<%BANNER%>

Law Enforcement Officers' Endorsement of Bias Characterization of Crime Scenarios: A Prospective Study of Differences be...

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110217_AAAABA INGEST_TIME 2011-02-17T14:02:59Z PACKAGE UFE0015650_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 38920 DFID F20110217_AABALV ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH lane_f_Page_023.pro GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
fb275d59405f9a071d085fc59689dabd
SHA-1
dcbe0756f570ed023fe466b51915418e17740f18
50642 F20110217_AAAZZU lane_f_Page_107.pro
95ae9dab728dc47c4c8a2c6961658bea
4f66e2f15d21602cd888051a19dc959a985ecf13
50633 F20110217_AABAMJ lane_f_Page_044.pro
6c5233cc4806dbc0a5706b2b5e2aa1ba
8b43b34c7f347ab02c891d896f7e0a770a078fc2
51866 F20110217_AABALW lane_f_Page_024.pro
20a9daa481d808de1bd797661230b691
4460b156402b44b9dd439ef1eb2ed04957006184
1997 F20110217_AAAZZV lane_f_Page_108.txt
7f77a2abc15d9b2ed3cfc92617ed268c
45e45c08c2d7c23989a7c50226b11bdbd917d1a8
49458 F20110217_AABAMK lane_f_Page_047.pro
d071baaeb6a8c563eff7346f6c49b9a3
9d7da01dc8473042114f57c767390fd0f5b1cbfb
49193 F20110217_AABALX lane_f_Page_025.pro
90da960bcd2002834b8088511b4d08b6
2f43e4b1bdfa6a60d453d88b73e55a7c73cd9e78
24163 F20110217_AAAZZW lane_f_Page_077.QC.jpg
17a34cef626aaac27eb2986c49612396
e09071b80a6e888ce0678bf61a7ce59045f6ffdc
53301 F20110217_AABAML lane_f_Page_048.pro
7172c9c0513499eda07a6e2bc41c73e5
2c3b2993a48e026adfaa2ce537e720b447b86585
52913 F20110217_AABALY lane_f_Page_028.pro
6b516619e086c5f8c9a589156d6754ad
7261c2631c5c7ffa435fc2f1977cec3c8e361138
39670 F20110217_AABANA lane_f_Page_082.pro
12f5477642050bef94c40ba4dbdc382c
ec1b58fed3f4a43475cfc12815f87fc877d95ce4
8423998 F20110217_AAAZZX lane_f_Page_025.tif
84f31154ec480cf253a96cb5f367e014
600aab07a4a1dcc76b2a1645441ea6d2fc5b581b
46797 F20110217_AABAMM lane_f_Page_049.pro
0baba7c7ceac4bcff57d66ea1e8abd32
617436b3459ebe3d349393ea304c99e54a2a5f31
47825 F20110217_AABANB lane_f_Page_083.pro
7d9d02a4f755a6d8ae4d77fb5e46e6ff
b6802d0597113cc451f820689cc844dc8f038e50
F20110217_AAAZZY lane_f_Page_059.tif
24d15b208ae3161b8bd43ce93107d12a
9be0b8b833a0e38264c011ee09504a3b764be942
F20110217_AABAMN lane_f_Page_052.pro
ab6597ec1bb99a2698aba5b790e0f630
efa1a3c9958e776f0831da618b61408a8ccd7314
49312 F20110217_AABALZ lane_f_Page_030.pro
c4a618764eb1d7dd122fba27e4e7c05c
55ca3e3f60a2f05a42e01c0ef9e9efa291d994c9
39707 F20110217_AABANC lane_f_Page_084.pro
744c36880076c3b0e9b3abe6f7af6502
92ab1c05f226d57d4b81898a81348bd20c8c7a00
2021 F20110217_AAAZZZ lane_f_Page_065.txt
fdb17c79216e79123c8ed75b9fed3b58
3142943d09e1388532f863af1cef5329328c9f3c
54226 F20110217_AABAMO lane_f_Page_055.pro
dfa1712821dd0f3bcdcc3186e362909f
5141f93cb50bedb3a29d110380f28f10447d6e90
24479 F20110217_AABAND lane_f_Page_087.pro
4a5d4355913a01d7e1ef5be27e374f7d
fccd3ce13973c8b071407165c6565e7e948a7591
50393 F20110217_AABAMP lane_f_Page_060.pro
7ed863724b35d6f1f2dc31c61d03592f
a1e8408ca6c4a71bfa2f67064c7119af1812d6c6
38175 F20110217_AABANE lane_f_Page_088.pro
fb269a837fb7b5c2bb30f2854720a1a6
83e562f39086ac6bf0066d6b7f71962b3d8a4bfd
51908 F20110217_AABAMQ lane_f_Page_061.pro
963e9353e5795dd3fc96bedcb62b7d62
34b63d00848a8b5071ba7805e257525bbef1f989
30698 F20110217_AABANF lane_f_Page_089.pro
2fa2c5a51d841f52c0bb2db55add2f46
01305f0f810d904117ac2e5f054690275e3bf423
50497 F20110217_AABAMR lane_f_Page_064.pro
ba048775bea145dafa6fa5c274009cb2
ca9927399646311c9f2a370748e340667166837b
34971 F20110217_AABANG lane_f_Page_090.pro
0598d8e05fb46eca1ead217d6bfb116b
5ba7e09dc60318413347093ecc1de18664fec273
52301 F20110217_AABAMS lane_f_Page_066.pro
ec8aa892e17a880f0dc8e9019ed6988a
0a9ff95c12853a01e93aa1ee56f23fee40d2a8d0
35039 F20110217_AABANH lane_f_Page_092.pro
76ed5ef9ff6ce5aba9256fe02102ac87
05979b5e7bd18f94e5f7b9c36ae260172602de37
4650 F20110217_AABAMT lane_f_Page_067.pro
7c1f956c76fc183e9b06e4497e570b9c
975ed9bb8aa50e64137c902d8c848be31d1cbbc1
29917 F20110217_AABANI lane_f_Page_093.pro
bc25defcf9b2128ce3b1bc3cfdf23dbb
0180e857c037e1d07c3b18c07a3e155f6cffcea9
48095 F20110217_AABAMU lane_f_Page_069.pro
ba93582e4a48776f59df5862d28a3b48
4c7029877e8035de91ad5ce19bcfb052eb2c3ee1
58022 F20110217_AABANJ lane_f_Page_094.pro
23a9fa7b58dfb6b36495be8101f61d99
91f9f8b20f272ec25a6812995273a19c4307f06b
F20110217_AABAMV lane_f_Page_070.pro
9e8d881e6c4fdc41eea74f6fa2cfbbc1
23e8a735c3078ddb416e3cd6170dd8f5e059cc52
58859 F20110217_AABANK lane_f_Page_096.pro
0302b9787ae3ff1c62c9177f14ff45be
aeee9a53ddc5e8a0b97393f1294282d05f67e124
52129 F20110217_AABAMW lane_f_Page_072.pro
a039a5d6c80236a17084cdeb23ef9c41
424cc941340ddd747f7d80e4e0402f05e3ca9446
50082 F20110217_AABANL lane_f_Page_098.pro
3abf5b157cd684ad7bc674afdd6bfa5a
73b3771bb445307bf97ea2f9e41e7e756218899c
48696 F20110217_AABAMX lane_f_Page_073.pro
8e119487f23fc19619fc2ff08d5c1fd3
1c6aeeeadb7c8634a7aff247a16a26a60e107754
6345 F20110217_AABAOA lane_f_Page_122.pro
10b1665bef06290fd24a55dc0ba558f4
adae46f42dd5c92dc5c3b9d1921372d144e134b7
53077 F20110217_AABANM lane_f_Page_099.pro
36bf09c48cd942b7fa6f62f5f228596a
19c8d35689ec70fdfcd2f0d4639f12e6ed31a6dc
50039 F20110217_AABAMY lane_f_Page_080.pro
db1c1434dc7061d846e4d0ab790c7179
96926b5c8202e3cb339cdae6434b257f7ef42b0f
38497 F20110217_AABAOB lane_f_Page_123.pro
56ab74748eb35349591fd393ed9f97c0
45a63264d0354a6d333518209dea359838a58ef9
51911 F20110217_AABANN lane_f_Page_100.pro
fd1d7c50795ea91e7eecc934b2d04516
09618bbf47b6a3b952d8ff71df5d3365aead05c3
43700 F20110217_AABAMZ lane_f_Page_081.pro
5b75e4efd2c05be73b8c2d3d1d83ac74
e32a31d1b948b7f93a0416633487961f9bff0f31
39852 F20110217_AABAOC lane_f_Page_124.pro
7752b5aa8b98100e3a7ec4a522efd2cf
fd7ddd495e6ddfb4a58d19e0c561d1bf0b93d6da
44392 F20110217_AABANO lane_f_Page_102.pro
b888fa5c2e5a511f1d3907cce710b40e
9daf6f32ed4013703cfac1195bdf5ff5dd8679a8
12260 F20110217_AABAOD lane_f_Page_125.pro
3c84b686e3afb0000ef292f9778dc8dc
9d0f5640e8abe57bcade5885e71ee01d0fe4d85a
68205 F20110217_AABANP lane_f_Page_103.pro
2e3b82a4d708cbe4d91261a44747c21f
398524aaed4a23733e1b5d0923f2cc92fd95cc82
47543 F20110217_AABAOE lane_f_Page_126.pro
d03aec9ec1cb65e7e5a2de9d8a6ae41a
f5b80996b399f88400f665348cd426fe78532d3a
48148 F20110217_AABANQ lane_f_Page_106.pro
075922933ef59ce8a0cc282ca5d3afcb
2f76cc03999bffcb15f9103d17d6f8a7f5b36f85
59482 F20110217_AABAOF lane_f_Page_127.pro
d57fdecacb7f42d14cab378a9603b00f
69ebb721b28d95ba1ce86b98e27a7e195aa2f160
50750 F20110217_AABANR lane_f_Page_108.pro
512de532cce3aa9d7b45c625680e9b59
6a7ea4c53226780776927415678c7a2322c2383b
56007 F20110217_AABAOG lane_f_Page_129.pro
8f49dc829770ec8979b5c942cebe5e94
2e357db2163630b22a74a6a3bbbc4d023bb60347
52498 F20110217_AABANS lane_f_Page_109.pro
58d44762c7b024fcb95199fcfbadf1f4
26de8dcc067efe5d55a4b04d4821b81546d37ebd
59873 F20110217_AABAOH lane_f_Page_130.pro
0c8821f66a68a3c45691d2b42aeb7b55
04d57034f9f2f98f7221c46a44ad3ca279a1dca2
48000 F20110217_AABANT lane_f_Page_110.pro
cf6008f73b84a5fbe1ea9539b648c679
29e6e8239a32f2b3683fd933786ca5aaeb87ae4b
57600 F20110217_AABAOI lane_f_Page_131.pro
9ec542d4e276d76a86d99ecbe1383a8e
cf69be7549432338bfaab8bc60c8fccf3d89b641
40876 F20110217_AABANU lane_f_Page_111.pro
c5a035a11be03408447eb98c49889765
f09cc9ca6f28b753e7eff9f2791e63a2fa4989f7
57458 F20110217_AABAOJ lane_f_Page_132.pro
42e5147a6c528850c5be7898d5279c66
9a0180d184f77fd5160b29364d674957baba978d
43729 F20110217_AABANV lane_f_Page_112.pro
df9cca12ffd4489335d2191da56d95a8
14eec842eb5dd47d3a691db0cb16fd4e05c4eb3f
51743 F20110217_AABAOK lane_f_Page_134.pro
7a55404d03a13aa8bdbbd1b286c80e12
40179aac4b37b19c86704021c1869ba101e27b49
44096 F20110217_AABANW lane_f_Page_115.pro
9d105c2a4b0fbb9adce17630a264df85
25b160e26175a8011c2446440761913d5d0ab4f3
62609 F20110217_AABAOL lane_f_Page_135.pro
139b9fcb9af34369746817e5514ec242
66ba2f7a409c87b39aba01cb0d24a3f4a46193b5
43688 F20110217_AABANX lane_f_Page_118.pro
7ce5b74e1fe303dc1a1a6d7206f33093
6645eb4e33717d60669d4bcfaba499164ae270bc
20051 F20110217_AABAOM lane_f_Page_137.pro
d65d3922ce6a8ead156abc98ed2b7c26
f761fea67a911d5800c37e829bc3e267633a39c9
5585 F20110217_AABANY lane_f_Page_119.pro
fa667a368fa7ef6467f13908adb7e5af
7de590e6733fc0a8023d99f1b15e4b5d6c4b8069
10414 F20110217_AABAPA lane_f_Page_011.QC.jpg
b9333af9257cb7aa59202d3afc419578
0f910dac245c58fbd4192f9e0196bce8abcd7fab
28253 F20110217_AABAON lane_f_Page_001.jpg
767ddd1f313a721609267316767e0b91
d61a7f6792e4aea9529f2a6235a2907588de04b7
38349 F20110217_AABANZ lane_f_Page_120.pro
aac4f85b56024d68eb48ce39d0663ea3
bda215fae6a54c268e2505aabeeb361b6c345122
22814 F20110217_AABAPB lane_f_Page_012.QC.jpg
75aa249247fddfe0431e8b724210261d
b6e56225cfc6da965f86647efe845a11e609ace4
87833 F20110217_AABAPC lane_f_Page_014.jpg
ab91d73bef367b5318953c59466a5763
cca7905cf3b8f5df6eb362684daa08e153ece479
4034 F20110217_AABAOO lane_f_Page_002.jpg
94c1df0b5dc7c917035b2211816064ce
253a0324a85a97addae1d4d429b533aaa93fe83c
26914 F20110217_AABAPD lane_f_Page_014.QC.jpg
f4acfa6bcd67ed05325ada13ce762959
5dd6e85d75a6a7396c6e2737909fcdadec38f64f
1306 F20110217_AABAOP lane_f_Page_002.QC.jpg
181f4bd8c2b3449c9909bbc1280c29fc
eee4a30f529bbcdd77d0ca125c8d8f8ad1e203d3
76429 F20110217_AABAPE lane_f_Page_015.jpg
256e1422f840cc9c20de018360988060
3deeab82bd9e331dabc2ea7ee9cb5906dc27ad02
4918 F20110217_AABAOQ lane_f_Page_003.QC.jpg
a399d1745a2c8e0cd02caef36f9aa4cc
a6fd14c8869d06575512f34bf82f760dbc0240ff
23656 F20110217_AABAPF lane_f_Page_015.QC.jpg
87e45954a2d21e2f9073c0814811a7af
da9fc5aa06ad5a028fea550198fbd3117642bc16
71749 F20110217_AABAOR lane_f_Page_004.jpg
8759203054464ed8c864779306db717d
4de1b7e9814ecc9b02023bc311dd57057fb2bfba
84058 F20110217_AABAPG lane_f_Page_016.jpg
c5f52febb641062df79cee335ee75b8d
a470b3ff882945b7dc9fcf9248425f2ea3042308
22924 F20110217_AABAOS lane_f_Page_004.QC.jpg
23a754d32b510103270ddc7ea011ef8a
c1bbd1b5f2c881a7be3c659165eafbc363889eb9
84062 F20110217_AABAPH lane_f_Page_017.jpg
e492e6403f1a9a294177eb2267ba6fa6
222f93767984bc4d54c30864f873221e460573a8
20864 F20110217_AABAOT lane_f_Page_005.QC.jpg
269818299fcea83ccc146d3e7be58035
b3eb3d3185252350536e5554e02d829f8ba7e033
85260 F20110217_AABAPI lane_f_Page_018.jpg
9289b98f1dfcea82305f886b62f9e2ea
d270a7be21bc1ecc26d3e73062b0637f6ce342f8
12054 F20110217_AABAOU lane_f_Page_006.QC.jpg
1bc2b9008b16b4e7b48c170deeab64cb
ddf792d24ae4b7c968f245c8a2d51e2bd169ad61
84317 F20110217_AABAPJ lane_f_Page_019.jpg
7130775ee0862fec43e77dd43821e2fc
82fbaf2fc7db0b0cfe2ef3c46806e466d222ad6e
19385 F20110217_AABAOV lane_f_Page_007.QC.jpg
4aba3b3c242dbf4bb985d02ade6566a7
955f11c0fd9d18e2c72b018af396120bc114fe8c
26559 F20110217_AABAPK lane_f_Page_019.QC.jpg
375dd69fb0b91e8897bc011ed33e3cf3
ac453ae21ac122ef6ecce867ae1a5c2043e523be
36050 F20110217_AABAOW lane_f_Page_008.jpg
ddc70591b8c5b28933f0089e7a1d09bc
15fc5938e51d2dfb4bf12af58438eca36a4dfa0e
83527 F20110217_AABAPL lane_f_Page_021.jpg
594b15dd0d8fd5d34f1710005159f42f
743df928372dfa31183aed2fad0ffb901dfaa852
9035 F20110217_AABAOX lane_f_Page_009.QC.jpg
a6ec79715362dcca7b724c7d8dc228c4
338c380f7a7655465503ed6d4fb8803b1c374274
84144 F20110217_AABAQA lane_f_Page_032.jpg
7426985367155e5d6a175e0b479f1edb
7e4573c4a1c0e54dfdcd98ea5f5e7c3b43dddcae
22969 F20110217_AABAPM lane_f_Page_022.jpg
87eda502e129e3cafce69ee9a9a1fe26
522d6a5164d2906484185cbfb6353a0fd2d81eb0
70163 F20110217_AABAOY lane_f_Page_010.jpg
2b6ccb3d258b0c6ffe1564a2b669354b
83f5aa13356f27f400752a72577b788943366215
26617 F20110217_AABAQB lane_f_Page_032.QC.jpg
b049e41a381faed2bf5d7da70cc903ad
21205f1a11aff5b96744830ec60be47e7afa203a
20556 F20110217_AABAPN lane_f_Page_023.QC.jpg
59bc521acbdb95a22cd3a30de3cb719b
accac90ab229d1f271ad8c5b1bcc43c001a75e66
32804 F20110217_AABAOZ lane_f_Page_011.jpg
ad534dffeb8be506308631bcd2e9d9ac
b127a14334488567d9f135b31d6813330ac62f9d
25505 F20110217_AABAQC lane_f_Page_033.QC.jpg
5e66a345f7dfa9d3fb8814790744082c
f3e3afeb07ee0a89802bd056d1724d38552e5b01
84256 F20110217_AABAPO lane_f_Page_024.jpg
ab74bd1557c3e93b4a3a577019c9eb29
93f38b3ddda4b1adf769d50a184e818f872d0258
85198 F20110217_AABAQD lane_f_Page_034.jpg
b45be9caf074f36d49c794b3adb37984
aaeccd71f27ca0f1d7bb0610e0f29a034bfd8d8c
26548 F20110217_AABAPP lane_f_Page_024.QC.jpg
50e41bb638a9c4b9fb8e7b495746be3a
fbf49d5c0a3980864dd5559010c0428c8c3f7382
26124 F20110217_AABAQE lane_f_Page_034.QC.jpg
c4a07c68d58674783af847c9b2c5f7ee
8fa8c8f375d0f25b37c4d071d7bd2a46795e2df5
81388 F20110217_AABAPQ lane_f_Page_025.jpg
86b3bd11505c03a49ed7cf9277776e38
4ad408bc57c7159c27a2180db036883fe8ae18a0
80282 F20110217_AABAQF lane_f_Page_035.jpg
05646b784cf8975a9ec1204006c5d2de
a6b7903235ce0e1b67c2ace58b6854ec0a645e73
25867 F20110217_AABAPR lane_f_Page_026.QC.jpg
15876bc6cde3d51b85f99af2498951df
8a695eddd9859df0c8ba8781e4424a9002031f57
24392 F20110217_AABAQG lane_f_Page_035.QC.jpg
1e3f93e46cfc98710d55b1d680d8d081
8c46e2ac3bd114c16165873d6ea210436567e84d
84438 F20110217_AABAPS lane_f_Page_027.jpg
cd2bb4643a241311767bd76c430d1f6f
09e728c488b28bf4aa09bc046c5df768a170b387
82294 F20110217_AABAQH lane_f_Page_036.jpg
60777061daf2797a281bd0bd52b4c790
93d2f42f6ac81e92d3f98f1e65c643052eb4c479
26686 F20110217_AABAPT lane_f_Page_027.QC.jpg
4ff7e7b4532957831472772f9766f207
0efec6e9ca286510287675e6dbd716d797285128
26262 F20110217_AABAQI lane_f_Page_036.QC.jpg
36ea5e28bf92652e637a18a2c112faa6
b3a9a7a6fd85ff074d3bbfce2898f9f3cb363e00
85913 F20110217_AABAPU lane_f_Page_028.jpg
f289d8a58e6ba4691cad79b2249fc305
2806dab1de9048c1e221b337386a2d73940c0483
81660 F20110217_AABAQJ lane_f_Page_037.jpg
b4e21d36ad1e22ebb8654c807495d681
9923a59e954b036ed02286b7baf6316c4a421505
27325 F20110217_AABAPV lane_f_Page_028.QC.jpg
df44123b72d595361232aea941052cd2
d3d16e05b81f679b772a826421f2c091eca6fd25
85070 F20110217_AABAQK lane_f_Page_038.jpg
d19af203443396be77ffa41ba3c936c8
6aba563e8d3da6e44e59823e6252f33f7d59f804
26391 F20110217_AABAPW lane_f_Page_029.QC.jpg
624d9ebe2a5d2124099be77990872e7d
6bc12e14e04dbca63858a61db3973dffd8ab8115
26319 F20110217_AABAQL lane_f_Page_038.QC.jpg
2a0d6bcc29c850a60eee510f933db7e8
c9d6e822c3d683a3c9d137f285277edefd6b56ff
82094 F20110217_AABAPX lane_f_Page_030.jpg
85e6a2a9071765ee0e7ca6749216d50f
bddc14934b8f52259f0cd7a1b15eb59ce5e87d58
88100 F20110217_AABAQM lane_f_Page_039.jpg
04a7bfc65303219bf37c9823f1f9a47c
cdd097d3240f340252d9d83bd000ba84b5054e45
25235 F20110217_AABAPY lane_f_Page_030.QC.jpg
38fa694d4631112d5df5e1eea1f72305
101ceda645c1f9e747b72c7b97f606a51cb7d8ef
24806 F20110217_AABARA lane_f_Page_047.QC.jpg
129654a784f8f0d1f210a890778e3e47
ea83e6bae2e89d0addd361c70fbf17d3a853b06b
27103 F20110217_AABAQN lane_f_Page_039.QC.jpg
9e735a45257beab8632f5205905b020b
5fcd923581bf2f77ff4901e752b5a3ffd324b18c
27014 F20110217_AABAPZ lane_f_Page_031.QC.jpg
3c8f78ff23a754b80502be879f5d7daa
744bbe71c010c903e9b01f6f942c4370135efcdf
87195 F20110217_AABARB lane_f_Page_048.jpg
276c798f29a2d042f7df8b08fdfd0d9b
dce7500a4f9367f28fafa46e99a5f1172366c50b
85670 F20110217_AABAQO lane_f_Page_040.jpg
8ceae2775c8965cbd94b774df291494c
4c49e074071a0a4bdcdd97ff72dc570162b0b191
27732 F20110217_AABARC lane_f_Page_048.QC.jpg
b1e38e1dd0cd9b7269f0597dfdad5f97
8809afc5f48b85f9c79b7f132707b6226a67a144
26434 F20110217_AABAQP lane_f_Page_040.QC.jpg
11fafaaed0f600e0912bd798078a9462
12e9797517ec03901af198e8bfd1d92a20a07e09
24656 F20110217_AABARD lane_f_Page_049.QC.jpg
162d0a79751e602409cbb50dc55611c9
1d52e5c8bda39fb74cef17fb2c073e1618b107cb
87017 F20110217_AABAQQ lane_f_Page_041.jpg
6dc8ae2f809ea1ffce005fff5abdd341
c81f38c8a1849203faa38f30e68ce6b261855ec0
84142 F20110217_AABARE lane_f_Page_050.jpg
7f6f1ce76bcf4bcd0c3dbbb3ed6bdff1
9ca9619219468b780679bc536cac2d52b6a68109
26762 F20110217_AABAQR lane_f_Page_041.QC.jpg
0686aefccc452056ae7e33bd1a1c2e93
78cce531d20310397bd0aca61d804306fae80a3c
25788 F20110217_AABARF lane_f_Page_051.QC.jpg
659ca0634fc347a1803040fb733d4b87
ad86311636f035aebb9a8c215e8626d034cd5ac9
88832 F20110217_AABAQS lane_f_Page_042.jpg
bb6e1975eaa62e3cfdfa7b700c432b3a
d64494a70c0911be8b10ef20008c837017aeec0e
82710 F20110217_AABARG lane_f_Page_052.jpg
856dc1de720c66a7e30b369035476ed7
76c8cc9f083ec3a107f8930fd650a38ac56740a6
82688 F20110217_AABAQT lane_f_Page_043.jpg
d6d0b7955a7129de2046c4dd1062ed8d
efd2683c0d6fb03ba116bdffbbd9ae47484aae57
25243 F20110217_AABARH lane_f_Page_052.QC.jpg
71872f7683b29f8bab8cbb65f1622110
93b176ebe7ee88be7fffbfbe185888d87611c980
25627 F20110217_AABAQU lane_f_Page_043.QC.jpg
35d4aaa43bcd405082a8b5d5f3c92101
0c9e3f00ce4c306d0b548211e30c42135b0cb2e2
26322 F20110217_AABARI lane_f_Page_053.QC.jpg
aeba08e30438747903146827fed07ceb
8782a6cb79a5e848a0b9638935be26fe1b9a3dcd
26489 F20110217_AABAQV lane_f_Page_044.QC.jpg
9b7f7d13ebe8da886abc025ca1a68eec
5a1d0a3f6ce11f150bdc8f6ff780f3392ff23f4e
80838 F20110217_AABARJ lane_f_Page_054.jpg
3d125acaf0f7d2396209395e0352f48b
45bbcbf1266a0fcc9ac1dd82b5535ed8a13e016e
82613 F20110217_AABAQW lane_f_Page_045.jpg
6a27f4d0087f1ac3eea39d6754c1a226
eaaaa9cdae3a7d06ef45ff288579a8c34c08cada
25347 F20110217_AABARK lane_f_Page_054.QC.jpg
9f5b4d06402a2510efacb8d9786aa96c
a1a98a9bbb9e28fc88c0735702ff31a94b77e760
79642 F20110217_AABAQX lane_f_Page_046.jpg
e13047a855dca4bdd484c6e069d05d89
4e8a06a9da4cfa7c934657c138129b4cbdbc562d
26720 F20110217_AABARL lane_f_Page_055.QC.jpg
af9ff2e0117d288ccbd2a53914e68a2c
1cb181f69c8730ed2ce7b386eafd03b70edd8883
25368 F20110217_AABAQY lane_f_Page_046.QC.jpg
5baf59c67d57bc7a49d8ebbbb837d352
48da33685dd6abe9a70d363cdfb005022dc60c71
24570 F20110217_AABASA lane_f_Page_069.QC.jpg
2fa697050a86fdc2b11ffa436feb2eda
6d8e089526ee36aa1a38e4178c632b38d1bc9fa8
84516 F20110217_AABARM lane_f_Page_057.jpg
f32a9edaf67aaefc821c73194d6e3d13
1b18c6965ce87cc41338377d9612b8030f3968a9
80997 F20110217_AABAQZ lane_f_Page_047.jpg
14fa0afface30679287abc663feb49d1
de5d99a4ee8b64f1c5002e8d01a6301fa640d062
85286 F20110217_AABASB lane_f_Page_070.jpg
ac99640df17faaf61d6e322cd8e9e694
35d40a8ac7e60bb27b311482838c204c5ce0c8b5
26514 F20110217_AABARN lane_f_Page_057.QC.jpg
d7d8141c34c0216589e0f84a8c0a49d4
0e6cb3b203437b6418ce2309158918ac30ad720d
27040 F20110217_AABASC lane_f_Page_070.QC.jpg
1e6d4fb7e5bae3e0a5afe717491492f4
e9bfacab49bc8419028cfe460efd4d909feef225
25670 F20110217_AABARO lane_f_Page_059.QC.jpg
0a8988cbec9ce2155f2d4d7468c2dcff
a966855c3fb30db22a03be14c77a115e34b6f15b
84969 F20110217_AABASD lane_f_Page_071.jpg
11b87458954b391d539ad518e3afe321
2dd811279ed9a51a91e8cb4c006601ee11bc9ae3
85966 F20110217_AABARP lane_f_Page_061.jpg
76004b0891c36ef54e964e316e33d942
36e29e74550bc22b9c0369dfde127fda44ec552d
84970 F20110217_AABASE lane_f_Page_072.jpg
2cc79f6541b0bf6beadbd9b7deb7f0ba
ba5d20ebe476671244514556eaf9ee2c38f323b4
82022 F20110217_AABARQ lane_f_Page_062.jpg
485171bd8390429c50552f3efe3eefef
73304514450890de5f53957edb084f9d7356b2e0
26523 F20110217_AABASF lane_f_Page_072.QC.jpg
3b87e9a8092fe4b1e0b2215251600b6a
22163116deef0dc5841e0817b34421f7e1cb3364
25181 F20110217_AABARR lane_f_Page_062.QC.jpg
d49e45138d76198c9e446fd7fab4a8aa
e21bcfab09a4a0e63f8db34dd36e54f610d02439
79531 F20110217_AABASG lane_f_Page_073.jpg
2d2c46e2c4e4b7bf037251ed8c8219a5
713a4cbacb769c4526dff055efacde2e8764b7a4
83580 F20110217_AABARS lane_f_Page_063.jpg
595eca5b6d3bcec7677c5ac743f1a222
603f11375d8526980bbb980b827b89e9d3f67476
78911 F20110217_AABASH lane_f_Page_074.jpg
e1243e3b55528233ee6106912d77e88e
c1b9c02ce9b66d67bd965510617b1e060cbbbffa
83037 F20110217_AABART lane_f_Page_064.jpg
05e386b702ce6a3949661833dcb63b64
766dfcbae8addeed05091712d16c73b4c3ef51d4
78582 F20110217_AABASI lane_f_Page_076.jpg
8f8d849977657d955d16968434f487ad
1e61eeee30167c3788142a7d2311ea7e2451aa42
25601 F20110217_AABARU lane_f_Page_064.QC.jpg
1d7f6c36a7c0840e55703493c325de27
4ab01b53490d1fe3eb7fc68d53757ecf0791f2db
23862 F20110217_AABASJ lane_f_Page_076.QC.jpg
77ed0d670114d97644dd51d2bce55b4b
ba5d5a0f22786202ba2ce78d789892048d69d289
83388 F20110217_AABARV lane_f_Page_065.jpg
4fc5739d11fdac4c912e2b590c6d19b9
fe4865b1d6d9906f559f9686f6a4806a49b0a714
78465 F20110217_AABASK lane_f_Page_077.jpg
d3e3a033fc2d4a41746213f24630fc30
58af314aa8e82a1c9cc0e38f0028ca9986f79705
85581 F20110217_AABARW lane_f_Page_066.jpg
dc6e77690e7c628d20bceb3e11e5de42
44f6d7fab56bb370abb57247d0a06c04bc17516f
20137 F20110217_AABATA lane_f_Page_088.QC.jpg
db429cc7ec58eb68891c92869dc381e5
c88f739b1ba4d04522aaa91aa2fe0325e3bb55eb
84347 F20110217_AABASL lane_f_Page_078.jpg
9e9a4549bf9515c2c0767ebfa8860bd9
226d84374e426e14c1795f391ac85446b2aa6a53
26343 F20110217_AABARX lane_f_Page_066.QC.jpg
0b1140dea05cb879a379ee2a2659f559
9363f1a78a9d4711fb382691f0b4aca9ea3bbe6f
85807 F20110217_AABASM lane_f_Page_079.jpg
db13386a5322c53ca3f7f26760963c1f
af04d74702ac3f2f4cc2e02434177e4e13ac50a2
10318 F20110217_AABARY lane_f_Page_067.jpg
a7c1bc674cdb589eb5dc4ae56c6e67f2
bdd71e6c3c7aa7535606d03c817560591344a9cf
17489 F20110217_AABATB lane_f_Page_089.QC.jpg
796cc2428eef18e33120fcf903bf14f9
2ece066738ca680816c8a2163878c7ae4bdadc83
25185 F20110217_AABASN lane_f_Page_080.QC.jpg
10138aa2ba909a082b39e89f015b23ea
ca07f6bac9e24b35d1a25a4fbf6f51fbed6ad815
69082 F20110217_AABARZ lane_f_Page_068.jpg
b3c55055875e2bad1f98ce2c98ab6708
b693e2c1cb314966ac1255c717afa7548e17bfbf
54958 F20110217_AABATC lane_f_Page_090.jpg
fd8da163ed60fd74676a3eb0961c62f1
d77953f337cf8e80eacc6dcaac6420e4a4e57bcc
71432 F20110217_AABASO lane_f_Page_081.jpg
52605f48fcd712c343714ccb7add6925
f0870c0c65b1b451a5d81955009fc1dbcc16e002
17780 F20110217_AABATD lane_f_Page_090.QC.jpg
0c1f7caaac45094f024004e1ad703ce6
cb6bc0fe4e5cae2a48e94dedee0cd6a58d63b272
22535 F20110217_AABASP lane_f_Page_081.QC.jpg
90a540fcee1f4e4821a724677873ad95
923e335e8c8ae7a7192caf955f77172677cb23f7
F20110217_AABATE lane_f_Page_091.jpg
f1efdac9cf2469c2b7a6bac087cb3e1a
262d88ef4456af0d2f854510fb3eceadee5d112a
65864 F20110217_AABASQ lane_f_Page_082.jpg
21f66c7694a9453aa280b4c61436ac15
1ed26bf73db6a5627ed5847332b637351eaeca8c
25869 F20110217_AABATF lane_f_Page_091.QC.jpg
0267743c71767a7ba35bc521e352fdc9
7c8f1cf35c57cd11c37c4ba6ce649a0197902f09
19295 F20110217_AABASR lane_f_Page_082.QC.jpg
d763e296b79c2c2f1ec37dc337f4f569
81c9920a76d55c0cf22b53e2d3a54f43f7f025fb
57430 F20110217_AABATG lane_f_Page_092.jpg
78433a0cb3519e7fee77b655f5f266a1
a3f775927e13d04d435519cd7eee93664082632d
79746 F20110217_AABASS lane_f_Page_083.jpg
5c216d3d10868dc25e33ee843281f33f
108a548c2626f2d3cb639ab598cb5e201f0ea011
18316 F20110217_AABATH lane_f_Page_092.QC.jpg
e5df2f688bea395ba1629278ae6255c7
2becd3eb4c5eab32358faddd88d89906d367508f
24886 F20110217_AABAST lane_f_Page_083.QC.jpg
147b7fc328a2467527ad84c64485c576
c5a1effa6162fd0cf4269b933c02428b0df4d0d8
51023 F20110217_AABATI lane_f_Page_093.jpg
434576ec58b26ffe4b4301454d928b98
4133ddcd4dc46a173559fc6d8684f1b7b5d756f5
62721 F20110217_AABASU lane_f_Page_084.jpg
