminal Justice Sciences.
Herek, G. M. (1989). Hate crimes against lesbians and gay men: Issues for research and policy. American Psychologist, 44, 948–955.
Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., & Cogan, J. C. (1999).Psychological sequelae of hate-crimevictimization among lesbian, gay and bisexual
adults.Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology, 67, 945–951.
Jenness, V., & Broad, K. (1997). Hate crimes. New social movements and the politics of violence. New York:Walter de Gruyter.
Johnson, T. P. (1991). Mental health, social relations, and social selection: A longitudinal analysis. Journalof Health and Social Behavior, 32,
408–423.
Lee J A. Judging The Hate Crime Victim: Law School Student Perceptions and the Effects of Individual and Law School Factors. (2005).
DoktoraTezi. The School of Graduate Studies and Research Department of Criminology, Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Levin, J., &McDevitt, J. (1993).Hate crimes: The rising tide of bigotry and bloodshed. New York:Plenum Press.
Levin, J., &McDevitt, J. (2002).Hate crimes revisited: American’s war against those who are different. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Levin, J., &Rabrenovic, G. (2001). Hate crimes and ethic conflict: A comparativeperspective. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 574–755.
Lyons, C. (2008). Individual Perceptions and the social Construction of the hate crimes: A factorial Survey. The Social Science Journal
45(2008):107-131.
Marcus-Newhall A, Blake L P, Baumann J. Perceptions of Hate Crime Perpetrators and Victims as Influenced by Race, Political Orientation and
Peer Group. American Behavioral Scientist. (2002). Vol. 46 (1), p 108-135.
McLoyd, V. C. (1989). Socialization and development in a changing economy.American Psychologist, 44, 293–302.
Miethe, T. D., & McCorkle, R. C. (1998).Crime profiles. The anatomy of dangerous persons, places,and situations. Los Angeles: Roxbury
Publishing.
Noh, S., &Avison,W. R. (1988). Spouses of discharged psychiatric patients: Factors associated with their experience of burden. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 50, 377–389.
Pearlman T. An Exploration of Citizen Opinion On Bias Crime. (2006). DoktoraTezi. School of Criminal Justice, University at Albany, State
University of New York
Petrosino, C. (1999). Connecting the past to the future: Hate crime in America.Journal of ContemporaryCriminal Justice, 15(1), 22–47.
Rayburn N. R, Davison G,C. Articulated Thoughts About Antigay Hate Crimes. Cognitive Therapy and Research, Vol. 26, No. 4, August 2002 (
C ° 2002), pp. 431–44
Rayburn N R, Mendoza M, Davison G C. Bystanders’ Perception of Perpetrators and Victims of Hate Crimes.JournalOf Interpersonal Violence.
(2003). Vol. 18(9), p 1055-1074.
Recker N. Articulated Thoughts About Intentions to Commit Anti-Gay Hate Crimes. (2000). YükseklisansTezi.Faculty of the Graduate School,
University of Southern California.
RoulstoneA,Thomas P, Balderston S. Between hate and vulnerability: unpacking the British criminal justice system’s construction of disablist
hate crime. Disability & Society. Vol. 26, No. 3, May 2011, 351–364.
Saucier D A, Brown T L, Mitchell R C, Cawman A J. Effects of Victim’s Characteristics on Attitudes Toward Hate Crimes. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence. (2006). Vol. 21 (7), p 890-909.
Sherif, M. (1964).Reference groups: Exploration into conformity and deviationof adolescents. Scranton, PA: HarperCollins College Division.
Sullaway, M. (2004).Psychological perspective on hate crime laws.Psychology, Public, Policy, and Law, 10, 250–292.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986).The social identity theory of intergroup behavior.InStephenWorchel&WilliamG. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of
intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Thoits, P. A. (1983). Dimensions of life events that influence psychological distress: An evaluation and synthesis of the literature. In H. B.
Kaplan (Ed.), Psychosocial stress: Trends in theory and research (pp. 33–103). New York: Academic Press.
Turner, J. C., Brown, R. J., &Tajfel, H. (1979).Social comparison and group interest in in-group favoritism.European Journal of Social
Psychology,9, 187–204.
Weiss, J. C. (2005). Working with victims of hate crimes.In G. L. Greif, & P. H. Ephrosss (Eds.), Group work with populations at risk (2nd ed.,
pp. 197–221). New York: Oxford University Press.
Yuker, H. (1965). Attitudes as determinants of behavior.Journal of Rehabilitation,31, 5–16.