U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Special Report

Hate Crimes Reported in 
NIBRS, 1997-99

September 2001, NCJ 186765

--------------------------------------------------------
This file is text only without graphics and many of the 
table.  A Zip archive of the tables in this report in 
spreadsheet format (.wk1) and the full report including 
tables and graphics in .pdf format are available from:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/hcrn97.htm
--------------------------------------------------------

By Kevin J. Strom
BJS Statistician

--------------------------------------------------------
Highlights

NIBRS hate crime data from 1997-99
showed that --

*  In 60% of hate crime incidents, the most
serious offense was a violent crime, most
commonly intimidation or simple assault.
*Intimidation, defined as verbal or related
threats of bodily harm, is one of the 
additional offenses collected in NIBRS.* 

*  In nearly 4 out of 10 incidents the most
serious crime was a property offense, 73% of
which were damage, destruction, or vandalism 
of property.
  
*  Sixty-one percent of hate crime incidents
were motivated by race, 14% by religion,
13% by sexual orientation, 11% by ethnicity,
and 1% by victim disability.

*  The majority of incidents motivated by
race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or
disability involved a violent offense, while
two-thirds of incidents motivated by religion
involved a property offense, most commonly
vandalism.

*  Of incidents motivated by hatred of a
religion, 41% targeted Jewish victims and
31%, unspecified religious groups.

*  Racially motivated hate crimes most
frequently targeted blacks.  Six in ten 
racially biased incidents targeted blacks, 
and 3 in 10 targeted whites.

*  Younger offenders were responsible for
most hate crimes.  Thirty-one percent of
violent offenders and 46% of property
offenders were under age 18. 

*  Thirty-two percent of hate crimes occurred
in a residence, 28% in an open space, 19%
in a retail/commercial establishment or public
building, 12% at a school or college, and 3%
at a church, synagogue, or temple.
-----------------------------------------------------

Over the past decade, Federal and State
legislation has mandated the identification
and reporting of offenses known as hate
crimes.  Today nearly every State and the
Federal Government have laws which
require sentencing enhancements for
offenders who commit hate crimes.  These
incidents, also referred to as bias crimes, 
are criminal offenses motivated by an 
offender's bias against a race, religion, 
disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity 
(FBI, 1999).  Bias crimes are not separate 
types of offenses but are crimes against 
persons, property, or society identified 
by a specific motivation of the offender.  

The Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990 (P.L.
101-275) required the establishment of a
system to provide information on the nature
and prevalence of hate crimes.  This
responsibility was given to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Uniform
Crime Reporting (UCR) program, which
began compiling hate crime statistics
reported to law enforcement departments in
1990.  The UCR data reflected aggregate
counts of incidents, victims, suspected
offenders, and categories of bias motivation. 

In recent years a growing number of law
enforcement agencies has reported incident-
level crime data to the FBI's National
Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). 

NIBRS represents a more comprehensive
and detailed crime reporting system, with 
the ability to capture a wide range of 
information on specific incidents. In 1997, 
1,878 agencies from 10 States submitted 
NIBRS data to the FBI, representing 6% of 
the U.S. population.  In 1999, 3,396 
agencies submitted NIBRS data, from 17 
States (Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, 
Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, 
North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, 
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, 
and West Virginia) representing 13% of the 
total population.

This report analyzes those NIBRS  cases
identified by law enforcement agencies as
hate crimes from 1997 to 1999.  Overall, 
bias crimes accounted for a relatively small
percentage of all criminal incidents reported
in NIBRS during this period.  Of the nearly
5.4 million NIBRS incidents reported by law
enforcement agencies between 1997 and
1999, about 3,000 were identified as hate
crimes.
  
Bias motivation 

NIBRS reporting requirements dictate that
hate crimes be categorized according to 
the perceived bias motivation of the 
offender. Due to the difficulty in 
determining an offender's motivations, 
law enforcement agencies record hate crimes 
only when investigation reveals facts 
sufficient to conclude that the offender's 
actions were bias motivated.  Evidence 
used to support the existence of bias could 
include oral comments, written statements, 
or gestures made by the offender at the time 
of the incident or drawings or graffiti left 
at the crime scene.  Other factors, including 
victim reporting and law enforcement 
procedure, can also impact the quality and 
accuracy of hate crime reporting.  
(See Methodology.)   

