Preface 12

8/13/2019 Preface 12

1/32

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT O F JUSTICE

N C LIFORNI

KAMALA D HARRISTTORNEY GENER L

CALIFORNIA JUSTICE INFORMATION SERVICES DIVISIONBUREAU OF CRIMINAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS

CRIMINAL JUSTICE STATISTICS CENTERP.O. Box 903427

SACRAMENTO, CA 94203-4270DOJ .CJSC@DOJ .CA.GOV

HTTP: AG.CA.GOV CJSC/ PUBS.PHP
http:///reader/full/AG.CA.GOVhttp:///reader/full/AG.CA.GOV

8/13/2019 Preface 12

2/32

blank

8/13/2019 Preface 12

3/32

HATE CRIME EVENTS DECREASE IN CALIFORNIA

CRIME DATA

HATE CRIME EVENTS DECREASE IN CALIFORNIA

The total number of hate crime events, offenses, victims, and suspects all decreased in

2012.

Hate Crime in California, 2012reports statistics on hate crimes that occurred inCalifornia during 2012. These statistics include the number of hate crime events, hate

crime offenses, victims of hate crimes, and suspects of hate crimes. This report also

provides statistics from district and city attorneys on the number of hate crime cases

referred to prosecutors, the number of cases filed in court, and the disposition of those

cases. Finally, this report puts these statistics in a historical perspective by providing

trend information on the number and types of hate crimes during the past ten years.

All law enforcement agencies, district attorneys and specified elected city attorneys

offices in California, in cooperation with the Department of Justice, have developed

local data collection programs and submitted hate crime statistics for this 2012 edition

ofHate Crime in California.

The following statements highlight the major trends inHate Crime in California for

2012.

CRIME DATA

Hate crime events decreased 12.3 percent from 1,060 in 2011 to 930 in 2012.

Hate crime events involving a race/ethnicity/national origin bias decreased 10.1

percent from 587 in 2011 to 528 in 2012.Hate crime events involving a sexual orientation bias decreased 3.7 percent from

244 in 2011 to 235 in 2012.

Hate crime events involving a religious bias decreased 27.9 percent from 201 in

2011 to 145 in 2012.

Hate crime offenses decreased 12.8 percent from 1,347 in 2011 to 1,174 in 2012.

Violent crime offenses decreased 7.8 percent from 825 in 2011 to 761 in 2012.

Property crime offenses decreased 20.6 percent from 514 in 2011 to 408 in 2012.

The number of victims of reported hate crimes decreased 7.8 percent from 1,232 in

2011 to 1,136 in 2012.

The number of suspects of reported hate crimes decreased 7.2 percent from 1,010 in

2011 to 937 in 2012.

HATE CRIME IN CALIFORNIA 2012 3

8/13/2019 Preface 12

4/32

PROSECUTORIAL DATA

Of the 308 hate crimes that were referred for prosecution, 216 cases were filed by

district attorneys and elected city attorneys for prosecution. Of the 216 cases that

were filed for prosecution, 158 were filed as hate crimes and 58 were filed as non-

bias motivated crimes.

Of the 124 cases with a disposition available for this report:

39.5 percent (49) were hate crime convictions;

46.8 percent (58) were other convictions; and

13.7 percent (17) were not convicted.

TREND DATA

The total number of hate crime events has decreased 37.6 percent from 1,491 to 930since 2003.

Violent crime offenses have decreased 39.2 percent from 1,252 to 761 since 2003.

Property crime offenses have decreased 27.5 percent from 563 to 408 since 2003.

Hate crimes with a race/ethnicity/national origin bias are consistently the most

common type of hate crime in the last ten years, accounting for 56.8 percent of all

hate crime events in 2012.

Within this category, hate crimes with an anti-black bias motivation continue to be

the most common hate crime, accounting for approximately one-third of all hate

crime events since 2003.

Hate crimes with a sexual orientation bias were the second most common type of hate

crime, comprising 25.3 percent of hate crimes reported in 2012.

Within this category, hate crimes with an anti-homosexual motivation have

increased 23.9 percent since 2003.

Hate crimes with a religious bias were the third most common type of hate crime,

comprising 15.6 percent of all hate crimes reported in 2012.

Within this category, hate crimes with an anti-Jewish motivation continue to be

the most common, accounting for approximately one-tenth of all hate events

reported since 2003.

Hate crime complaints filed for prosecution have decreased 48.0 percent from 304 in

2003 to 158 in 2012.

4 HATE CRIME IN CALIFORNIA 2012

8/13/2019 Preface 12

5/32

Table 1H TE CRIMES, 2012Events, Offenses, Victims, and Suspects by Bias Motivation

Events Offenses Victims SuspectsBias motivation Number Percent Percent Number Percent Percentof total of bias of total of bias PercentNumber of total Percentof bias Number Percent Percentof total of biasTotal ........................................ ....... 930 100 .0 1 174 100.0 1 136 100.0 937 100.0Single bias total. ...................... 928 99.8 1 169 99.6 1 133 99.7 933 99.6

Race/ethnicity/national origin ... 528 56.8 100.0 683 58.2 100.0 659 58.0 100.0 538 57.4 100.0Anti-white ................... ............... 40 4.3 7.6 42 3.6 6.1 41 3.6 6.2 45 4 8 8.4Anti-black ................... .......... . . 289 31 .1 54.7 386 32.9 56.5 3 69 32.5 56.0 322 34.4 59.9Anti-Hispanic ............. .. . . 88 9.5 16.7 111 9.5 16.3 108 9.5 16.4 103 11.0 19.1Anti-American Indian/Alaskan native ......... .. . 3 0.3 0.6 3 0.3 0.4 3 0.3 0.5 2 0.2 0.4Anti-Asian/Pacific Islander ......... 23 2.5 4.4 29 2.5 4.2 27 2.4 4.1 13 1.4 2.4Anti-multiple races, group .... .. .. . 22 2.4 4.2 31 2.6 4.5 30 2.6 4.6 9 1.0 1.7Anti-other ethnicity/national origin... . . . . . . . .. . . 62 6.7 11.7 80 6.8 11.7 80 7.0 12.1 44 4 7 8.2Anti-citizenship status . . . . . 1 0.1 0.2 1 0.1 0.1 1 0 .1 0.2 0 0.0 0.0

Religion .......... .............. ............ . . 145 15.6 100.0 166 14.1 100.0 161 14 2 100.0 69 7 4 100.0Anti-Jewish. ........ ... ... ........... ...... . 91 9.8 62 .8 106 9.0 63.9 102 9.0 63.4 37 3.9 53 .6Anti-Catholic .... ........ .... .............. 7 0.8 4.8 7 0.6 4.2 7 0.6 4.3 1 0.1 1.4Anti-Protestant. ........................... 2 0.2 1.4 2 0.2 1.2 2 0.2 1.2 1 0.1 1.4Anti-Islamic Muslim) ............. .. 20 2.2 13.8 24 2.0 14.5 24 2.1 14.9 23 2.5 33 .3Anti-other religion ........................ 21 2.3 14.5 23 2.0 13.9 22 1.9 13.7 7 0.7 10.1Anti-multiple religious, group ... 3 0.3 2.1 3 0.3 1.8 3 0 .3 1.9 0 0.0 0.0Anti-atheism/agnosticism/etc . .. 1 0.1 0.7 1 0.1 0.6 1 0.1 0.6 0 0.0 0.0

Sexual orientation .... . .. . 235 25.3 100.0 296 25.2 100.0 289 25.4 100.0 299 31 .9 100.0Anti-gay . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . 116 12.5 49.4 140 11 .9 47 .3 136 12.0 47 .1 155 16.5 51 .8Anti-lesbian ......... .. ................ . 28 3.0 11.9 36 3.1 12.2 34 3 0 11.8 19 2.0 6.4Anti-homosexual..... ............ .... 88 9.5 37.4 117 10.0 39 .5 116 10 .2 40 .1 123 13.1 41.1Anti-heterosexual ..... . ............. 1 0.1 0.4 1 0.1 0.3 1 0.1 0.3 1 0.1 0.3Anti-bisexual ... .................. ... ... ... 2 0.2 0.9 2 0.2 0.7 2 0.2 0.7 1 0.1 0.3

Physical/mental disability ...... 2 0.2 100.0 2 0.2 100.0 2 0.2 100.0 3 0.3 100.0Anti-physical disability ........... .. .. 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0Anti-mental disability ... .... ...... 2 0.2 100.0 2 0.2 100.0 2 0.2 100.0 3 0.3 100.0Gender .................. .... . .... ....... 18 1.9 100.0 22 1.9 100.0 22 1.9 100.0 24 2.6 100.0Anti-male.... .... . ........ ... .. .... .. .. . 2 0.2 11 .1 3 0.3 13.6 3 0.3 13.6 4 0.4 16.7Anti-female . ... ..... .. . ... ... ... . 2 0.2 11 1 3 0.3 13.6 3 0.3 13.6 1 0.1 4.2Anti-transgender .... . ... .. .......... 14 1.5 77.8 16 1.4 72.7 16 1.4 72 .7 19 2.0 79.2

Multiple-bias total ..................... 2 0.2 0.0 5 0.4 0.0 3 0.3 0.0 4 0 4 0.0Notes: Percentages may not add to subtotals or 100.0 because of rounding.