da9db9d140fdbee373652e7e39c3098d
c22d96aed1f7f57bed722e0977d28e429fbe0108
16275 F20110217_AABATJ lane_f_Page_093.QC.jpg
f8bacb49e699f0c013a4ca27740ca726
2ac59ec3beefa46aaeea5d93c75ac77fa8c3eb5a
61598 F20110217_AABASV lane_f_Page_085.jpg
bd5c91f775ebb4bf3cc228acf66af759
5eb4115a9d951793903921437d1ae624ca54d79e
92592 F20110217_AABATK lane_f_Page_094.jpg
0c16dbd80167cb7499f2d8f0b9fa7115
7db0d907ed068d1459143472ff76fdc084f9c288
19807 F20110217_AABASW lane_f_Page_085.QC.jpg
5efbb373c99ed52a25154711b98e15e1
75b2cc9e44bb4837454da421985afe492f933c62
67140 F20110217_AABASX lane_f_Page_086.jpg
4b978c72789ae9d5a1f2ff80abe55642
10a58e1e211e53354046d78cb332029a842a4e44
83880 F20110217_AABAUA lane_f_Page_105.jpg
6f42b13faf623413277354a5a2c3c777
1fd27592fee70d0846cef8adb76eabfaf8f4f482
24642 F20110217_AABATL lane_f_Page_094.QC.jpg
81a7ff07b3f9248eca25e35a1e97fc14
a313b8cf023eac41484c22bfe97a50e0441f77c3
39208 F20110217_AABASY lane_f_Page_087.jpg
2977715407094746947d2a852d98b86a
55c991e3297636accc5ee69f2a5bc7c13505e5de
26216 F20110217_AABAUB lane_f_Page_105.QC.jpg
8afdf8cc4d4ca8ad5915bb8b952f1bd8
17e4aa3acc82fd1cf7a4fa71c7b1e606b05e0f93
130606 F20110217_AABATM lane_f_Page_095.jpg
64df934f1c030fea4c2eceac650bf937
d17945bc6ffd5d17afa5b3ecc11b4942214ed991
63788 F20110217_AABASZ lane_f_Page_088.jpg
32f1c1aa0cde27a3ec6b149620e4a182
13fec361fe56784b8b8cfcfb97ede78703cac6c9
32725 F20110217_AABATN lane_f_Page_095.QC.jpg
8d1b7869de7b06a4548e4c8d6fc71f1a
33b2b7adc1af5f32e5865abb804b90fce6f851ce
79210 F20110217_AABAUC lane_f_Page_106.jpg
b5dc8adebdac67eaa3c665b183a1429e
66a4626b107b54be33352169d7428251c73f62de
88491 F20110217_AABATO lane_f_Page_097.jpg
cce62bb8441285eb77db7794d6243de9
ff24837b38517ed49509c3532b22734c22211cff
82169 F20110217_AABAUD lane_f_Page_107.jpg
17ef39dcce816e72eff0f846cdca9282
1de459bc74040969c0e0e8c019e5a2674ec0520e
27439 F20110217_AABATP lane_f_Page_097.QC.jpg
d3c7e19946df4c3c6b93166f070be7ca
4f2c9cb5305883101fda5db94b30511a2fba27b5
84757 F20110217_AABAUE lane_f_Page_108.jpg
6e46328c10aaa95b7a6433f68072a897
0a5f9814c7a86839799733ccdde7948f5df018c8
25707 F20110217_AABATQ lane_f_Page_098.QC.jpg
cfd5f63dd144e1b8e9e2828a356989cc
fabb5a4555d8052d1502e68d82145aaa1c5a73c2
6175 F20110217_AABBAA lane_f_Page_029thm.jpg
2b1e6b5e8c3a25a41c3869cf8ec70857
3ea8ce9421c5f4304ad61f66b1867620d470ee1f
85444 F20110217_AABAUF lane_f_Page_109.jpg
8e113cc6a5a5d5323537d93b4c23b048
d800ae9b24d76ca0cd507a69d62892dcea2fe97f
86578 F20110217_AABATR lane_f_Page_099.jpg
b3c190d0a9b398c08122a18ae8ea1404
8bd16ebe11f46c715b25384cd546ad01749ba133
6132 F20110217_AABBAB lane_f_Page_030thm.jpg
81c0eb666839cb7444fc2d2b714cc551
5b620491a6897f97c3ca3963046b1353c0d4a68b
78350 F20110217_AABAUG lane_f_Page_110.jpg
f291667f4a34b1f24df050f8b44f4219
c6ec768f6d36501ab74b057f1460c82b6e560023
26639 F20110217_AABATS lane_f_Page_099.QC.jpg
666f7cc67c04ac1ba01f2880d282d076
9c7439efb242d95357ce54354635b2236438ecee
6325 F20110217_AABBAC lane_f_Page_031thm.jpg
178afa69c53855d690f3bd559544735f
8f303a60c5414eba5f5c207a416eb42aca16fa4f
24504 F20110217_AABAUH lane_f_Page_110.QC.jpg
ba3d66472057818f33c5725b18d63603
674bfcf4ddd8daca0879f1a21e3ecc70e35139c8
85303 F20110217_AABATT lane_f_Page_100.jpg
618e3d58fd2bfa38e0883a6f541721bc
33185eae7c5739feed72c0b2d77c9fbece5de6f2
6214 F20110217_AABBAD lane_f_Page_033thm.jpg
d6bb8699d1498585c3ee4adefece3862
09fdb5496209ecaf5a3eb241aa9f632360be3b76
71562 F20110217_AABAUI lane_f_Page_111.jpg
6ac5625fbc8aca2c5f7576c70b78c9f4
afad7a50fc851ac4a7485714768fcdd81a6e7222
26402 F20110217_AABATU lane_f_Page_100.QC.jpg
675ed4ba69e82d34f0c5da36ed4ec8f4
ae311c947c81fb9346ad07a8666e44243f88c467
6073 F20110217_AABBAE lane_f_Page_035thm.jpg
45287aa0fa8977d31db31dc41b3ed6bf
6868899a84f5e9873669d8605449924ed3a8b52a
23931 F20110217_AABAUJ lane_f_Page_112.QC.jpg
e35748c91f4594679558fe4652d6c0f0
d3974714a05ee64f287f19e93412370e13755936
25820 F20110217_AABATV lane_f_Page_101.QC.jpg
f6da8db12f7ba2ea6c98f22f84f24593
ac33734dfa2f2863d087c6d19e4ff4bf2b8c9617
6076 F20110217_AABBAF lane_f_Page_037thm.jpg
0118eb4ee18a7439ca56afb932f142b1
f0069a93fd4bcef384f9989a1b01f739b02eced2
63288 F20110217_AABAUK lane_f_Page_113.jpg
00b15b63ed50ea528f972d36d7500bfd
6b6e5d4465c7d2d20eaa3b0e6b054c75fc90daa9
74472 F20110217_AABATW lane_f_Page_102.jpg
703841deb071f41d5571b853e31a83cf
5e0fa35242c2cb6a6400dfeac31028ac5afc33cb
6362 F20110217_AABBAG lane_f_Page_038thm.jpg
0af6b8b38ecd02019aad51803bb00028
383c2cf283e33a32e5b47ac4b4bd7edd5daeed30
59682 F20110217_AABAVA lane_f_Page_124.jpg
a56d63b0a585af96fa1f37470d6975c9
a348072dc2036fbaa1653b285d63c04fc9abc6a6
71269 F20110217_AABAUL lane_f_Page_114.jpg
f35fee28481a4b896ba0c8bc1c037cac
bc8549468ebff09889a6580a86a3b43a8ca09ca8
106096 F20110217_AABATX lane_f_Page_103.jpg
beac37fb1934374af4c800f3288aa729
2a289b366a449b8dbc95777fbb5cd19df5ed0727
6437 F20110217_AABBAH lane_f_Page_041thm.jpg
d0ab828f51423e12f9c9665c8ac61633
9729964bba2edefb1c69c2f466135336bea99b19
24348 F20110217_AABAVB lane_f_Page_125.jpg
a19ce6bf6ab91cd8d4c01332d16e5233
a5ea9eaf0dafe77c0b3b2b9ea3c636036b2a5238
23143 F20110217_AABAUM lane_f_Page_114.QC.jpg
2afa08787eb6b3d498382fcfed971942
94f41bbcd21535115ad688edcc1ace12c2f77ead
27461 F20110217_AABATY lane_f_Page_103.QC.jpg
69056f1c35a5236cbfe26b19950c481c
e5da0d51cb08276c2daa9618f78b3dd408e762c3
6473 F20110217_AABBAI lane_f_Page_042thm.jpg
31cc6b42850dd39f1e76c92c13752afb
e5ebb9f427d3c114ac4f9bd9193276ed21932150
7867 F20110217_AABAVC lane_f_Page_125.QC.jpg
610cff798ba226d2e684ceff284e213f
33f25c22c3372151344ec9a603cc10f2dc617374
75133 F20110217_AABAUN lane_f_Page_115.jpg
6700781e5d26274205871847d50a1d6f
7e65ac5c6e7ed321025b18e77493adeaad5b06e1
27299 F20110217_AABATZ lane_f_Page_104.QC.jpg
7b96226c5513cae0db2729c93aa7ab4e
6902d86c86b735ca11711236f19c2076a7144e37
6204 F20110217_AABBAJ lane_f_Page_043thm.jpg
4a2976a6c8dc5f36d55e17d774a3ffc9
57516ce499e89c7cc60f79dd2848bb2b5f3a0452
21805 F20110217_AABAUO lane_f_Page_115.QC.jpg
27fc5ccbc0bf926a91ac96acb4dc0afa
8c87cde78f615520f82907ca08e988e7b3ec3019
5916 F20110217_AABBAK lane_f_Page_044thm.jpg
689083ca946575e7dbf83059f61c4680
576ffe31aa5c1d9f8ec6712c744ccbb30a6a28e7
80405 F20110217_AABAVD lane_f_Page_126.jpg
5ed3a275eadbf23f071f5b5d7104c575
53592cf44c06ce331e862c5816f2a10f7d037ee8
11596 F20110217_AABAUP lane_f_Page_116.jpg
b88d387a8d2d0074b60870303f06e13b
5428d27b273647605e5cd9819f53a9e02aa3b742
6136 F20110217_AABBAL lane_f_Page_045thm.jpg
48d7144dadafd3a61e129fefadb97bbf
aefdcf39905d1214b69c959e2b622a4e8dcea4a6
23028 F20110217_AABAVE lane_f_Page_126.QC.jpg
41f28c86bd035631bc2e72494c11b2cb
73b52056ad9aaf20d5f4fcb10c9966bdd071911e
3735 F20110217_AABAUQ lane_f_Page_116.QC.jpg
42a40cef90a3e63795dafdc45097ab1c
e7185ad889f237945acb9e8de7d56427710bb653
6353 F20110217_AABBBA lane_f_Page_066thm.jpg
75805102d4937280bfa89e8ec33a1bba
28a1ecdba9cfa8e89cea9c0c5d51626621e919b5
5967 F20110217_AABBAM lane_f_Page_046thm.jpg
43e5606dee302f46961d6832b8700cf6
7fd0768e63e7e6f2ac7a5451eb3e54306f11270b
98311 F20110217_AABAVF lane_f_Page_128.jpg
4b79c6f533080139a4c027ff0daa29e9
a4ce79731070963e31e09257369fe738007a3138
67276 F20110217_AABAUR lane_f_Page_117.jpg
bf06b653f08561fea95b4bbec1eb9ed9
b7f5ede8bb76c7a33751a0b7724065e3ff8a81c6
984 F20110217_AABBBB lane_f_Page_067thm.jpg
1cd2ed7e4cb0648c5287e9967bd7ea25
7195a443f22ff5ff4d8e0a45a4ef6b55929b16d8
27016 F20110217_AABAVG lane_f_Page_128.QC.jpg
8516ff2e67935ca9a08301d48ce42ac2
659d2345a32256fad0b043d79ca7d14b2442ef1b
72019 F20110217_AABAUS lane_f_Page_118.jpg
b3a1f0491f6d1da3bd1e98e2ea94414d
8cd15a0314ea6da817a6ea5743f35a901a1f4189
5364 F20110217_AABBBC lane_f_Page_068thm.jpg
61ecc2cfef951d216c0c7cd84cf45377
c12e3d0a9b7d3a4de9f20313bbed1338be3a4eac
6232 F20110217_AABBAN lane_f_Page_051thm.jpg
2b237e417e2d16e516f9009b26bfdef0
2c15e6a3950ece60d2966949880834621ff632c4
94484 F20110217_AABAVH lane_f_Page_129.jpg
3ddff018bd474130d7524ff9dd553a19
143811cda642df4740d090f7770e4bbd20779d42
11715 F20110217_AABAUT lane_f_Page_119.jpg
f184f1850af0fd90f70d21587e21f801
bbdb7f9069d267b6993cfb6eaf866009725e8358
6453 F20110217_AABBBD lane_f_Page_070thm.jpg
949fe46c1d8af8616ad9ff950de41661
a007c9f7a1dabe401420872eed0bfa0e995d761f
6231 F20110217_AABBAO lane_f_Page_052thm.jpg
81bed50ab8627b5875f30deeb59cd7a2
5b08b9b29dac8005151296b9850ddacc6821c3e1
25821 F20110217_AABAVI lane_f_Page_129.QC.jpg
8c86565b4b61bd7d9a62fe81887d1cf1
cdc3079a7d27e1b98ad0be532f5d9708bac7dde2
3808 F20110217_AABAUU lane_f_Page_119.QC.jpg
2225295eb89c22991855bf07ceb2ae3f
f4bddf9825871e62154ff64eb241678709ec1dfd
6328 F20110217_AABBBE lane_f_Page_071thm.jpg
bef614806c1fbf2e9b91923e7a431d7a
eab117bd1fb980434f96aedccdf69cd2cb17e23c
6347 F20110217_AABBAP lane_f_Page_053thm.jpg
612fd7d5fa9330188033ceef12e349b6
8ff0852765c5ca5465bafa507ee0e5033711a579
100749 F20110217_AABAVJ lane_f_Page_130.jpg
7826bc1e28c0eaba93117fe043dc94e3
97b027ff64e26d21cb1b456383e63babd9e77386
20441 F20110217_AABAUV lane_f_Page_120.QC.jpg
5f42674df8f2e1e0593fddc39616520e
827e28124d074f6cbfbf54fe262779208ed683a6
6399 F20110217_AABBBF lane_f_Page_072thm.jpg
c97d7d2ee396c1a486302ebb8747cb30
745e4d0128b61e0562c2582dbbfad0f2fad376df
5981 F20110217_AABBAQ lane_f_Page_054thm.jpg
8ae06788e8c41da2a32279045e61a4e0
5fc54a7a4a7eb9d8bb43dfa4f2c023934dd8c94f
27345 F20110217_AABAVK lane_f_Page_130.QC.jpg
3e2a67113eb35cdb38204a80e6dca7af
b7522edd42cbc9e7404bcbd38dc135f4e9d5d8a0
10213 F20110217_AABAUW lane_f_Page_121.QC.jpg
2e008cdee76364147a6b1c91a2479f15
d4275dcb7ff56a8c4a100ab18049043f9abae3c2
6291 F20110217_AABBBG lane_f_Page_073thm.jpg
3457665a14c648ca21c9c215ac0007fc
54ef67cc33ec4eeed95a1a7f1c41c42f1ed5140b
6271 F20110217_AABBAR lane_f_Page_056thm.jpg
d1cf5308a5a2b475aec499db5d42d408
9463a8615076bd87aa840a4983a1f8e97077b23d
26438 F20110217_AABAVL lane_f_Page_131.QC.jpg
93fa9329117163a61c30a1f59c0a428e
bae49ea7c7a35563e20c897df8e3bca4df3a27cc
4040 F20110217_AABAUX lane_f_Page_122.QC.jpg
0c7af99a1dec8b8f05cd9aa290b45101
2f28493807c176f78e8164a41d5498ef33d4a156
981773 F20110217_AABAWA lane_f_Page_012.jp2
80cf51715bd5025a0e56dca8ad956cfd
7844bdaada976cc934aef963ae6a99274074e832
6530 F20110217_AABBBH lane_f_Page_075thm.jpg
4cbe3a282a7bd0267ff989c4508558f6
f365eb89d113a27e854f4eade931bda5db70ff8c
6419 F20110217_AABBAS lane_f_Page_057thm.jpg
80891e568df8573590f4e45a0c038305
b115e5dae205344c1877f8f60cc5dbbe6aa46875
94817 F20110217_AABAVM lane_f_Page_132.jpg
31caf36557a3fab3a0b1b8201c768a3c
0cf8535fdd642804a9627b71928d4a577ed0ce4d
58574 F20110217_AABAUY lane_f_Page_123.jpg
148970c2d541a5d3dfd70e4f0bda31f6
2162fabbdea9d8e6ce981ae883356c9737ead302
1051966 F20110217_AABAWB lane_f_Page_013.jp2
8eac5955c0d0ef33e959e147cd92de23
c1082cc930508f21f1285736b0eacfb0f479a45d
5797 F20110217_AABBBI lane_f_Page_076thm.jpg
3bdbc7fa64838676f4cb32a573015799
1ada04333a03baa5bdb483b9066a45997845c27f
6129 F20110217_AABBAT lane_f_Page_059thm.jpg
c99da473a5162becca78b600bc2844ec
5586100020716e8a708c99fdbb416b1a8dcf225b
97035 F20110217_AABAVN lane_f_Page_133.jpg
ba2b8b3e45fc17e564c56d71c20e8f3d
5ee01257adc14479d01987b0472a8695742e4fe0
18083 F20110217_AABAUZ lane_f_Page_123.QC.jpg
5831ad89ece348423a240aea06d06c6a
171ee790f420d72e82f2447ffaed8c3c2cc252d2
1051957 F20110217_AABAWC lane_f_Page_014.jp2
ff4579c4200c4a3547c08daa790a5992
0804134fc6c36c06d30a8001f854a531f28a4e0b
5845 F20110217_AABBBJ lane_f_Page_077thm.jpg
440d65e7546573cd15c970691a8d1b5e
e9483d641d1ea391eafa240b39bd5691f8620979
6287 F20110217_AABBAU lane_f_Page_060thm.jpg
a800a68c607f73163be3a0cd01c2390f
d7e54059a20643499136701c1d6bae0b579081e4
27566 F20110217_AABAVO lane_f_Page_133.QC.jpg
4fa402d40cbd689f9ffbdd06092e3c94
ffe32f0e14cddad3a8ec6837d70005256cd1d172
1031149 F20110217_AABAWD lane_f_Page_015.jp2
f11b8ae5c964a3da7489d00873cd283e
1250c8ab0dad8126fef46e897900a5a1f51135a9
F20110217_AABBBK lane_f_Page_078thm.jpg
2380661f5440867483bbc99c88bb0290
c76bdfda9ecc102ebe3432f6eda76907555082c0
6455 F20110217_AABBAV lane_f_Page_061thm.jpg
19562689507c87a783166af14e26b993
cf2e497607a25ca6e9d4e5afbdee3c9dfdc8832e
83992 F20110217_AABAVP lane_f_Page_134.jpg
6225273221ebb875a47480dea96dcd78
58057b65ec489daf1a3f7bae87fb0801ead0bfbd
6224 F20110217_AABBBL lane_f_Page_079thm.jpg
579374d96acff59e46012a84e92ddf72
7f42a69687a6994086d4f62c35c7ec99504036f2
6143 F20110217_AABBAW lane_f_Page_062thm.jpg
0478a788d19f89860df5b3e84f5e0073
60e73e40c10ff3c19f3f4b3656675912ffb0b12f
96985 F20110217_AABAVQ lane_f_Page_135.jpg
d1a5ab9ef60e4d0270a786e3eb02861a
33f4ce80421b1400648c49c1222f86103a45f5f0
1051983 F20110217_AABAWE lane_f_Page_016.jp2
56c5e5bf8a0eeec68228bb440329d6da
e5e3952a9bdf9da1f81f3445df2967e8ea2850c8
6383 F20110217_AABBCA lane_f_Page_100thm.jpg
d86f37ac02d900516b5af8bd389f8985
0f1b0d31ba790ff44bfc92f70f392d4be451170e
6072 F20110217_AABBBM lane_f_Page_080thm.jpg
544b8e54ee51ab7db8778c045f217aaa
a1421d8a4b4d271fe35a2577fa37079a7fe4468f
5974 F20110217_AABBAX lane_f_Page_063thm.jpg
e8752c9d35947ea5e1d8932ad6cf6fbf
bb389cf7839c587aa1a6e603bc5481ee992b0690
45528 F20110217_AABAVR lane_f_Page_136.jpg
e78ed72e0c26579990bdfd16583c92e7
717323a91888df24730b4d3b358660c5d98038cc
1051928 F20110217_AABAWF lane_f_Page_017.jp2
6712de6894e3d31ce0809f7f4f71b348
7111c965b7b59bb6e65bc27effef0b62646feb11
6319 F20110217_AABBCB lane_f_Page_101thm.jpg
8f9acbffa555e03ead0ed40eed1656dc
90f867b6269129c841c551101552a0e108a9c33e
5414 F20110217_AABBBN lane_f_Page_081thm.jpg
44992a83acc32bc8625c2f96c0ab23c0
1aa92cd6187dff4dbeb6db70773c30ac49f15297
6126 F20110217_AABBAY lane_f_Page_064thm.jpg
0f235352d5d96ec638a23a533fd64fae
9da48e08498c82474d6ba56f9f17422fb1a2d42e
35930 F20110217_AABAVS lane_f_Page_137.jpg
4b735b4889b174c272d3eeaaf74f6e7d
c226e10fae6f8d89f19efdaa6b2251cecc00a37d
1051950 F20110217_AABAWG lane_f_Page_018.jp2
7c8a39699bb5f81f28152c91997de353
cfabe11ca907108b4579f344d29f4ded41612c12
F20110217_AABBCC lane_f_Page_104thm.jpg
95ff08452cc430a40c762758a1f9fc82
4b870124e73dab09bf0969730ca20ff9f4d16281
6366 F20110217_AABBAZ lane_f_Page_065thm.jpg
87b4c8b20993cbc8cdf0e34769ec6c36
27d752c7257ba02538f1dde5da4b1672fea277d8
11287 F20110217_AABAVT lane_f_Page_137.QC.jpg
0dbad0e8037ae82815a33ca13022bcf9
e5dd55fb7010394d7110dcd923005437c5f1aaeb
1051959 F20110217_AABAWH lane_f_Page_019.jp2
c688b3ab7dbe033594e1e32a019ea29d
55aa4f6e42d96e4ef51719e67f2d4c9306cb9899
6334 F20110217_AABBCD lane_f_Page_105thm.jpg
7256241946ab55417990c658e960afa0
bf858885f0ad9a057d196cbf2155193496839e53
5044 F20110217_AABBBO lane_f_Page_082thm.jpg
7df85ccc2e77fd05c1d7b77e0afaa855
fb19bd86a0b1582a140444f7ca0fc07f0ca54088
312879 F20110217_AABAVU lane_f_Page_001.jp2
1765a983d24e3b73a8ff51db8363f3fe
9f13ff7b9586fa0e0dc37c665680fc23d8096913
1051932 F20110217_AABAWI lane_f_Page_021.jp2
8320025c1ea74a44429f5b40ffc1cc87
ccfd63fbb406e8155ca64e69af4cf463677e0485
5901 F20110217_AABBCE lane_f_Page_106thm.jpg
91e9ce5c500278432479c71216c25f3d
624b6dfd1dc7880eb86a4ecbf4c3b032051915e0
4974 F20110217_AABBBP lane_f_Page_085thm.jpg
45d32330cfcf94fa5351a0ffacb8ad71
96a65e0a7c9aafc2fbc815bac9d7d57ca94cd034
254260 F20110217_AABAWJ lane_f_Page_022.jp2
fcd29e0168bad0e9b79d02100095a5ee
cfbbf32a4844df2502fd37792b3c598c102234ba
24534 F20110217_AABAVV lane_f_Page_002.jp2
5df862b554486edcc61ad208110b230a
442fe3bcd4005eecfc2c3c4602fbfaba002451a4
6170 F20110217_AABBCF lane_f_Page_108thm.jpg
4b1d363423cc392aeb96d851648ef545
d0d72ebfd286f3cac12ebb8e7c6640b1532c1a8a
3726 F20110217_AABBBQ lane_f_Page_087thm.jpg
944da98dc31006cb0452c5d506cc2894
412ec8038a4f173250e98ef9eb2a94362ce56647
866087 F20110217_AABAWK lane_f_Page_023.jp2
a3b3702399d383461b6c602f6057b7bb
82614a7c3ab88aa145fb383b87a4eb0f2d94db14
216635 F20110217_AABAVW lane_f_Page_003.jp2
38c026a7a27679c9d2c66ca5db92aafd
41a5323b4ef9032520f96b08c1dd74d5e4033d71
5156 F20110217_AABBCG lane_f_Page_111thm.jpg
322468e53cfaed812450844ee6f968b5
7d35963230a813a504a87a1c6b6ace864d771d3c
5088 F20110217_AABBBR lane_f_Page_088thm.jpg
65e548e75c458b9124b118f24ecbc023
f11152e07d77c23c2692baac72235729c0b8062c
1051985 F20110217_AABAXA lane_f_Page_045.jp2
c303dd8d6b8a6f771f23d7b7b11a8a16
2c937d70a830422d33b4a6b0e413a41446af4751
1051982 F20110217_AABAWL lane_f_Page_026.jp2
1fe3a3bd9e417f4379585ced7b7314a7
57b2a46f1104213a5750392216e8e7487b116a9e
957381 F20110217_AABAVX lane_f_Page_004.jp2
1aceb896327b072062d3171eede8d987
f8030ce0ea4002264f40aa60d51d98998c965f92
6911 F20110217_AABBCH lane_f_Page_112thm.jpg
c152d4f88937e91e5f6ec0ff760090d7
742f0f014bddc8b12995727365ff7a5a92bbd629
4379 F20110217_AABBBS lane_f_Page_089thm.jpg
92f3fdcf3c946a4c59e7dc4c63d68dbb
48dfff43eae4a695afff99405e3bf2c15601ea4f
1051971 F20110217_AABAXB lane_f_Page_046.jp2
a882586a2aecff756a3a877c74b14bde
fc8931ec04082dc4385bb8453cf68b95c1e70e5a
1051962 F20110217_AABAWM lane_f_Page_027.jp2
583e4c0ce325d7e0eba146982c81e9f0
599be752f850d7c9cf195fb8b5317e9e4da63d65
877802 F20110217_AABAVY lane_f_Page_005.jp2
239d5255b3bfd97231838ddd84c69bf1
d018b4c318796dbd9b1858894ac5c3e406915ca6
6414 F20110217_AABBCI lane_f_Page_113thm.jpg
8479e27f7f1831853ac04fb125457c2c
ad4032cfa8893d58e2e5b0c97e43c7fac0d9f36b
4765 F20110217_AABBBT lane_f_Page_090thm.jpg
81c3717854eda1833b637d78b24ec5f0
f9125c1455301babd713a774c5f5e68c8b08bd2b
1051958 F20110217_AABAXC lane_f_Page_047.jp2
d80fab6d419ab2c98ab56426eb3f4f16
9a6225929e5f8408d72189b28204669f1c28c236
1051974 F20110217_AABAWN lane_f_Page_028.jp2
b412b24bc156c225ac4bf11d47f14d85
bd7bfc8bba455298c5e74b20e546e7c777ad0294
397862 F20110217_AABAVZ lane_f_Page_009.jp2
01fc0a6dc11fbbf7849e600340e4340c
9517ba39818f6f97b9eb8dbdcdf0276bbfe941ab
6561 F20110217_AABBCJ lane_f_Page_114thm.jpg
31e0f0533c10851edf015a9da80f8fc8
24afb0a8bb2dd308a73c83c7e32f6cac13b215f1
4550 F20110217_AABBBU lane_f_Page_092thm.jpg
1385be23e1e6e9a3b3dbe1ee8211c866
87919e2049d554891e44cb6b35c69981291234e5
1051914 F20110217_AABAXD lane_f_Page_048.jp2
ebea4511171dfd6dc8f20e1cdfcb182f
a32081a39b7455a1233c0f1e0a43163b675cd7d4
1051975 F20110217_AABAWO lane_f_Page_029.jp2
8dad9c1439a7e6269868b0883598cfc4
381212cccfca0018af6e2c2b4a6459b4c5290175
5664 F20110217_AABBCK lane_f_Page_115thm.jpg
4ec963177df913750abe56de268acc03
de7890e6293827517fb70c316918767f68ccc422
4226 F20110217_AABBBV lane_f_Page_093thm.jpg
3393499820c9f073fe767ad04ca1fb8a
5475ec8768d6ac88a5de2c018bcdf17f358caaa2
1023883 F20110217_AABAXE lane_f_Page_049.jp2
a09ec7044a54db3d9972eb9657e434c6
bfd8acc9f8dcc5408c7ea725d0a8747a0b0ecfb7
1051973 F20110217_AABAWP lane_f_Page_030.jp2
7147244127df410cf0cbed286a9a681d
c44829b2b03834dcd18b7f895857901a16b5f09e
5578 F20110217_AABBCL lane_f_Page_117thm.jpg
8d1682643c984c10909d16f29dbcb479
c898430a4a370abb9d9875d7ed4276f0efdcdab5
5681 F20110217_AABBBW lane_f_Page_094thm.jpg
fd1edb23ae77b0b5ff66e52045b85b39
e6caef2e7a300305eda3e10fd3fb009a9b227593
F20110217_AABAWQ lane_f_Page_031.jp2
c33dfc4b0ebb82bdcc143f4da030143b
b2d23b7041ddc64e8c514ceaf0518ebff9f3f6f1
6324 F20110217_AABBDA lane_f_Page_134thm.jpg
2a26292e35455e22b80940b1af93e712
49a30a9e5eff2b8c0c3e9452aaf3da0308db4310
6038 F20110217_AABBCM lane_f_Page_118thm.jpg
bd2fa5d5c48dd874d408b2f79563034f
37ba2a0df7b65cc5fca7669289e1d12ae92ab9c9
6952 F20110217_AABBBX lane_f_Page_095thm.jpg
fafa4c85d10a956283771a7282722de9
8e1078835dd1b1ba854bb1f70e3d8ed265c80761
1051952 F20110217_AABAXF lane_f_Page_051.jp2
747e72ea0b94b89e79c149c9699f584f
b9426a301c257df0d93b8b88baa6a37fdc3ec04f
1051920 F20110217_AABAWR lane_f_Page_033.jp2
751ffa85d0c2c924349e48ea105a4f8c
8a75630f84ab83f455c4260cde64e7d66b433d14
6733 F20110217_AABBDB lane_f_Page_135thm.jpg
2d27527feaf8b5c2e904e4426c882db7
58a3c04036cefc5fec522cdb0f4ca801650de863
1080 F20110217_AABBCN lane_f_Page_119thm.jpg
2fd0e21a47c45f0e4fb0f53439cda045
8a551cfacfaa880edfd107c44707e09a05cba115
6547 F20110217_AABBBY lane_f_Page_096thm.jpg
b5a7ecf1b121c1d12abf3ef0d0be11a6
83c2294b76f4e03cd34c09a9d6d0993f4c858762
F20110217_AABAXG lane_f_Page_052.jp2
d3a6fefa7b924daeddab7d7304ac839a
3d9db70ac6014cc951d158c3bcbcf755111c7540
1051933 F20110217_AABAWS lane_f_Page_035.jp2
614987a87cebe8102c8df56a3be2d2b5
17b5f2d721c7ad42df149f4c8594785a8b9a9655
2912 F20110217_AABBDC lane_f_Page_137thm.jpg
087434b96bd6c64b14444c7a7f8dd6fe
a47b35b2b697ea4349d5da323c4d0482f9616714
5708 F20110217_AABBCO lane_f_Page_120thm.jpg
1ee429d9010a142542afdbae43c2de38
3e00a42c85570a92a964949c351bfd0678212d53
6298 F20110217_AABBBZ lane_f_Page_098thm.jpg
dd425f4eb3d5a6723741c6a264e5c177
f0edda4c63b851a2d6ff30416ee47e52f34ed5b9
F20110217_AABAXH lane_f_Page_054.jp2
4b191bf127c0314ce466dd4f332bc490
39e5ead8ca012df5914e8484cfb535c732ab9eb6
1051964 F20110217_AABAWT lane_f_Page_036.jp2
0eab228344b88f01519d36fc8034365e
b5ab5587277b66655073dff341019c7f82c6bbcf
26769 F20110217_AABAAA lane_f_Page_058.QC.jpg
60344012666e287ca7ac1b8a9d845c1a
8bb1f83bbada42dbb23fdae02ddf27d391e69c54
452736 F20110217_AABBDD lane_f.pdf
695af4d70b11650f7e8ddede9a3ad24f
a93c01d34449f9f69317d3778193924c447c098a
1051979 F20110217_AABAXI lane_f_Page_055.jp2
ef8159219306a5596e12cf5d61d7d920
8ddd85e34208e41f7e4202515003edab5a5202bb
1051977 F20110217_AABAWU lane_f_Page_037.jp2
e93c840373b59c4ef194b5b9e4fdd4cc
1f2da3412e46dde0e6534366dd15fd70133e674f
228 F20110217_AABAAB lane_f_Page_067.txt
4619c73a881d0d78bc8f007189d7a534
87491dbf78a92bcc5bd724d19cfaed7494183dd0
160488 F20110217_AABBDE UFE0015650_00001.mets FULL
3eab8d267e26d708e48df8e9a0af9bb1
4ea53049f5bc9051d266b8dca032a3459fe83b4f
2955 F20110217_AABBCP lane_f_Page_121thm.jpg
83a0c59f3b0830f89a2ea39ec4bfee1d
95b24d725e2ef8e17168dd43b24216d2f9cbf881
F20110217_AABAXJ lane_f_Page_056.jp2
ea233b6cd98320f400762520d3bf4580
84ab2de4bf43a718d912470dbcdb3fd5d3babeb9
1051869 F20110217_AABAWV lane_f_Page_038.jp2
59a005612655c08e35ad679499d74ad5
39c4b360fb8ad5a7e2e3daf816734c23ed693053
97334 F20110217_AABAAC lane_f_Page_131.jpg
3ec0b2b51670285effd756fabfaf0ee6
ac78c7a04ddeaacfca5f5f3bf7871834ab02f5a7
5372 F20110217_AABBCQ lane_f_Page_123thm.jpg
90938d0f5d0016eff326db31804b7d14
77c44ad43ee8a9e541dd5430be27cb961f1113dc
1051969 F20110217_AABAXK lane_f_Page_057.jp2
b9f2c8a0d9526780cb68cfb94a6f9539
6a39f45107752aa6cd292ae64c13e4b02938428b
F20110217_AABAWW lane_f_Page_039.jp2
77d1ed19911e9ebc49d0e7ce191ca31a
0e2c447f95d21017b6d665a0c248515935b7b92c
1051986 F20110217_AABAAD lane_f_Page_097.jp2
7830c1a45b75f43f4322ce0cd5bd9944
e49ffc60955004317aa3d387d7a5398d63607af6
5510 F20110217_AABBCR lane_f_Page_124thm.jpg
932b79826222f90e665994b16c3be852
6cb82ec687513186744bb56eb437a747d116762b
F20110217_AABAYA lane_f_Page_080.jp2
7cc8360d2fa40cb7e3ab104bc9eb0a00
31067087890c708f53683814a15e0b18851ddc7b
1051926 F20110217_AABAXL lane_f_Page_060.jp2
657d39d03550d8bd3588d778baea8326
1f5ba679a783c22ee0bd2ef6bed74e33b1ab9cb4
F20110217_AABAWX lane_f_Page_040.jp2
fbe933c031d3bd38ff2dd270800101dd