Among those bias incidents reported by
NIBRS-participating States from 1997 to
1999, 61% were motivated by racial bias,
14% by religious bias, 13% by sexual
orientation bias, 11% by ethnicity or 
national origin bias, and 1% by disability 
bias.
*  Among racially motivated hate crimes, 6 in
10 targeted blacks and 3 in 10 targeted
whites.  
*  Among crimes motivated by bias against a
religion, the majority were anti-Jewish crimes
or crimes against unnamed religious groups. 
*  Almost all incidents resulting from bias
against a sexual orientation were committed
against male or female homosexuals.  
*  Crimes motivated by hatred of an ethnicity
or national origin most frequently targeted
Hispanics.

Offense committed during hate crime
incidents 

The majority of offenses committed during
NIBRS hate crimes were violent. This
compared to all NIBRS offenses reported
between 1997-99, of which about 1 in 5
involved a violent offense. In 60% of hate
crime incidents, the most serious offense
was a violent crime while property crimes
were the most serious offenses reported in
38% of incidents. In about 2% of hate crime
incidents the most serious crime reported
was a drug, weapon, or other type of
offense.   

Intimidation, simple assault, and aggravated
assault were the most commonly reported
violent hate crime offenses, representing the
most serious offense in nearly 6 in 10 of all
bias incidents combined. Intimidation, which
refers to verbal or related threats of bodily
harm, was the most serious offense reported
in 23% of incidents. Simple assault, which
defines physical attacks without a weapon or
serious victim injury, was the most serious
offense recorded in 22% of incidents.  

Aggravated assault, which refers to attacks
in which the offender uses or displays a
weapon and/or the victim suffers serious
injury, was the most serious offense reported
in 13% of incidents. In an additional 1% of
hate crime incidents, the most serious
offense was robbery, and in less than 1%,
murder and nonnegligent or negligent
manslaughter.

Property crimes were the most serious
offense recorded in nearly 4 in 10 hate 
crime incidents, most commonly involving the
damage, destruction, or vandalism of personal 
or public property.  Overall, damage,
destruction, or vandalism of property was the
most serious offense recorded in 28% of all
bias incidents.  Arson was the most serious
crime reported in nearly 1% of bias incidents.

Offense type by bias motivation 

While hate crimes predominantly involved
assault-related or vandalism offenses, the
type of offense differed by bias motivation. 
Racially and ethnically motivated incidents
were the most likely to be violent. Overall, 
66% of race-related incidents and 69% of
ethnic-related incidents involved a violent
crime. In a quarter of racial or ethnically
motivated incidents, intimidation was the
most serious offense. 

Among crimes motivated by sexual orientation 
bias, 56% were violent and 42% were property 
offenses.  Simple or aggravated assault was 
the most serious offense recorded in 37% of 
these incidents, intimidation in 16%, and rape 
or sexual assault in 2%.  Violent crimes were 
reported in 12 of the 17 incidents motivated by
disability bias recorded in NIBRS between 1997 
and 1999.  

In contrast to other bias crimes, the majority
of crimes motivated by religious bias
involved property offenses. In 53% of these
incidents the most serious offense reported
was damage, destruction, or vandalism of
property.

-----------------------------------------
Measuring hate crime victimizations not
reported to the police
 
In general, the majority of crimes
experienced by the public are not reported 
to the police.  To examine both reported 
and unreported crime, BJS has collected 
data through its National Crime Victimization
Survey (NCVS) since 1972.  In the NCVS,
representative national samples of the
population are interviewed, with each victim
of a crime queried about whether the
victimization they experienced was reported
to a law enforcement agency.  In 2000 just
under half of violent crimes and just over a
third of property crimes were brought to the
attention of the police. 