An event indicates the occurrence of one or more criminal offenses committed against one or more victims by one or more suspects.Anti-other ethni ity/national origin includes Arab or Middle Eastern bias motiviated hate crimes. For a more complete def in ition of eachcriminal justice term, please refer to Appendix 2.


8/13/2019 Preface 12

6/32

Table 2HATE CRIMES 2012

Offenses by Type of CrimeOffensesType of crime

NumberPercent of

totalPercent of

offenseTotal. .............................. 1 174 100.0Single-bias total ...... .. . .... 1 169 99.6Violent crimes ............ . . 761 64.8 100.0Murder ..... .. .... .... . ... .... 0 0 0 00Forcible rape .... .... .. .... . ..Robbery . ........ ..... ...... .Aggravated assault. ..... . ..Simple assault. ....... ... ....

Intimidation...... ......... .. ..

234

23523925

0 229

20 020 421 4

0 345

30931 433 0

Property crimes... ... ... .... .Burglary . . . ... .. ......Larceny theft ... . .... ..... ....Motor vehicle theft .. ... ....

408232

34.81 00 30 2

100.02 90 70 5Arson ....... .... ..... ....... .... 9 0 8 22Destruction/vandalism . .. 382 32 5 936

Multiple-bias total.. .... ...... . 0.4 0.0Note: Percentages may not add to subtotals or 100.0 because of rounding.

HATE CRIME IN CALIFORNIA 2012

8/13/2019 Preface 12

7/32

Table 3HATE CRIMES 2012

Events, Offenses, Victims , and Suspects by LocationLocation Events Offenses Victims SuspectsNumber Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Total ............ ........... .... . ...... ... ... 930 100.0 1 174 100.0 1 136 100.0 937 100.0Single-bias total ......................... 928 99.8 1 169 99.6 1 133 99.7 933 99.6

Abandon/condemned structure .... 2 02 2 02 2 02 0 00Air/bus/train terminal. .................. 30 3 2 39 33 39 3 4 33 35Bar/night club................ ............ 15 1 6 17 1 4 17 15 23 25Camp/Campground ..................... 2 02 3 03 3 03 1 01Church/synagogue/temple ...... ... . 43 4 6 44 37 43 38 13 1 4Commercial/office building.......... 15 1 6 15 1 3 15 1 3 10 11Construction site ...................... . . 2 0 2 3 03 3 0 3 1 01Convenience store .... .... .... . . 10 1 1 16 1 4 16 1 4 11 1 2Daycare facility 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 01DepartmenUdiscount store .... . .... 5 0 5 6 05 6 0 5 5 0 5Dock/wharf/freighUmdl trmnl. . 1 0 1 1 01 1 01 3 03Drug store/dr. s office/hospital ..... 5 0 5 5 0 4 5 0 4 2 02Field/woods/park ............... ....... .. 4 0 4 7 06 7 06 11 12Gambling/casino/race track .......... 2 0 2 2 02 2 0 2 1 0 1GovernmenUpublic building........ 13 1 4 15 13 15 1 3 6 06Grocery/supermarket. .... ........ ..... 6 0 6 6 0 5 6 05 6 06Highway/road/alley/street. ... .... . .. 254 273 318 271 309 272 371 396Hotel/motel/etc .. ........ ........... ... 10 1 1 11 09 11 10 8 09Industrial site ................ . ....... . 2 0 2 2 02 2 02 2 02Jail/prison................................... . 18 19 19 16 19 17 33 35Lake/waterway/beach ... ............. . 3 0 3 4 03 4 0 4 4 0 4Liquor store ............ ................. .... 3 0 3 4 0 3 4 0 4 5 0 5Other/unkn/prvte np shelter ....... 22 2 4 27 23 27 2 4 16 1 7Park/playground ............ ........ .. . . 23 2 5 30 26 30 2 6 38 4 1Parking loUgarage ... ............. ... . 56 6 0 70 6 0 69 6 1 53 5 7Rental storage facility ............. .... 3 03 3 03 3 03 4 0 4Residence/home/driveway .... .... 236 25 4 334 28 4 313 276 164 17 5Rest area ................................... 1 0 1 1 01 1 01 0 00Restaurant... ........................ ... .... 17 18 21 18 21 1 8 28 30School/college ...................... .... .. 94 10 1 104 89 103 91 59 63Service/gas station...................... 7 0 8 7 0 6 7 0 6 6 0 6Shelter/mission/homeless ......... . 1 01 2 02 2 0 2 1 01Shopping mall. ........................... 11 1 2 18 1 5 15 1 3 10 11Specialty store (TV, fur, etc.) .. ... 11 1 2 12 10 12 1 1 4 0 4

Multiple-bias total..... .. .............. 2 0.2 0.4 3 0.3 4 0.4Notes: Percentages may not add to 100.0 because of rounding.An event indicates the occurrence of one or more criminal offenses committed against one or more victims by one or more suspects.

For a more complete definition of each criminal justice term, please refer to Appendix 2


8/13/2019 Preface 12

8/32

Table 4H TE CRIMES, 2012Victim Type by Bias Motivation

Bias motivation Total IndividualBusiness/financialinstitution

Government Religiousorganization OtherNumbe r Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

T o ~ l ......... ......................... ... ... ... .. . 1136 100.0 1 004 1 .0 23 100.0 65 100.0 41 100.0 3 100.0Single bias total. ..... .... .. ..... ....... 1133 99.7 1 002 99.8 23 100.0 65 100.0 4 97.6 3 100.0

Race/ethnicity/national origin ... .. 659 58.0 596 59.4 15 65.2 4 61.5 6 14.6 2 66 .7Anti-white ................... ...... ......... 41 3.6 39 3.9 0 0.0 2 3 1 0 0.0 0 0.0Anti-black .......................... ... ... .. 369 32.5 336 33.5 6 26.1 26 40.0 1 2.4 0 0.0Anti-Hispanic .. ... .... ........... 108 9.5 105 10.5 0 0.0 2 3.1 1 2.4 0 0.0Anti-American Indian/Alaskan native . . ....... ...... . 3 0.3 2 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.4 0 0.0Anti-Asian/Pacific Islander ... . .. .. 27 2.4 24 2.4 2 8.7 1 1.5 0 0.0 0 0.0Anti-multiple races, group ..... .... 30 2.6 23 2.3 3 13.0 3 4 .6 1 2.4 0 0.0Anti-other ethnicity/

national origin ... .. . . . 80 7.0 66 6.6 4 17.4 6 9.2 2 4.9 2 66.7Anti-citizenship status .. .... .... 1 0.1 1 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Religion .............. ........ ....... .... .. 161 14.2 1 3 10.3 5 21.7 19 29.2 33 80.5 1 33.3Anti-Jewish........... .... ...... ........ 102 9.0 7 7.0 5 21 .7 18 27.7 8 19.5 1 33 .3Anti-Catholic .............. .... ....... 7 0.6 3 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 9 .8 0 0.0Anti-Protestant... ........... .... ... ... 2 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 4.9 0 0.0Anti-Islamic Muslim) .... ...... ... 24 2.1 23 2.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.4 0 0.0Anti-other religion . . . 22 1.9 5 0.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 17 41.5 0 0.0