f7ad3200899b4ed4359b426003f160be5ca11efe
1051944 F20110217_AABAAE lane_f_Page_032.jp2
7e651a911f133c5b461cd07f3b8914f4
60eaad79e006be692596a8bfe5b0e25eddbdb628
2744 F20110217_AABBCS lane_f_Page_125thm.jpg
4cb5b419aa7c54a650499dd0cfce2d11
c62d405cab00b9aa81ea0180a55f32f33086b605
900162 F20110217_AABAYB lane_f_Page_082.jp2
03319820f65200d40d21fb89cf8bc2bd
98d82907b790461deff31c719e1aa72cfe32b7e0
1051981 F20110217_AABAXM lane_f_Page_061.jp2
a164d6e86a9f620653e6d3b332a193ae
2866f3aea19c994de92c4f64630d0a0acbce7853
F20110217_AABAWY lane_f_Page_042.jp2
98c5286148372cba3adfd37a2c1d53fe
9f5561093892c3907fb0972e3f7ac133bea328ab
1051976 F20110217_AABAAF lane_f_Page_103.jp2
1d18f5ace2bf4007d610210a50c5e14e
a9e4b37ec27d08347b6cfe0d8d851ff602021d5a
5768 F20110217_AABBCT lane_f_Page_126thm.jpg
cf07a23d9b91cc3d343d69a6cc545b64
1e3244da306c89193c40902fa4e2554bb7ff6aa0
F20110217_AABAYC lane_f_Page_083.jp2
4a47f4739aa5860cbc953e752062233c
7ffc76d4d20dc1bfb18e783de466678145924b42
F20110217_AABAXN lane_f_Page_062.jp2
714bc59e7803c2de81a64529e2b85c98
cd61160825c1b68ba14e06425e74493e22273aea
F20110217_AABAWZ lane_f_Page_043.jp2
e6539fad4258b7ba8d0c4d3b82f4318b
74ac5ddac5fdf7852132f331c66418c58536a228
50653 F20110217_AABAAG lane_f_Page_058.pro
a1eeea5c4895d3992f2c50affbc4eaa0
787640cb4c87fdd83eb787f5e2ddd080018493f6
6475 F20110217_AABBCU lane_f_Page_127thm.jpg
5a561e58f97c7f22e620ad6fa7ca922b
c8d0345ed295a404bdb7e0c693148453adb78f01
814008 F20110217_AABAYD lane_f_Page_084.jp2
e84630f607b1e5217ea1a824183cf171
5962da5a9582d6b307b22511c3149d5646dc4f31
1051954 F20110217_AABAXO lane_f_Page_063.jp2
9dae314568687caa9c1adf624615c3f2
e424da7c9dbffd4b706db19eddcd19b02a2bfc93
1925 F20110217_AABAAH lane_f_Page_001thm.jpg
d6a28a77945f147231ef7f67e589cc2e
f61e91a1ef609978ae8b2558f8e2c477094f23d1
6253 F20110217_AABBCV lane_f_Page_128thm.jpg
5cdb28fafc8d4b313c0ae7737f94fb1a
8a07982385cd6ac39ea55e65ea924da98c6425e8
639704 F20110217_AABAYE lane_f_Page_093.jp2
f2ef8b10cb0381991011a8b66850f7cc
25ac4b4c033b8b366f0e9c98f4a727d982da654a
1051945 F20110217_AABAXP lane_f_Page_065.jp2
b02f73db308b82fcf7eb23e945018687
1ec3277550ebc33796a262c691896a127108a051
23158 F20110217_AABAAI lane_f_Page_102.QC.jpg
ac17cdcefca376879fcadd8bd8b3dc0b
3192f90a6f6b96aad81a5bf22918e2c71c58a403
6310 F20110217_AABBCW lane_f_Page_129thm.jpg
776aa5dc645e7c794b03e67a6d778c75
4e3af985428ff3cbbbc972e6632bc9df80a2870a
1051941 F20110217_AABAYF lane_f_Page_096.jp2
f2b126a59c8efa9f948a0bb53ddd8ce9
a72437ae747d8132615838e82007d240b1fd5165
1051953 F20110217_AABAXQ lane_f_Page_066.jp2
bc368502eea867dc3a42e8da8380eebe
7f3fb19631864a3bd19e0bd0121b44057112efb6
21048 F20110217_AABAAJ lane_f_Page_086.QC.jpg
70b6b4290247bdd252de7f2b722042ac
5aedce8c2c9ad11ca5b278e7c45d10f216eb587b
F20110217_AABBCX lane_f_Page_131thm.jpg
d7f84031cc2925c25161e3d3b136d3e0
7a4be5b292f151d9e599e700b8f491c4b2e0bc92
959317 F20110217_AABAXR lane_f_Page_068.jp2
63b9778ad096144d1ed15bcea924b855
85d82b81130772ee8db6957e3c1de65dde615803
83432 F20110217_AABAAK lane_f_Page_029.jpg
67be42fbdf41a4bbd7bebcd7d5d4197a
1f5603fa4195109857c33c5f20682e65f781cb4e
6330 F20110217_AABBCY lane_f_Page_132thm.jpg
b8f8b9f8603df8c5586e3494dfe1b02f
75e2b6f73b8f4f56b62092ad54db3ca9c8eec955
1051900 F20110217_AABAYG lane_f_Page_099.jp2
c12346f1c39a64ce5201ac65de0fc022
978dbb42a7383ff019f9b6840cb970a3beb61a96
1051984 F20110217_AABAXS lane_f_Page_070.jp2
11b59d0ba85f04169ff1ac7ed619808c
38ffc8b349161a7e51918ba91cf2bfcb04de99c1
42218 F20110217_AABAAL lane_f_Page_068.pro
9c74609a1bf0fc4d5f209477b7208601
5f984f0293bc98963b61f7cd0aaed83651d45ab2
6731 F20110217_AABBCZ lane_f_Page_133thm.jpg
9019b356437d76272e333e0adf6c453c
26fcf989257e643b9e3e4f37678a84f2f7e1c954
1051924 F20110217_AABAYH lane_f_Page_100.jp2
2714c54f7307a901974212ee37f764e5
37b82746b885eb9a06e771bbb5b478fc9b1b9e37
1051942 F20110217_AABAXT lane_f_Page_072.jp2
faef1ca26fd3c59d6383812286c39455
77ce879650619b9db5616b9134a29d0986ea9a4a
F20110217_AABABA lane_f_Page_088.tif
75d497684aaac15ba730da4a0fec5fcb
078e268e08a13b06216cdce22d43322e8a35de5e
F20110217_AABAAM lane_f_Page_082.tif
3970b5a3bbfb9e27e5870c19b6c8cbdb
71b02931f835437bc3bcffa11eab6059ef2f8c9a
F20110217_AABAYI lane_f_Page_101.jp2
b8c2989051a439ae7771588e3ab67260
2d26d26374a1e3ad88e6d7c3532c7c363abf45e9
1051980 F20110217_AABAXU lane_f_Page_074.jp2
f5daa521d593e249fdcf955b55c8d3cd
175999e4dca6367963108ddd472ab71d28b85243
F20110217_AABABB lane_f_Page_020.jp2
3249b652c804db0c9f4120faeccc93c2
1fff378075da417c6aa54aa92732918f8eaa4962
693992 F20110217_AABAAN lane_f_Page_124.jp2
f2be1e06b51686c22e16942a4a76e6aa
ebbd96a168be07374e87f643eba4bc486a2db554
980955 F20110217_AABAYJ lane_f_Page_102.jp2
c99d80fb3e0943e424bea5fc2b2e9eeb
fe00481ce80275f0faf009d56dc3627229578c87
1051916 F20110217_AABAXV lane_f_Page_075.jp2
a2deda66e310d1cef3959263d7e815cb
80c2ac6a4b7e29d977a7314a65365ebcd696d459
48305 F20110217_AABABC lane_f_Page_033.pro
e3389247e3431b0edb87db546153b4b9
8bf5430d2fd054947469a7b7bec4c616a8291fc0
F20110217_AABAYK lane_f_Page_104.jp2
3ea26b0553cb81b820e88c15d95c6ca4
c7c7ee549e2e6facf001df522fb1e6fd2f0f67d6
1050801 F20110217_AABAXW lane_f_Page_076.jp2
d347d3831005ebb2aa9729a758ddb9ac
0dd6bc7b65b44eeb94ec8e426aa6713a06c1845a
20576 F20110217_AABABD lane_f_Page_084.QC.jpg
38197d2cc70cc53bb18817863f6081df
65824f074e952513380e1df04f882e7eee5196cc
24663 F20110217_AABAAO lane_f_Page_025.QC.jpg
3c840733d51e66d28ac8efd7ef18e401
ed8a108c11003b71946e20100053f2eaf96337a7
F20110217_AABAZA lane_f_Page_130.jp2
ab7103b7a0be0c4df929e515c81339db
8153b0dec5a06be5d471e61a2b04576c66928a14
F20110217_AABAYL lane_f_Page_105.jp2
452370958bc111d20d24ded8490dbd6f
665c6f4af730001608622f999a0c782ebb969e7b
1048313 F20110217_AABAXX lane_f_Page_077.jp2
ddff5e32b4efc38ebb9486fd13d1d5c7
a5a714039b2e8931ca0f686706cfbb388b16f6a7
26169 F20110217_AABABE lane_f_Page_017.QC.jpg
329bee4eb6d4dac6414900b00d1cdc8f
2972391f9dd1db30fbb1830a8f7a75a0d8e738de
24513 F20110217_AABAAP lane_f_Page_106.QC.jpg
36b17ad3a20346cec4d3441acbcbe037
65503195e585ee717af464880be8f3f3c03bd947
F20110217_AABAZB lane_f_Page_131.jp2
f653c0ba72dc120a56bc1caa2f60c40b
bd8f3639f6831cbe8c59211a562c923d2f91f98a
F20110217_AABAYM lane_f_Page_106.jp2
3db5fea5cbf4c5a721ff4adc9abd7b1a
4998982cb4d4397461bd82d097b1b3377c68ddfb
1051925 F20110217_AABAXY lane_f_Page_078.jp2
520e7fc6f6d813e1015e0101a4374b00
467d093abc27419919bdff9e76693da3da771a40
1975 F20110217_AABABF lane_f_Page_060.txt
f4718490c2216941f599f80eb1df2335
70eed985885d158480ae0c2270a346af863bf819
986 F20110217_AABAAQ lane_f_Page_136.txt
332055d1b69c37bca4ae98f3d68ed6ab
8c7777f3618fd7e5230bfd928cdd30c88c3f8bdb
1051965 F20110217_AABAZC lane_f_Page_133.jp2
836e075141c846a33232d09313d890a1
5e4bdaeb2094760e1c945832d2f8adf3744f1516
F20110217_AABAYN lane_f_Page_107.jp2
39f07d7fe650d0c88e8bdd4c3b1642a4
2140f5cde1584f4bd20296229008b71d6d0951b2
F20110217_AABAXZ lane_f_Page_079.jp2
50fb3c1671112f46f767526fb774c6a9
ef3f030941557b7e5baa0567246d63aac671a81f
6512 F20110217_AABABG lane_f_Page_014thm.jpg
898f307d27efb9e98ebaf41e6c238ed4
ffd290a4bdc6e3c5fc4ff7298205b442a6b7327f
2032 F20110217_AABAAR lane_f_Page_038.txt
dae9513f82b05d2c70c7eb20889f3ec0
3db8ad1673254c068356491eaa3aea6ce3791a54
1051841 F20110217_AABAZD lane_f_Page_134.jp2
fbe664069040b1a97fffc291c6c03b11
22342a78bad398c9d38a11fcbc5454d5dbffb15a
F20110217_AABAYO lane_f_Page_109.jp2
b2e380560a39b5d43147efd4de352d88
6e1afd1c7f9c6dfad9f0de2a34fd092751533366
818653 F20110217_AABABH lane_f_Page_114.jp2
af7c3b4a25ccad8e1d32f4beba0b2b95
b030e15a85b5f58d26a02be51710c7ba676f2b82
51308 F20110217_AABAAS lane_f_Page_057.pro
e9096142c1d3f3290b7a998f5c992745
65e299e824bd192662f7eb2758b34e764ec3c9cf
F20110217_AABAZE lane_f_Page_135.jp2
72423c3a5557dc18006c38d48ff20ab3
dd54c4a4f58860b7e5092ac7d7e22be47ad4025b
1049386 F20110217_AABAYP lane_f_Page_110.jp2
3a95aec55d885ede90694c89f611d6ad
03b0088cf9f30dc5595bb6d7b733e227c0e613dc
51486 F20110217_AABABI lane_f_Page_027.pro
b397363edf406a018b319f600c27b0c1
15861fcdac24e8c40731deea8446e39f9a873ea0
F20110217_AABAAT lane_f_Page_041.jp2
3d15efc440a9e23dbb7d3a434920d38a
6d420b87e262c115b6f214868092515b41886ec2
546069 F20110217_AABAZF lane_f_Page_136.jp2
65c60dcf8badcbde2582ce82c8437bfe
413289dd1710ed2a1ee26dc4ee547b113d488627
901289 F20110217_AABAYQ lane_f_Page_111.jp2
3bb70cbea6d7c9631e67f364f6d0e2fa
aaeabe545413bcf3c28cb8d2d9b25666d3dd5b81
993 F20110217_AABABJ lane_f_Page_116thm.jpg
775cc6d804bdd6e26c4691c8daa1c4ad
8697f1cc8daf541ef662721f03dad566662907d9
11489 F20110217_AABAAU lane_f_Page_022.pro
4696898783cc8a374dcd126111f7f6b0
51c484e206729dc3313f088c93ea0da125489d87
1283 F20110217_AABAZG lane_f_Page_003thm.jpg
49e1505e2fa6552fe73bef19d8523b67
4ce53950f4df85bda5453a5a4dd520fcfa33beb3
766067 F20110217_AABAYR lane_f_Page_112.jp2
828e44939d30583561f50b1728b976ad
ae477d44c866001c11cb1ff07d01ba2a646dd47c
746865 F20110217_AABABK lane_f_Page_092.jp2
83a738f573d7f3854665c4e90aa574aa
6f89d59c49f7d175bfd01e148a9307e99cc0cee8
52002 F20110217_AABAAV lane_f_Page_018.pro
10c46c7dd6beb6e8f26223059762c35c
e467a7adfa206b4a763fd409bb685a76ad93c34f
885549 F20110217_AABAYS lane_f_Page_115.jp2
27320f23ab3b78a2f0661cb582712a7f
d77cf23198de7bbd9fc0c8c42397b02474a4a80a
6047 F20110217_AABABL lane_f_Page_107thm.jpg
8cafe92939c495ffcb773f1d15b5c084
47e1f21782bde938757047ae38fc64aadf0394d6
21146 F20110217_AABAAW lane_f_Page_117.QC.jpg
2f25f0581a3c148aabaf6d6adf31681f
94c3b5c48b99bf1bb72b18cfd6fa9c18e88f3930
5278 F20110217_AABAZH lane_f_Page_004thm.jpg
1be806bdbf22bbd544ab16163264462b
232e15a15bcac5600042318b55b3fb9760dc9e7b
105977 F20110217_AABAYT lane_f_Page_116.jp2
39ccfa7d3898111a1ee28a7c66283ff3
3bb7afddefe65527a2424d1f2f436ef8f299e7e6
F20110217_AABABM lane_f_Page_071.tif
ffd9068482fa30b31fb590c4e2849692
88fa7da2bc8cbb6fb484d27a692755643e9edb9d
26505 F20110217_AABAAX lane_f_Page_127.QC.jpg
2de8b8787fafcee52cde4a84ba5588ef
0e81251617b285639eda0342830680283c48f877
2426 F20110217_AABACA lane_f_Page_133.txt
3b747ee429549e3e0171e29ca25af334
b3b3647654beea0c0d1ae82052ffc65a524a00ae
5180 F20110217_AABAZI lane_f_Page_005thm.jpg
78c2aabbc20d0a3548b92a477ceac05c
96254852a9ce63b7796ed8e18779be69e32394fe
914453 F20110217_AABAYU lane_f_Page_118.jp2
291235b5cc8cba31fa49b5615330d049
074dc3be4f266f89036079d3b353bd5c93d164be
525 F20110217_AABABN lane_f_Page_022.txt
cfe11ecfdf1e5ff6f9626c44986cb331
262f733b4b374be8db516059d941ebd136c5859d
1037 F20110217_AABAAY lane_f_Page_009.txt
e161060197cd01c39fd860a002a8e1d1
48ae8cc6265033e13ee164160f9d39c67f768c0a
2107 F20110217_AABACB lane_f_Page_042.txt
9ed8f911ea581ace3fb0785842e1edfd
e7aab8f6205fc3d6f40ae1094d5bcbc60ec0a9f7
2914 F20110217_AABAZJ lane_f_Page_006thm.jpg
4483e91d11a4519b97861d4186a3030a
c0decb7a1fa8677c635ec86069d9fda15d20f522
115060 F20110217_AABAYV lane_f_Page_119.jp2
2898494b8c42a5e21324880e253adf03
d655b701d99b812d139029cb3a55bbb04ac254ad
24964 F20110217_AABABO lane_f_Page_020.QC.jpg
1ee680f52883aff77c447110def8f1e6
bb27ad5a25e713c2867ab838e00caf8fdba526ac
2126 F20110217_AABAAZ lane_f_Page_115.txt
48c8187d200240dc144087a1d9266d5c
7cd0bb046136740b49214a8229525825e1cf4471
1051963 F20110217_AABACC lane_f_Page_053.jp2
5f6b2c5c652449a3b0a5f8ed5a45eefd
c35ea61538ad83f032349dfa1f4a98f76a5055d6
4323 F20110217_AABAZK lane_f_Page_007thm.jpg
f7d5651207d5d1f149d15e40849674b7
431b681448c9fc8242f4e71eae67b4736e605c56
380973 F20110217_AABAYW lane_f_Page_121.jp2
136fa000d8e8dfd94e340476fd12ae8c
aeede54c6cebd09c8186f32cbfe065a51f79011e
2291 F20110217_AABACD lane_f_Page_009thm.jpg
7d63d15b2e3333138697b6c57fc7e4bb
60a144c856f4490e172a29543b2da48f740621bc
5006 F20110217_AABAZL lane_f_Page_010thm.jpg
f43ae06505d79da382dbf9fd9ffa64d0
2353dc0f754c7cf5de72b84bb556f91825e7ee17
163072 F20110217_AABAYX lane_f_Page_122.jp2
3748010e20d2f9638e71702c0ec7753f
97358719704c08629145d59fe3a22b7108f23ea8
457108 F20110217_AABABP lane_f_Page_137.jp2
b587922edbca60360472805cd4740f29
a3555c28a6da6a28699b5e6e2805b5c87349106a
F20110217_AABACE lane_f_Page_100.tif
0c177c304b67e568fa10e6c7828f0c24
44cf189a27888ae2b829393850e4c368fa7dadcd
2732 F20110217_AABAZM lane_f_Page_011thm.jpg
b7dd318e4229fe507aa530809544379a
ac687729ce01e2095b476e0c19dedd367ed3e939
667118 F20110217_AABAYY lane_f_Page_123.jp2
c4785da5d4f32210c6e31a2d963763f0
8c3d01af20eaf7d166988692bb56f03314fad0d6
455335 F20110217_AABABQ lane_f_Page_087.jp2
e26361990f821cde9542e3454a176514
c34501b4deaebc2ff7f9850dd252d50a90d317ae
1875 F20110217_AABACF lane_f_Page_035.txt
01f78001932a797cd6a31a104559381d
10fb3d4456c9937cb6e71afa974b51e555a7859e
6395 F20110217_AABAZN lane_f_Page_013thm.jpg
838f000109133a14971e5dbb92c80d7b
53ec3a3c7c1677e063070070f2b67ff1a8a22175
253185 F20110217_AABAYZ lane_f_Page_125.jp2
80760ebc80a4287dea2298ab6eab3558
1ee8111dfa34d02737bbfab9fbac7ce26e2b69c9
83738 F20110217_AABABR lane_f_Page_013.jpg
6bca770e5e241b5154d2425cecb120f6
164e28b68e9c05117fd4edafb1f5579f19c1b2f5
F20110217_AABACG lane_f_Page_108.jp2
9f9ccb97ee970031468307e07a552d32
6cce58889fbf2183e381c8f6676d62b5dbf4aa8c
5977 F20110217_AABAZO lane_f_Page_015thm.jpg
0725c724b98f70da91cc528d625403d5
f2f4ae296fd711191d4313fb2332ab0c346fe443
12389 F20110217_AABABS lane_f_Page_087.QC.jpg
96cf58adea0445a6fcfc20613f2bec3c
222ff78ae356339e9c2e830dc8be31209692250c
6020 F20110217_AABACH lane_f_Page_069thm.jpg
373e2be41a761838f41362a546193d7b
d1fa169f193a1ecdae79eaa1ae5e0b658158b6cb
6283 F20110217_AABAZP lane_f_Page_016thm.jpg
2f077322cb97433bec4b69d93e2c5f72
4bceef4d5d9dd04ca6ef2ea5b3e5eff3deaa7e1f
24575 F20110217_AABABT lane_f_Page_134.QC.jpg
07bbf7aca213bb482c2008d3e3f96c35
76f5d75d60e73335db99b8ccc5db43728be9d934
F20110217_AABACI lane_f_Page_080.tif
85011962bb7d58467d65eb7073261c14
34b05da66e43db4b5315f003c9afede48c4f4692
6200 F20110217_AABAZQ lane_f_Page_017thm.jpg
0feb76c77ffc03a26af5ce4cdaf872b9
11c5c1b1091cc9d714ced5c05872e7d20171a11f
F20110217_AABABU lane_f_Page_102.tif
1540029cd8a4ff2a4a7652ec2fb9ed06
96b873b674061fcc4a71f58f4e10d9f90fa9d1bf
8091 F20110217_AABACJ lane_f_Page_001.QC.jpg
b81fba379714bee21da178e821540cee
b80e71f728ba94d88ebca4a6cd170b1e876f494d
6339 F20110217_AABAZR lane_f_Page_018thm.jpg
9150681b3c2a26f4577e084d55ca1bb6
9c0bb786b6cd617c51a72b4354f5f3212a558cbf
85489 F20110217_AABABV lane_f_Page_095.pro
b1f193d8f7a39e7d1e73699467457165
91b298347efc5ea85bf4f80ec7cc9368fe1595bc
F20110217_AABACK lane_f_Page_026.tif
636828287ba9e2b6afacf2fec7e1bf92
00af8a7b6d876b038a316042dcb5eb90c98c6885
5983 F20110217_AABAZS lane_f_Page_020thm.jpg
4024c1b8e464fd3f4960c7bd03795e80
7cf610109b6c301cebbb877fe165db9afda3064a
F20110217_AABABW lane_f_Page_044.jp2
cd9333b296e6c448a74b1a13f8756e30
c17ee5157354db9d0792c97e6a5a901fbd07c1ae
1051972 F20110217_AABACL lane_f_Page_098.jp2
f2a4196970270fa1f159b67525855977
fdb9b378a37c03c1582fe12462e00350df258ffd
6089 F20110217_AABAZT lane_f_Page_021thm.jpg
6d6c3dac8e46bbe6fe792532f4c3f078
8fca43c363ee9528ebc30620fd46a9e8510353c6
47460 F20110217_AABABX lane_f_Page_035.pro
3f154c3c0b3d382976b032a15a814d3c
76f218cc3a8e423fdcb33a031cd65e2c7c3c140e
1051936 F20110217_AABADA lane_f_Page_132.jp2
26aeacc25b46585002b6fba86c7ab0b5
15e7e36a075c471913e09f67818eb71b6253e4fc
38411 F20110217_AABACM lane_f_Page_085.pro
ae20b84f1660baec329d6348633762e0
51871e3ddde70393696614907de779075da6f36c
1495 F20110217_AABAZU lane_f_Page_022thm.jpg
63c6b01408c7cc5aead0ce24b9617ec3
7a98f8f3fddf7da57d1e35b9cef7385dbecf10c7
25765 F20110217_AABABY lane_f_Page_108.QC.jpg
15edf1e527d326c568adf80c92db8e44
bc2b103ee8c86815b9084eeffe7c3d38f061df59
F20110217_AABADB lane_f_Page_128.jp2
b0ed29607280e40c7ceccbdcbb6e3578
73bdb0a5387e33a7da1549f3e2f7fe226c5597d4
736169 F20110217_AABACN lane_f_Page_006.jp2
371736cbbea83712cda783cce1765eff
7a63b93a06b9c62d3a1e06589a5fdcb1253d3678
4871 F20110217_AABAZV lane_f_Page_023thm.jpg
a2bd6a14e7c5e88ea550708ac2cd8a57
992991bc4e0f644c9445a90be5ecb9cad14c15b4
2059 F20110217_AABABZ lane_f_Page_079.txt
a272ec2733e438476e51c7c8aa9f88ed
4e813191863bd4fce9ffc17afb4c6c9341ec01aa
51300 F20110217_AABADC lane_f_Page_026.pro
5635772d3408deaaf23c0c8dc25f942d
61e18d2f082c9b9355aeaebfad47a699285d5099
1051913 F20110217_AABACO lane_f_Page_069.jp2
18c98d0577676e0710bede1d5d1b9a17
e8c1ce2cff6058583946a482821b9bf7b858308e
6081 F20110217_AABAZW lane_f_Page_024thm.jpg
51fc45a1e7a56a49fd43d70ef8c041eb
2702452ec62150b84119a6b7e2ebe6bc2a3e60ec
1889 F20110217_AABADD lane_f_Page_068.txt
696f138955d185757eabbb35e9e03018
cbba5879d1889cd3a6b28ea949ef41de73331bd1
83156 F20110217_AABACP lane_f_Page_059.jpg
0160561d46bbac088ffcadb9081b6349
f376c7ff89cb4661c775975a3b297ddb7513ebc1
6192 F20110217_AABAZX lane_f_Page_025thm.jpg
7ba8b7c98fb0804ae692be72273526fd
8e21e426c9479c28f1c53ccaddaeb90bc20ae848
F20110217_AABADE lane_f_Page_051.tif
2c57d43ecb6a979df4a3b15a3627b6e4
e8902f356f0d019a63ac14a52a85cd14f62e8a94
6239 F20110217_AABAZY lane_f_Page_027thm.jpg
75e7a292ca28f5cec1274c3b79f94eae
f3d6269716c03d923c4e2335d1366cf8c90bf528
84926 F20110217_AABADF lane_f_Page_058.jpg
a72c771c879e665ad6ca785756db9326
7809c2942a8bf9debaae2b1ef5d6889b038c119f
51294 F20110217_AABACQ lane_f_Page_101.pro
10cf26e14e7fc1e633fee234f9ed796b
1c5b34149fb1ff7c56e1b7da24d809b20f25980e
6390 F20110217_AABAZZ lane_f_Page_028thm.jpg
6c1f03096f9c5310dc9581c53b405791
169eaab48130ead9ce3222114a6355ecc14bdfe6
9359 F20110217_AABADG lane_f_Page_008.QC.jpg
5a63644f90a5b7e234a7de4f1f916c38
ca86750c58fe5809232403642ba9a9e989a4ad73
32187 F20110217_AABACR lane_f_Page_009.jpg
8c2d02d65a3ad37552f603d97cf85677
0429e5380397708f5ac5e292bba7abf8d49bb0ed
47930 F20110217_AABADH lane_f_Page_074.pro
7f9fe279711db7cd29aeb85f3af082bb
71fc916dc469874e643173afc1f188d620f8c789
818735 F20110217_AABACS lane_f_Page_085.jp2
65495ca35e0807c5712019bb9846316b
b60a77f45334d1964003e3c059fc0e7733c66ab7
17923 F20110217_AABADI lane_f_Page_124.QC.jpg
d660896db6b3a3eb2cefb1f3277b27a3
60d328c553f740c59a0811bc2d8f755c3f06e39f
83400 F20110217_AABACT lane_f_Page_101.jpg
b65606b9e4887860cbe12fdec9074a07
19ec3740ec8baae8a5c11e866365429081ba35b7
39253 F20110217_AABADJ lane_f_Page_117.pro
5290b748f793ea0fb3e08115ead083fa
3f29bd89d0f5cdf331b673b23c049e705cb840ce
26831 F20110217_AABACU lane_f_Page_075.QC.jpg
f6992edeab9567b09a5aa7ff47be35ac
df68468fe7e26c38a7cab7ce1b791e2c177837b3
2040 F20110217_AABADK lane_f_Page_071.txt
ff1e9ae817237c86a15e630f0d2cb6cf
2c94728b445b1974593bba8c5db263e26b00ba72
F20110217_AABACV lane_f_Page_023.tif
aeda9994d70f8beb7dd2ca2dbb27627a
9acfd0d5d67897bb6de7b191be6aff892e5ae689
56840 F20110217_AABADL lane_f_Page_089.jpg
ef4918834bd02d1917eed87e0b9f1858
43ba92bfe3fee4dacd04beb7edd1504bb48109a2
27022 F20110217_AABACW lane_f_Page_061.QC.jpg
e7ef93acd3f37ef3252b55dd0dc46ea2
f4ec3bfefbd945efa95f93ac36f373f97143c913
F20110217_AABAEA lane_f_Page_005.tif
1b0439acc055a70b3401979e2cec12de
1dc4e8caf05518f2f1a1bdd63ace54d58956b842
79281 F20110217_AABADM lane_f_Page_069.jpg
28c376e6c146d31a989161a3995c08df
83dd0099d27439fa899bbf88d404a1ffbfbcfe00
1614 F20110217_AABACX lane_f_Page_124.txt
0358d2bfcce5273de734ac1bdd472de9
c4d32765b0115926697a68714ed75085372845d3
F20110217_AABAEB lane_f_Page_006.tif
31de54043c6fcd4acefced6901b44af8
9d9425da7f932b5a9470bed30736288002676ff8
6117 F20110217_AABADN lane_f_Page_022.QC.jpg
e89ce1df00ce35050480d0bc053c0158
ca0066e33ee41d60de3d50e0eb3d42da939b2b85
F20110217_AABACY lane_f_Page_109.tif
192e54e3d92328cefcd5c0a929d6e1d8
b3c5d605998067be44abf4d47a725dd8a756bbab
F20110217_AABAEC lane_f_Page_007.tif
d107f36e298f5b29ae7ef3fd7714017e
1ff2deac4678d566c5aa1a33073507e6dd1bbd73
39069 F20110217_AABADO lane_f_Page_010.pro
7626bba351adf9f8ddbfac891c15e2e6
3b24af2acf44ab00fec488e568115180dbf167a2
6218 F20110217_AABACZ lane_f_Page_091thm.jpg
f5aa3325aaaa0c26df43b8531eb4ad9b
f175d60d7a2111a228bff8752d10bbfa3fbe0607
F20110217_AABAED lane_f_Page_008.tif
96e95a1f2d0c7eb8bf6f0ec107479fdf
01ea97a7f6cf5b292caa5b320ca21dcb41add2f7
86790 F20110217_AABADP lane_f_Page_075.jpg
5395a284865203f06d54b422dc5e7236
66e0aa37710e68c6e668a675b005b6b2af35d38e
27056 F20110217_AAAZSD lane_f_Page_109.QC.jpg
3f57d9cde21cbda832356dfd00f530f2
1585479c7638cf70c0c2e1e5879126105db912c1
F20110217_AABAEE lane_f_Page_010.tif
960241591ef3fdcb83f417ce62a48e3f
96adccbd1e3da1653306461bc47eeaedf5539bc2
73842 F20110217_AABADQ lane_f_Page_012.jpg
b0fe09c7daebc160e64faef272814dbe
add9c570ce25be77f9b69deb5d0141af1add12e2
F20110217_AAAZSE lane_f_Page_012.tif
dedf14de50e267f5f452e60095337d88
579ea3b2ee9d1d0af204d86d989d2514c5078124
F20110217_AABAEF lane_f_Page_011.tif
2957aefbbd66d0dd73f9765d1172da96
7bd130c255c473bee0b6800b7b5b386332c544a7
F20110217_AAAZSF lane_f_Page_120.tif
5774274b78218c6093be9356e16ff3ee
8a185fab1c4b863084f9c3664d9e042d7c0a01e5
F20110217_AABAEG lane_f_Page_013.tif
bacfdf2e28325892d8dd447b7ee4af35
8cd7402d5a1405436095c0f5e0bd6c9a98e9a849
54134 F20110217_AABADR lane_f_Page_097.pro
5b7a39eb3dbfcc4330a5ddda8c01d361
1738312e4ed650bf347d2d0c7974dd313de9ed90
F20110217_AABAEH lane_f_Page_014.tif
a7532b7153514da0315701e6887b3fd1
2019d201fa8afce2e15c6cec7304ab839ce27ce4
25858 F20110217_AABADS lane_f_Page_037.QC.jpg
162643740797ee45a18973d8fdd20218
52f69da73e623333a0d2e1025267fb0fe34ebe4c
2048 F20110217_AAAZSG lane_f_Page_075.txt
94857db72d8c5ded91d1c4eeed65cbf3
eaae6e728503a6e068e5a0461637a083341a0003
F20110217_AABAEI lane_f_Page_015.tif
39862422910cac4d506d4c6df28821a0
a4458ca394084222434e046268ba089b145c8673
64577 F20110217_AABADT lane_f_Page_120.jpg
cec8c0597dd3597ce6038cce90e6e29d
6b0962655ba81a63721faeb037cceaa64475e60b
6297 F20110217_AAAZSH lane_f_Page_019thm.jpg
e9499423cb42d4f6e8a9a9ca4eacefce
08f1d4af5d314168693e10ffc158216485b23e50
F20110217_AABAEJ lane_f_Page_016.tif
a267027ab78767f22f8f0c56a3b8de25
c554a528380921c9e33c3335fbbe998a04f029d2
219663 F20110217_AABADU UFE0015650_00001.xml
120b1e96cd1617e10e419f61954b330d
c3b3cb3ab7c37e922b41c1179ef21e7bd391155b
50116 F20110217_AAAZSI lane_f_Page_050.pro
09c1a2605c3e986825a5e1f572fd4727
f12b1c5a2eca6ef5d57358a2f855b888c3f3efd6
F20110217_AABAEK lane_f_Page_017.tif
21e5e85c9e5cff145ccce638976e15f6
347991ee0a00115ec44d203cf9a3525ef151d269
52042 F20110217_AAAZSJ lane_f_Page_075.pro
5e35b2d90a9f8c0e726b790ca3e47be2
112e348d9cad9b46d419967f01c272ff3223bb7c
F20110217_AABAEL lane_f_Page_018.tif
4ec785c70ea0388b9e90e2f116ec5032
4264204eda1b53553a739ffeac484834cc5770f5
6354 F20110217_AAAZSK lane_f_Page_040thm.jpg
8eef7ba526fe19e41eb69ad0936c9628
6665a2d05db81da6d849b39ba16152be94a2c25d
F20110217_AABAEM lane_f_Page_021.tif
1721fbef3804d9286bfcb2d4b3691a88
996d170c7ee01a58ea9c31efc9f0a66f8c3f32f5
2035 F20110217_AAAZTA lane_f_Page_026.txt
e3dd035ba6abd03a154b9e1d02c8c037
67ba693fe76e9fb9bf443d523187167168f7a1e6
F20110217_AABADX lane_f_Page_001.tif
3bcab866ba2091ce6e6b4b7780f788b4