NIBRS hate crime data reflect only those
incidents in which a law enforcement agency
was notified and properly recorded the event
(see Methodology for further discussion). On
July 1, 2000, BJS initiated the addition of
new items to the NCVS designed to uncover
hate crime victimizations which go unreported 
to law enforcement agencies. The NCVS hate 
crime questions ask victims about the basis 
for their belief that the crime they experienced 
was motivated by prejudice or bigotry, as well 
as the specific behavior of the offender or 
evidence which may have led to the victim's 
perception of bias.  

Preliminary data from the first 6 months of
fielding these questions indicate that the
majority of hate crime victims, like victims 
of many other crimes, do not report the 
incident to law enforcement.  

For the list of questions used in the NCVS 
to measure hate crime victimization see p.21
of <http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/
ncvs2.pdf>.
------------------------------------------

Victim characteristics

Type of victim

The targets of hate crimes were most
commonly individuals (84%) as opposed to
targets such as businesses or religious
organizations.  Businesses or financial
institutions represented 6% of bias 
victims, governments 4%, religious 
organizations 2%, and society or the 
general public represented 2%.

Victim demographics  

Overall, victims of bias crimes were 
relatively evenly distributed by age, with 
slightly smaller percentages reported 
among victims age 45 or older.  The age of 
hate crime victims varied according to the 
nature of the offense, as a larger 
percentage of victims of violent hate 
crime were young.  More than half of 
victims of violence were age 24 or under, 
and nearly a third were under 18. In 
comparison, of all violent crime victims
reported in NIBRS between 1997-99, about
2 in 10 were under age 18 and more than 4
in 10 were under age 25. 
     
Among hate crime victims of aggravated
assault, 30% were under 18, as were 34% of
victims of simple assault (not shown in
table).  Victims of intimidation tended to 
be older, as nearly 40% were age 35 or over. 
About 3 out of 4 property crime victims were
25 or older, and nearly a third were 45 or
older. 

Forty percent of all hate crime victims were
white males, 25% white females, 20% black
males, and 12% black females.  An additional 
2% of victims were Asian, and nearly 1% were 
American Indian. Overall, blacks represented 
36% of violent hate crime victims and 22% of 
property crime victims.  Whites represented 
62% and 74%, respectively.  

Victim-offender relationships  

NIBRS allows specification of the 
relationship between the victim and 
offender for violent offenses and 
nonviolent sex offenses. Among victims 
of violent hate crimes, 38% listed 
their attackers as acquaintances, 26%
as strangers, and 7% as intimates,
relatives, or friends.  The victim-
offender relationship remained unknown 
or unreported for 30% of bias victims.  
Among cases in which the victim and 
offender were acquaintances, 82% provided 
no additional information other than the 
offender was known to the victim, 16% 
reported that the offender was a neighbor, 
and 2% that the offender was an employer 
or employee (not shown in table).

Younger victims were more likely to be
victimized by persons known to them (not
shown in table).  Of violent victims age 
12 or younger, 61% were victimized by an 
acquaintance, 20% by a stranger, and 2% by 
a relative or friend.  For the remainder, 
the victim-offender relationship was unknown. 
Among victims age 13 to 17, 51% were
victimized by an acquaintance, 21% by a
stranger, and 4% by a relative or friend. 
In comparison, 31% of victims age 21 or 
older were victimized by an acquaintance, 
29% by a stranger, and 7% by an intimate, 
relative, or friend.

Group victimization patterns

More than 4 out of 5 violent hate crime
incidents reported in NIBRS involved the
victimization of a single individual with-
in a single incident.  Two or more victims 
were involved in nearly a quarter of 
incidents in which the most serious offense 
was aggravated assault (23%).  Violent 
incidents in which the most serious offense 
was rape (0 cases out of 6), robbery (13%), 
or intimidation (14%) were the least likely 
to involve multiple victims.   