Anti-multiple religious, group ... 3 0.3 1 0.1 0 0.0 1 1.5 1 2.4 0 0.0Anti-atheism/agnosticism/etc ..... 1 0.1 1 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Sexual orientation ....... .... ..... 289 25.4 279 27.8 3 13.0 6 9.2 1 2.4 0 0.0Anti-gay ............ . ....... . 136 12.0 133 13.2 1 4.3 1 1.5 1 2.4 0 0.0Anti-lesbian .. ..... .. . ...... ... .. . ... . 34 3.0 32 3.2 0 0.0 2 3.1 0 0.0 0 0.0Anti-homosexual. .......... ....... ... . . 116 10.2 11 1 11 .1 2 8.7 3 4 .6 0 0.0 0 0.0Anti-heterosexual............. ..... . ... 1 0.1 1 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Anti-bisexual...... .... .... .. . .... .. . 2 0.2 2 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Physical/mental disability ....... .. . 2 0.2 2 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Anti-physical disability ......... .... .. 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Anti-mental disability ... .... .... . 2 0.2 2 0.2 0 0 .0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

e n d e ~ ... .. .. .... .... .... .. ... .... .. ... 22 1.9 22 2.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Anti-male .. ... ... . ...... ... ... ...... 3 0.3 3 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Anti-female ... . .... . ... . .. .. ... ... ... 3 0.3 3 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Anti-transgender .. . ... .. ... . . 16 1.4 16 1.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Multiple bias total.. ... .. ... ....... ..... 3 0.3 2 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.4 0 0.0

Notes: Percentages may not add to subtotals because of rounding.Crimes committed against property eg , a business, government institution, religious organization, etc.) can only be counted as one victim, whereas a crimecommitted against an individual can have more than one victim per event.Anti-other ethnicity/national origin includes Arab or Middle Eastern bias motiv iated hate crimes. For a more complete definition of each criminal justice term,please refer to Appendix 2.


8/13/2019 Preface 12

9/32

Table 5HATE CRIMES 2012Victim Type by Location


Location Total IndividualBusiness/financialinstitution Government

Religiousorganization Other

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Pe rcent Number Percent Number PercentTotal ..................................... . . .. .. 1,136 100.0 1,004 100.0 23 100.0 65 100.0 41 100.0 3 100.0Single bias total ....................... 1,133 99.7 1,002 99.8 23 100.0 65 100.0 40 97.6 3 100.0Abandon/condemned structure ........ 2 0.2 2 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Air/bus/train terminal. . . ...... . 39 3.4 36 3.6 0 0.0 3 4.6 0 0.0 0 0.0Bar/night club ................... . . .. 17 1.5 17 1.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Camp/campground ...... .. 3 0.3 2 0.2 0 00 1 1.5 0 00 0 00Church/synagogue/temple . .. ...... 43 3.8 6 0.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 37 90.2 0 00Commercial/office building 15 1 3 12 1.2 3 130 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Construction site ................. 3 0.3 2 0.2 1 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Convenience store . .. .. ... . 16 1.4 16 1.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Daycare faci lity .. .. . . . . . . . 1 0.1 1 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Department/discount store . . . . . 6 0.5 5 0.5 1 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Dock/wharf/freight/modal trmnl .. .... 1 0.1 1 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Drug store/dr. s office/hospital. . 5 0.4 3 0.3 2 8.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Field/woods/park ........ .......... 7 0.6 5 0.5 0 0.0 2 3.1 0 0.0 0 0.0Gambling facility/casino/rack track .. 2 0.2 2 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Government/public building .. ........ 15 1 3 11 1 1 0 0.0 4 6.2 0 0.0 0 0.0Grocery/supermarket ....................... 6 0.5 6 0.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Highway/road/a lley/street. . .. .. . . 309 27.2 301 30.0 2 8.7 5 7.7 1 2.4 0 0.0Hotel/motel/etc . . .. .. . 11 1.0 9 0.9 2 8.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Industrial site .................... . .. . .. . 2 0.2 2 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Jail/prison 19 1.7 18 1.8 0 0.0 1 1.5 0 0.0 0 0.0Lake/waterway/beach . . ... .. 4 0.4 4 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Liquor store . . . . .. . 4 0.4 4 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Other/unkn/prvte np shelter ...... ...... 27 2.4 24 2.4 0 0.0 1 1.5 2 4.9 0 0.0Park/playground 30 2.6 23 2.3 1 4.3 6 9.2 0 0.0 0 0.0Parking lot/garage . . 69 6.1 68 6.8 0 0.0 1 1.5 0 00 0 00Rental storage facility . . .... 3 0.3 2 0.2 1 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Residence/home/driveway ....... .. . . 313 27.6 310 30.9 1 4.3 1 1.5 0 0.0 1 33.3Rest area .................................. .... . 1 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.5 0 0.0 0 0.0Restaurant. ........... ... ......... . ... ... .. 21 1.8 19 1.9 2 8.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0School/college . . .... .... . ..... 103 9.1 61 6.1 1 4.3 39 60.0 0 0.0 2 66.7Service/gas station ... ...... .... ... .. ... . 7 0.6 7 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Shelter/mission/homeless ....... . ... .. 2 0.2 2 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0Shopping mall. . 15 1.3 12 1.2 3 130 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Specialty store (TV, fur, etc.) ......... 12 1 1 9 0.9 3 130 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Multiple bias total. ... . .... .... ... ... ..... 3 0.3 2 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.4 0 0.0Notes: Percentages may not add to 100.0 because of rounding.Crimes committed against property (e.g , a business, government institution, religious organization, etc ) can only be counted as one victim, whereas a crimecommitted against an individual can have more than one victim per event.

8/13/2019 Preface 12

10/32

Table 6HATE CRIMES 2012Events, Offenses, Victims , and Suspects by County and JurisdictionCounty andjurisdiction Events Offenses Victims Suspects

Total .. .... .. 930 1174 1136 937Single-bias total. . .. . ... .. .... . 928 1169 1133 933Alameda County ... . . 46 68 65 47

Sheriffs Dept ... ... ...... . ... .. 3 4 4 2Berkeley . .... .... 8 12 12 9Hayward . . . ... ..... . .... .. ... ..... . ... . 4 5 5 7Livermore ... . ... . 3 3 3 4Newark .... . 5 12 9 5Oakland 13 13San Leandro 3 3 3 3Union City 1 1 1 0Alameda BART .. .. . . 3 9 9 4UC Berkeley . . 5 6 6 2

Alpine County 0 0 0 0Amador County ..... . 2 2 2 2

Sheriffs Dept .. ... .. . 2 2 2 2Butte County ... .... .. .... . ... .. ..... .. 8 6

Sheriffs Dept . .. . 1 3 3Chico . .. 5 5 5 4Paradise 1 2 2 1Northern Buttes DPR .... . .. .. .. .. 1 1 1 0

Calaveras County ....... .. .. . 0 0 0 0Colusa County ................. .. .. . .. . 0 0 0 0Contra Costa County . .. .. . ... ..... . 9 22 2 6

Sheriffs Dept . . 1 2 2 1Antioch . . . .. . 4 4 4 6Brentwood 1 2 2Concord 2 3 2 3Hercules 1 1 1 3Pinole .. .. 1 1 1Pittsburg. 1 1 1 0Richmond .... . ... . 5 5 5 1Wal nut Creek .. . 1 1 1 0Contra Costa BART 2 2 2 2

Del Norte County 0 0 0 0El Dorado County ..... .. .. 5 8 8 7

Sheriffs Dept 4 7 7 6Placerville 1 1 1 1

Fresno County ... ... ... .... .. ... . 3 6 6 2Clovis. 2 2 2 1Fowler ........ . ... .... ...... . ... ... . ... ... . 1 1 1 1Fresno 8 9Parlier 1 1 1Reedley .. .. 1 1 0

Glenn County 0OrlandHumboldt County 4 4 4 4

Arcata .... ... . 1 1 1 1Eureka .. .. 3 3 3 3Imperial County 0 0 0 0lnyo County 0 0 0 0Kern County .. 8 9 9

Sheriffs Dept 1 1 1 2Bakersfield . 4 5 5 6Taft. 2 2 2 2Tehachapi 1 1 1 1

continued)


8/13/2019 Preface 12

11/32

Table 6 continuedHATE CRIMES 2012Events, Offenses, Victims, and Suspects by County and Jurisdiction