dbe6c297a2eb47dd8e7e846e0461fb0d8ccb56fd
6263 F20110217_AAAZSL lane_f_Page_050thm.jpg
0eab2866174dc0416893f0f25bc8f071
55db0af8ff7a5e3598bb5747c5d30e612f93adfe
F20110217_AABAFA lane_f_Page_044.tif
16b29e4531dc107a332ab845fc691889
4852ae07ab1d282fc14fb969cefd8cc407bf2cbc
F20110217_AABAEN lane_f_Page_022.tif
cdcc76711ec5dda2c066bb3d6e7439ff
f7d6242fa97a8e79ee8721481345afd062854906
6396 F20110217_AAAZTB lane_f_Page_048thm.jpg
bb962e8128803a2caa0f64d181251733
709500a740505906f2501582744144f7ec3d84c5
F20110217_AABADY lane_f_Page_002.tif
346f696f225849a985e875670e6cbf65
ebcc7cf1f7b33540fa37f48da03a701483fa777f
47306 F20110217_AAAZSM lane_f_Page_076.pro
6cf3a52908beaabb8a2e57a4a9dfaf6d
4623f6aee17a09019acd9ca5871f7e1c9dd55f03
F20110217_AABAFB lane_f_Page_045.tif
3298d43f49f834e153c00562e5c96905
a18d78f7371a168c6370446cc94af5d2c6b117fa
F20110217_AABAEO lane_f_Page_024.tif
b5b2161a51be39ffbbc0ee9f02b3ef1c
a2af55970e3eed9788690fbe4b90606639bca823
2014 F20110217_AAAZTC lane_f_Page_057.txt
33b0679b7e212656b93d8db00e1aa958
c92dbead1441d340bd311f135798f87536fdfe36
F20110217_AABADZ lane_f_Page_003.tif
fc200f57bd9dd109eeebe1574b48f805
1d371fe991ef3f66bc14b2c3f2d7ba4e47c27afd
25710 F20110217_AAAZSN lane_f_Page_016.QC.jpg
ce0ff2b5197ff09e6fc3f48389913ae0
c18da233384ad5ab1b65f02ea58094699edfded9
F20110217_AABAFC lane_f_Page_046.tif
68b28897cff769b56e948c859d26ef08
7cc2bf3ed2373a0fe00aa1dbfbe07f9736b9b763
F20110217_AABAEP lane_f_Page_027.tif
d9eb1653c91c783653f35b4b00a41141
839524ceb90dc907d1814428be517b935fc924db
31663 F20110217_AAAZTD lane_f_Page_121.jpg
09e593a686ef7245ed43b905739010d0
a0bb38759060f56dfbebde141699eaab75ae8442
6392 F20110217_AAAZSO lane_f_Page_130thm.jpg
bf073f8dcd788a3bb561c0908db2aadf
b4aea041626ccbe513ac24deeb16917e83a4bf74
F20110217_AABAFD lane_f_Page_047.tif
2acbf646bac92a6f67e8448ed72ba0cf
f356173175b6a7ab59c4fb8398654f97fb162b1d
F20110217_AABAEQ lane_f_Page_030.tif
32bb0a3faaf6bf06cbd90e7954328ec9
3e8d6b3a7329898e7e59e1fdfbf3448c646f92e1
46225 F20110217_AAAZTE lane_f_Page_114.pro
44e1f0c30aa28b17754316d01e9c5e58
58c626edbabd8bd8048d5ad4fa205313d5308b8d
438534 F20110217_AAAZSP lane_f_Page_008.jp2
c4f8af78a50378d326aac0d6b166a97b
990013d54da337121d81f01a2321cc4f724e4fb3
F20110217_AABAFE lane_f_Page_048.tif
207bd3c800b45721cf8ce163f690720f
bf02aef5fbb764ad3d7562e9e980ecb56c407f8e
F20110217_AABAER lane_f_Page_032.tif
558e273b135631f8f6e66855f7be4e42
e6778da9d3405a863f62080145be40052364e49f
6302 F20110217_AAAZTF lane_f_Page_026thm.jpg
a83efaadbe92252d1ee582ff664352bb
d9ea9227aa3a20b16623eb21ceb387b4e021f3fe
1902 F20110217_AAAZSQ lane_f_Page_033.txt
4b197ac98b10bc74b3024ac5a737ab49
4388529077bba15e44c224c5acaba000152f10b6
F20110217_AABAFF lane_f_Page_049.tif
04b42c55eab80ad0f97766f53fa2c7c2
f1a37d6244496dee9cf09cee61833311356f1f9a
26658 F20110217_AAAZTG lane_f_Page_050.QC.jpg
ad9dbee387eddc92ecc04abe6ec1a663
4121291bf01db8c73090c5f69c244910b4c07539
723179 F20110217_AAAZSR lane_f_Page_090.jp2
5b9019738ec4a1fff966d131514e3242
419b0b01b97702c0f7bbde4b8a62ba00de30b234
F20110217_AABAFG lane_f_Page_050.tif
6e655556c3e0b8d81d09896614b54d1a
3a37974bc152e3544730c12d10a87144c5eea827
F20110217_AABAES lane_f_Page_034.tif
1281aadc2e03ba65827aba77fb21427c
c650bfec639ba0f08f6fb4be7f408df887916e03
F20110217_AAAZSS lane_f_Page_085.tif
8e0fa76383330680ead25ab49deaab16
700ca654e64591b3824e702e1962f55a0d5d2fbd
F20110217_AABAFH lane_f_Page_052.tif
f005e89295db7e8261cf901490034623
24791ed7238c40fe34891bcc43807a33baa1566a
22360 F20110217_AAAZTH lane_f_Page_118.QC.jpg
11b62ca95477b1c49f1f0549acb4cd99
555b051faec9604215313619d30475ce539c9302
83750 F20110217_AAAZST lane_f_Page_060.jpg
d1d7c948239c61d93c1b2e6b2876a6bf
c6d2a9957ddf29c1bda5f2b391ec98bc2236275b
F20110217_AABAFI lane_f_Page_054.tif
1ae6327517d035128880d4afb11d947c
eb8340b8eb6dcf7ca596db5a4dfaa43d6ce1e6b9
F20110217_AABAET lane_f_Page_035.tif
033c4e8ca6c9fec99d43573cdde60dcc
bb45f8dbc7b6856c5173f66d113eab2aefd2bc9c
28109 F20110217_AAAZTI lane_f_Page_135.QC.jpg
0ea9497329ecb912af568e7251d30a1d
35fe43ac1e5231f4ffa89420cc93edc00de21f1d
6538 F20110217_AAAZSU lane_f_Page_099thm.jpg
cff322cd6ec78ff76fcf12f59a87fa6c
c742d85dbd105f2520551d98f30564450afe9fa6
F20110217_AABAFJ lane_f_Page_055.tif
95d16407735dc28cfc58f4fd957f4585
174a7f7d35dc967d3adc2366c9510775523fa2d4
F20110217_AABAEU lane_f_Page_036.tif
7f425d39fcd470d3b617ae12689710ab
34709b074647f7bacc11f3188910471d40651eaa
852422 F20110217_AAAZTJ lane_f_Page_117.jp2
cd2079d1e59bb9e034a28b51fbeef898
9e3e121b6729341808bc59a7034613c5f16aa068
F20110217_AAAZSV lane_f_Page_061.tif
e03cb76182a17591e35936549125aa59
3e18637f0b7f8540bfe0c324f04a5b45a178c31f
F20110217_AABAFK lane_f_Page_057.tif
1b8dc68a7c1a8b119601d11126817caf
d8670d06e66122d55736a13c2ee56bb4d7e73da8
F20110217_AABAEV lane_f_Page_037.tif
461c0fe8336d559856a6b87fbe9b888a
411ad4200be2667a6295936dc7d3f700a48dda9f
F20110217_AAAZTK lane_f_Page_020.tif
7be365a15141569ef0785a7c52d3525e
2ae981660e099ea00c866525aecf7a206a4864f2
F20110217_AAAZSW lane_f_Page_058thm.jpg
f47f581cf78d17fa3d02c4fb83b56b36
cf36d38f7092a43e93061610cc2c782a4bf96df9
F20110217_AABAFL lane_f_Page_058.tif
05b3ba60048666cc9f6d2ec9bdcd56b8
9b45bb6b6e9bae0efb7044ed4d21d5d8ac87194a
F20110217_AABAEW lane_f_Page_038.tif
326aa63d693f21da0a03685de3273957
45862a686fa648516d6e274f338643e2a6042d55
316 F20110217_AAAZTL lane_f_Page_122.txt
30c76c58bb2961bcdb2caaf9962a2947
efaf62703e3ad3d0a5dd603caf77493e9759fbdd
F20110217_AABAGA lane_f_Page_081.tif
b83d55e072d5c1ace521f12d773ab29e
555e1cd9a7755406d61ccdb854080133e1a523ed
50536 F20110217_AAAZSX lane_f_Page_059.pro
b7d8cdeef8acfa768e61e0149f5fe487
627b1b5b8d60daccd358c22026b535e4155164b3
F20110217_AABAFM lane_f_Page_062.tif
99d930fe0b1173d76c546407180b7a73
76b9e062c3a5078bfd048416e6eba61a89abca1d
1657 F20110217_AAAZUA lane_f_Page_120.txt
c7ab603bfe511b8af3667fdd4af314d1
2913d115cad65d3e79b3301258b49273c09ed38c
F20110217_AABAEX lane_f_Page_039.tif
ebf1efd7f5d8e5253547aebb82cecff9
18a6c64e55acd4e555bd8177d4efa563e3d961dd
83614 F20110217_AAAZTM lane_f_Page_044.jpg
470a4c614f2aa2d1c1e4b16ccc550e0c
a9038d6e2e74232713aff88069d0133c85012fff
F20110217_AABAGB lane_f_Page_083.tif
f30a9acfc68866bb90736d630a5a6281
c09355dc67d1131bf6ddae9e71dac067ea0c2a2d
F20110217_AAAZSY lane_f_Page_073.tif
2901ae4ae35762b0630bed59d1671a39
d0a489fdb3b831262372b7a45d8ce116f6f8f70b
F20110217_AABAFN lane_f_Page_063.tif
ef3a52c94d2fc8615443cbda8eeead49
9dda50ed9988bf789b92c703d7aaa88a4dd92307
711253 F20110217_AAAZUB lane_f_Page_089.jp2
8c60fdc986928617e7c4adf2131af7cd
9a40f1d293e375949acf66ae7a331a0cd235e2fd
F20110217_AABAEY lane_f_Page_040.tif
53b7eb3e06208bd86e98bb55fdb79b57
2c69462a37c4b8076df4bf7f885bd4c01a962461
77475 F20110217_AAAZTN lane_f_Page_049.jpg
b41995b3b7e406c1cfd50bff5836747d
5f5b37b30d5406fa56ca9ff496ade68df3f0fb45
F20110217_AABAGC lane_f_Page_084.tif
24d06b22b1627bd9761652266896d281
798f382a23afa7fc3a2b2369318c143cce0e0069
53175 F20110217_AAAZSZ lane_f_Page_104.pro
73acf7b1f187b9d4146315e47c5b8264
b688c4c72490acfc750547c70af19fc77afe65aa
F20110217_AABAFO lane_f_Page_064.tif
78f0618a1cb7846b30c93d95c24a524a
6ba86a1240983f05bfa2e83b526b04aaf78b500b
25777 F20110217_AAAZUC lane_f_Page_063.QC.jpg
1e2945da92db305d9128032f1e08ab80
0670510db4585ff181999baebbbaf9e308f2de2a
F20110217_AABAEZ lane_f_Page_041.tif
61f107dfc524464244ef2e701e7ed5e5
998ae54778477801e0d24014f1b18afe0184f7d1
1895 F20110217_AAAZTO lane_f_Page_083.txt
9f8815fc525f7336c6f975976097f70e
f3a7707104376ece061dcbd179717677dbfe176e
F20110217_AABAGD lane_f_Page_086.tif
43e477ca44e051ef385527bc370eefc0
9c6841e6aa7703b78fa62f46f81f4f1bc30016c2
F20110217_AABAFP lane_f_Page_065.tif
b318dd48a08184b10dbfea3779d41b6e
1d4b242dcd370670fa74075442c3c7146d92d37c
F20110217_AAAZUD lane_f_Page_091.jp2
683339e94b8bd6e6d49eefa94968b206
64791631e86bca9dbd3648dd5dfca616c37092a9
826039 F20110217_AAAZTP lane_f_Page_120.jp2
b048cf364b65136aef23463e5ff5f24f
359f9cf4c2b2347135ff6d3a3ccfc163837a0a76
F20110217_AABAGE lane_f_Page_087.tif
1b279aae6d2b9428d110be8b279f3431
e4783a346e0a4fd37d8302a41c2ea4ceca364223
F20110217_AABAFQ lane_f_Page_067.tif
9accc4e896227206b732b2bd44291683
50e8aa047e70b6c54e2c547677eff120c3b5a062
F20110217_AAAZUE lane_f_Page_126.jp2
7f1ece14fec4c6c63d88acacea2894a9
f6b1dfe5ab0f73abf91164d47dbafdf4ee3c289f
2033 F20110217_AAAZTQ lane_f_Page_070.txt
5b5d4d2ce74871d8af018f4e090d572c
3a1574d0e5fd5a3ef1aebdec1e106996d7311ee3
F20110217_AABAGF lane_f_Page_089.tif
295d0fba39064bced1611778efe03579
85c5f5707c41b03f05f6903069f41b3138950b2a
F20110217_AABAFR lane_f_Page_068.tif
b7b59c65fa0558e621ba75d1a3612f02
59917669c341216917e831c0e128e7300b4e8a76
1777 F20110217_AAAZUF lane_f_Page_081.txt
ffc3ae3f17a1f6685182389335e295c2
3665112770a90ec08d7ade3fa9b011234d9adf7c
F20110217_AAAZTR lane_f_Page_058.jp2
0c9a637776f3b99b3391b2089807a7ae
2dc396fec75f6f0041204b8a0821de8494244f1c
F20110217_AABAGG lane_f_Page_090.tif
8d2c17b49738dcd902c5ac7c86e5eea9
59f0cb29d2ac949ff9dd72bbe02c63f86978e766
F20110217_AABAFS lane_f_Page_069.tif
f93286ef4cd9e378b8143804679dcfaf
2879404f84a08f92e0e91193feb07c1a58d0b93b
F20110217_AAAZUG lane_f_Page_127.tif
2910feb12c93f326a21072e463589a8f
c1b06ad3ec2e7aba6cfa116425f91abebf217c92
25903 F20110217_AAAZTS lane_f_Page_060.QC.jpg
582cc134771ff3c2cb1389cd2d8bf557
c233efcb717c9b254a65596d9da891f31aeea40a
F20110217_AABAGH lane_f_Page_091.tif
b93c91e149284ef204e33cd771f706bf
86117a3ee2053494389f9e5367dddfd63f440ddb
F20110217_AAAZUH lane_f_Page_053.tif
408f6ba1d334b670e6f98d6e85dbbdf7
00115e3eb07e6d18e053de5ebecab36cff273cfb
5685 F20110217_AAAZTT lane_f_Page_110thm.jpg
79b962cf0c1dfd69afcf2516ee98e02c
f710aa4cb830f7f69816ccb219b474f03a237b9b
F20110217_AABAGI lane_f_Page_092.tif
1d11b2ce4a08974a0e0f230cefb81183
e876e6c4a8339bde7ac0034edd20f5978d915b60
F20110217_AABAFT lane_f_Page_072.tif
aa3f564f86a931ad85b98dc035fc7372
75eaf4168595920f0cc6d0bba047a331999d0b36
2339 F20110217_AAAZTU lane_f_Page_131.txt
6b7842e24ec9f87ff2f022bd9ec8c272
b044b8f4ae05ef4f0e65371f33533b28d7aa94b3
F20110217_AABAGJ lane_f_Page_094.tif
e546c57b427941b7b1b4cda84e934f97
67f0eb462ceb28f125bcfc0b8d79861d6ee79736
F20110217_AABAFU lane_f_Page_074.tif
ecf2ea47b31751c2fa2e51a699755295
ce28bba87ab0ed1e8b854f7a6820500a7bbc0c2a
F20110217_AAAZUI lane_f_Page_110.txt
fdc53fbb4f3ef26e8153cacfce332b64
682b82e6f913ead310d439a8016c8fc35e29cdaa
25783 F20110217_AAAZTV lane_f_Page_056.QC.jpg
ef3617629ea22beb69335ebee7194378
b545bd2bb2c90c51b21b4cb8d2fba7d044772a24
F20110217_AABAGK lane_f_Page_096.tif
eaae0cc228954391674a9dc31733da6e
3690f709e6698e9c2921ed85525a1e21c43284f3
F20110217_AABAFV lane_f_Page_075.tif
fa1de0f918154df15aff3611866567a4
190fb9bc8fa8b496745b9d484304b1cff5bf98cb
80809 F20110217_AAAZUJ lane_f_Page_020.jpg
ea4cffa37dbbec1a3fed44e8e43e1109
d32a008a962b4d77ca2f8d09a4dc950b0d173c57
52180 F20110217_AAAZTW lane_f_Page_053.pro
bba4eea4ee7208bebbe3b4ae11f7c296
b786a80ee8351ab6857c1befa04b8da960f35f6f
F20110217_AABAGL lane_f_Page_097.tif
4453d387605c152d65c25307b9248cc6
c7e906d003795ef92129f9f2c788aed11f6b885e
F20110217_AABAFW lane_f_Page_076.tif
006c45d9fe6bb688253627f5c22eedda
855d6105166dff2e61e25372f976e748542ea9ec
24456 F20110217_AAAZUK lane_f_Page_074.QC.jpg
8c235e77985876ec8eae904ce7643baf
1b246fd03b9378d8b3a038ac081ab7049e1b78e7
5392 F20110217_AAAZTX lane_f_Page_102thm.jpg
31b7688aece1e215b13eb19986024a9e
bbb89c3269825fc1d67266a1125b8fa45ce0c1a8
F20110217_AABAGM lane_f_Page_098.tif
c9cffdacc610622abc1abfe99cccb071
84873d836b34a3f09fb078eb798358214ec04106
37308 F20110217_AAAZVA lane_f_Page_113.pro
f87e339fe18c4f5dbe2f3208622ca407
b00027572fda5112299deb6632a4226d6a7a50fb
F20110217_AABAFX lane_f_Page_077.tif
7f717ad5e6a4223db33eabacd0e8c4bf
b4c18c6cc37b7964200cdb87fe0935e85229d9b0
20133 F20110217_AAAZUL lane_f_Page_111.QC.jpg
44e7cffc38a1109b96ff97fb41b78621
5de54ea644bbe5e6824328f40d67636cf1da05ad
F20110217_AABAHA lane_f_Page_119.tif
7dd05df0f654a3f0d42d9d3b8e57b8a7
17787fb5481bc8008bb7392b3055eb1db3a6de46
26461 F20110217_AAAZTY lane_f_Page_132.QC.jpg
6f86621ca42f7b6f9bb03001a061e14d
2f7d387e8b279fedc576efc25ac20bbd439164a3
F20110217_AABAGN lane_f_Page_099.tif
9e4dbd31089d4acacadcd6d2b03255b0
09a887fd4b3216b00cd47ef2a0b2c7d2b6556a4e
F20110217_AAAZVB lane_f_Page_031.tif
3167d8b43c0f59726a510fd8f6346500
0ae53be05ab2e6ed5de1a86b61dd2a56d41f126e
F20110217_AABAFY lane_f_Page_078.tif
cb09902ab1972dabe32e7a959cd36d36
9734ac1f083960eb16cc0e9c81020c9b041f4ac2
1051955 F20110217_AAAZUM lane_f_Page_094.jp2
d045d4850e8bdd9f0a1ae28faa43b939
ef3d616482d37e24f1c25e4662807d4fae50812d
F20110217_AABAHB lane_f_Page_121.tif
e788c0276ae4179514f0e3befd27c533
384b138ac54837a5d33dabe55799bc7b4e459b9e
85382 F20110217_AAAZTZ lane_f_Page_031.jpg
b7659b2c26817d65243354d6e15dddbe
7f1a98a328e594b68cf6da6427a6ed090af0ff5c
F20110217_AABAGO lane_f_Page_103.tif
cdc3ba92ca8a597698e0e721d07a167f
7fe5e579f7affdf3b614fe6eefec78d904408fdc
F20110217_AAAZVC lane_f_Page_056.tif
a3649501a572a985da884c60ede59748
cc655a7d09fec6d9fa6dad28959a0a0192f2f7ff
F20110217_AABAFZ lane_f_Page_079.tif
fda7d934571630f90840f600e11ee29a
c963f17bb98dcad29f09856f48aabb384029487c
65922 F20110217_AAAZUN lane_f_Page_023.jpg
9a3f316dd9610ed2bba5c00585104ad9
5d35bbcbd948ef2f9b3ef2f8702886bf26f4ffaa
F20110217_AABAHC lane_f_Page_122.tif
efddace437ed49cf3a491590a2b53c6d
2833d37b1d3f5a4e9228f9483a9360f9ec0e5ae9
F20110217_AABAGP lane_f_Page_104.tif
10e42ecadea108503ad74e29e51502bc
f52acee63af8ac03f4c87ebbe77118de0ebd0ca0
5504 F20110217_AAAZVD lane_f_Page_012thm.jpg
348606ca6cf6997d5f209613ef42eba6
a58d18b0f4bdba3221b130a7ec778f1c985940d1
6222 F20110217_AAAZUO lane_f_Page_103thm.jpg
8d9dc9c00d1d2242d87da8d25983cd6b
0f1d36b4972d957ed35439cf4558e057f62e0ad4
F20110217_AABAHD lane_f_Page_125.tif
6db22e6fb5f5150085236a4d7103fcec
22a96e5ee51403b39a122c74304557267d9c50f6
F20110217_AABAGQ lane_f_Page_106.tif
24ce28371096535acd1124e3d6a04aef
6dfcdf979087a4fff63dc28ba9595582a8ce1ba4
26299 F20110217_AAAZVE lane_f_Page_079.QC.jpg
e7f36eb7a9700ccbb829fc4edab8e27f
f23d1ec68dce89511fd4c9ec7aabb83ff8983520
F20110217_AAAZUP lane_f_Page_127.jp2
cb3acd31c463b402d79cd8071fd298f8
d1a0b54cf10c3f06d643d60eb3d733dd91768afb
F20110217_AABAHE lane_f_Page_126.tif
01d5b1306e451f7296038a9a08e37865
321fba2dd17716d77d97c664fd17f8649677aa21
F20110217_AABAGR lane_f_Page_107.tif
be42199073fff23f34b9ac16fc24b3bc
02a7b3659436df45981702bd0c87071b97adfbf7
48280 F20110217_AAAZVF lane_f_Page_091.pro
cca8c98a9efc2e42972cb89033aed606
c032dea45c86f7bdc5f4fc0a5ec862d47e94b82f
F20110217_AAAZUQ lane_f_Page_029.tif
7c87834b0aa41a0838f2624ef3a75a36
c9740044e2f3cb053fb154fc56b931d5a89a95a4
F20110217_AABAHF lane_f_Page_128.tif
3c831980cf110267135a0118b9018c45
8a851d08c60f6bacb48cb00727e917474e56e94c
F20110217_AABAGS lane_f_Page_108.tif
fc7a5db3483557af181cc76ae3d285ad
a97d74832bd1122aefafc746dc579176cbd7ce5d
F20110217_AAAZVG lane_f_Page_093.tif
cc0138afe71f586bb53bceab35f7a660
267de290df54f498f57dbbdd06ee28c2e790dc4c
12053 F20110217_AAAZUR lane_f_Page_136.QC.jpg
9a0cbab918e6fa4f734950a559c9edc5
5b97a256c9f85c702091b33df1153ae8ab766a44
F20110217_AABAHG lane_f_Page_129.tif
7bf49874bccbbe23dff82b78073823dc
4416dddedf5c9c5bd42fa343501e14932e8fe085
F20110217_AABAGT lane_f_Page_110.tif
3c1add45b1a88a765cfec73ebb2c5b9e
96912c5313c39ed9c5e9b542352b1ab596e3997a
F20110217_AAAZVH lane_f_Page_124.tif
ab5b68df18b2bf73912766740128797e
cdd31e1c019823ae94f84864e3633bc643e2de60
81765 F20110217_AAAZUS lane_f_Page_098.jpg
219e9333b3b38457e447549a3569ebcc
2c95966c03dd2e77e83cb985cc12debdc94cf644
F20110217_AABAHH lane_f_Page_130.tif
34d478000db00fc0bb824e4f9e45fa14
b18000b9bd682cceecaf2419ca51e4f389f427fb
1051947 F20110217_AAAZVI lane_f_Page_050.jp2
c8c85ea9dbd1794c54dc5d9bc1ea2b5d
ee4eefcdb6b857e12db2f1997ec77ed076472f90
2195 F20110217_AAAZUT lane_f_Page_008thm.jpg
3f2592ee167ed39371f9de392bf6e5b9
0fd00ffbbec2e9e434ba996b49607fa2f2d25ed3
F20110217_AABAHI lane_f_Page_131.tif
4003bea6656f95f3cb6999880961f97a
ee34565904c4691758ad3aec3b1cca2f58247ad7
F20110217_AABAGU lane_f_Page_111.tif
7b232d1c46ea16e557dc9209720917a9
23b9f6d37e6d3e9408185eb8a9158c76eaf8904b
809759 F20110217_AAAZUU lane_f_Page_088.jp2
a2c513369e3fbaa3cd51bd83d4c1cd47
459caf1ed1634669122105777f591bc3a6e5b889
F20110217_AABAHJ lane_f_Page_132.tif
170751cbbf2e968d1c55fedd79d7fccb
f072ce47536f62452c95ee4b47f5a6f003fe3cfb
F20110217_AABAGV lane_f_Page_112.tif
efcca02a77fa00837c8a3d71963cdfbd
6a0a6674e5f7d286288e8999178cce936ebfc76a
50209 F20110217_AAAZVJ lane_f_Page_045.pro
5ac3356df23d88a6709bce562b734893
ee0ba87705718916b41e89881bb481432eaca877
4133 F20110217_AAAZUV lane_f_Page_007.txt
27057a2bdbecee094654e2260e186b16
b0376d21526f87d3cfd55e9e144728659b2bfb1a
F20110217_AABAHK lane_f_Page_133.tif
3d8e40439cc787a538ad20f90142b0b8
b6f5e123702ec088e645d3a9f32a00ace997efb3
F20110217_AABAGW lane_f_Page_114.tif
5df59eac2bf99c0542d67c221cdac3f5
90b7fcd1403135fc84899389ed2ef2a1d079a528
1972 F20110217_AAAZVK lane_f_Page_037.txt
79f966a36c153efcbcc83a166444af68
2bb69d1082a63e073a8ac9cce9d69d3e55179233
F20110217_AAAZUW lane_f_Page_071.jp2
f70a1d150bbd14df83118df2179f0104
7c31647ec1ddd6d7157b404d1c6dde00548a4913
F20110217_AABAHL lane_f_Page_135.tif
1eda499f50eaa4ed3599d39a2025ec4d
16250951e6a0dcd3b6e52cf0b92d63f6e92512a6
F20110217_AABAGX lane_f_Page_115.tif
3fbbf2edeadd5352a4afe7b13ddf9c64
4b0bc45c08da4d341eb67110c009ac451dbffe3b
84519 F20110217_AAAZVL lane_f_Page_080.jpg
d052739088917f1669f504ba84aab47e
32a86fa5dcc16f9a050c9080595b4ae37f415f34
2046 F20110217_AABAIA lane_f_Page_018.txt
71817a3b1e8933138a1048a74692cf7f
37408c4c98be8a126eb2b3f4ecf18e632e9f5ce6
F20110217_AAAZUX lane_f_Page_033.tif
ab4d9311bf34132906dd917ad8401c0b
bfdebeaee0ae660d8c8ea6b650ddf34a0c8ba0c3
F20110217_AABAHM lane_f_Page_136.tif
488c0d582ab7fce1c2877905d62bd727
e48b45d34a06f6e53f550af3fce0b26fd71f0379
F20110217_AAAZWA lane_f_Page_043.tif
e416b1e0eb34602fcc03690a53f2499d
e52bdcc25c7f9627d1d014dbfb3ccbe3f9cbe190
F20110217_AABAGY lane_f_Page_116.tif
c42b205da8b52ca7ff2c30234ebd6136
26dc57464633d86f621a546c1ca31286284e6b06
6533 F20110217_AAAZVM lane_f_Page_039thm.jpg
e192938b2db71055e6f3a8b473e89cc2
f8cf584b58e54c0568611dfc3ac9be304595c1ed
2052 F20110217_AABAIB lane_f_Page_019.txt
fd5df888dbdf207bff5a9c9a89f73424
1f5243d93ff0567c6103c427d0472cb0b6ede41a
95306 F20110217_AAAZUY lane_f_Page_096.jpg
915393a312ef1075a7121e4db5f091a2
21591250ae25d904a90ffa5c488ae58ddda9f600
F20110217_AABAHN lane_f_Page_137.tif
7220f33a208093c82e08803fa827ed1c
9e21252acc345d4280cd934972caa1f611dba18b
F20110217_AAAZWB lane_f_Page_064.jp2
c99cd18095fc86d2b627519d96464ff2
b736fccaecd0a969a098111e7f68b9a7cc54bd0f
F20110217_AABAGZ lane_f_Page_118.tif
46224004e8aacade5a262daa74e05da0
6de04f3723e623ca0d87c7d61e5471bdc153baa4
84474 F20110217_AAAZVN lane_f_Page_051.jpg
6450aa3f8a28eec9bd2bf89eece69669
fb654e024c70fc996ed91cc1180b4765271c1c29
1904 F20110217_AABAIC lane_f_Page_020.txt
4c0a502e656f78f1ee3284d1b7ef17e7
cecef66fe458f4321854f34825c11e4bc0f72a42
1870 F20110217_AAAZUZ lane_f_Page_015.txt
32f6d5220f85452a2f91dacd08163fad
40038b1db42724daf01ee1278e663404f14f89b5
110 F20110217_AABAHO lane_f_Page_002.txt
c5a31d08c310ee33386b392a56d98656
0c77c2785c61b78df36501160fca1de64a60dab5
F20110217_AAAZWC lane_f_Page_095.tif
022f84e3f68f0628ef61a34ed4e98bb3
3e6c4ad434697cf17d04816e9618170e3a97ff3c
5879 F20110217_AAAZVO lane_f_Page_049thm.jpg
decbbddc9a2b979af04a4d9bca9b8b27
56c467745d115fe1aedbea9ce638140640b22ce5
1999 F20110217_AABAID lane_f_Page_021.txt
c11bb1b29ecdaf8dd22c232fb79a984c
a33764d293c8ca67acce9c2607bb626725f61a18
485 F20110217_AABAHP lane_f_Page_003.txt
134677cfed4339fdd26add912ab79f64
44ab816c2195c2155bc634034f6463da22856938
21314 F20110217_AAAZWD lane_f_Page_113.QC.jpg
250abcda2159521742ddc9927078edcd
d7e5ab14ef9bafbeae0d43a4c5362872163a6bea
3770 F20110217_AAAZVP lane_f_Page_067.QC.jpg
6fdd64ed7a88b32131b6d97417f7470d
5224ae895720170c2236acb4a3a2f79d384b0cfd
1646 F20110217_AABAIE lane_f_Page_023.txt
bb25571c48a17695db91ee79dfd0a9d5
1167ef350071d8f4a72d5e076755526a677f6e33
1722 F20110217_AABAHQ lane_f_Page_004.txt
c6f5bf0e0ad0c8d99a33bab8be854747
c6e8c285ebe3aeb4c42b2d0262f4b067c56fa7ae
25791 F20110217_AAAZWE lane_f_Page_013.QC.jpg
e203ef8620ac9b87a9121b4be7cea379
75512f68c2486712fb3019f4be4967661c808791
25705 F20110217_AAAZVQ lane_f_Page_065.QC.jpg
795760842874bcbca85db829ba6fff64
29deb09a823305291157a3899e160d64eeb55254
2036 F20110217_AABAIF lane_f_Page_024.txt
0737247c48883db3d53a0db68be1a584
fd0921367b549fac36a8edad706767d85cc2d531
1590 F20110217_AABAHR lane_f_Page_005.txt
2361aacafa5f829848a388b5a75bf963
a2999489c39120e61913003786649f989982c20e
2089 F20110217_AAAZWF lane_f_Page_014.txt
46aae20c711159c7faf32014a530cda8
f8ac795dc153a86fddde733acd9982b1d30ac97b
F20110217_AAAZVR lane_f_Page_113.tif
8a4c54a8468b7a85bd4e10822734c12b
2df6652c31c080fed15487db4cb21620b423fc53
1936 F20110217_AABAIG lane_f_Page_025.txt
18c5b948ac00ccdbedb98dc2bc7de331
2f512c43a94e97a369133424d1928ebb16f02451
3645 F20110217_AABAHS lane_f_Page_006.txt
3237203b5ebd3f5d437686ad6e490feb
2a0d546541a724b996167c58edb67ba82b02622a
5894 F20110217_AAAZWG lane_f_Page_083thm.jpg
806fa0eda35de6806de5f296d74118f6
44fd2c00e373687dc0ee9eabf662620947091656
92455 F20110217_AAAZVS lane_f_Page_127.jpg
fb2b6df71ec0b117d00e2c78220fd14b
cb8b6ec919f2fcd07c778c70bb231ecfe0f06c0f
F20110217_AABAIH lane_f_Page_027.txt
0f8b9ef21e557fa88d57e4a5008de166
9dafd2839c167a9945b13036a58b4b75ec931dbc
1635 F20110217_AABAHT lane_f_Page_008.txt
12b6845b26ae45a8eac275d0e5d4d969
b176d445625c9f330d0b822c285dec5b533520eb
679963 F20110217_AAAZWH lane_f_Page_113.jp2
c3b7e77083807aeabbe14013118385c0
deb37721b009c7c176f50f34d356dc45d4a8e52d
66907 F20110217_AAAZVT lane_f_Page_005.jpg
3da8979a21d371e8c025d5d419c0b284
97e7b7459d75fccfbc4707bce388251c112d7fcc
2076 F20110217_AABAII lane_f_Page_028.txt
d15a07d5073205c22e9913957f61ff8e
327d1b02012ae30af96e1f6ea22ac17e68d6cc0b
1717 F20110217_AABAHU lane_f_Page_010.txt
89abf671dcdb5a1ca40a27501c9708ef
98eaee5776d07312a0bcb6e060d9f1aeda25d0fb
F20110217_AAAZWI lane_f_Page_004.tif
4a00bfdfefbea7a0bcd5ff97904534cb
60b4b943c6d463cdfc9cfa7f19164926cb6b29bf
60210 F20110217_AAAZVU lane_f_Page_133.pro
187a9ed37ff6c1a3fa5891af4d94f543
1b3a447d827afff906095c6bec6f2e7801809d4c
2028 F20110217_AABAIJ lane_f_Page_029.txt
4f22b2259afee5b4dcbbfbdd0af61be8
625007e56860151d5cacc75deba813d2c673c556
409097 F20110217_AAAZWJ lane_f_Page_011.jp2
19677d10233a52871163a035216c5a3f
f5cb2b273e1e2e1a56287559ed6a295519f9bca2
20442 F20110217_AAAZVV lane_f_Page_010.QC.jpg
27bece4a58408a1d3cfd8b14b786f8ae
3137f9793dd5af4e9965f43b9ef98228292be314
1940 F20110217_AABAIK lane_f_Page_030.txt
271fe57a6ffbc13d4c621552b044efc6
f816a735f2994890fe59c73f8e85900e27dd70fc