Offender characteristics 

Offender demographics 

Similar to characteristics of the victims, 
the characteristics of hate crime offenders 
varied according to offense.  Among all 
NIBRS hate crime incidents, 33% of known 
offenders, which implies only that some 
characteristic of the suspect was identified, 
were age 17 or younger; 29%, age 18 to 24; 
17%, age 25 to 34; and 21%, age 35 or older.  
Violent offenders were generally older than 
property offenders.  Of violent offenders, 
31% were age 17 or younger and 60% were age 
24 or younger.  Of property offenders, 46% 
were age 17 or younger and 71% were age 24 
or younger. 

The majority of persons suspected of
committing hate crimes were white males. 
Among those suspected of violent hate
crimes, 60% were white males, 21% black
males, 10% white females, and 6% black
females.  Whites also represented a larger
share of persons suspected of committing
property-related hate crimes, as 69% of
property offenders were white males and
15% were white females. 

By bias motivation, whites represented the
majority of offenders suspected of
committing hate crimes:  religious,  (88%),
disability (85%), sexual orientation (84%),
ethnic (82%), and racial (66%) (not shown 
in table).  Among racially motivated 
incidents, 55% of suspected offenders were 
white males, 25% black males,11% white 
females, and 6% black females.   

Group offending patterns

About 3 in 4 violent hate crimes involved 
a single offender in a single incident.  
Two or more offenders were involved in 66% 
of robbery incidents, in 33% of aggravated
assaults, in 30% of simple assaults, and 
15% of intimidation incidents.  

Incident characteristics 

Location of hate crime incidents  

Of all bias incidents reported in NIBRS, 
32% were committed in a residence, 28% in 
an open space, 19% in a commercial/retail
business or public building, 12% in a school
or college, 7% in another or unknown
location, and 3% in a church, synagogue or
temple. (See Methodology for definitions.) 
Open spaces primarily refer to roadways and
parking garages or parking lots.  Thirty
percent or more  of racial, ethnic, and
disability-biased incidents were committed 
in an open space.  Among incidents motivated
by sexual orientation bias, 41% occurred
at a residence, 23% in an open space, 16%
at a school or college, and 15% at a commercial
/retail business or public building. A third 
of religious-biased crimes occurred at an 
educational or religious institution.      

Weapons in hate crimes 

Weapons were used in about 18% of all
violent hate crimes.  Firearms were used or
brandished in 4% of violent incidents, knives
or sharp objects in 4%, and a blunt object in
4%. By specific offense, homicides (3 out of
3 incidents) and aggravated assaults were
the most likely to involve the use or presence
of a weapon.  Firearms were used or
brandished in 17% of aggravated assault
incidents, knives in 17%, and blunt objects 
in 19%.  

The differences in weapon use and offense
type correspond to victim injury, with
aggravated assault victims the most likely 
to sustain a serious injury (not shown in 
table). Among all hate-related violent cases 
that provided information on injury outcome, 
47% reported no injury to the victim, 45% a 
minor injury, 3% a severe laceration,2% 
broken bones, and 3% some other type of major
injury.  In comparison, more than half of
aggravated assault victims sustained some
type of injury and 1 in 5 reported a more
serious injury such as broken bones, an
internal injury, or a severe laceration.
 
Time of day of hate crime incidents

The time of day at which violent hate crimes
were reported to have occurred was related
to the age of the victim.  Victims age 17 
or younger were most likely to be victimized
during the day, as nearly two-thirds of these
incidents occurred between 7 a.m. and 6
p.m., with a peak between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. 

Other research has also reported this
afternoon period as a peak time for juvenile
victimization.*For additional information
see Howard N. Snyder, Sexual Assault of 
Young children as Reported to Law Enforcement:
Victim, Incident, and Offender Characteristics, 
BJS, 2000, NCJ 182990; and Howard N. Snyder
and Melissa Sickmund, Juvenile Offenders
and Victims: 1999 National Report, Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
1999, NCJ 178257.*

In comparison, violent hate crimes involving
victims age 18 to 24 were more likely to
occur in the late evening, with a peak around
midnight.  More than a quarter of violent
incidents involving victims age 18 to 24
occurred between 10 p.m. and 1 a.m. 