County andjurisdiction Events Offenses Victims SuspectsKings County ... .... ... ....... .... . .... . 2

Hanford ... . ..... ........ 2Lake County .... . .... .. 7 15 13 6

Sheriff s Dept 3 7 7 2Clearlake ... ...... .. ... . 4 8 6 4

Lassen County ...... ...... ...... . 0 0 0 0Los Angeles County 331 413 394 347

Sheriff s Dept ........ ...... . ... . 27 28 27 3Agoura Hills 4 4 4 0Azusa ...... ...... ...... ... ... . 3 4 4 1Bellflower 1 2Beverly Hills 5 7 7 6Burbank ... ...... .... . .. 9 11 11 14Calabasas 2 2 2 1Carson 3 3 3 0Cerritos 1 2 2 3Claremont . ..... . .... .. 2 2 2 2Compton .. . ..... ....... . 1 8 4 0Covina .. . .. ... .. . .. ... ... . 4 7 5 4Cudahy .. . ... . ... . ... 1 1 1 2Diamond Bar ... . .. ... ... ...... .. 1 2 1 1Downey .... . ... ...... ..... . .. . .. ... . 1 1 1 1El Monte 5 6 6 7Gardena ... ...... . ... .. ... .. .........Glendale ... ...... . ..... . ... .. ... . 2Hawaiian Gardens 2 2 2Hawthorne . ...... . ..... . ... .. ... . 2 2 2 4Hermosa Beach .. ... .... . ... ... . . 1 1 1 3Inglewood ...... .. ... . .... . ... . 1 6 6 1La Mirada .... . . ... . . . 1 1 1 1Lakewood 3 4 3 1Lancaster 7 7 7 1Lawndale ... .... .. . . 2 2 3Lomita ... ..... ...... .. ... . 2 2 2Long Beach . ..... . ...... . ..... . 4 5 5 3Los Angeles ... . ..... .. ...... ...... .... . 129 159 158 144LA Transit Services Bureau 11 12 12 12Lynwood ..Monrovia ... ...... ..... . 2 2 2 1Monterey Park 2 3 3 0Norwalk ...... ....... . 2 3 2 1Palmdale 16 24 2 19Paramount 4 4 4 0Pasadena 2 2 2 4Pica Rivera 1 1 1Pomona .............................. .. ... ... . 4 4 4 8Rancho Palos Verdes 1 1 1Redondo Beach 6 6 6 6Rosemead ..... .... ... .. . 2 2 2 2San Dimas ...... ... .............. . 2San Gabriel ... ...... ............. . 1 1 0Santa Clarita ... ...... ......... ..... . 8 12 9 5Santa Monica ..... ............. . . .. . 11 14 14 13Sierra Madre ... .......... . 1 1 3South Gate ... ........ ... ..... .. ... ... . 1 1 2Temple CityTorrance 2 3 3 0West Covina ... . ...... . ..... . 6 6 6 2West Hollywood ...... . ..... . .... ... . . 13 17 16 13

(continued)


8/13/2019 Preface 12

12/32

Table 6 continuedHATE CRIMES 2012Events, Offenses, Victims, and Suspects by County and Jurisdiction

County andjurisdiction Events Offenses Victims Suspects

Los Angeles County (continued)Cal Poly Pomona 1CSU Dominguez Hills ..... ... ... ... .CSU Long Beach ............... ... .... . . 1 1CSU Northridge ... ... .. ..... .. ... .. ... .. 3 3 3 0UC Los Angeles ... ... ... .... .. ... .. 1 3 3 0

Madera County ... . . ...... .... .. .... .Marin County .......... .... . ..... .. .... 8 10 10 7

Novato .............. .. .. ...... . 3 4 4 5San Anselmo ............... ... ..... ...... . 1 1 1San Rafael ... .... ..... . ... .... . 3 4 4Marin Community College 1 1 1

Mariposa County . . .Mendocino County

Ukiah ............... ........ ... .Merced County 2 2 2 2

Livingston .... .. .Merced ............. .. ... .. .. ... ..... ... .

Modoc County ..... . . ... ..Mono County . ........ ....... . . 2

Mammoth Lakes 2Monterey County 2 2 2 2

Sheriff s Dept ....... . . ..... ..... .Greenfield ............. .

Napa County ........ ... . ... .Napa .................... . .. .

Nevada County ..... . . .. .Orange County ........ ..... . .. 53 8 8 41Sheriff s Dept 2 2 2 2

Aliso Viejo .............. . .. . .. . 1 1 1Anaheim .......... . .... . ...... ..... .. 1 1 1 2Buena Park 3 3 3 8Cypress. 1 1 1Dana Point ................ ... ... ...... ... . 1 1Fountain Valley .. ...... .... .. .. . . 1 1 1 1Fullerton . . . ............. . 1 1 1 1Garden Grove ............... .. 2 2 2 1Huntington Beach 1 7Irvine . ..... ..... ... ... . 3 3 3La Habra...... ..... .. 1 1 1 3Laguna Beach .. 1 1 1 1Laguna Hills ........ ... . 1 1 1Lake Forest. . .............. 1 1 1Newport Beach .............. . 7 8 8 2Orange . .......................... 1 1 1 1Rancho Santa Margarita ......... .... . 1 1 1San Clemente ........................ ... . 1 1 1 1Santa Ana ................ . . 7 8 8 8Villa Park ... 1Yorba LindaCSU Fullerton ...... ..... .. ..... ... .... . . 3 5 5UC Irvine . ..... . ..... . ..... . ... ..... . ... . 1 1 1 1

Placer County .. 2 2Roseville . 2 2

Plumas County

(co ntinued)


8/13/2019 Preface 12

13/32

Table 6 continuedHATE CRIMES, 2012Events, Offenses, Victims, and Suspects by County and JurisdictionCounty andjurisdiction Events Offenses Victims SuspectsRiverside County 0 47 54 51 33Sheriff s Dept.. 3 4 3 6Calimesa 0 2 2 2 0Corona .... . ..... . .... ... ... 3 4 4 4Eastvale 4 4 4Hemet .. ..... . ..... . ...... . ... 2 5 5 3

Jurupa 0 2 3 2 2La Quinta 0 Lake Elsinore 0 0Moreno Valley 0 Murrieta 0 0 2 2 2Palm Desert .. . .... . . 1 1 1 1Palm Springs .. 6 6 6 5Riverside 12 12 12 5Temecula .. 4 4 4 1Riverside Comm. College 2 2UC Riverside ... . ..... . ..... . ...... . . 2 2 2 0

Sacramento County 38 57 56 47Sheriff s Dept 0 20 29 28 31Citrus Heights .. ... .. ... .. .. . . 2 2 0Sacramento .... . ..... . ..... 0 17 26 26 16

San Benito County .... . .... .... . ..... . . 0 0 0 0San Bernardino County ... . ... .. ... .. 23 28 27 17Sheriff s Dept .... . ..... . ..... . . . . 1 2 2Adela no . . . . . . . .Apple Valley 2 4 4 4Chino ... . ..... . ....... . ..... . . 3 3 3Chino Hills 0

Colton.... . . . ........ .... . .. . 2 3 3 0Highland .. ..... . .... . . . .. 1 1 1 1Hesperia.. 1 1 1 1Montclair . 3 4 3 3Ontario .... . .. .... . 2 2 2 1Redlands.. 1 1 1 0San Bernardino.. 1 1 1 2Upland 1 1 1 0Victorville 2 2 2 0Yucaipa 1 1 1 1 2

San Diego County I 102 131 130 121Sheriff s Dept 24 25 25 31Chula Vista I 4 4 4 2Coronado 1 1 1 1 0El Cajon .. . .. ... 1 2 2 3Encinitas 1 1 1 1Escondido 9 13 13 19La Mesa.. 2 2 2 2Lemon Grove ..... .. ..... . ...... . 2 2 2 3National City 2 5 4 1Oceanside 1 9 14 14 12Poway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 0San Diego . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 35 46 46 35San Diego HarborSan Marcos . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 2 2 2 3Vista . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 4 6 6 4CSU San DiegoCSU San Marcos . . . . . . . . .. . 2 2 2 0UC San Diego . . . . . . .. . . . . .. 3 3 3

(continued)