720 F20110217_AABAHV lane_f_Page_011.txt
6f259c367921254638fe6d07aa647613
45fe815278d2282639228a666d6d778226b76263
F20110217_AAAZVW lane_f_Page_019.tif
98a1b3833ff4f1bb6ce63bf8f4cfc98f
dc01bad5b370432aa9ce1f25e02ee39de625515c
2053 F20110217_AABAIL lane_f_Page_031.txt
8d26f94d5c2b9570dab9e8348432f165
aadaa4921ea76ae2974b64051f19a2e16854a919
1792 F20110217_AABAHW lane_f_Page_012.txt
cbf1981f6e7b6ca68421c9fb579fddf6
965899c92a16dbf023f3922950b21a188a1c5199
51481 F20110217_AAAZWK lane_f_Page_105.pro
39e0960a6d02ca7dde5e40595bdbbf74
da0c2889cc577f4aa6b5ca2c6fc6828bf1cd0912
F20110217_AABAJA lane_f_Page_051.txt
1f8b9f0e7ce7ae45abed22d9d49ca9a3
affbbeeb7e6da1e5cbd45361901e7c3885d8111e
52195 F20110217_AAAZVX lane_f_Page_071.pro
b14f9b01b9a88e0f7eab917fbb6c09d6
7cdd4d279f61d700dafa298edcb715ea73b7e785
2016 F20110217_AABAIM lane_f_Page_032.txt
8e27725c4057feca2b4683314f880f0b
f89bab2e4ba3909cd6a1c8fb390556cf82926736
F20110217_AAAZXA lane_f_Page_123.tif
271148e01f6900c8fa00ddd915589756
db18292513b25fd0078ef3c5aaa90ee65c30c3a2
1947 F20110217_AABAHX lane_f_Page_013.txt
b0628b74c024cd9a3ec4161460352313
ee1b0a579d408fbc38aa9cde742f3059a1819e5e
104289 F20110217_AAAZWL lane_f_Page_067.jp2
0845317c271cf747b217f37f27a76760
6d350726c7bf9432b8bdf3e54f2774a19e34b7e1
1992 F20110217_AABAJB lane_f_Page_052.txt
edc41a5401d78ceee4f32e5418a1aaf4
dc0155ae134cd0ded8287b5ead9245c4a403d185
25489 F20110217_AAAZVY lane_f_Page_045.QC.jpg
d85aceb40420eb6d03b69148f216770c
0910288b0c5b86e347be06e1c9a15e23e1fc5842
2039 F20110217_AABAIN lane_f_Page_034.txt
90d7796e73b11c77d095089ee7609008
a93036f495f1d6f542ab2fba67578c1bd852ed59
26358 F20110217_AAAZXB lane_f_Page_018.QC.jpg
665c27fa8424b5a2ac9bd68294825b84
adab0b2b8d522588522dcd69fc7738212256f2c3
2018 F20110217_AABAHY lane_f_Page_016.txt
0b7d2be6d668f8e6f13961525871b930
0a4b3bb6a013048bfc02647d52ab8b7467ebf0e0
51480 F20110217_AAAZWM lane_f_Page_032.pro
fddf29c12e35f899455ad5f035d05235
e15340331436f703cf4acea9aa56916754e4c6e2
F20110217_AABAJC lane_f_Page_053.txt
ff74aa21274c1c09f1b275a69a5492a9
d29d25693b9176b8028624d2f0aa52e32775a71a
26067 F20110217_AAAZVZ lane_f_Page_071.QC.jpg
61a50ddc8fbc7ba8d6cb11b06e01f79d
813a0224d5b8eb668a01ec2cadafa8500a239087
1953 F20110217_AABAIO lane_f_Page_036.txt
529d5fa37af4b13d89c39f8279432234
13fdab564e407e558ce6f5f38ef5979f53c23c4a
49668 F20110217_AAAZXC lane_f_Page_062.pro
48980442198431a3af297da8c14bb61b
d5f63fd44bf2fc1dfad95db0acc61ab7c2dd0a29
2037 F20110217_AABAHZ lane_f_Page_017.txt
c985e05bc8e5637fa0930eee13a474e4
808edf69bb9eacf707163123213d8877dbfd3f40
F20110217_AAAZWN lane_f_Page_117.tif
e792d24d1ff1a2be30d3bebbd513aacb
1acd5e18324ed85fe73a36c1d595d0aa33e72f79
F20110217_AABAJD lane_f_Page_054.txt
10a3f08ea2b9d1c24fd964173a8930db
121489df7430d19e09e8118cdc5f1fc359869e71
2130 F20110217_AABAIP lane_f_Page_039.txt
d81a7351d85ddb8e99e87ce2c86b5d6f
543686058c697fc6b25b9c6fd7a5108dc23bc23f
21658 F20110217_AAAZXD lane_f_Page_068.QC.jpg
25b3ffd9830481d20e3087f1e1cb7aa4
18314b1132d7b52c3c56e4151bc76d374502e90c
F20110217_AAAZWO lane_f_Page_095.jp2
bf67485c1584f9c7c2e386430b724ee2
75c901f98392148bfb66a6ef46c038ac39cd0278
2190 F20110217_AABAJE lane_f_Page_055.txt
6b9bfe1442b91afe968e3dfb66e9a7c3
2cfa5fa6654fe6b4cea5b85ceefad1680dcda820
2001 F20110217_AABAIQ lane_f_Page_040.txt
ba5ab151620770d32ec239b9b4d4f90c
4945f4c4de2a50e9b8e44ccc6b2eedb8bd183ddd
26070 F20110217_AAAZXE lane_f_Page_107.QC.jpg
fa5b48be6c0ceea9c176caf546262659
cc6a30c0cb9fb5fba868b5e87a14ad372546d088
51660 F20110217_AAAZWP lane_f_Page_029.pro
6c1e84c749385a63f8f010a082a4a8ed
e82d5ce205e6b4ec650a36972692bd3b12f8c8df
1911 F20110217_AABAJF lane_f_Page_056.txt
1f16498aafac38f7c8c4a2da324491d5
ec6ccfb194c8412f0b0f5633a727d0fb99d14ff0
2031 F20110217_AABAIR lane_f_Page_041.txt
9ea085f18cb7e2bc950992dc220a36c2
424da70e7ce52f001c089b66e34639424395399c
51354 F20110217_AAAZXF lane_f_Page_065.pro
4c732f7dc746b08277bd71a383dea007
7ccdf6f596a65abb9da494ed463dae9126c6cdab
88942 F20110217_AAAZWQ lane_f_Page_055.jpg
b562704cd2d0bcdb734b456ffc921bbd
0ba623290724b19f4bed19e7f09b15b24e55a7fc
1988 F20110217_AABAJG lane_f_Page_058.txt
e05fe317df187455fe869d2deb9b72f6
d2b29da3ede755efc74b7b0b92fdc11f5f49c178
1949 F20110217_AABAIS lane_f_Page_043.txt
470df93945cd6b5a529c4293da3859fb
55c65354409d6160e7e997c5b428245787eee2bf
49026 F20110217_AAAZXG lane_f_Page_054.pro
8efe332f4a128ae36162c9db14412f7d
ddb7a33b025f2c8bdd557b6f53d1d7fcbe8f5623
F20110217_AAAZWR lane_f_Page_100.txt
59ab55074cb91b7278af27cfbb450794
bec16da0760ca48cc2b5ab83116f439e29410648
F20110217_AABAJH lane_f_Page_059.txt
9af8c6333358315a3297be6c84233797
fcad79a8b0a80f2be6ebd93a9732741c7e426db8
1989 F20110217_AABAIT lane_f_Page_044.txt
1a82742bce1693749f43279ed5c89c32
58ed32cf34a7ad52371286d74bc38fb5bee49f72
F20110217_AAAZXH lane_f_Page_064.txt
4d8573e0ac5ca5706c1a57d93a408bd3
96447d815d9b90c1186fa372ec8325568c93ea6b
2136 F20110217_AAAZWS lane_f_Page_134.txt
d8104fabda27ddb4657c358868e8554f
ea9467e5cf647ab678bae9a8744adc97271ea7a4
F20110217_AABAJI lane_f_Page_061.txt
3d629a793453ef3aed0ef60f372cfb0a
e979f9c94794584ac88e9188054a6358349f7bbd
1970 F20110217_AABAIU lane_f_Page_045.txt
e48ed3df676d913a8aa376beb1eb566f
4ba6e67c3bd6a300aad9a704bb001c4f0580da29
38854 F20110217_AAAZXI lane_f_Page_008.pro
edaeb016b44332d5da9d60500e8d5119
11147fe7dc54dc3e2c9b7f8e047e06995ca76449
26270 F20110217_AAAZWT lane_f_Page_078.QC.jpg
84f2612555e7894c856a9ee4e4a6430b
411eac048f73ff4d7c1ef3c4d6bb09e20dd885db
1956 F20110217_AABAJJ lane_f_Page_062.txt
549dd313d2e18a64c81895d790280bf7
c04e801d6d9a550ef5e5b228f48b001ffb0720ba
1915 F20110217_AABAIV lane_f_Page_046.txt
78c9fe371f1eb771e275560c98620682
3c7c3bce06f6666c418d98d76d87da4771f27112
F20110217_AAAZXJ lane_f_Page_101.tif
1c47a732024a9202d9f3f0068e15df46
90b76b5318526d1d9b03cccb522b43edb239c76f
4982 F20110217_AAAZWU lane_f_Page_086thm.jpg
d3ae832aebdedd03d76d03cd97ef8551
132dd684a543f33fd23eb408fd7fac68f958ec3a
2050 F20110217_AABAJK lane_f_Page_063.txt
d1a6e4efc7de9e42dd45035b38475c14
9cb87e54d73d6d5115e0a8ac2b48e5e6a8737c1e
1713 F20110217_AAAZXK lane_f_Page_117.txt
287157b9780151aa5e79a0c3f90dd743
930e2714b3e212aef828c49889f2ac536ddf3f6f
5107 F20110217_AAAZWV lane_f_Page_084thm.jpg
cf462c7c5bedf59317bc41ae96fc577b
5ce2251183e1def9f4f604dd7860a2119f1e0d2b
2051 F20110217_AABAJL lane_f_Page_066.txt
7a57bc5a1e1ecae801e55159e5494440
8135c8c842fbcf562fd9ed955506d82c24e6ba9f
1946 F20110217_AABAIW lane_f_Page_047.txt
6a5fb00fd6f306902f21a2315220b836
153cab6e1ce23e030a1acf10c395b0034bada4fb
F20110217_AAAZWW lane_f_Page_009.tif
9c70486f4a40ada6f8cb354b8cce5331
ff39490e77e1d9742d440d79b55a92d5dc0f95a1
1938 F20110217_AABAJM lane_f_Page_069.txt
1e3ded4e4bb57f4ac4e11cdeb6677670
1261edd28d0fbca195798a819f5fed13af586eea
F20110217_AAAZYA lane_f_Page_028.tif
fe0ff1372b0a21c3d3f411c66843ed27
64d510c3291105b7b1dbb9bc2eb146be53e4f846
2091 F20110217_AABAIX lane_f_Page_048.txt
41e46440d9637c26f0781d2ea42c33ca
6ff71ef51e035421ec690a7c748a82617eb16d12
47110 F20110217_AAAZXL lane_f_Page_077.pro
97ba45ccd1f543c704360a44bc3627db
d2044124aae13ba82daf572175ccc9768bd397ea
1494 F20110217_AABAKA lane_f_Page_092.txt
b2e74d780867ac207beedb456e596e71
d11ec7e3901de4b20c861618388716d8261d971a
6294 F20110217_AAAZWX lane_f_Page_109thm.jpg
2178659839ca17df5dbb3488fde970ea
5c34e4332bc9b811a1167a634d6da4d9a0904afd
F20110217_AABAJN lane_f_Page_072.txt
53193fc96725faf989af296c7a675e45
529c4edafc2e5a1bea7bb192b70bdf336b1e4671
F20110217_AAAZYB lane_f_Page_070.tif
ed88ae66b8b6b936ae639bbefd1a0c7d
2bdb5221c3f452f42c8112b0f42866190b1684a4
1847 F20110217_AABAIY lane_f_Page_049.txt
e629f7b4114aa690a8696842ea8d2e0e
4e11666001ef9b070af2cdea14b066863b8c59f6
23959 F20110217_AAAZXM lane_f_Page_136.pro
cf77a477595483a02ac5ebb572655066
9455ef061a71e8b84eeaa0435c55f981b83c2cd4
1311 F20110217_AABAKB lane_f_Page_093.txt
31d7188aad3be3265327726cf7d9bb13
a95e904b619d6276aa266083a03cb456aecdf6d6
89922 F20110217_AAAZWY lane_f_Page_007.jpg
be898d4058792f04eb22f10d65fc83fb
86fb0bab780ccc208aec438c8dbf24c6efc26da4
1929 F20110217_AABAJO lane_f_Page_073.txt
b9f9bc4f829e58894e989030b1535c73
c5beb6a58f1d97c73a109d6b5e57bd1c9d0a7892
39270 F20110217_AAAZYC lane_f_Page_005.pro
26d4418d1963449e159592185478d51b
419e6bcc73e9f41f27d0e2f78d5ddd840fb83245
F20110217_AABAIZ lane_f_Page_050.txt
dac89aa0aea7840a71121c7342c1eab6
1f901cb78c594d1f7985960987d4eb6a8e64d46e
86971 F20110217_AAAZXN lane_f_Page_104.jpg
f36627da2733c7f4d968b8452c71a770
8fcf615ab058d8ba0fdef6250fd98cd7a511880b
2428 F20110217_AABAKC lane_f_Page_094.txt
d166f5f3f6ca33577a4cbe43c10d566a
f8401742a5e94cbb674ceccf3862369aeb88e816
25125 F20110217_AAAZWZ lane_f_Page_073.QC.jpg
72514fc4fa4b90560b0043ef36860b39
e05bd41a96726c4651c03d9fc9e90b13979c7da8
1890 F20110217_AABAJP lane_f_Page_074.txt
1ccdec0eda7192033341950e0e78cd54
1df709c3f726cce4a30955cabc2e6078c2fc93bc
F20110217_AAAZYD lane_f_Page_105.tif
01c0c04b109f744089d26192070ebcce
f1b65106816856c31f858480392dfd1c5f439a48
1546 F20110217_AAAZXO lane_f_Page_090.txt
958a5b51c510ee782cff9bb0033c49e3
1c71e43c078e89dec4232f6789ddf4f71a322da5
3508 F20110217_AABAKD lane_f_Page_095.txt
52d86cf9fb6b4a17c4938c05f16c8d8a
ab4915a83a61336e52c467ac8b5086cdad5b7f94
1863 F20110217_AABAJQ lane_f_Page_077.txt
1fe7ee5b72593ec39a6baab247bd0512
486cacea135e2b878c446d4c758c0fedff5ccd60
F20110217_AAAZYE lane_f_Page_076.txt
be81665b17bf1a01bbf40d8e6d66c9b6
51b1e4bd63805c532bd4de2ad93fa72ee0ee76c6
69514 F20110217_AAAZXP lane_f_Page_112.jpg
226668b4179a6e47cd62dd7c931bf5b6
e67f920e9ba12fb263829dd3df727701c313fff3
2383 F20110217_AABAKE lane_f_Page_096.txt
a9abee37c9e08fb5fcbdd53a8df014ee
3f98d540ba71d49c5fcbe1c7d77d211be439f44b
F20110217_AAAZYF lane_f_Page_024.jp2
8c97065024fa1cbc3acb54584e5fc757
6035460b89e44a14be4b44eea2fd735fe6a8593a
F20110217_AAAZXQ lane_f_Page_134.tif
85c882d70779c3ce2d4878211c9b969b
21de3b5f90723f0724cdc4826c84a8b85d50093a
2115 F20110217_AABAKF lane_f_Page_097.txt
cdcc5e92e0afebafe9f8ec08093468b3
0a3dc60538a1e74947a51e407a6d66240d19aedd
F20110217_AABAJR lane_f_Page_080.txt
0828ab34c35548f048f617e2ba4bcbcc
d02e0b4cdcada65aa3dc0aa263716136873577f7
953437 F20110217_AAAZYG lane_f_Page_081.jp2
6afa732f77b13d7a5cfc082756be3020
25bfe402241b61122bef20697c620dd47f43b142
83809 F20110217_AAAZXR lane_f_Page_026.jpg
058b90a7e0ec0ac5d339802370f73ac1
a2ff5083a8d639a1f558a7479a4ff8043b826be3
1969 F20110217_AABAKG lane_f_Page_098.txt
7f33ad0761b33763f2fca30c283f91b2
e98ee2d4f3c402244cd0d49e02ee38077db05d13
1685 F20110217_AABAJS lane_f_Page_082.txt
a4afa022846d4c388de029c5eaca3608
594a052cf062c10012cb76f39e1f9c8b811bb7c2
1051949 F20110217_AAAZYH lane_f_Page_007.jp2
cc941f5b624df4c603e2a95f926f177a
c6f899337c8774a3fba78abe2825133e11aee76e
2029 F20110217_AAAZXS lane_f_Page_107.txt
0704a4c81d8d5f4d98d1e145c2a97da0
d95b6550cf2c43eddeadb5a0aaaaf244a08ece4d
2086 F20110217_AABAKH lane_f_Page_099.txt
030f1fc8e749b015e175958eaae8efe4
a7bcebec094449cad2ed3eb312b0fed56091fec7
1715 F20110217_AABAJT lane_f_Page_084.txt
6f2b32d13eed88132c4d98c712538f3d
ba7b24af3877e9dba1b05f6f9d79dc8e73d0ac83
F20110217_AAAZYI lane_f_Page_073.jp2
85c6bdb643e11a8cf01e1fdf3277b797
e36d43eabcbe79c6467516317a232c0fa76d171b
6424 F20110217_AAAZXT lane_f_Page_034thm.jpg
d20923456fc4a04cbf83232dcd95d956
72e55e2ccb374fd30aba9fe702856ac75904e415
2007 F20110217_AABAKI lane_f_Page_101.txt
223598bb9d1b70c49b79eb584bc07545
d889ef065f168c3553465c024c43f8b3b62986fc
1704 F20110217_AABAJU lane_f_Page_085.txt
2ac2b2cd76fde4726f8bcd40cb52e1cf
db673a7668d37c8681022abb389ff0c19a891f42
25383 F20110217_AAAZYJ lane_f_Page_021.QC.jpg
f0b44d42c363f66aabab057eb7b3a6c6
d202dd87fd53ce7a1e23bec09102f3dca8a9eade
2008 F20110217_AAAZXU lane_f_Page_078.txt
bc71331f94a3a8ca4cebc3ff11f921a1
c9cdb78dc95970dbcc7450a4e7497d3c84b1df69
1761 F20110217_AABAKJ lane_f_Page_102.txt
a4d48d317d02938e5070efb005bfe7f1
7410668e7b70b6db2eeaa99f3e885bcea7c1b0ed
1557 F20110217_AABAJV lane_f_Page_086.txt
665c56513b9da3ba1fd639fbb7b72b8a
78e1ce524e1d50b9842ffdff29cf708801395e5c
80960 F20110217_AAAZYK lane_f_Page_033.jpg
aedc3a4bb505e2785964a5313f58270e
7273dfbc875750d76d7aa34b909630f62c6c9c2f
58647 F20110217_AAAZXV lane_f_Page_128.pro
674613febc828855c97ccaa1d49a6b1a
8774d9e7101beb4917d07f887d56b93ea61ef74d
2833 F20110217_AABAKK lane_f_Page_103.txt
fb9294bcb621459dc20060230d712d36
446be3ee0922692ae5938596760abce7d7e428b1
1337 F20110217_AABAJW lane_f_Page_087.txt
525f6d0c6ce8265fec75f6262379998c
084fa4392ade784fcd8d46199a3d11a0e13ec85f
16885 F20110217_AAAZYL lane_f_Page_121.pro
8a910e8482a2eaa9ff72a0b658f2bea7
0ee5b5e716bfbc9252ab6beeeb6988939e4aa4e4
F20110217_AAAZXW lane_f_Page_025.jp2
d6fc1445abcb0ab5e63c2fe07b216d4b
ed6f48dc2ab3bf5cb66b0827cbd42bc45fc490ba
2110 F20110217_AABAKL lane_f_Page_104.txt
1e4017e880ef5dbe4a8a8ded586b04b7
c3813fdf829e9b05d3c2cd83148ab729c44994d8
2388 F20110217_AABALA lane_f_Page_128.txt
894c1577e577d0c4718b2c86347c40c4
a73d171db1cd9cce092c6b35177b4b6d480471ee
6010 F20110217_AAAZXX lane_f_Page_047thm.jpg
9ce2a9c0a43345cde1cc38e0199924cf
5e83f06310601aaa03760db91015484197bb8d0d
2025 F20110217_AABAKM lane_f_Page_105.txt
4306affca0651f553e8534348f59c51e
7110231c6fea2723c9e6aeca5b44b4e9fc2ae85c
6582 F20110217_AAAZZA lane_f_Page_097thm.jpg
5d6b30c1bfb986078deb9b9a58713044
d2c82698edb3aeaf93b74c5d0ac0016707184d21
1617 F20110217_AABAJX lane_f_Page_088.txt
475be098b3348bf220be4a8b53f1c797
9f87c22c96fd1749e476960d965841a523cc71b9
1250 F20110217_AAAZYM lane_f_Page_122thm.jpg
f90775743482a4677a9d093ceec7f3dc
645e8b9bb11760cc88b3b58f9ea618a7d633bf9a
2274 F20110217_AABALB lane_f_Page_129.txt
5b23037575a0f49c1fca021060bc20fd
efc0ebb3390d893dfe34467c20d267e07aa2f2a4
85741 F20110217_AAAZXY lane_f_Page_053.jpg
1c381da4cb4ae5cd20a7cf52abd0429f
039a9533c0219b44ec550bd95428113ec2bced23
1909 F20110217_AABAKN lane_f_Page_106.txt
3a16f097fd00699a8dcc729554a19891
93ae211573b49a58540fecd0fd467f2fecef958d
F20110217_AAAZZB lane_f_Page_129.jp2
0c4c14871fb18ab27191a13ae0c4c389
ec53fc1d7c2c341b46131a0431dd4f89786f9f36
1281 F20110217_AABAJY lane_f_Page_089.txt
dc1a5b5f3cdf151c779c45cca60bbadf
e4e9b49e6eaefdb1f3a5a5d0d39e10cfd2353218
27734 F20110217_AAAZYN lane_f_Page_042.QC.jpg
d071be428c9b8e0ec25af505e25e50c7
2d869090ac8c1238f30f01555be8ceb17cce8369
2421 F20110217_AABALC lane_f_Page_130.txt
ef3f3b4b9d68ce50dd7dc73c50ad08b0
e26bfdb3a58e7d4f2eed46abf77390cb6fdfd060
27432 F20110217_AAAZXZ lane_f_Page_096.QC.jpg
a243a203022dd92b28f5fe1797bae9b5
e314f524648efd0de49361582f2e32709a7b57c0
2097 F20110217_AABAKO lane_f_Page_109.txt
b5b66747fb340df8c60df852c1bf715c
ba701d3b1d4b7e55c9bab1e7931a61ec920f4d37
51074 F20110217_AAAZZC lane_f_Page_078.pro
db664533fe62edf35e78bb77e4b8e8d5
09b70e9ebd63bd687d758ab36b1009fdde3534e5
1942 F20110217_AABAJZ lane_f_Page_091.txt
ed5c794a5113b125aa87ba729844f367
3e26a40b23829af743f5eb972f60da239c2f6f6f
51525 F20110217_AAAZYO lane_f_Page_079.pro
7f2f3ee95023aa7e0db3fe402d2eac61
fea13053bcec7a2382b6972e21e0251030044158
2336 F20110217_AABALD lane_f_Page_132.txt
983660ba5ee0eb3498751df84bc6b63f
50f432d04182ec8869ea40b3f9a77b53a9ca728e
1820 F20110217_AABAKP lane_f_Page_111.txt
d839c06e7ec4a796b0e58b5c5fecf68f
047562ef4995909697e2c9f474ca3a4758712f46
5979 F20110217_AAAZZD lane_f_Page_074thm.jpg
d51f13cc6cc5a4ac50f696c8062c6d13
a71cdec5f91ac1ac6e657ff082f8e960110a5216
57817 F20110217_AAAZYP lane_f_Page_006.jpg
7ea0e9f07c0e8b58ca55520439b3afac
269e6f30bf11392839db5313cadccb292673067c
2522 F20110217_AABALE lane_f_Page_135.txt
96bac1033ed0c7221899bfcadd99011d
08e3b50dcd3a269dcf6351d9e5a6324cda517a60
2085 F20110217_AABAKQ lane_f_Page_112.txt
9a93922568a5f2032be2dff741a7dfdc
2f62e4024c22344e6d741a22977e10eff40ca4f8
52011 F20110217_AAAZZE lane_f_Page_034.pro
f02bbc59233d3ddf28704a5b3bd08c84
847efa844705cd9709bbe8c7bb6d94dbad1c5d70
80559 F20110217_AAAZYQ lane_f_Page_056.jpg
0f079422f317c1c69afe9cb8a2e363c9
84e661accdd97e250ad12090a9906f07eacd1e3f
845 F20110217_AABALF lane_f_Page_137.txt
ffec4605e93b6cb2b98b96c35288af24
74180db2170f04652a7521ccdb132a42f4559cb9
1796 F20110217_AABAKR lane_f_Page_113.txt
8cb386ad4c93dbcd3af178afb964bd91
7c277db3883b51d3631f25798b3a6bf698886f82
508 F20110217_AAAZZF lane_f_Page_002thm.jpg
9355cd8f8ca8ec481e5bf799bc2a8278
c2359df78038029855b06995be1abd31a0b8f68e
F20110217_AAAZYR lane_f_Page_136thm.jpg
3d1f5effd00d5340d246207b89cf491d
ca9b38d5a235d4c66d619f68afa6d88cd3833522
10561 F20110217_AABALG lane_f_Page_001.pro
4fefda574839917ea38d213fbff64105
dcd80b7d591a1ae36478ce3ebe46124121c924f1
2112 F20110217_AABAKS lane_f_Page_114.txt
040ae7fbd9858ef5fd708c2d9a5c8701
53cf965c202546a2f01284d777b708672b9b5174
6017 F20110217_AAAZZG lane_f_Page_032thm.jpg
8c59840aef3516de4147460fdce91518
fa440d72b1c4bcd0435405bfb99a8ce83c3e4149
38943 F20110217_AAAZYS lane_f_Page_086.pro
c37d210b9ee4ba27328021169c37b69d
4d69d6a853e043dc46dd48276cb5f3f160e2bc22
1121 F20110217_AABALH lane_f_Page_002.pro
62ed4f3412ce2707eeb190f343ffe898
0c152a503923562ee81fcd141f5850c968fa40d9
304 F20110217_AABAKT lane_f_Page_116.txt
946f8a956ca198bb9d16b0aca67b256c
94ba51a2dac1725a35f885f34e09ea7ae7d75ab6
549 F20110217_AAAZZH lane_f_Page_001.txt
4eee4aad05d4fb0ce904880f879c8f19
8fec712bd52a15c30d64f1a5cc458a2a5208f794
F20110217_AAAZYT lane_f_Page_066.tif
758819e394705eabbbff7b35914527fc
7c11c8664ba71ccffa5fbb0e894eaff1f83385e6
10355 F20110217_AABALI lane_f_Page_003.pro
27fa643172609345b61bc794ed1574f9
27a7313d025c63c1ac3c15c80c86a32a3501e772
1848 F20110217_AABAKU lane_f_Page_118.txt
0ca378306387c1efe6f85b2472f141d9
fb131b42b3f34d67047a10e083ca3efdb4026542
6168 F20110217_AAAZZI lane_f_Page_055thm.jpg
a6be12d8b0e594e9d064b1e6d9f30bca
b049b8e56a492b3ca697924d512e0c6b3b7d02d3
6084 F20110217_AAAZYU lane_f_Page_036thm.jpg
3b920d6dcb5dd45ba03148facc8c520f
a3e22d4e7982027fa87934c9c9185aa5e631a5e0
42493 F20110217_AABALJ lane_f_Page_004.pro
e571789cc39466177da9dee03c0d071c
6034cbffff7b7816d6573f9f7a5971963ca9c8bc
713 F20110217_AABAKV lane_f_Page_121.txt
08137d97d8640f530ac177a0b63c812f
92d2ca0b103d3956b487262f5a89b8a54ff8453b
18811 F20110217_AAAZZJ lane_f_Page_003.jpg
1376990631451bec0ad3a77217aee9c1
0c407a8415594c692c438b4bff523dd20e546f47
899416 F20110217_AAAZYV lane_f_Page_010.jp2
d12564a19692b219b596dcf5471ac427
bd5f89744607016474a4770e0e3cb08e0eaec007
85752 F20110217_AABALK lane_f_Page_006.pro
489f656c8b517c722ded3040fca098ac
c7406fb4c1938398e8feeea1f84e2fcef5064bfe
1616 F20110217_AABAKW lane_f_Page_123.txt
d0c6f25c4a43bf36f622f68c31a4983f
d6e90f50226ce5255b6ece666a2de99c6928654b
43419 F20110217_AAAZZK lane_f_Page_012.pro
267ece1ea95da2720815c58dee8f0de8
8d46488e53064fae8864c94145614eaa0bbcae68
51417 F20110217_AAAZYW lane_f_Page_063.pro
4a110b5a444cce35577dcb4aef2c1422
1f807f4e4e65d32e1060df7bb7d066089e028cd1
100310 F20110217_AABALL lane_f_Page_007.pro
a4732ff579c3d3f3eb597ee376dfa518
5ddd81bbe7b8ee384915060b0888d9b18376340f
524 F20110217_AABAKX lane_f_Page_125.txt
92528d6212919a3be6a03fbf29dbecd4
f2e41cc4dd7d9f973ff7682fdaec4b49bb6d3ad7
49453 F20110217_AAAZZL lane_f_Page_013.pro
808ddf4ad355619881dfa49b3b49c181
b7bcac74a32e32eda7988c4cd996c0877df4ccf6
48348 F20110217_AAAZYX lane_f_Page_056.pro
76bd4f8e6b5c58c3288643cde35b8ce8
7f701f0bcec8a56ea6fea0ea28af727ad54685d0
24644 F20110217_AABALM lane_f_Page_009.pro
9c6399d64422afeba1805412ede65f3d
b3c1cc348363c74c99a1948be4f29eb3296e521c
247 F20110217_AAAZZM lane_f_Page_119.txt
6ed28229b93a87c9e9493be11d15d9dd
40bfbcaee3a6af06e8c7a3071cdd6f1069ee7a58
52306 F20110217_AABAMA lane_f_Page_031.pro
4913129ce0be1dfdb15ff67ecfeef8ff
82c05b68056067cfa11c102ab93f443512efad02
17877 F20110217_AABALN lane_f_Page_011.pro
0de0d4f922751373fc3423dc0bd57d5b
04a4d00b1ff1a0092ce7117ee7056176c3c11613
1959 F20110217_AABAKY lane_f_Page_126.txt
c117565a461145e3d5c0797b7b2916f6
2a3c86f67234ef605e2209d06df6fb80fed44eee
49848 F20110217_AABAMB lane_f_Page_036.pro
ad9835f3f429d1345893675acd366aa2
72a4377757d1edab4f2843b171a3cd2761fe7c56
48682 F20110217_AAAZYY lane_f_Page_046.pro
752ca0e69c4e3b23d029174178a30002
5a7c208f446da92690729599ef7b6f99872481d9
53294 F20110217_AABALO lane_f_Page_014.pro
37c7947340cac86ed7dd4a3f95337e33
0804e6ec20e251cba126378b2ffdfb545258f663
2399 F20110217_AABAKZ lane_f_Page_127.txt
7492d93e642868ddb7a1953abf2c721d
8bd513e416dd66e59c3c615dc4c4195a6c188784
F20110217_AAAZZN lane_f_Page_060.tif
0aee92971ecd49ed7f5298fe356ce538
c31ba1e60b40ef128548ff55b07b80be25c30762
50271 F20110217_AABAMC lane_f_Page_037.pro
af80efffdf22b09a9e1410b9e931f9c2
b7b9dfee45fd7da1ba874d113cbb9ecbb0a5daaa
5842 F20110217_AAAZYZ lane_f_Page_116.pro
d39fe7a2b88fc9eec4578ea8cf3f28c0
955938aa7b9a0921bbf49007080faa7635af37da
46402 F20110217_AABALP lane_f_Page_015.pro
9971a9ec97cefbfebf14372f60a302cb
10275dcb22c7315f082d34ee41e6655f1948bca7
51666 F20110217_AAAZZO lane_f_Page_051.pro
475305891ec3a0a9bbdb5244e65134bd
0925ed07fd8d9c518c37e4cdd059308f578ade85
51822 F20110217_AABAMD lane_f_Page_038.pro
c36f6eb57577cde3d27a554173ee7e7e
c0ed16c0cdfb3eac46575e212a06daf2168c0566
51152 F20110217_AABALQ lane_f_Page_016.pro
dc3ccefbe66dc68269f5bebb008e77e6
285a55637a9b975ae6a7f5e98d1ce849cf5fac71
13111 F20110217_AAAZZP lane_f_Page_122.jpg
6eb3caf0481c354600fb4d7064b72740
cb4ed674650e52a51f6cec3f4ef392ae80ef6129
54383 F20110217_AABAME lane_f_Page_039.pro
a06bd0440baf06bbe2b5ee95f6e9b62d
1c2e2142c57437713f9e7a48e09dbb76c6abe0bd
50977 F20110217_AABALR lane_f_Page_017.pro
4e6af680aabdd991a2b766d1b45301b0
275f5a74fda5de92826844c1c7b433462fe4397d
F20110217_AAAZZQ lane_f_Page_059.jp2
26085643977470ce0294bab74932aaf2
bf8090d71d9fbc83f91c2eb4eef6059d81662a0a
50964 F20110217_AABAMF lane_f_Page_040.pro
27710b2b6fd1b38eadee015e8b5c0719
ba6ff1ceb2592c4b13122f1c01d65d2fbd5c6c28
51369 F20110217_AABALS lane_f_Page_019.pro
04de4878b42a9d71bb3b5a192cfeffd8
b71af551dca6e517f215330ea962e6f8096a356c
F20110217_AAAZZR lane_f_Page_034.jp2
f13811db50b829ef009397a066c85be1
3053b4fef44fc4c469f70ad5ad88c1d420236822
51786 F20110217_AABAMG lane_f_Page_041.pro
c1d48a39c4b371ec1356b427615058d7
d8ae596c28a7a3c26ad9b782bd2f35949e710d9a
48355 F20110217_AABALT lane_f_Page_020.pro
7ca1041a787d2164ea4c22bba705a91a
068c27e93d63c9621f04f656a1ec893b0df85d76
F20110217_AAAZZS lane_f_Page_042.tif
83a6d64b0c0425b4df171e53d36580b8
3e37496277e355fe6905924e9ceff1e7f209d190
53545 F20110217_AABAMH lane_f_Page_042.pro
7b8583abaf627149ba95d1f429cc8c96
1a277adc259fdd7ffb5ea3b5c32a789aa60a09e7
49714 F20110217_AABALU lane_f_Page_021.pro
f193de38f09c3d1ae96bf344f4ee99e5
de554ff0b73c50d1fd2826e7defe778cab3d75fa
877663 F20110217_AAAZZT lane_f_Page_086.jp2
7c190c28b413872114d61462faef67f3
6a6f329cb7b533afabb4c0e60a51711b9aeb6fad
49365 F20110217_AABAMI lane_f_Page_043.pro
47ae9cd581384bace8702c23c6b53025
b2272459cf6842608120608249f2d8b243e0bfd2