Law enforcement response

Clearance rates 

NIBRS data indicate that 1 in 4 hate crime
incidents were cleared either by arrest or
exceptional means.  Overall, an arrest was
made in about 20% of hate crime incidents. 
An additional 5% of cases were cleared by
exceptional means, which most commonly
refers to cases in which either the victim
refused to cooperate or prosecution was
declined because of a lack of evidence.

Crimes in which the most serious offense
was homicide (67% of cases cleared),
forcible rape (67% cleared), kidnaping (50%
cleared), aggravated assault (40% cleared),
simple assault (39% cleared), or forgery/
fraud (39% cleared) were the most likely to 
be cleared through arrest or exceptional 
means.  In comparison, cases in which the 
most serious offense was intimidation (21%), 
vandalism (10%), arson (10%), or burglary 
(15%) were the least likely to be cleared.

Arrestee characteristics 

In NIBRS, more than a third of persons
arrested for hate crimes were under  18, 
and over a half were under 25 at the time 
of arrest. Younger persons were more likely 
to be arrested for property-related offenses. 
Fifty-six percent of persons arrested for
property offenses were age 17 or younger
compared to 28% of persons arrested for
violent hate crimes.

Offenders under age 18 comprised sizable
proportions of persons arrested for simple
assault (29%), intimidation (33%), and
damage, destruction, or vandalism of
property (66%) offenses. Three-fourths of
hate crime arrestees were white.  Eighty-five
percent were male, including 66% white
males and 18% black males.  

The vast majority (93%) of persons arrested
for hate crimes were not armed at the time 
of arrest.  About 2% of arrestees were armed
with a firearm, 2% with a knife, and 3% with
another type of weapon such as a blunt
object (not shown in table).

About 38% of hate crime arrests reported in
NIBRS were listed as on-view arrests,
suggesting that the officer caught the
offender during or shortly following the
incident (not shown in table).  An additional
25% of arrests involved the issuance of a
citation or summons in which the offender
was not taken into custody, and 37%
involved apprehensions in which suspects
were taken into custody in connection with
warrants or earlier crime incidents.  

Of cases providing data, two-thirds indicated
that arrestees were residents of the locality
in which the crime occurred.  Among persons
under 18 at the time of arrest, nearly 3 out 
of 4 were residents of the locality where the
incident took place.

---------------------------------------------
National hate crime statistics reported
through summary UCR, 1991-99

In 1990 the FBI began collecting information
on hate crimes reported by law enforcement
agencies as part of their Uniform Crime
Reporting (UCR) Program.  Since 1991
participation in the program has increased
substantially.  In 1999, 12,122 agencies in 
48 States and the District of Columbia 
reported summary hate crime data to the FBI.    

While the number of participating agencies
has grown, most agencies continue to submit
zero hate crimes for the year (figure). In
1991, 27% of the 2,771 participating
agencies submitted 1 or more hate crime
incidents, compared to 15% of the 12,122
participating agencies in 1999.

Nationally, the number of hate crimes
reported has fluctuated between about
6,000 and 9,000 incidents annually since
1991.  In 1996, 8,759 bias incidents were
reported to the FBI; in 1999, 7,876 
incidents. In the 1997-99 period covered 
in this report, NIBRS accounted for nearly 
13% of the 23,680 hate crime incidents 
reported nationally through the UCR program.  

Overall, the characteristics of hate crimes
reported nationally through the UCR Hate
Crime Data Collection Program were similar
to those bias incidents reported in
NIBRS-participating States.  The summary
UCR figures do reflect a higher percentage
of intimidation offenses (37% versus 22%),
and the NIBRS figures include a slightly
higher percentage of simple assault offenses
(21% versus 19%).