8/13/2019 Preface 12

14/32

Table continuedH TE CRIMES, 2012Events, Offenses, Victims, and Suspects by County and Jurisdiction

County andjurisdiction Events Offenses Victims SuspectsSan Francisco County 46 55 53 54San Francisco .. 41 5 48 54San Francisco BART 3 3 3UC San Francisco 2 2 2

San Joaquin County 8 11 11 11Lodi ...... ...... ...... ...... . .... ...... .... 3 3 3 2Stockton .... ...... ...... . ...... ...... . 2 3 3Tracy . 2 3 3 3Stockton Unified School District.. 2 2 5

San Luis Obispo County 6 8 8 9Atascadero .... ...... . ...... .. . 3 3 3Paso Robles ....... ...... ...... ...... .. .San Luis Obispo ....... . ..... .. . 4 4 4 6San Mateo County .. ...... ...... . 7 11 11 5Daly City ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... .. . 1

Pacifica ... ...... ...... . .. . 3 6 6Redwood City ..... ...... .. .San Mateo ...... ...... . ...... ...... .San Mateo BART 2 2 2

Santa Barbara County .... ...... ...... . 6 7 7 5Santa Barbara ...... . ...... ...... .. . 2 3 3 3Santa Maria ..Allan Hancock College .. 3 3 3

Santa Clara County . 37 43 43 23Sheriff s Dept .... ...... . .. . 2 2 2 2Campbell..Cupertino ..... ...... ...... . . . 4 4 4Gilroy ........ ...... ...... .... .Los Gatos ..... ...... . . .... ...... ... 5 5MilpitasPalo Alto 4 6 6San Jose ... ...... ...... . ...... ...... . 16 16 16 17SaratogaSunnyvale ... ..... ...... .. . 3 3 3CSU San Jose.. 2 2 2Santa Clara Transit District 1 1 1

Santa Cruz County 23 3 29 24Sheriff s Dept ... ........ ... . 8 9 9 8Capitola ... ...... ...... ..... ..... .. . 2Santa Cruz 1 14 13 11Scotts Valley ... ...... . .. . 2 2Watsonville ...... ...... .... . 3 4 4 2Shasta County ...... . . 14 19 18 7Redding ... ...... ..... ... .... .. .... .. . 14 19 18 7Sierra County . 0 0Siskiyou County 0 0Solano County ........ ..... ....... .. . 4 4 4 6Sheriff s Dept ... ........ ... . 4

Benicia ....... ...... ....... .Vallejo . 2 2 2 2Sonoma County 7 8 8 3Sheriff s Dept ... ........ ... . 4 5 5Santa RosaSonoma Co Jr College ... ...... ...... . 2 2 2 2Stanislaus County 9 11 1 16Sheriff s Dept.. 2 3 3 4Hughson ........ ..... ..... . ..

Modesto ........ ...... . . 5 5 5 9Turlock ...... .. . .. 2 3(continued)


8/13/2019 Preface 12

15/32

Table 6 continuedHATE CRIMES 2012Events Offenses Victims and Suspects by County and JurisdictionCounty andjurisdiction

Sutter County .......... . ....... .. ... .. .. .Events Offenses Victims Suspects

Tehama County ... ..... .. .. .Trinity County Tulare County ........ .. ... .... ........

Sheriffs Dept Tulare ........................ ...... ... .. . 4 7 7 3

Visalia . . . . . . . .. 2 5 5Tuolumne County .Sheriffs Dept Sonora . .. . . .

2 2 2 2

Ventura County Sheriffs Dept ................. .. .... .Camarillo23

44

2875

2875

2486Oxnard . . . . .. ... ... .. ...... 5 5 5 4Santa Paula. 1 1 1 1Simi Valley 3 3 3 1

Thousand Oaks Ventura .................... . 33 43 43 13Yolo County . . . . . .. ..Davis . . . . 55 55 55 44Yuba County . . ... ....... . .....Sheriffs Dept ..... . ... . .. . ..Marysville

321

321

321

321

Multiple bias total. ........................ 2 5 3 4Note: Only those jurisdictions that reported a ha te crime are listed in this table.

Table 7ASUMMARY OF CASES REFERRED TO PROSECUTORS

BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND TYPE OF FILINGSFor the Period January 1 Through December 31 2012

AgencyHate crime cases

referred toprosecutors

Casesrejected

Criminal casefilings

Type of case filingCases filed asCases filed as non-biashate crimes motivated crimes

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Numbe Percent Number PercentTotal .... . ... ...... . 308 100.0 90 29.2 216 70.1 158 73.1 58 26.9

County District Attorneys ...Elected City Attorneys . ....

27434

89.011 .0

6921

25.261 .8

20016

73.047.1

14711

73.568.8

535

26.531 .3

Table 78SUMMARY OF HATE CRIME CASE DISPOSITIONSFor the Period January 1 Through December 31 2012


Hate crime Hate crime convictionsAll other Total hate crimeAgency cases with Not convicted Guilty plea/convictions convictions Trial ve rdictdispositions nolo contendereNumber Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number PercentTotal. ...... . 124 100.0 17 13.7 58 46.8 49 39.5 41 83.7 8 16.3

County District Attorneys . 117 94.4 17 14 .5 53 45.3 47 40.2 39 83 .0 8 17 .0Elected City Attorneys .. . 7 5.6 0 0.0 5 71.4 2 28.6 2 100 .0 0 0.0

8/13/2019 Preface 12

16/32

Table 8CASES REFERRED Y LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

AND TYPE OF FILINGS AS REPORTED BYCOUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS AND ELECTED CITY ATTORNEYS

For the Period January 1 Through December 31 2012

Agency Total hate crimecases referredTotal cases filedas hate crimes

Total cases filed asnon-bias motivated

crimesTotal 308 158 58County District Attorneys 274 147 53

Alameda .................... ................ 3 4 0Alpine ..................... ...... ........... . 0 0 0Amador. .................. .............. . 0 0 0Butte ... ........ ........... ....... ............ . 3 1 0Calaveras . . ...... .. .. . . .. ... . .. . 0 0 0Colusa .............. ... . .. .. ... . . . .. . .. . . 0 0 0Contra Costa .... . ... ................ .... . 4 4 0Del Norte ............................. .. 0 0 0ElDorado ........... .................. . 2 0 1Fresno ........ .... ...... .............. . 5 2 2Glenn ........... ............... . ... ..... 1 0Humboldt. .... .................... .. . .. . . 2 0Imperial ......... .................... . . 0 0lnyo ......... .. .. ............. ..... . . . . . 0 0Kern ............. . ... .... .......... . . 2 0 0Kings ... . . ..... .......... .... . 4 0 4Lake .......... ... ... ..... .......... .... 2 0 2Lassen .. .... ... ................. ... . ... .. . 0 0 0Los Angeles .... .......... ... ..... . ... . 77 52 1Madera ........... ........ .. . 0 0 0Marin ..................... .. .... .............. . 1 0 1Mariposa .......... .... . .. ... ..... . . .. 0 0 0Mendocino .......... .... . .. . . ...... .. 0 0 0Merced ................... .............. . 0 0 0Modoc .. ........ ..... .... .. . . 0 0 0Mono ....... . . ........ . . 0 0 0Monterey ........ ............ . .. . 1 0Napa .......................... ............ . 5 3Nevada .. .. .. ... . .... .. .. 0 0 0Orange ... .... ... .... ... ... . 16 8 4Placer. ...... . . ....... ......... .. . 1 0 0Plumas ............. ...... ....... .. .. . . .... . 0 0 0Riverside ....... ... ........... .. ..... . .. 17 5 7Sacramento .... .... ... . . ........ .. . . . . 10 7 3San Benito .. ..... ........ ..... . 0 0 0

continued)HATE CRIME IN CALIFORNIA 2012

8/13/2019 Preface 12

17/32

Table 8 continuedCASES REFERRED Y LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