PAGE 1

LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS E NDORSEMENT OF THE BIAS CATEGORIZATION OF CRIME SCENARIOS: A PROSPECTIVE STUDY OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DISABILITY AND OTHER PROTECTED CATEGORIES By FRANK J. LANE A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 by Frank J. Lane

PAGE 3

History will have to record that the greates t tragedy of this peri odwas not the vitriolic words and violent actions of the bad people but the appalling silenc e and indifference of the good people Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. This dissertation is dedi cated to all people with disabilities who have been the victim of a crime--may the words contained on these pages serve as a voice.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I extend my thanks to Sheriff Stephen M. Oelrich and the law enforcement officer participants from the Alachua County Sheri ffs department. Without these individuals this research would not have been possible. I am very fortunate to have conducted my doctoral studies at the University of Florida. I am grateful to the members of my committee, Drs. Linda Shaw, Mary Ellen Young, David Miller, Michael Scicchitano, and St even Pruett, each of who have provided valuable direction, criticism and support along my journey. I am forever indebted to Michael Scicchittano who opened a door and ma de it possible to survey law enforcement officers, thereby enhancing the quality and rele vance of this study. I am also grateful to Mary Ellen Young who ultimatel y recruited me to the reha bilitation science doctoral program. Her work on abuse of women with disabilities established an important foundation for research on crime against people with disabilities in the United States. I owe many thanks to Steven Pruett whose fr iendship and mentoring was always available during some of my darkest hours. His knowle dge of attitudes and philosophy have been most useful in developing my thoughts on the topic of hate crimes against people with disabilities. I am particularly indebted to Dr. Linda Shaw, my advisor, mentor and colleague. Her guidance, support, and example have func tioned to keep me motivated and grounded during this research project. Her patience, gene rosity, passion, and work ethic have made her an ideal supervisor. I am looki ng forward to future collaborations.

PAGE 5

v I am grateful to Dr. Brian McMahon for hi s foresight and wisdom in showing us a dark area in the lives of peopl e with disabilities that had to be brought into the light. I owe most of my interest and passion in the area of attitudes to my late grandmother, Cecelia Sorbera. Her stories a bout the struggles faced by Italian immigrants while attempting to learn, work, and participat e in society particul arly, how her father, Joseph Morelli, died of pneumonia from working long hours digging tunnels in the subway system in Boston, leaving her family without the means to support themselves helped to illuminate the importance of wo rkers compensation laws in the early 1900s. The courage and tenacity of my ancestors to transcend the attitudina l barriers of their time serves to inspire and motivate my work during frustrating times. To my parents, Marie and Jerry, for thei r constant support and belief in me, I am grateful to you both. To my sister, Johanna, whose interest in my work and thoughts on the subject never cease to expand my awareness. To my best friend Rayford Riels who sa t alone through many Ga tor tennis matches at Scott Linder Stadium while I was writi ng. Thank you for your friendship and sacrifice while I pursued this goal. Finally, yet the most, I would like to th ank my partner, Robbie Parish, and our daughter Sophia. Without your tolerance, suppor t, dedication, sacrifice, and unwavering love the completion of this degree woul d not have been possible. I love you.

PAGE 6

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................ix ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ..x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem..............................................................................................4 Significance of the Study..............................................................................................6 Overview of the Literature............................................................................................8 Research Questions.....................................................................................................10 2 LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................................................................12 Theoretical Background..............................................................................................12 Human Rights......................................................................................................12 Natural law...................................................................................................13 Humans as social beings..............................................................................14 Social justice................................................................................................16 Equality and bias..........................................................................................17 Crime...................................................................................................................18 Crime and protected classes.........................................................................20 Crime and people with disabilities...............................................................21 Attitudes..............................................................................................................25 Definition of attitude....................................................................................26 Attitude and behavior...................................................................................26 Attitudes towards persons with disabilities..................................................31 Contact Theory.............................................................................................33 Bias Crime...........................................................................................................35 What is a bias crime?...................................................................................35 Why bias crime is more serious...................................................................37 Realistic conflict...........................................................................................38 Relative deprivation.....................................................................................38 Social identity...............................................................................................38 Social learning..............................................................................................39

PAGE 7

vii Psychodynamic.............................................................................................39 Perpetrators of Bias Crime..................................................................................43 Bias Crime Reporting..........................................................................................44 Victim Selection..................................................................................................45 Problems with Bias Crime Data..........................................................................45 Bias Crime and People with Disabilities.............................................................47 Bias Crime and Gender.......................................................................................50 Vulnerability as a Negative Attitude...................................................................52 Summary and Conclusion...........................................................................................52 3 METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................57 Research Questions.....................................................................................................57 Research Design.........................................................................................................57 Participants.................................................................................................................57 Instruments.................................................................................................................58 The Modified Hate Crime Survey.......................................................................59 Attitudes toward Disabled Persons Scale (ATDP)..............................................64 Contact with Disabled Persons Scale (CDP).......................................................66 Demographic Questionnaire................................................................................67 Data Collection Procedure..........................................................................................68 Data Analysis..............................................................................................................69 Analysis Related to Research Questions One, Two, and Three..........................69 Analysis Related to Re search Question Four......................................................69 Limitations..................................................................................................................70 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................71 Research Questions.....................................................................................................74 Research question #1: Does law enforcement officer level of agreement with hate crime classification vary across protected category?...............................74 Research question #2: Does law enforcement officer mean level of agreement with hate crime classifi cation vary by gender?................................................77 Research question #3: Is there an inte raction between protected category and gender on law enforcement officer mean level of agreement with hate crime enhancement?.........................................................................................78 Research question #4: Does age, attit udes towards persons with disabilities, and contact with persons with disabil ities provide predictive ability for law enforcement officers agreement with hate crime enhancement for persons with disabilities?..............................................................................................78 Additional Analyses....................................................................................................80 Variation of Mean Scores Across Prot ected Category for Race and Gender......80 Variation of Mean Scores Across Seve rity of Crime and Type of Crime Indicator...........................................................................................................80

PAGE 8

viii 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION...........................................................................83 Summary.....................................................................................................................83 Discussion...................................................................................................................85 Limitations..................................................................................................................92 Recommendations for Future Research......................................................................93 Implications for Practice and Education.....................................................................96 Conclusion..................................................................................................................98 APPENDIX A MODIFIED HATE CRIME SURVEY....................................................................100 B DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE....................................................................104 C ATTITUDE TOWARDS DISA BLED PERSONS SCALE.....................................106 D CONTACT WITH DISABL ED PERSONS SCALE...............................................109 E ASSESSMENT OF HEINOUSNESS SURVEY.....................................................111 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................115 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................126

PAGE 9

ix LIST OF TABLES Table page 4.1 Analysis of Variance for Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores........................................73 4.2 One-way Analysis of Variance for Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores by Protected Category...................................................................................................................74 4.3 One-way Analysis of Variance for M ean MHCS Sub-scale Scores by Gender......77 4.4 Summary of Multiple Regression Analys is for Variables Predicting Level of Agreement with Bias Crime Enhancement (N = 166).............................................78 4.5 Analysis of Variance for Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores by Race, Gender, Race X Gender..................................................................................................................79 4.7 One-way Analysis of Variance for M ean MHCS Sub-scale Scores by Bias Crime Indicator........................................................................................................82

PAGE 10

x Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ENDORSEMENT OF THE BIAS CATEGORIZATION OF CRIME SCENARIOS: A PROSPECTIVE STUDY OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DISABILITY AND OTHER PROTECTED CATEGORIES By Frank J. Lane August 2006 Chair: Linda R. Shaw Major Department: Rehabilitation Science People with disabilities were included in the Hate Crime Statistics Act in 1996. Data available for the 7 years since inclus ion in the act document 199 cases of bias crimes committed against an individual because of his or her disability status. Odds ratio analyses reveals that a person with a disabili ty is 150 times less likel y to be the victim of a bias crime than for race. The disproportiona tely lower incidence of bias crimes for people with disabilities is surprising consid ering people with disa bilities experience a 70% unemployment rate, live in poverty at a rate 2-3 times greater than the general population, and are victims of crime at a rate as high as 10 times the general population. This research study modified a Hate Cr ime Survey that consisted of crimes scenarios from each of four protected categor ies to include crimes scenarios where the victim was a person with a disability. The survey was administered to 184 law enforcement officers along with the Attitudes Towards Disabled Persons (ATDP) scale,

PAGE 11

xi the Contact with Disabled Persons (CDP) s cale, and a brief demographic survey. The data were analyzed using a two-way, repeated measures ANOVA and a multiple regression analysis. The results of the study show that an individuals me mbership in a protected category and law enforcement officer attitude towards people with disabilities contributes to a law enforcement officers agreement with classifying a crime as a hate crime. Future research studies should seek to expand the sc ope of the study and replicate results in addition to exploring the effect of law enforcement officer tr aining on the investigation of hate crimes committed against people with disabilities.