Bias motivation types were similar across
both summary UCR and NIBRS reporting
agencies.  For additional information on 
hate crime statistics, as well as a copy of 
the UCR hate crime incident form and hate 
crime collection guidelines go to
<http://www.fbi.gov/ucr.htm>.
-----------------------------------------------

Methodology 

To analyze the characteristics of hate crime
incidents four files were constructed from the
1997, 1998, and 1999 NIBRS master files.  Cases
with incident dates prior to 1997 were excluded,
as were incidents from States that had not yet
been officially certified by the FBI to report
NIBRS data. The first file constructed was an
incident-level file that included characteristics 
of the 2,976 hate crime incidents reported in
NIBRS, including offense type, time of day,
incident location, use or presence of weapons,
and the proportion of crimes cleared by arrest 
or exceptional means. The second file was a
victim-level file containing information on the
3,534 hate crime victims reported in NIBRS over
the 3-year period.  The third file was an
offender-level file that contained information
on 3,072 known hate crime offenders, which
implies that some characteristic of the suspect
was identified distinguishing him/her from 
an unknown offender.  The fourth file was 
an arrestee-level file that contained records 
on the 808 persons arrested for hate crime 
offenses. 

Variable recoding 

Victim-offender relationship was based on
calculations from the victim-level file.  For 
cases involving multiple offenders, the victim
-offender relationship reflects a hierarchy 
from best known to least known to the victim.  
For example, if two of the offenders were coded 
as strangers and one as an acquaintance to the 
victim, the victim-offender relationship was 
coded as acquaintance.  
 
Certain incident locations were recoded into
more general categories.  Open spaces includes
offenses committed at construction sites, 
field or woods, highway/road/alleys, lakes 
or waterways, and parking lots or garages.  
The category retail/commercial establishments 
and public buildings includes incidents that 
occurred in air/bus/train terminals, banks, 
bars or nightclubs, office buildings, con-
venience stores, department or specialty 
stores, grocery stores or supermarkets, drug 
stores or hospitals, liquor stores, rental 
storage, government or other types of public 
buildings, gas stations, hotels or motels, 
and restaurants. Incidents occurring in jails 
or prisons were recoded into the other/unknown 
category.     

Multiple offenses reported for single 
incident

The NIBRS reporting structure allows for two
or more offenses to be recorded for a single
incident. Overall, multiple offenses were
reported in about 5% of all NIBRS hate crime
incidents.  For those incidents in which
multiple offenses were reported the
"hierarchy rule" was used to determine the
most serious Part I offense in the incident
(See Effects of NIBRS on Crime Statistics,
BJS Special Report, NCJ 178890, July 2000,
for details).  The only exception to this 
rule was for arson. If arson was committed 
in an incident along with other property 
crimes, arson was considered the most serious
property offense.  For Part II offenses the
following hierarchy was used: violent,
property, drugs, and weapons offenses.    

Of those secondary hate crime offenses that
occurred during an incident in the 1997-99
period, nearly 2 out 3 were damage,
destruction, or vandalism offenses. In 
cases in which vandalism was reported 
as a secondary offense, the most serious 
offense in the incident was most 
frequently burglary (31%), intimidation 
(30%), simple assault (19%), or aggravated 
assault (11%).  

Limitations of NIBRS hate crime 
statistics 

At present the NIBRS data reported by law 
enforcement agencies are not a nationally 
representative sample of hate crimes
incidents throughout the country.  In 
particular, large urban areas are under-
represented in NIBRS, as only one city with 
a population of 500,000 or more participated 
in the reporting system as of yearend 1999.  
Despite these limitations, the total number 
of hate crime incidents in the NIBRS universe 
and the detailed characteristics provided in 
this reporting system represent a unique 
opportunity for a better understanding of 
hate crime incidents.