AND TYPE OF FILINGS AS REPORTED YCOUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS AND ELECTED CITY ATTORNEYS

For the Period January 1 Through December 31 2012

Agency Total hate crimecases referred

Total cases filedas hate crimes

Total cases filed asnon-bias motivated

crimesSan Bernardino ....... ... ............ 5 2San Diego ....................... .... ... . 7 11 6San Francisco ..................... .... . 24 16 2San Joaquin .... .............. ..... ... . 2 2 0San Luis Obispo ........ ....... .. 0 1San Mateo ............................. . 2 2 0Santa Barbara ... ... .................. . 2 1Santa Clara ............ .... ... ......... . 7 7 4Santa Cruz ........................... ..... . 6 1Shasta ................. . ........... .. ... . 7 2Sierra ....... .. ... ..................... .. . 0 0Siskiyou ................... .... ............ . 3 3 0Solano .. . ......... ... . . ........ . . 1 0Sonoma ...... ... ....... ... ... . 0 0Stanislaus ....... .. .... .... ... ........... 3 2 0Sutter. ..... .. ..... .... . .. .... ......... . 0 0Tehama.... .... . ................ .. ..... . 1 1 0Trinity . .... .. ... . ..... . .. .. ..... .... .. . 0 0Tulare ... .. ... . ... . .. ... ... ... ... ... . 3 3 0Tuolumne ... .. . ...... .... .. .......... 0 0Ventura................ ................ . 2 6Yolo ............. ... ... .. ................ . 5 3 0Yuba............ ... ...... ... ........ .... . 4 3 0

Elected City Attorneys 4Anaheim.... .... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 1 0Burbank ... ...... ... ................. .. 0 0Inglewood........ .. .... ... ............ . 0 0Long Beach..... . .. . ... ..... .. ... ... . 0 0Los Angeles . ........ .... ...... .. .... .. 20 5 3Pasadena. ...... ...... ...... ........ 0 0 0San Diego ... .... .... .. ........ ..... .. 12 4 2Torrance . . ...... .. .. .... ... ... . ..... .. . 1 1 0

Note: The number of complaints filed by county district attorneys and elected city attorneys or the number ofcases that resulted in hate crime convictions cannot be linked to the number of hate crimes reportedby law enforcement agencies.


8/13/2019 Preface 12

18/32

Table 9H TE CRIME C SE DISPOSITIONS

S REPORTED BYCOUNTY DISTRICT TTORNEYS ND ELECTED CITY TTORNEYSFor the Period January 1 Through December 31 , 2012

ConvictionsAgency Totaldispositions

Notconvicted Totalconvictions

Hate crime convictionsGuilty plea/ TrialTotal nolo verdictcontendere

All otherconvictionsTotal.. 124 17 1 7 49 41 8 58

County District Attorneys .. 117 17 1 47 39 8 53Alameda . 5 1 4 2 2 2Alpine . ... .... .AmadorButte ...... ...... . . 1 1 1Calaveras ..... .... .......Colusa ................. Contra Costa 9 5 4 1 1 3Del NorteElDoradoFresno 2 2 1 1 1Glenn 1 1 1Humboldt .......... ....... ...... .. . 1 1 1Imperial ......... ....... .. .. ...lnyo ........ .... .... ....... .......Kern ...... ..... ... .KingsLakeLassen .. ................... .Los Angeles 29 4 25 12 7 5 13Madera .............. .....Marin .......... ... .. 1 1 1MariposaMendocino ....... ..... ........Merced .....ModocMono .... ..... ...... . ....Monterey . ..... .... 3 3 2 2 1Napa .... .................. ...... .. 1 1Nevada ............. ... ..Orange ............ .............. 6 6 6 6Placer . ... .... . .PlumasRiverside .... ... ....... .. ... 9 9 3 3 6Sacramento 6 1 5 3 3 2San Benito ............... .... .San Bernardino ................. .San Diego ......................... . 1 9 2 2 7San Francisco .................... 12 7 5 2 4San Joaquin .................... .. 1 1 1San Luis Obispo ............... .San Mateo 2 2 2Santa Barbara ......... ........Santa Clara ................. .. 4 4 3 3Santa Cruz 2 1 1 1Shasta ........... ............ . .Sierra ..................................Siskiyou .. .......................... 2 1 1 1 1Solano ........ .............. ..... ..Sonoma ...... ..... ...Stanislaus . ................. . 2 2 2continued)


8/13/2019 Preface 12

19/32

Table 9 - continuedHATE CRIME CASE DISPOSITIONS

AS REPORTED BYCOUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS AND ELECTED CITY ATTORNEYSFor the Period January 1 Through December 31 2012Convictions

Agency TotaldispositionsNot

convicted TotalconvictionsHate crime convictions

Guilty plea/ TrialTotal nolo verdictcontendereAll other

convictionsSutter ... ............... .... . .... .. . 0 0 0 0Tehama .... . ....... ... 2 1 1 0 0 0 1Trinity ... ....... . ..... ......... ........ . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Tulare .. .. .. ....... .... .. 3 0 3 2 1 1 1Tuolumne ........... ....... ...... . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ventura .. ................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Yolo ................ 1 0 1 1 1 0 0Yuba 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Elected City Attorneys . 7 0 7 2 2 0 5Anaheim. . . 1 0 1 1 1 0 0Burbank . ............ ......... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Inglewood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Long Beach . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Los Angeles ............... ..... 3 0 3 1 1 0 2Pasadena . ... . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0San Diego ................. 2 0 2 0 0 0 2Torrance 0 0 0 0

Note: The number of complaints filed by county district attorneys and elected city attorneys or the number of cases that resulted in hatecrime convictions cannot be linked to the number of hate crimes reported by law enforcement agencies .

Table 10HATE CRIME CASES 2003-2012

COMPLAINTS FILED AND TOTAL CONVICTIONS AS REPORTED BYCOUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS AND ELECTED CITY ATTORNEYS

Type of 2003 2004 2005 2006prosecuting Complaints Total Complaints Total Complaints Total Complaints Totalattorney filed convictions filed convictions filed convictions filed convictionsTotal. .. ...... .... .... . 304 197 277 242 330 238 272 218

County District Attorneys.... 293 188 263 229 315 227 262 214Elected City Attorneys . . 11 9 14 13 15 11 10 4

Type of 2007 2008 2009 2010prosecuting Complaints Total Corn plaints Total Complaints Total Complaints Totalattorney filed convictions filed convictions filed convictions filed convictionsTotal. ..... . . .... ...... .... 330 213 353 232 283 223 230 151

County District Attorneys.... 304 192 315 203 268 212 219 143Elected City Attorneys ... ... 26 21 38 29 15 11 11 8

Type of 2011 2012prosecuting Complaints Total Complaints Totalattorney filed convictions filed convictions

Total. ............. ..... ..... .. . .... 204 154 158 107County District Attorneys ... 194 145 147 100Elected City Attorneys ..... 10 9 11 7

Notes: The number of complaints filed by county district attorneys and elected city attorneys or the number of cases thatresulted in hate crime convictions cannot be linked to the number of hate cr imes reported by law enforcement agencies.In 2006 adjustments were made to the 2005 conviction data; therefore counts do not match previously published data


8/13/2019 Preface 12

20/32

8/13/2019 Preface 12

21/32

8/13/2019 Preface 12

22/32

HATECRIME

INCALIFORNIA2012

Table 13HATE CRIMES 2003-2012Offenses by Type of CrimeType of crime

2003

Number Percent2004

Number Percent2005

Number Percent2006

Number Percent2007

Number Percent2008

Number Percent2009

Number Percent20

NumberTotal . 1 815 100.0 1 770 100.0 1691 100.0 1702 100.0 1931 100.0 1 837 100.0 1427 100.0 1 425Single-bias total. . .... . .. ... 1815 100.0 1 770 100.0 1691 100.0 1702 100.0 1931 100.0 1 837 100.0 1425 99.9 1425

Violent crimes . 1252 69 .0 1 135 64.1 1096 64.8 1044 61.3 1252 64.8 1 173 63.9 906 63.5 893Murder .... .. ...... ............. . 4 0.2 0 0.0 1 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.1 2 0.1 2 0.1 1 Forcible rape .. 2 0.1 0 0.0 1 0.1 1 0.1 0 0.0 2 0.1 4 0.3 1 Robbery . . 61 3.4 60 3.4 36 2.1 39 2.3 73 3.8 55 3.0 41 2.9 42Aggravated assault... 179 9.9 246 13 .9 317 18.7 376 22.1 386 20.0 281 15.3 216 15.1 203Simple assault... . 477 26 .3 360 20 .3 298 17.6 310 18.2 320 16.6 341 18.6 254 17.8 284Intimidation .. ... 529 29 .1 469 26.5 443 26.2 317 18.6 471 24.4 492 26 .8 389 27.3 362

Property crimes ........ .. . 563 31 .0 635 35.9 595 35.2 658 38.7 679 35.2 664 36.1 519 36.4 532Burglary .. 25 1.4 27 1.5 27 1.6 24 1.4 47 2.4 14 0.8 18 1.3 22Larceny-theft .. 3 0.2 4 0.2 5 0.3 8 0.5 4 0.2 14 0.8 7 0.5 6 Motor vehicle theft .. 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 0.2 1 0.1 7 0.4 2 0.1 1 0.1 1Arson . 5 0.3 11 0.6 7 0.4 12 0.7 6 0.3 12 0.7 18 1.3 8 Destruction/vandalism . 530 29 .2 593 33 .5 553 32 .7 613 36.0 615 31 .8 622 33 .9 475 33.3 495

Multiple-b ias total ......... - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 0.1 0Notes: Percentages may not add to subtotals or 100 .0 because of rounding.