PAGE 12

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Persons with disabilities re present the largest single minority group in the United States. Approximately 54 million Americans, or 20% of the United States population, have a disability (National Council on Disa bility, 2000). It is anticipated that the proportion of persons with disabilities will increase as the population ages (National Council on Disability, 2000). US Census proj ected population data shows an increasing trend in the proportion of indivi duals of retirement age, age 65 and up. Specifically, it is anticipated that by the year 2030, approximate ly 20% of the United States population will be retirees, compared to 12.5% currently (U .S. Census Bureau, 2004). Considering that approximately 50% of persons over the age of 65 report various health impairments, the proportion of people with disabilities in the United States will increase exponentially. Some of the problems experienced by people wi th disabilities include the highest rate of unemployment (National Organization on Disabi lity, 2003), abject poverty at a rate 2-3 times greater than the general population (N ational Organization on Disability), and crime victimization at a rate 2-10 times grea ter than the general population and for longer periods of time (Baladerian, 1991; Hiday, Swartz, Swanson, Borum, & Wagner, 1999; Nosek, Howland, Rintala, Young, & Chanpong., 1997; Sobsey & Doe, 1991; Sullivan & Knutson, 1998). As a result, the problems faced by people with disabilities will be augmented on a national level as the population ages. Persons with disabilities (PWD) experien ce a 68% unemployment rate, as a group

PAGE 13

2 (National Organization on Disa bility, 2003). Only 32% of pe rsons with disabilities are employed on a full-time or part-time basi s compared to 81% of people without a disability (National Organizat ion on Disability) and more people with disabilities are working in part-time employment without benefits (National Council on Disability, 2000). In addition to the low rate of employment, people with disabilities are 2-3 times more likely to live in poverty (National Or ganization on Disabilit y, 2003). Individuals with disabilities live with higher levels of poverty, 29% versus 10% in the general population (National Council on Disability, 2000) and persons with seve re disabilities are three times more likely (33%) to live at or below the poverty line ( $15,000 or less) than a person without a disability (10%) (Nati onal Organization on Di sability). The 2004 Progress Report on National Disability Policy estimates that approximately 40% of the persons receiving Temporary Assistance fo r Needy Families (TANF), also known as Welfare, during 2003-2004 had a disability (National Council on Disability, 2004). The same report projected the per centage to be much higher pr esently. Because persons with disabilities often reside in poverty, they are forced to live in low income neighborhoods (Burger & Youkeles, 2004). Low income nei ghborhoods are often associated with higher rates of crime (Burger & Youkeles). It is suggested in the literature that peopl e with disabilities are victims of crime at a rate that is higher than the general population; some cons ervative estimates suggest the rate is between 2-3 times higher while others suggest the rate is as much as 10 times higher (Baladerian, 2001; Hiday et al., 1999; Sobsey & Doe, 1991; Sullivan & Knutson, 1998). Moreover, people with disabilities expe rience victimization a nd abuse for longer

PAGE 14

3 periods of time (Nosek et al., 1997). Although the rate of crime committed against people with disabilities is estimated to be considerably higher than the general population, a study conducted in Boston, Massachusetts es timated that approximately 5% of the perpetrators of crimes agains t persons with disabilities are prosecuted compared to a 70% prosecution rate for the genera l population (Mishra, 2001). He reported that some of the reasons provided for the alarmingly low prosecuti on rate of perpetrators of crimes against people with disabilities include: (1) poli ce are concerned abou t how people with disabilities will hold up in c ourt; (2) police believe that people with disabilities have poor memories and do not comprehend the importa nce of telling the tr uth; (3) prosecutors are concerned that juries w ill disregard the testimony of a person with a disability; and (4) victims with disabilities may embellis h their accounts to the police. Mishras contentions that people with disabilities are believed to have poor memories and do not comprehend the importance of telling th e truth was supported by Bailey, Barr, and Bunting (2001). The belief that people with disabilities may embe llish their accounts to the police was initially proposed by research ers at the Roeher Institute (1993). People with disabilities were included as a protected category in the Hate Crime Statistics Act in 1997 (McMahon, West, Lewi s, Armstrong, & Conway, 2004). Since that time, the number of hate crimes reported to the FBI where the victim was chosen because of his or her disability stat us has been remarkably low. A recent study (McMahon et al.) of hate crimes reported between 1997 and 2002 concluded that a person with a disability is 350 times less likely to be the victim of a hate crime than if the victim was African American (McMahon et al.). It is possible that people with disabilities simply are not victims of hate or bias crime at a rate comp arable to other protected categories. However,

PAGE 15

4 if the reported rates are accura te indications, hate crimes re present less than one half of one percent of the crimes committed against people with disabilities (McMahon et al.). This statistic, although possible, is unlikel y given the estimates of general crime committed against people with disabilities. This chapter will include: (1) the context of bias crimes committed against people with disabilities; (2) a statement of th e research problem and discussion of its significance; (3) a brief overview of the li terature; (4) how the proposed research will address at least one of the theories propos ed by McMahon et al.(2004); and (5) research questions to be answered. Statement of the Problem Its possible that people with disabilities are victims of bias crimes at a substantially lower rate than other protected groups. Althoug h possible, the examples of discrimination discussed previous ly contribute to disability th eorists suggesting that this is an unlikely explanation (McMahon et al., 2004). Mertons four f actors that influence crime reporting can be used to conceptualize the points at which alte rnative explanations can be considered (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000). Robert Merton, a criminologist, used the te rm successive layers of error to describe the problems associated with docum enting and collecting records of crime from law enforcement (Bureau of Justice Statis tics, 2000). McDevitt ca tegorized Mertons components of error into four categories: 1) factors wh ich discourage victims from reporting, 2) factors which affect police deci sion making, 3) political influences which affect agency crime reporting, and 4) legislat ive differences in determining the type of offense (Bureau of Justice Statistics).

PAGE 16

5 Barriers to hate crime reporting can be further compartmentalized into two categories: 1) individual inhi bitors, and 2) police disinc entives (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000). Individual inhibitors c onsist of factors that affect a persons willingness and likelihood of contacting law enforcement (Bureau of Justice Statistics, p.34). Police disincentives consist of department al or personal factors, which interfere with accurate law enforcement identification or recording of a bias crime (Bureau of Justice Statistics, p. 34). Indi vidual inhibitors and police di sincentives are of particular concern when exploring possible explanations for why crimes committed against persons with disabilities go unreporte d. These two categories of f actors that affect victim reporting and police decision making will be examined more closely. Factors that affect whether a victim re ports a crime or individual inhibitors, include: 1) the victims awareness that a crime has been committed (Block, 1974); 2) the victims belief that the cr ime is serious enough to warrant law enforcement attention (Gove, Hughes, & Geerken, 1985); 3) The vict ims belief that law enforcement can do something about the crime, including the victims confidence in law enforcement (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000; Gove et al., 1985); and 4) the victims relationship to the perpetrator (Bureau of Justice Statistics). It has been suggested that the ability of people with di sabilities to comprehend the criminal act (McMahon et al., 2004), community resources (McMahon et al.), and mistrust that the criminal justice system will investigate, arrest and prosecute perpetrators (Mishra, 2001) function as individual inhi bitors to reporting a crime. Additionally, reporting might be affected by the fact that pe rpetrators of crimes against persons with disabilities are often family members, nei ghbors, and persons with whom the individual

PAGE 17

6 is acquainted because of their disabil ity (Baladerian, 2001; Sobsey & Doe, 1991). Clearly, underreporting by a victim with a disa bility is a valid concern not just from the perspective of disability rights activ ists but criminologists, as well. The second category consists of police disi ncentives or those f actors that affect police decision making. These f actors consist of: 1) whethe r the officer has sufficient evidence to indicate a crime has been comm itted; 2) whether the victim wishes to formally have the perpetrator ch arged; 3) the seriousness of th e crime; and 4) the level of professionalism of the depa rtment (Gove et al., 1985). Significance of the Study Research regarding possible explanations for underreporting of bias crimes committed against people with disabilities is of particular significance to rehabilitation researchers and educators because the reasons for including people with disabilities in the act were based on a set of assumptions rath er than hard data (McMahon et al., 2004). Consequently, it is possible that legislators mi ght conclude that the low number of crimes reported since inclusion is evidence that the problem is not as large as was originally anticipated. Given this possibi lity, it is important to determine whether there might be competing explanations. Specifically, it is important to determine whether law enforcement decision-making is affecting repor ted rates of bias cr imes against persons with disabilities and to determine what fact ors influence law enforcement judgment. At a societal level, an enhanced understanding of criminal investigation provides insight into the larger issue of accessibili ty to law enforcement by peopl e with disabilities who are victim of any crime. In addition, access to th e criminal justice system is a fundamental right necessary to guarantee the rights a fforded to all citizens under the constitution (Schneider, 2005).

PAGE 18

7 Disability was included as a protected cat egory over other groups such as gender, children, police officers, union members, and th e elderly who also lobbied for inclusion under the act and whose request was denied. Di sability was included in the act for four reasons, the first and most persuasive wa s the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which included disability as a standard in civil rights and discrimination law within the federal gove rnment (McMahon et al., 2004). The other reasons disability was include d consist of: (1) the fact th at there are approximately 54 million American citizens with a disability; (2) citizens with disabilities have a degree of collective identity in American society (N ational Council on Disabi lity, 2000; Shapiro, 1994); and (3) the historical evidence of discrimination. The historical documentation of discrimina tion against persons with disabilities is put succinctly by Smart (2001) who concluded that No other racial cultural, ethnic, linguistic, religious, political, national, sexual orientation, or gender group has experienced this pervasive de gree of generalized prejudice and discrimination (Smart, p.72), which included killing babies with disabilities, forced sterilization of persons with disabilities, institutionalization, mass murder, se xual abuse in families, assisted suicides, physical abuse in institutions, aversive conditioning, electroconvulsive therapy, psychosurgery, experimentation, excessi ve medication (Goffman, 1963; Lifton, 1986;;Smart). Because the primary purpose of the Hate Crime Statistics Act is to collect data to determine the extent of the problem (Bureau of Justice St atistics, 2000), it is possible that disability will be removed as a protected class due to the low numbers reported. Moreover, although speculation exists as to the reason for the low numbers (Berkeleyan, 2002; McMahon et al., 2004; Sh erry, 2003; Sorensen, 2001), no research

PAGE 19

8 has been conducted to date to substantiate th e theories posited by di sability advocates to explain the possible reasons for the low numbers. Overview of the Literature Attitudes have been discussed in the lit erature as affecting law enforcements reporting of bias crimes (Levin, 1992; Nolan & Akiyama 1999). In one study that reviewed 452 criminal investigations, it was discovered that investigators missed evidence of a bias crime in approximatel y 96% of the cases (Levin). Another study consisting of a series of focus groups with police officers report ed that individual attitudes and beliefs about bias crimes wa s the second most influential factor in determining whether a bias crime was reporte d by law enforcement (Nolan & Akiyama). It has been suggested that attitudes are the most important construct to the field of social psychology (Petty, Wegener, & Fabrig ar, 1997). Attitudes, th e categorization of an object along an evaluative dimension (Fazio, Chen, McDonel, & Sherman, 1982, p. 341), are believed to influence behavior automatically (Ajzen, 2001; Fazio & Williams, 1986; Fazio et al., 1982; Fazio & Zanna, 1981) or through a complex deliberative process that requires the opportunity and determination to evaluate information (Fazio & TowlesSchwen, 1999; Kruglanski & Freund, 1983; Sanbonmatsu & Fazio, 1990). The generalstudy of attitudes has been used by disability researchers to explain the pervasive discrimination against people with disabilities. Research on the study of attitudes it relate s to disabilities has been robust with particular emphasis on those factors that are associated with negative attitudes, and how those attitudes impact the ability of people with disabilities to pa rticipate in society (employment, independent living, and others.) Research on attitude s towards people with disabilities suggests they tend to vary as a function of 1) gender (Chesler, 1965; Siller,

PAGE 20

9 1963; Yuker, Block, & Campbell, 1960) with females reporting more positive attitudes than males; 2) age (Ryan, 1981; Siller, 1963; Yuker, Block, & Younng, 1966) with younger and middle aged individuals reporti ng more positive at titudes than postadolescent and seniors; 3) education (Gosse & Sheppard, 1979; Yuker et al., 1966) with more positive attitudes being associated with higher education levels; and 4) occupation (Chubon, 1982; English & Oberle, 1971; Pederson & Carlson, 1981; Wills, 1978) with surprisingly more negative at titudes among individuals in the helping professions and unequal status relationships. Contact theory (Allport, 1954/1979) was originally propos ed to understand what factors prevent the formation of negativ e attitudes and, moreover, the mechanism whereby negative attitudes can be change d. Research designed to understand the conditions whereby contact functi ons to change attitudes also resulted in the development of theories to explain the fo rmation of negative attitudes. Specifically, it was theorized that the absence of the conditions necessary for positive attitude change would result in the formation of negative attit udes. For example, a series of research studies discovered that individuals in the helping profes sions (Wills, 1978), including rehabilitation personnel (Chubon; 1982; Pederson & Carlson, 1981), have more negative attitudes towards people with disabilities. It has b een suggested that any relationship where one individual is in an inferior status or dependent relationship can f unction to increase negative attitudes (Amir, 1969), which can be said of the nature of the relationship between rehabilitation professionals and peopl e with disabilities (Wills). Extending this theory to law enforcement, the nature of the relationship between a member of law

PAGE 21

10 enforcement and crime victim is one where the law enforcement officer is in a position of authority and the crime victim in an inferior or dependent role. Theref ore, it is logical to hypothesize that police officers, like other helping professi onals, can form negative attitudes towards people with disabilities; and, these at titudes can influence their behavior. Research Questions As mentioned previously, one possible explanation for the relatively low numbers of hate crimes reported is the possibility th at law enforcement officers (LEO) may have learned to regard people with disabilities as vulnerable (McMahon et al., 2004; Sorensen, 2001). Therefore, when presented with evid ence of a crime committed against a person with a disability, the individual focuses more on the victimization of the individual and less on the bias aspect of the crime. If this is the case, when presente d with an actual bias crime scene scenario with key elements of bias motivation, the individuals level of agreement about whether a crime should be clas sified as a hate crime will be lower when the victim is a person with a disability that when the victim is an individual in another protected category.Gender may also influence the level of agreement with classifying a crime as a bias crime. Miller (2001) found a significant difference in the mean agreement score on the Hate Crime Survey between ma le and female criminology students. The literature on attitude and disa bility also documents a difference in attitude across gender (Ryan, 1981; Siller, 1963; Yuker & Block, 1986; Yuker, et. al., 1966) 1. Research Question One: Does law enforcement officers level of agreement with hate crime classification vary across protected category? 2. Research Question Two: Does law enforcement officers mean level of agreement with hate crime classifi cation vary by gender?

PAGE 22

11 3. Research Question Three: Is there an interaction be tween protected category and gender on law enforcement officers mean level of agreement with hate crime enhancement? 4. Research Question Four: Does age, attitudes towards persons with disabilities, and contact with persons with disabil ities provide predictive ability for law enforcement officers agreement with hate crime enhancement for persons with disabilities?

PAGE 23

12 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter is a review of the literatur e concerning bias crimes committed against people with disabilities. The major theoreti cal areas that underlie this investigation include discussions on basic human rights, cr ime, attitudes, contact theory, and bias motivated crime. The conversation on hu man rights provides the foundation for the discussion on crime, bias crime and the severi ty of bias crime rela tive to other forms of crime. The discussion of attitude incl udes a general overview of attitudes, the relationships between attitudes and behavior, particularly judg ment, and contact theory as it relates to the formation and change of a ttitudes. Once the theoretical framework is established, a discussion on bias crime will incl ude a definition of bias motivated crime, why bias crimes are considered more serious th an other forms of crime, profile(s) of hate crime perpetrators, theories about why pe ople commit bias crimes, and bias crime reporting. Special focus will be placed on bi as crimes committed against people with disabilities. Theoretical Background Human Rights Modern study of human rights are believed to have origin ated from the writings of theorists like John Locke, St. Thomas Aqui nas, and others, who believed that basic human rights originated from natural law (H iggins, 1954; Pegis, 1948). As a result, basic human rights consisted of freedom and equalit y. Higgins believed that natural law, which

PAGE 24

13 guides humankinds behavior, also defines our existence as social beings, which is inevitable. However, man is incapable of always re specting the basic human rights of others, which is why society requires laws and the authority to enforce laws, which is regarded as part of a societys core value system. Th e core value system of the United States of America is embedded in its constitution and guara ntees that each citizen is free and equal. Because freedom and equality represents an important aspect of American society, any crime that violates these values strikes at the core of its value system. Society also places a great emphasis on protecting the basic human rights of citizens who are incapable of protecting their rights individua lly. As discussed previously, bias crimes, in particular, are more serious because of the intent of the offender. But, when a bias crime is committed against a protected class of citizens, it warrants particular ly close attention. Natural law The historical underpinnings of basic human rights has b een credited, in part, to John Locke. Locke challenged what was referred to as the divine right of kings during his lifetime, which stated that kings were chosen by God (Locke, 1690/1968; Miller, 1996). Commoners were believed to be born into servitude and, as such, had no rights or freedoms other than those granted by kings (Miller). Locke argued that natural law legislates freedom, equality, and therefore i nherent rights for a ll. (Miller, p. 510). According to St. Thomas Aquinas, natural law originates from the belief that human beings are, by nature, rational beings, and th is rationality is deri ved from God (Aquinas, 1264/1905; Higgins, 1954; Pegis, 1948). Further, human beings should behave in a way that is consistent with their rational nature (Pegis). Artistotle had a different view of the origin of natural law than Aquinas (Aristot le, 350 B.C./ 1962). He believed natural law

PAGE 25

14 is derived from the natural order of the wo rld and (the) built-in tendencies of human nature (Miller, 1996, p.499). Th e difference in Aquinas vi ew of natural law can be attributed to the influence of his Christian beliefs (Miller). According to Higgins (1954), natural law commands that indi viduals treat other human beings with the same regard they ha ve for themselves. Higgins asserted that humans are not required to l ove each other to the same degree they love themselves. However, he believed that natural law requi res human kind to love each other with the same quality of benevolence (Higgins). This premise is embodied in the proverb, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Higgins maintains that this is a basic principle of human conduct that cannot be compromised for the good of society. Humans as social beings Humankind is considered by many theorists to be social beings (Higgins, 1954; Miller, 1996). The foundation of this belief lies in th e understanding that humankind is not fully self-sufficient, and requires interaction with other humans in a social setting (Higgins). However, if humankind is to co-exist in a so cial setting, then individual needs must not abound. In order to curtail the pursuit of individua l rights lest they infringe upon the rights of others, a social cont ract is required. A social cont ract is an agreement between its members where, like any contract, each indi vidual preserves certain rights at the cost of others (Miller). Thus I s ee it is to my advantage to submit myself to government, to obey laws, etc., if thereby I can secure my fundamental rights and freedoms (Miller, p. 511). Locke believed that the social contr act logically followed the state of nature (Locke, 1690/1968; Miller). The main purpose th en of a social contract is the secure freedom and equality for all.

PAGE 26

15 In contrast to the view that humankind is basically rational, the Calvinist view believes that man is naturall y selfish, weak, and corrupt. (Clark, 1970; The Heidelberg Catechism, 1563/1988; Higgins, 1954). For th ese reasons, humankind is unwilling to set aside personal interest s for the good of society (Higgins). Therefore, when an individual violates the rights of anothe r person, it is believed that permissiveness on the part of society has brought out his basi c selfish instincts (Clark). According to the Calvinist view, humankind will respond to coercion (Higgi ns) as well as Gods grace, which is viewed as irresistible. However, it is the responsibility of so ciety to respond to violations with discipline to control humankinds basic selfish instincts (Clark). Although the Calvinist view has a different premise from that of Locke, the outcome was generally the same. Locke maintain ed that individuals ca nnot live in a state of freedom and equality for three important reasons: (1) indivi duals dont pay enough attention to the rational natural law; (2) the se lfish concerns of individuals would result in a biased application of the prin ciples of natural law; and (3 ) individuals require authority so natural law can be meaningfully en forced (Locke, 1690/1 968; Miller, 1996). Locke maintained that members of a society give tacit consent to its social contract. Tacit consent is consent that is assumed by an individuals partic ipation in a society (Locke, 1690/1968; Miller, 1996). When humankind participates in society, they agree to adhere to its laws and rules as well as give the state the au thority and power to enforce its laws and rules (Higgins, 1954). Authority to secure human rights.Accordi ng to Higgins (1954) society must have the power to compel individual members to cooperate on a permanent basis. The power granted to society to compel others to obey and enforce laws is authority (Higgins). The

PAGE 27

16 need for authority is consider ed to be self-evident and an essential component of any society (Higgins). Higgins asserted that in order for a society to work, its members must be aware of the commonly agreed upon good sought individually and collectively and how the laws are designed to safeguard these pu rsuits (Higgins). The laws of a particular society therefore can be thought of as represen ting not only the rights of its citizens but the authority of the state to enforce the la ws and punish those ci tizens who violate the rights of individual members of that society (Higgins). Social justice John Locke has been referred to as the spirit ual father of the cons titution (Miller, 1996, p. 516) because Thomas Jefferson stated that his intent was to embody the social and political principles of Locke in the Declar ation of Independence (Miller). The philosophy of individualism can be found in the first te n amendments to the constitution of the United States (Miller) and it is clear that the values held by United States citizens at the time the Declaration was written were deeply influenced by Lockes ideas (Miller). Freedom for all individuals is a value that is guaranteed to all United States citizens in its creed and is protected under the constitution as an inalie nable right (Hutchins, 1952). When the United States declared that all peopl e are created equal as part of its foundation for declaring independence, it b ecame part of the countrys co re value system (Hutchins). The liberties afforded American citizens under its constitution were considered necessary for humankind to develop the qualities within each other regarded as good. As such, the fundamental premise underlying the liberties afforded Americans is the previously discussed belief that man is essentially good a nd if given the chance will develop into a kind and gentle human being (Clark, 1970). Thes e liberties also represent the American

PAGE 28

17 citizens emphasis on the individuals quest fo r actualization and i ndividual liberty and freedom as necessary for individuals to pursue self-actualization (Higgins, 1954). The individual rights of a so ciety are formalized and codified into what Artistotle referred to as conventional law (Aquinas, 350 B.C./1962) and Aquinas referred to as human law (Aquinas, 1264/1905); which are laws, crea ted by citizens, to protect person and property, also referred to as basic huma n rights derived from natural law (Higgins, 1954). These human or conventional laws are codified natural laws and first foundational laws (Higgins; Miller, 1996). The same declaration that guarantees equa l rights also recognizes that governments are instituted among men to secure these rights (Hutchins, 1952). Therefore, the United States Constitution guarantees defense of its citizens against disc rimination, abuse of power, and harm to person or property (Hutch ins). Citizens have th e right to ask their government to enforce their constitutional ri ghts (Hutchins). As a result, government is charged with upholding the rights of its ci tizens, which is the enforcement of human or conventional laws (Miller, 1996). The enforcement of laws is how society guarantees that the core value system is upheld and protecte d for all citizens. The process of ensuring equal rights through enforcement is a major com ponent of social justi ce (Higgins, 1954). Equality and bias The discussion on equality in the previous sec tion is significant because it represents the core value system of the United States. Howeve r, there are other means of identifying the core value system of a society. According to Lawrence (1999), the range of bias that is tolerated and accepted by a nation or other polit ically organized society is a statement of what that society values and, more important, its sense of equality (Lawrence). Because equality and bias are considered to be at opposite ends of the spectrum a society that

PAGE 29

18 values equality cannot tolerate bias. In other words, soci ety cannot theoretically value equality and tolerate bias at the same tim e. Consequently, any time bias functions to violate basic human rights, the act is considered a serious offense. Crime Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) presented a general theory of crime in which they asserted that discipline dependent definiti ons of crime reflect the interest of the discipline. For example, economists view crime as being economically determined, sociologists view crime as being socially determined, and psychologists view crime as determined by psychopathology, etc. As a re sult, Gottfredson and Hirschi offered the following general definition of crime: behavio rs that are attempts to satisfy immediate needs rather than delaying gratification. Gottfredson and Hirschis theory of crime has been criticized in the literature because thei r theory of why people commit crime is based solely on self-control (Baron, 2003). The intent here is to adopt the definition and not discuss the merits of the theory by weighing the pros and cons of self-control as an etiology of criminal behavior. Because, pl aced within the context of the previous discussion on social justice, Gottfredson and Hirschis definition of crime is consistent with the idea that in general terms crime is a di scourse to social justice. At the level of the individual, crime is behavior that meets an individual need at the risk of violating the social contract.Punishment When an individual commits a crime agains t person or property, the act is said to reflect not only on the character of the indi vidual but also on that of society (Clark, 1970). Consequently, how a society responds to th e criminal behavior is also a reflection on society (Clark). Therefore, when an indivi dual violates the rights of another person, it is believed that permissiveness has brought out his basic selfish instincts (Clark).

PAGE 30

19 Consequently, the individual is not acti ng according to the commonly agreed upon good (Higgins, 1954) and society must respond with discipline to control the individuals basic selfish instincts (Clark). Two schools of punishment theory exist, the re tributionist theory and the consequentialist theory (Lawrence, 1999). The c onsequentialist theory is a util itarian theory that believes punishment is justified to the extent that it improves society, for example reducing crime. The retribution theory is a deontological ap proach to punishment and supports giving the criminal his just desserts. Further, the retr ibutionist believes that the offender deserves to be punished because he has violated the norms of society (Lawrence). Theorists such as Hegel supported punishment by as serting that the offender has the right to be punished because society respects the individual as an autonomous being and punishes him for his choice to break the law (Hegel, 1807/1967). Kant believed in the idea that an offender has an obligation to societ y (Kant, 1797/1999). He believe d there was a substantial benefit to citizens for obeying the laws of society (Kant; Miller, 1996). When a citizen breaks the law, he incurs a debt to society, which is repaid through punishment. It is clear that widespread support exists for punishme nt across theoretical backgrounds. However, it is also accepted that for punishment to be morally justifiable, the severity of the punishment must fit the severi ty of the crime (Lawrence). The notion that the severity of punishment must fit the crime is easier than the adage an eye for an eye. The measure used by criminal justice theorists is to place punishment along the continuum of all punishme nt, if it falls at the same point on the continuum occupied by the crime along the conti nuum of all crimes, then it is believed to

PAGE 31

20 be just (Lawrence, 1999). In simpler terms, it is the relative amount of punishment corresponding to the relative amount of crime. (Lawrence, p. 48). Theorists look to culpability and harm caused to society to evaluate the severity of the crime. Culpability refers to the state of mind or mens rea, of the offender, the more purposeful the conduct, the more severe the penalty (Lawrence, 1999). Conversely, reckless conduct is considered less severe than conduct that is purposeful in nature. Although culpability is a genera lly accepted principle in evaluating severity, criminal law doctrine provides little direction about the issue of harm. As a result, evaluating harm relies more heavily on theory (Lawrence). Lawrence (1999) asserts that th ere are three theori es that focus on how to measure the harm committed by a particular crime, they is the ex-ante analys is, the ex-post facto measuring of harm, and the living standard an alysis. The ex-ante analysis is a means of assessing the relative risk pref erence of a rational person. A pplied, the analysis concludes that the least harmful crime is the one that a rational person would risk facing. The expost facto method ranks what the victim lost in the commission of the crime. The living standards analysis (LSA) was designed to establish vocabulary for the discussion of harm and form a set of principles or standards. The two key variables in establishing harm based on the LSA are (1) the severity of the crimes invasion on personal interest, and (2) the various kinds of interests that may be vi olated, such as persona l safety, protection of material possessions, etc. The discussion on crime severity will continue with the application of theory to evaluate the severity of bias crime. Crime and protected classes Human kind generally agrees that the rights of individuals persist even if their rights are overridden by physical force (Higgins, 1954, p. 492). In other words, rights exist for

PAGE 32

21 individuals whether they have the physical ability to protec t them or not. Examples of citizens who are viewed as being particularly vulnerable and less ab le to protect their rights are children, the elderly and people with disabilities (Behnke, Winick, & Perez, 2000). Because these groups of people are less able to protect themselves than other groups in society, society places a high valu e on ensuring their health and well-being (Behnke et al.). An example of this in pract ice is mandatory reporting laws. Most states have mandatory reporting laws for healthcare professionals that re quire the reporting of known or suspected abuse of individuals in these protected classes (Behnke et al.). Society takes the interests of citizens in these protected classes so seriously that mandatory reporting laws outweigh an indivi duals right to priv acy and privileged communication with healthcare professionals (Behnke et al.). Additionally, crimes committed against individuals in protected classes are considered more severe in nature (Higgins). Crime and people with disabilities A review of the literature suggests that the prevalence for violence among children and adults with disabilities is higher than th e general population in terms of the rate, frequency, duration. Further, the offender prof ile is different when the victim has a disability than for similar crimes where th e victim does not have a disability. Moreover, differences exist across age, type of abuse, and disability category. Rate of crime Researchers estimate that the inci dence of violent crime in general against adults and children with disabilities is two and a half times that in the general population (Baladerian, 2001; Hiday, Swartz, Swanson, Borum, & Wagner, 1999; Sobsey & Doe, 1991; Sullivan & Knutson, 1998). Rega rding incidences of sexual abuse in particular, the estimated prevalence is five to ten times that in the general population

PAGE 33

22 (Sobsey & Doe). In an Australian study of individuals with intellectual disabilities, Wilson and Brewer (1992) concluded that ra te of sexual assault was 10.7 times higher, robbery was 12.8 times higher, and overall vi olent crime was 4.2 times higher than the general population. Frequency. There is a fair amount of consiste ncy in the research concerning the frequency and duration of incide nces of abuse sustained by pe rsons with disabilities. In the Sobsey & Doe (1991) study on sexual abuse, they reported that of the participants reporting sexual abuse, approximately 20% reported a single incident, 20% reported between five and ten inciden ces, and 49.6% reported greater than ten incidences (Sobsey & Doe). In addition, 9.7% of the participants reported the ab use as repeated (Sobsey & Doe). In a study conducted by Sullivan & Knutson (1998), persons with disabilities experienced an increased durat ion of abuse and neglect. Duration. Research on abuse and neglect of wome n with disabilities identified similar findings. In a study of 946 wome n with disabilities who par ticipated in the National Study of Women with Physical Disabilities, 62% of th e women reported they had experienced some form of sexua l, emotional, or physical abuse (Nosek et al., 1997). The percentage of women experiencing abuse was the same for a group of non-disabled controls. However, women with disabilities reported experiencing the abuse for longer periods of time (3.9 years) compared to wo men without a disabil ity (2.5 years) (Young, Nosek, Howland, Chanpong, & Rintala, 1997). In addition, women with disabilities experienced forms of abuse that were disa bility related such as withholding: (1) medication, (2) transportation, (3) assistance with activities of daily living, and (4) equipment for ambulation (Nosek et al.).