A number of factors can impact the quality 
and accuracy of national hate crime statistics.  
Many of these factors are summarized in the 
BJS-funded report, Improving the Quality and
Accuracy of Bias Crime Statistics Nationally: 
An Assessment of the First Ten Years of Bias 
Crime Data Collection (September 2000), 
available at http://www.dac.neu.edu/cj/
crimereport.pdf>. This report suggests that 
the barriers to hate crime reporting can be 
separated into two general categories: (1) 
victim-related reporting factors and (2) 
factors that effect police recording bias
incidents or reporting them to the FBI. The
report identifies 7 decision-making points
necessary for accurate national reporting:

1. The victim acknowledges a crime
was committed; 
2. The victim recognizes that hate bias 
was a motivating factor for the crime; 
3. The victim or another party
contacts police about the incident;
4. The victim or another party
communicates to police that bias was 
a motivating factor; 
5. Law enforcement recognizes the
element of hate;
6. Law enforcement documents the type of 
bias, which could lead to the suspect
being charged with a civil rights or bias
offense; 
7. Law enforcement records the incident 
and submits the information to the
FBI's UCR Hate Crime Reporting Unit.  

Selected NIBRS offense definitions

Arson: To unlawfully and intentionally
damage, or attempt to damage, any real or
personal property by fire or incendiary
device.  

Assault, aggravated: An unlawful attack by
one person upon another wherein the offender 
uses a weapon or displays it in a threatening 
manner, or the victim suffers obvious severe 
or aggravated bodily injury involving apparent 
broken bones, loss of teeth, possible internal 
injury, severe laceration, or loss of 
consciousness.  This also includes assault 
with disease (as in cases when the offender is 
aware that he/she is infected with a deadly 
disease and deliberately attempts to inflict 
the disease by biting, spitting, etc.).    

Assault, simple: An unlawful attack by one
person upon another where neither the
offender displays a weapon nor the victim
suffers obvious severe or aggravated bodily
injury.  

Assault, intimidation: To unlawfully place
another person in reasonable fear of bodily
harm through the use of threatening words
and/or other conduct, but without displaying
a weapon or subjecting the victim to actual
physical attack.   

Destruction/damage/vandalism of
property: To willfully or maliciously destroy,
damage, deface, or otherwise injure real or
personal property without the consent of the
owner or the person having custody or control 
of it. (Note: This offense is reported only 
if the reporting agency deems that substantial 
injury to the property has occurred.

The offense includes a broad range of injury
to property, from deliberate, extensive
destruction to less extensive damage.  It
does not include destruction or damage to
property caused by the crime of arson.)

Forcible sex offenses: Any sexual act
directed against another person, forcibly
and/or against the person's will; or not
forcibly or against the person's will where 
the victim is incapable of giving consent. 
Forcible rape, forcible sodomy, sexual
assault with an object, and forcible fondling
are included in this category.  

Forcible rape: The carnal knowledge or a
person, forcibly, and/or against that 
person's will; or not forcibly or against 
the person's will where the victim is 
incapable of giving consent because of his
/her temporary or permanent mental or 
physical incapacity (or because of his/her 
youth). 

Homicide: The killing of one human being by
another.  

Murder and nonnegligent 
manslaughter: The willful (nonnegligent)
killing of one human being by another.   
Negligent manslaughter: The killing of
another person through negligence. 
  
Kidnaping/abduction: The unlawful seizure,
transportation, and/or detention of a 
person against his/her will, or of a minor 
without the consent of his/her custodial 
parent(s) or legal guardian.   

Robbery: The taking, or attempting to take,
anything of value under confrontational
circumstances from the control, custody, 
or care of another person by force or threat 
of force or violence and/or by putting the 
victim in fear of immediate harm.  

-----------------------------------------
The Bureau of Justice Statistics
is the statistical agency of the U.S.
Department of Justice.  Lawrence A.
Greenfeld is acting director.

Kevin J. Strom wrote this report under the
supervision of Steven K. Smith, Chief, Law
Enforcement, Adjudication, and Federal
Statistics.  Ramona Rantala gave statistical
assistance and provided statistical review. 
Greg Steadman also provided statistical
review. Victoria Major, Sharon Propheter,
Christopher Enourato, and Thomas Edwards
of the Criminal Justice Information Services
Division of the FBI reviewed and commented
on the report.  Ellen Goldberg and Tom
Hester edited the report.  Jayne Robinson
prepared the report for publication.

September 2001, NCJ 186765
-------------------------------------------

End of file
09/05/01 ih