Dash ind icates that percent changes are not ca lculated when the base number (2003) is less than 50 , or that no da ta were reported.In 2001 , a hierarchy rule was used to count the various types of crime. For a further explanation of the hierarchy rule, see Appendix 1.

' Reporting of mu ltiple bias offenses began in 2009.

8/13/2019 Preface 12

23/32

8/13/2019 Preface 12

24/32

Table 15HATE CRIMES 2003-2012

Events Offenses Victims and Suspects2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012

Events .. .. .. 1 491 1409 1397 1306 1 426 1397 1100 1107 1060 930Offenses .... .. . . .. .. 1 815 1770 1 691 1702 1 931 1837 1427 1 425 1347 1 174Victims .. .. .. .. . 1 815 1741 1 640 1611 1 764 1698 1321 1320 1232 1136Suspects .... 1 629 1495 1 589 1612 1 627 1 473 1202 1092 1010 937


Single-Bias Events by Bias Motivation2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Race/Ethnicity/National Origin .. 914 921 916 844 932 800 626 613 587 528Religion . ...... ...... . 220 205 205 205 203 294 210 198 201 145Sexual Orientation . . ...... 337 263 255 246 263 283 245 279 244 235Physical/Mental Disability 1 4 3 3 3 4 4 5 7 2Gender . ...... .... . . . .. 19 16 18 8 25 16 14 12 18 18

Table 17RACE/ETHNICITY/NATIONAL ORIGIN HATE CRIMES 2003-2012Events by Bias Motivation

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Anti-White ...... ........ .. . ... . . .. 85 61 77 64 73 42 39 47 35 40Anti-Black ...... ............ . .......... ...... .. 463 500 490 432 498 457 376 324 313 289Anti-Hispanic ........................................ 103 138 147 153 160 147 81 119 88 88Anti-American Indian/Alaskan Native . 2 3 2 4 1 1 2 0 1 3Anti-Asian/Pacific Islander ... ...... ...... . 66 69 50 52 53 37 27 32 30 23Anti-Multiple Races Group .. 34 45 61 45 51 47 34 34 37 22Anti-Other Ethnicity/National Origin ... .

1Anti-citizenship status . . 161 105 89 94 96 69 67

0570

812

621

1Reporting of anti-citizenship status bias motivation began in 2009.


8/13/2019 Preface 12

25/32

Table 18RELIGION HATE CRIMES 2003-2012Events by Bias Motivation

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Anti-Jewish .. ......................... 155 142 141 129 134 184 160 128 132 91Anti-Catholic ............... .... . 10 9 10 11 10 12 9 10 6 7Anti-Protestant. ................. ......... 7 3 10 13 11 8 3 6 1 2Anti-Islamic Muslim) .... ................Anti-Other Religion........ .......... ......Anti-Multiple Religious, Group ....Anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc ....

192720

291930

1225

61

142314

1

1324

92

1163151

1322

30

2225

70

1738

70

2021

31

Table 19SEXUAL ORIENTATION HATE CRIMES 2003-2012Events by Bias Motivation

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Anti-Gay ............ ...............Anti-Lesbian .... ....................

21847

18837

16140

16323

13226

15422

12029

10730

10325

11628

Anti-Homosexual .................... . 71 36 49 57 101 102 95 136 111 88Anti-Heterosexual....... ..........Anti-Bisexual. ....... .. ..... .....

01

11

14

03

22

32

01

33

23

12


Single-Bias Offenses by Type of Crime


2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Offenses .......... 1815 1 770 1 691 1 702 1 931 1 837 1 425 1 425 1339 1169

Violent Offenses .. 1252 1 135 1096 1 044 1 252 1 173 906 893 825 76Property Offenses .. 563 635 595 658 679 664 519 532 514 408

8/13/2019 Preface 12

26/32

Table 21VIOL NT HATE CRIMES 2003-2012Offenses by Type of Crime

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Murder ... .............. .... 4 0 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 0Forcible Rape ...... ...... 2 0 1 1 0 2 4 1 0 2Robbery . ........ ...... ... 61 60 36 39 73 55 41 42 44 34Aggravated Assault. ...... 179 246 317 376 386 281 216 203 193 235Simple Assault... .... ..... 477 360 298 310 320 341 254 284 239 239Intimidation................... 529 469 443 317 471 492 389 362 348 251

Table 22PROPERTY HATE CRIMES 2003-2012Offenses by Type of Crime2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Burglary .. . ..... .Larceny Theft ....... .....Motor Vehicle Theft .........

2530

2740

2753

2481

4747

14142

1871

2261

3261

1232

Arson . ........ ................. . 5 11 7 12 6 12 18 8 8 9DestructionNandalism..... 530 593 553 613 615 622 475 495 467 382

Table 23HATE CRIMES 2003-2012Events by Location


2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Church/Synagogue ..... ....... . 64 70 82 80 69 107 76 62 73 43Highway . ...... .... ... .... ..... 425 398 372 395 405 363 277 272 263 254Parking Lot .... ........ .............. 89 76 107 99 97 110 69 74 80 56Residence ... ... . . .. . ... .. 454 424 412 350 406 388 303 320 307 236School .... .... ........... ... ... ........ 141 135 152 136 150 148 133 133 111 94All Other Locations .... ........ .... . 318 306 272 246 299 281 242 246 226 247

8/13/2019 Preface 12

27/32

Appendix 1: Data Characteristics and Known LimitationsAppendix 1: Data Characteristics and Known LimitationsCrime Data

Local law enforcement agencies are required to submit monthly copies of hate crime

reports to the Department of Justice (DOJ) in compliance with California Penal Codesection 13023. California Penal Code section 422.55 defines a hate crime as a

criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following

actual or perceived characteristics of the victim: (1) disability, (2) gender,

(3) nationality, (4) race or ethnicity, (5) religion, (6) sexual orientation, (7) association

with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.

The following information and limitations should be considered when using hate

crime data:

1) A hate crime event contains the occurrence of one or more criminal offenses,committed against one or more victims, by one or more suspects or perpetrators.

Victims can have more than one offense committed against them.

2) Hate crimes reported by law enforcement agencies are counted in a specific way.

In each hate crime event, the DOJ counts the total number of victims, the total

number of suspects, and the total number of criminal offenses in one event. These

totals are then classified and counted by type of bias motivation (anti-black, anti-

Hispanic, anti-Jewish, anti-gay, etc.), type of crime (murder, aggravated assault,

burglary, destruction/vandalism, etc.), the location where the crime took place

(residence, street, synagogue, school, etc.), and the type of victim (individual or

property).

3) The hate crime reporting system was implemented by the DOJ in 1994. Law

enforcement agencies submit copies of initial crime reports to the DOJ. Crime

reports that were submitted as hate crimes, but later determined to be unfounded,

were not included.

4) The DOJ requested that each law enforcement agency establish procedures

incorporating a two-tier review (decision-making) process. The first level is done

by the initial officer who responds to the suspected hate crime incident. At the

second level, each report is reviewed by at least one other officer to confirm that

the event was, in fact, a hate crime.

5) Caution should be used when making jurisdictional comparisons. The following

factors should be considered: cultural diversity and population density; size of

law enforcement agencies; and the training received in the identification of hate

crimes by law enforcement officers in each jurisdiction.


8/13/2019 Preface 12

28/32

6) The following factors may influence the volume of hate crimes reported to the

DOJ:

Cultural practices of individuals and their likeliness to report hate crimes to

law enforcement agencies.

Strength and investigative emphasis of law enforcement agencies.

Policies of law enforcement agencies.Community policing policies.

7) From 1995 to 2001, a hierarchy rule was used to count the various types of hate

crimes (murder, intimidation, vandalism, etc.). This method counted the most

serious offense in a hate crime event and counted all additional offenses in

multiple-offense events under the most serious crime count. For example, a crime

event that had two offenses a simple assault and an aggravated assault

would be counted as two aggravated assaults. Trend analysis for these years can

be performed since the unit of count is consistent.

In 2002, the DOJ began counting each offense in each hate crime event, whether

they had one offense (a majority of events) or multiple offenses (a minority of

events). This change was implemented to more accurately count each type of

criminal offense. Using this new counting standard, comparisons and trend

analysis should be limited to 2002 and forward.

In 2009, the DOJ began collecting information on hate crimes involving multiple-

bias motivations. Law enforcement agencies were able to report up to five bias

motivations for each hate-related event, as long as there was a unique offense for

each bias motivation.

In 2011, the DOJ expanded the acceptable location codes for the California hate

crime data collection system to reflect modifications implemented at the national

level.

8) A significant reason for the disparity between individual victims and victims that

are an entity is due to the DOJs Criminal Justice Statistics Centers use of the

Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting program standards. A

property crime against an entity (a business, religious organization, government

institution, etc.) can only be counted as one victim, whereas a crime committed

against an individual can have more than one victim per crime event.

8 HATE CRIME IN CALIFORNIA 2012

8/13/2019 Preface 12

29/32

County District Attorney and Elected City Attorney Prosecutorial Data

The following information and limitations should be considered when interpreting

hate crime cases:

1) In order to show the criminal justice systems response to hate crimes, in 1995 the

Attorney General asked all district attorneys and elected city attorneys to submit

summary data of complaints filed and convictions secured.

2) The 2012 District Attorneys and Elected City Attorneys Report File of HateCrime Cases contains summary data based on cases referred to each district

attorney or elected city attorney, and filings and convictions that occurred from

January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2012.

3) When viewing prosecutorial data, it is not possible to relate the number of hate

crimes reported by law enforcement agencies to the number of hate crimes

prosecuted by district attorneys and elected city attorneys. First, crimes oftenoccur in different reporting years than their subsequent prosecutions. Second, the

number of crimes reported by law enforcement is much higher than those calling

for prosecutorial action since the latter requires an arrested defendant who can be

prosecuted in a court of law.

4) All prosecutorial data includes hate crimes committed by both juvenile and adult

defendants.


8/13/2019 Preface 12

30/32

Appendix 2: Criminal Justice GlossaryAppendix 2: Criminal Justice Glossary


Aggravated Assault An unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purposes

of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. This type of assault usually is

accompanied by the use of a weapon or by means likely to produce death or great bodily

harm (Federal Bureau of Investigations Uniform Crime Reporting [UCR] definition).

Bias A preformed negative opinion or attitude toward a group of persons based on their

race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or physical/mental

disability.

Bisexual Of or relating to persons who experience sexual attraction toward and

responsiveness to both males and females; (noun) a bisexual person.

Case A set of facts about a crime that is referred to a district attorney for filing with a

court. The case may charge one or more persons with the commission of one or more

offenses. (For this report, the case must contain some element of bias.)

Complaints Filed Any verified written accusation, filed by a district attorney with a

criminal court, that charges one or more persons with the commission of one or more

offenses. (For this report, the case must contain some element of bias.)

Conviction A judgment based on the verdict of a jury or a judicial officer or on a guilty

plea or a nolo contendere plea of the defendant.

Disposition In criminal procedure, the sentencing or other final settlement of a criminal

case.

Ethnic Bias A preformed negative opinion or attitude toward a group of persons of the

same race or national origin who share common or similar traits in language, custom, and

tradition.

Event An occurrence when a hate crime is involved. (In this report, the information

about the event is a crime report or source document that meets the criteria for a hate

crime.) There may be one or more suspects involved, one or more victims targeted, and

one or more offenses involved for each event.

Gay Of or relating to males who experience a sexual attraction toward and

responsiveness to other males; (noun) a homosexual male.

Guilty Plea A defendants formal answer in open court stating that the charge is true

and that he or she is guilty of the crime charged.

Heterosexual Of or relating to persons who experience sexual attraction toward and

responsiveness to members of the opposite sex; (noun) a heterosexual person.

8/13/2019 Preface 12

31/32


Homosexual Of or relating to persons who experience sexual attraction toward and

responsiveness to members of their own sex; (noun) a homosexual person.

Known Suspect Any person alleged to have committed a criminal act or attempted

criminal act to cause physical injury, emotional suffering, or property damage. The

known suspect category contains the number of suspects that have been identified and/oralleged to have committed hate crimes as stated in the crime report. For example,

witnesses observe three suspects fleeing the scene of a crime. The word known does

not necessarily refer to specific identities.

Lesbian Of or relating to females who experience sexual attraction toward and

responsiveness to other females; (noun) a homosexual female.

Location The place where the hate crime event occurred. The location categories

follow UCR location specifications developed by the FBI. Examples are residence, hotel,

bar, church, etc.

Multi-Racial A hate crime that involves more than one victim or suspect, and where

the victims or suspects are from two or more different race groups, such as African

American and white or Hispanic and Asian.

Nolo Contendere A plea or answer in a criminal action in which the accused does not

admit guilt but agrees to be subject to the same punishment as if he or she were guilty.

Offenses Criminal acts that are recorded as follows: murder, forcible rape, robbery,

aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, simple assault,

intimidation, and destruction/vandalism as defined in the UCR and the national Hate

Crimes Statistics Report.

Physical/Mental Disability Bias A preformed negative opinion or attitude toward a

group of persons based on physical or mental impediments/challenges, whether such

disabilities are congenital or acquired by heredity, accident, injury, advanced age, or

illness.

Property Crimes Burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, and

destruction/vandalism are reported as property crimes.

Racial Bias A preformed negative opinion or attitude toward a group of persons, such

as Asians, blacks, or whites, based on physical characteristics.

Relationship Between Complaints Filed and Convictions The annual

prosecutorial report collects data on the total number of hate crime cases filed and the

total number of hate crime convictions. There is no direct relationship between

complaints filed and convictions since a case may be filed in one year and the

outcome (trial or pleading) may occur in another.

8/13/2019 Preface 12

32/32

Religious Bias A preformed negative opinion or attitude toward a group of persons

based on religious beliefs regarding the origin and purpose of the universe and the

existence or nonexistence of a supreme being. Examples are Catholics, Jews, Protestants,

or Atheists.

Sexual-Orientation Bias A preformed negative opinion or attitude toward a group ofpersons based on sexual preferences and/or attractions toward and responsiveness to

members of their own or opposite sexes.

Simple Assault An unlawful attack by one person upon another that does not involve

the use of a firearm, knife, cutting instrument, or other dangerous weapon and in which

there were no serious or aggravated injuries to the victim (FBIs UCR definition).

Trial Verdict The finding or answer of a jury or judge concerning a matter submitted to

them for their judgment.

Uniform Crime Reporting A federal reporting system that provides data on crimebased on police statistics submitted by law enforcement agencies throughout the nation.

The DOJ administers and forwards the data for California to the federal program.

Victim An individual, a business or financial institution, a religious organization,

government, or other. For example, if a church or synagogue is vandalized or desecrated,

the victim would be a religious organization.

Violent Crimes Murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, simple assault, and

intimidation are considered violent crimes in this report. (Robbery is included in crimes

against property in the FBI Hate Crimes Statistics Report.)

AcknowledgmentsAcknowledgmentsThe annual Hate Crime in California report is mandated by California Penal section

13023. The Department extends its appreciation to all the law enforcement agencies,

district attorneys and elected city attorneys offices that provided complete and

timely data. This report would not have been possible without their cooperation.

An electronic version of this report and other reports are available on the California

Attorney Generals website at http://oag.ca.gov/.
http:///reader/full/http://oag.ca.govhttp:///reader/full/http://oag.ca.gov

Documents

Preface 12