PAGE 34

23 Perpetrator characteristics. Research suggests that th e perpetrators of crimes against persons with disabiliti es are often family members, neighbors, and acquaintances the person has because of their disability. The Federal Bureau of Investigation in their hate crime data reporting guide lines state that reporting decr eases when the victim knows the perpetrator (Federal Bureau of I nvestigation, 1999b). Ofte n, the victim fears retribution from the perpetrator in the form of further abuse, neglect or an interruption of services (Sobsey & Doe, 1991). In addition, victims may be reluctant to report crimes because they believe the report lacks value and will not be taken seriously at any level of the criminal justice system (Luckasson, 1992), a perception that appears to have some validity (Mishra, 2001). Sobsey and Doe (1991) found that in 56% of the reported cases of abuse the perpetrator had a relationship to the person with a disability, which is co nsistent with data from nondisabled victims. However, in the other 44% of the cases, the reported abusers had a relationship with the victim that was specific to the disability. In 27.7% of the cases, the perpetrator was a personal care attendant, residential care staff, hospital staff, psychiatrist, and so on (Sobsey & Doe). Other perpetrator categories included transportation providers, therap eutic foster parents, and ot her persons with disabilities (Sobsey & Doe). Although the percentage of cases where the perpetrator is a family member or friend is consistent with the natio nal average, the results of this study suggests the percentage of crime agains t persons with disabilites wher e the perpetrator in known to the victim could be as high as 100%. This is not difficult to conceive when 2/3 of the respondents to the Harris survey reported that their disability results in social isolation (National Council on Disabilit y, 2000). This places persons with disabilities almost

PAGE 35

24 exclusively in contact with persons known to them such as family, friends, and caregivers. In the Sullivan and Knutson (1998) review of abuse of children with disabilities, 98% of the perpetrators were family me mbers. In the Sobsey & Doe (1991) study, although 95.6% of the victims knew of the perpetrator, 65.9% of the cases went unreported to law enforcement by the victim (Sobsey & Doe). Other reasons for charges not being filed included refusal by the po lice in 19% of the cases, refusal by the prosecutors in 5.5% of the cas es, and court dismissal in 2.2% of the cases (Sobsey & Doe). Of the cases that were reported, 22% we re charged and of the alleged perpetrators charged, only 36% were convicted of the offense. Disability category Research has also found higher incidences of abuse in specific disability categories. For example, Sullivan and Knutson (1998) found that 62.1% of the children in the communicative disorder categor y of their study were abused by someone in the family compared to 39.4% in the non-disabled group. The communication category in the Sullivan and Knutson study included children who were deaf. This finding is consistent with that of Sullivan, Vernon, and Scanlan (1987, as cited in Sobsey & Doe, 1991) who reported a review of research suggesting that 54% of deaf boys and 50% of deaf girls have been sexually abused as children. Muccigrosso ( 1991) in a review of literature suggested that 90-99% of individuals with developmental disa bilities have been sexually abused by the time they turn 18. Much of the research conducted on abuse ag ainst persons with disabilities in the United States has been on the prevalence of abuse in children with developmental disabilities (Nosek, 1996). This may explain the passage of the Crime Victims with

PAGE 36

25 Disabilities Awareness Act in 1998. The Act reported that research had been conducted suggesting the incidence of abuse among indivi duals with developmental disabilities is four to ten times higher than the general population. However, it was noted that the studies were conducted in othe r countries (Canada, Australi a, and England) and Congress was not aware of the extent of the probl em in the United States. Although Congress mandated that data collection begin within tw o years of the passage of the act, the first data collection for individuals with developm ental disabilities in the National Crime Victims Survey began in January, 2004 (Crime Victims with Disabilities Awareness Act of 1998, P.L. 105-301). However, the act is sp ecific to developm ental disabilities. Presently, data is being collected in the Un ited States on hate crimes committed against all disability categories and any crime comm itted against individuals with developmental disabilities. Attitudes Gordon Allport stated that attitudes are the single most indispensable cons truct in social psychology (Allport, 1935 p. 798). The volume of research since that time on attitude structure and function, attitude-behavior re lationships, and attitude change supports Allports claim. Attitude theorists have considered the role and function of attitudes for some time. It is generally accepted that one of the majo r functions of attitudes is to organize or structure an otherwise chao tic universe (Katz, 1960; Smith, Bruner, & White, 1956). From an evolutionary perspective, attit udes represent a proces s whereby humankind can size-up events or objects in the environment, what is referred to as an object-evaluation association (Fazio, Sanbonmatsu, Powell, & Kardes, 1986; Smith et al.). From an evolutionary perspective, humankind used the object-evaluation association as a means to

PAGE 37

26 forego reflective thought about an object a nd guide behavior quickly as a means of survival. This section will address some working definitions of attitudes, the process whereby attitudes are formed, and the co mplex association between attitudes and behavior. Definition of attitude The most basic definition of attitude is a ge neral evaluation or summary evaluation of an object (Petty et al., 1997). Two early defin itions were provided by Thurstone (1931) and Allport (1935). Thurstones early and well known (Petty et al., 1997) definition of attitude was affect for or against a ps ychological object (Thurstone, 1931, p. 261). The term affect was used by researchers at that time in the same way attitude is now used (Ajzen, 2001). Today, affect is used to de scribe general moods and specific emotions (Ajzen). In 1935, Allport offered an expanded de finition as a mental or neural state of readiness, organized through experience, exerting a direc tive or dynamic influence upon the individuals response to all objects and situations with whic h it is related (Allport, p. 810). Ajzen & Fishbein (1980) reported that th ere were in excess of 500 definitions of attitude. In an attempt to bring focus to th e breadth of attitude definitions, Fazio et al. (1982) suggested that all definitions of attitu de include the notion that an attitude involves categorization of an obj ect along an evaluative dimens ion. (Fazio et al., p.341). Attitude and behavior Fazio et al. (1982) suggested that earlier research was focused on whether there was a relationship between attitudes and behavi or (Corey, 1937; LaPiere, 1934; Wicker, 1969). Moreover, little eviden ce existed of congruence betw een attitude and behavior. Conversely, evidence suggested the two ma y be incongruent (Wicker). Even though evidence suggested an attitude -behavior relationship didnt exist, attitude research

PAGE 38

27 continued as if there was a relationship (Aj zen, 2001). Since the re search of LaPiere, Corey (1937), and Wicker that focused on whether a relationship exis ted, research has focused on when attitudes might predict behavior or what are the moderators in the attitude-behavior rela tionship (Fazio & Towles-Schwen, 1999) and it was suggested by Fazio et al. that future resear ch in this are should focus on how attitudes guide behavior. The MODE model of the attit ude-behavior process is an ex ample of the focus of how attitudes guide behavior a nd is explained in greater depth in the next section. Attitude-behavior processes. Two classes or attitude behavior processes exist that provide a conceptual framework for unders tanding the mechanism of how attitude influences behavior, a spontaneous process and a deliberative attitude to behavior process (Fazio & Towles-Schwen, 1999). The differe nce between the two processes can be conceptualized as the difference between a process whereby1) there is an immediate influence of attitude on behavior as with th e spontaneous process or 2) a process whereby a conscious evaluation occurs considering the alternatives of behavior as with the deliberative attitude to behavior process (Fazio & Towles-Schwen). Spontaneous process. Support for the theory of th e automatic activation of attitudes is present in the lit erature. The theory, originally proposed in the 1980s by Fazio and his colleagues, is focused on the automatic activation of attitude from memories. Put simply, the model asserts that an individuals behavior is influenced by an individuals perception of an attitude obj ect and the context or situation in which the object is encountered (Fazio & Williams, 1986). According to the model, attitudes are also thought to influence perception of the object such th at a selective processing occurs (Fazio & Williams). The processing of the attitude obj ect is selective to the extent that its

PAGE 39

28 consistent with the individual attitude (F azio & Williams). The key component to the model is the accessibility of the attitude fr om memory. When activated from memory, the attitude is believed to affect both per ception and behavior (Fazio & Williams). Research on the spontaneous process has focused on the accessibility of attitude from memory, the strength of association, sp eed of access, and the factors that influence each of these. Fazio and Zanna (1981) suggest that the manner in which attitudes are formed plays a large role in the extent to whic h attitudes influence beha vior. If an attitude is formed through direct contact with the attitude object, that attitude will have a stronger influence on behavior than if the attitude was formed wit hout a behavioral experience (Devine, 1989). It is notewort hy that criticism emerged on th e selective processing effects of attitudes because research has failed to prov ide clear support for the theory with results being inconsistent or weak (Ajzen, 2001).Fazio et al. (1982) maintained that an attitude must first be accessed from memory for it to have any influence over behavior. Further, the accessibility of an attitude from memory is directly related to the strength of association. This led to an expl oration of the factors that c ontributed to the strength of association. Measures of attitude strength used in research stud ies consist of resistance to counter-persuasion, the clarity and definition of the attitude, and reported confidence in the attitude (Schuman & Johnson, 1979). Fazio and Zanna (1981) reported evidence that of the three strength-indicator s mentioned, an individuals re ported confidence in an attitude and the clarity and definition of the attitude have a positive correlation with the number of direct behavioral experiences with the attitude object. Fazi o et al. reported that repeated attitudinal expression also functions to strengthen the association between the attitude and object as evidenced by increased accessibility and behavior consistent with

PAGE 40

29 the attitude. The results of this study are pa rticularly relevant because as mentioned in Fazio et al. the presentation of an attitude can elicit the same attitude the survey is designed to assess. Fazio et al. also demonstrated that direct experience with the attitude object is more likely than indirect experi ence to be accessed when later observing the attitude object and more likely to influence behavior. Roskos-Ewoldsen and Fazio (1992) discovered th at the strongest atti tudes from memory are more likely to attract the attention of th e observer. In the Roskos-Ewoldsen and Fazio study, when subjects were presented with a vi sual display of objects, the objects were more likely to be noticed if there was an associated evaluation from memory. RoskosEwoldsen and Fazio concluded that attitudes serve as an orienting function. Moreover, attitudes can influence the pr ocessing of visual inform ation. Conversely, the visual stimulus can activate the attitude fr om memory (Roskos-Ewoldsen & Fazio). Deliberative process. The deliberative process model focuses on the individuals focus on the attributes or raw data instead of a preexisting attitude (Fazio & TowlesSchwen, 1999). The most common deliberative process model is Ajzens (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior and its predecessor, the Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). The theory is based on the be lief that human kind is rational and makes use of available information (Ajzen & Fishbe in). Further, that human kind weighs the pros and cons of options availa ble to them before making a d ecision (Ajzen & Fishbein). The MODE model. MODE is an acronym for Motivation and Opportunity as DEterminants (Fazio & Towles-Schwen, 1999). The MODE model was developed by Fazio in an attempt to integrate both the s pontaneous and deliberat ive process theories (Fazio, 1990). The MODE is considered an ap plication of Kruglanskis theory of lay

PAGE 41

30 epistemics (Sanbonmatsu & Fazio, 1990). Kruglan skis research on this theory attempted to understand the general process whereby individuals acquire knowledge (Sanbonmatsu & Fazio). Kruglanski theorized that knowledge consists of the cont ent of knowledge and the confidence each individual places in th e content (Kruglanski & Freund, 1983). The process whereby individuals gain confiden ce in the content is that of hypothesis generation and validation (Kr uglanski & Freund). Humankind has three individual needs that motivate an individual to engage in the process of hypothesis formation and validation: (1) fear of invalidity, (2) the need for structure, and (3) the need for specific conclusions (Kruglanski & Freund) These needs provide the necessary motivation necessary for an individual to engage in caref ul reflection and deliber ation to arrive at a valid conclusion (Sanbonmatsu & Fazio). Sa nbonmatsu and Fazio concluded that the same needs theorized by Kruglanski and Fre und provided the motivation necessary for an individual to engage in an attribute-base d decision as opposed to an attitude-based decision (Sanbonmatsu & Fazio). Opportunity is considered a prerequi site to deliberation in the MODE model (Fazio & Towles-Schwen) and has been manipulated experimentally with the use of time. (Kruglansk i & Freund; Sanbonmatsu & Fazio). Kruglanski and Freund (1983) experime ntally manipulated motivation by enhancing the fear of invalidity. In the st udy, participants were informed that their selection would be compared to other particip ants and they would ha ve to explain their decisions to the other participants and th e investigator (Fazio & Towles-Schwen, 1999; Kruglanski & Freund). In a similar study, Sc huette and Fazio (1990) experimentally manipulated the motivation of participants to engage in a deliberate process by informing participants their responses to a survey would be compared to a panel of social scientists

PAGE 42

31 and later discussed with them. The results of both studies provided evidence that individuals can engage in careful and reflective deliber ation and ignore potentially biasing attitudes when motivat ed (Fazio & Towles-Schwen). Kruglanski and Freund (1983) and Jamies on and Zanna (1989) experimentally manipulated opportunity by adding time pressure to the participants. In both studies, participant decision-making was influenced by personal attitudes when time-pressure was a factor. This provides support fo r the belief that sufficient opportunity, time, is required for careful and reflective deliberation to occur (Fazio & Towles-Schwen, 1999). Attitudes towards persons with disabilities Attitudes towards people with di sabilities tend to vary as a function of gender, age, education, and occupation, to name a few. Although there are other correlates in the literature such as personality, locus of contro l, and so on. the focus here will be on those factors that may have a relationship to attitudes as they relate to perception of bias crime. Research has demonstrated that women tend to report more positive attitudes towards people with physical disabilities than do men (Che sler, 1965; Siller, 1963; Yuker et al., 1960). A possible expl anation for this difference was proposed by Siller who theorized that women may feel a different amoun t of social pressure to convey a socially acceptable attitude. However, the number of studies showing females with more positive attitudes is decreasing over time with 20% of the studies showed positive attitudes in the 1980s versus 59% of the studies before 1970, resu lting in the conclusion that the gap that exists between men and women appears to be closing over time (Yuker & Block, 1986). The relationship between age and attitudes to wards people with disabilities is more complex than gender. Ryan (1981) reviewed the literature and conc luded that attitudes are positive during early chil dhood through adolescence (Siller, 1963) at which point they

PAGE 43

32 show a trend towards becoming more negative. Attitudes again show a change in a positive direction from early to late adulthood and then decline when reaching senior years (Ryan). Yuker et al. (1966) cautioned that the relations hip between age and attitude may be confounded by other variables. Yuker & Block (1986) suggest ed that education level and contact with persons with di sabilities were confounding with age. Education is believed to be a confounding variable with age (Yuker & Block, 1986) although the results are incons istent (Tsang, Chan, & Chan, 2004). The number of years of education an individual has appears to be related to more positive attitudes toward people with disabilities (Gosse & Sheppar d, 1979; Yuker et al., 1966). Yuker and Block (1986) maintain after a review of the liter ature that the confoundi ng effect of age and education appears strongest under the age of 25. Education was not found to have a significant effect on the attit udes of occupational therapy st udents in Hong Kong (Lee, Paterson, & Chan, 1994). However, the posit ive effect of occupational therapy curriculum on attitudes has been observed in America and Hong Kong (Estes, Deyer, Hansen, & Russell, 1991; Lee et al.). Attitudes towards persons with disabili ties also vary with occupation. Although many individuals believe a priori that individuals who work in the helping professions have more positive attitudes that does not bear itself out in the literature. Data indicates that individuals in the helpi ng professions have a more nega tive attitude towards people with disabilities than th e general populati on (Brodwin & Orange, 2002; Chubon, 1982; Livneh & Cook, 2005; Wills, 1978). Pederson and Carlson (1981) and Chubon (1982) documented negative attitudes of people with disabilities by re habilitation personnel. It has been suggested that negative

PAGE 44

33 attitudes among rehabilitation prof essionals may have to do with the nature of the contact between the professional and clie nt. Specifically, in rehabilita tion settings the nature of the relationship between the reha bilitation professional and client with a disability is one of inferior status and dependence (Amir, 1969) Further, the person w ith a disability is not necessarily at his/her best when worki ng with the rehabilitation professional, which can also contribute to the formati on of a negative attitude (Wills, 1978). In a study of professions othe r than human service professi onals, English and Oberle (1971) reported that attitudes towards persons with disabilities by airline stewardesses were more negative than typists. The result s of these studies suppor t the hypothesis that certain types of contact are related to incr eased negative attitudes towards persons with disabilities. However, the relationship be tween contact and attitude is complex and warrants a more detailed exploration. Contact Theory The idea of contact was originally discusse d by Lee and Humphrey in their analysis of the Detroit riot of 1943 (Allport, 1954/1979). At that time, it was observed that amidst the riot, white and black workers in the wa r plants worked peacefully, white and black students at Wayne University continued to at tend classes together and white and black neighbors avoided participating in ri ots (Allport, 1954/1979). This phenomenon, provided the underpinnings for the developmen t of a contact hypothe sis in the 1950s and 1960s the goal of which was to integrate racial and ethnic minorities (Allport; Amir, 1969; Smart, 2001). In the formative years of contact theory, it wa s believed that contact of any type between members of the minority and majority group would change attitudes, resulting in behavior change, particul arly that of prejudice (Dixon, Durrheim, & Tredoux, 2005;

PAGE 45

34 Smart, 2001). However, Allport (1954/1979) emphasized that the relationship between contact and out-group evaluations was not simp le. As a result, he outlined a taxonomy of optimal factors for contact. Dixon et. al. organized the factors as follows: Contact should: (1) be regular and frequent; (2) involve a balance of in-group and out-group members; (3) have genuine ac quaintance potential; (4) occur across a variety of social settings and situations; (5) be free from competition; (6) be evaluated by the participants as important; (7) involve indi viduals regarding each other as having equal status; (8) involve non-stereotypic members of the out-group; (8) be organized around a superordinate goal; (9) be sanctioned by local or cultural norms and in stitutions; (10) be free from negative emotions such as anxiety; (11) be personalized and involve genuine friendship formation, and (12) be with an indi vidual regarded as representative or typical of the out-group. A key component of Allport s (1954/1979) taxonomy is th e recognition that quality of contact was as important as quantity for pos itive changes in attit ude to occur (Islam & Hewstone, 1993), which was later supported by research (Amir, 1969). The contact theory research paradigm has been very productive since the 1960 s (Dixon et al., 2005). Even though contact theory has been touted as the most e ffective strategy in psychology for improving relations between in and out groups (Dovidio, Gaertner, & Kawakami, 2003), the theory is far from perfect. Dixon et al. (2005) provide a critical evaluation of the re search and remind contact theorists that research since the 1960s has demonstrated the paradox of contact theory, simply, some types of contact function to ch ange attitudes in a positive direction whereas other types of contact change attitudes in a negative direction (Dixon et al.). The process

PAGE 46

35 whereby contact can serve to increase nega tive attitudes is multifaceted. Dixon et al. recently suggested that there is a tendency for informal systems of preferential segregation (p. 704) to re-emerge following optimal contact. Additionally, it is widely accepted that any deviation from optimal contact can result in no change in attitude or a change in a negative direction. Some of the conditions include: 1) whether the contact was perceived as superficial or intimate, 2) pleasant or unpleasant, and 3) the person with a disability is perceived as being representative of the di sability group as a whole or atypical (Islam & Hewstone, 1993). Additiona lly, contact where the outgroup member is in an inferior or dependent status can func tion to increase negative attitudes (Amir, 1969) a hypothesis that has been used to explain an increase in negative attitudes among health care professionals (Wills, 1978). Bias Crime What is a bias crime? The term bias crime is synonymous with hate crime. The terms are used interchangeably in the literatu re although bias crime is ge nerally considered the most appropriate name (Bureau of Justice Statisti cs, 2000; Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1999b; Lawrence, 1999; McMahon et al., 2004). B ias is a preformed negative attitude toward a group based on race, religion, ethni city/national origin, sexual orientation, or disability status (McMahon et al., p. 68) A bias crime is a crime against person or property that is motivated in whole or in pa rt based on the offenders bias. (McMahon et al., p. 68) The process of determining if a crime is a bias crime is a two tiered process (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1999b). The investigat ing officer determines whether there was any indication that bias was the motivation of th e alleged perpetrator. If the answer to the

PAGE 47

36 question is yes, then the case is designated as a suspected bias incident. A second review is conducted by an officer trained in the investigation of bi as motivated crimes and he or she makes the final decision. The criteria for categorizi ng a crime as a hate crime at the second tier is more stringent. To classify a crime as a hate crime, the objective facts must lead a reasonable a nd prudent person to conclude that the perpetrators actions were motivated by bias. The victimrelated criteria for classification include: (1) membership in a targeted group; (2) active role or advocacy in a community group; (3) representation of victims group in the community; (4) previous records of victimization; or (5) visitation to a high tension community. The perpetrator -related criteria are: (1) presence or comments, gest ures or written statements supporting bias; (2) appreciation of crime impact upon the victim; (3) membership in a hate group; or (4) previous record as a perpetrator. Bias crimes are also two-tiered in nature (Lawrence, 1999). The fi rst tier consists of a crime that is committed against person or property, such as assault and battery or robbery, which Lawrence also refers to as parallel crimes. The second tier involves the addition of bias motivation, also referred to as an enhancement. It is important to clarify that a bias crime is not a category by itself. If a crime is determined beyond a reasonable doubt to have been motivated by bias, then the bias motivation carries a sentence enhancement For example, an offender may be found guilty of the crime of assault and battery, which carries a minimum sentence of 5 year in prison. However, if the offender is found guilty of choosing the victim based on his or her membership in a protected group bias, the sentence can be enhanced to a minimum mandatory sentence of 10 years.

PAGE 48

37 In 1990, then President George Bush signed into law the Hate Crime Statistics Act (HCSA), which requires the Attorney Genera l to collect data on crimes committed where the victims are chosen based on their membersh ip in a race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation (Perry, 2001). In 1997, disability wa s included as a protected category in the Act (McMahon et al., 2004). However, there is disparity across states in terms of what constitutes a protected class. Minnesota, for example, includes gender, age, and national origin in their legislation. Oregon protects ba sed on perceived race, sexual orientation, color, religion, national origin, marital status, political affiliation of beliefs, membership or activity in or on behalf of a labor orga nization or against a la bor organization, age, physical or mental handicap, economic or so cial status, or citi zenship. In 2001, Perry noted that of the 50 states, only 21 included disability in the hate crime statutes. Why bias crime is more serious The idea that bias crimes are more severe and require sentence enhancements is a controversial topic. Proponents of sentencing enhancement for bi as crimes argue that bias crimes are more severe thus warranting more severe sentences. The following analysis will show the logic of the argument. Applying the features of a bias crime to the theory of determining crime severity discussed previously, Lawrence ( 1999) asserts that the increase d severity of bias crimes becomes clear. In terms of culpability, offenders who are motivated by bias are more likely to cause harm (more likely to commit assaults and the assaults are often more violent). Moreover, the motivati on of the perpetrator of a hate crime violates the equality principle, which is one of the most deeply held tenets in our culture and, consequently our legal system (Lawrence). When the Ex-A nte Analysis is applied, the question is would a rational person risk a parallel crime before he or she would risk a bias crime?

PAGE 49

38 The answer to the question is almost certainly yes. The living standa rds analysis applied to bias crimes results in a potential threat to dignity, au tonomy, and perceived threat to physical safety. Theories of Why People Commit Bias Crime Realistic conflict The realistic conflict theory maintains th at competition for scarce but necessary resources results in hostility and conflict between groups (Levine & Campbell, 1972). The realistic conflict theory is a matter of economics (Brehm, Kassin, & Fein, 2005). If one group acquires more resources, such as la nd, homes, jobs, etc, the group with less resources becomes frustrated (Brehm et al.). The group with resources becomes protective over their possessions an d the resulting conflict escalates. Relative deprivation The theory of relative deprivation suggest s that there is more to prejudice than conflict, as suggested in the realistic conflict model (Brehm et al., 2005). The theory of relative deprivation supports the idea that the mere perception of an imbalance in resources, power or opportunity will result in conflict (Davis 1959; Katz, 1981; Walker & Smith, 2002). For example, what matters to the proverbial Jones is not the type of car they drive, but whether their car is smaller in size than the one the Bradys drive. The theory can also be extended to the percep tion of job opportunities for one group versus another, etc. Social identity The theory of social identity is predicated on the research of Henry Tajfel (Tajfel, Billing, Bundy, and Flament, 1971). Tajfel et al. conducted an experiment with high school boys in Bristol, England. The young male participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The groups did not comp ete for scarce resources nor were they

PAGE 50

39 frustrated by perceived differences. The boys had no history togeth er as a group and yet Tajfel et al. found that partic ipants consistently awarded mo re points to members of their in-group than their out-group, a pattern he term ed in-group favoritism. Tajfel and Turner developed the theory of social identity to explain the in-group favoritism they observed (Brehm et al., 2005; Tajfel, 1982). The theo ry is based on the premise that each individual strives to enhance hi s or her self-esteem. Further, selfesteem can be enhanced through personal identity or so cial identity (Brehm et al .). Personal identity can be achieved through personal achieve ment whereas social identi ty is achieved through the achievements of the group and favoritism towa rds the in-group. Similarly, favoritism can also be enhanced by disparaging the out -group (Turner, Brown, & Tajfel, 1979). Social learning Social learning theory was originally proposed by Albert Bandura (1977) to explain how behavior is learned. Influenced by the results of the classic Bobo doll experiment where Bandura, Ross, and Ross (1961) observed that children who watched adults aggressing on an inflat able doll (punching, kicking, et c) displayed more aggression towards the doll later than controls who did not observe the parents tr eatment of the doll. Social learning theory claims that behavior is not learned merely through reinforcement schedule of reward and punishme nt. Rather, behavior is also learned by observing others and being reinforced vicariously. Conseque ntly, targeted violence towards specific groups is observed and the violence is modeled. Psychodynamic Much research has been devoted to describi ng the prejudiced pers onality as the agent of hatred (Allport, 1979). Some controvers y exists over the in vestigation of the prejudiced personality. For one, although many acts of hatred are committed by

PAGE 51

40 individuals with a prejudiced personality, not all i ndividuals with prej udiced personalities commit acts of hatred. Therefore, identifyi ng a personality type can create the same stereotypes this line of research aims to eliminate. Fu rther, Yuker (1988) asserts that research efforts are better spent elsewhere as personality types are relatively intractable to change. That said, the psychodynamics of the prejudice personality warrant some attention for a comprehensive discussion of bias crime. Insecurity appears to be at the root of the prejudiced pe rsonality (Allport, 1954/1979). Theoretically, insecurity stems from a fear of: self, instincts, consciousness, change, and the social environment. The etio logy of insecurity stems from unmet needs from parents resulting in unresolved infantile c onflicts or a persistent pattern of failure in adult life. Regardless of the et iology, an observable personalit y pattern appears to emerge from the described threat orientation. (Allpor t, p.396). Allport asserted that any personality that feels threaten ed is most likely going to de velop patterns of ego-alienation and a longing for definiteness, safety, and aut hority. the ego simply fails to integrate the myriad of impulses that arise within the pe rsonality and the myri ad of environmental presses without. This failure engenders feel ings of insecurity, and these feelings engender, in turn, repres sion. (Allport, p. 397). The individual with a prejudiced personality is unable to consciously cope with conflicts as they arise, so he represses the n, in whole or in part, which results in them being fragmented, forgotten or not faced at a ll. The consequences of repression are: 1) ambivalence towards parents; 2) moralism; 3) dichotomization; 4) a need for definiteness; 5) externalization of conflict; 6) institutionalism; and 7) authoritarianism. (Allport, 1954/1979). Ambivalence. According to Allport (1954/1979) research shows

PAGE 52

41 that individuals who are ambiva lent towards their parents have a tendency to come from homes where punishment, obedience, and thre at of rejection abound, an environment where power prevails instead of love. The individual learns from reward and punishment that he or she is incapable of full acceptance of the self because he or she must constantly avoid failure. Identification with parents is of ten difficult because parents from this type of environment often do not meet the needs of the child. In a family situation such as this, threat hangs over the child at all times. Moralism. Allport (1954/1979) also asserted that prejudiced persona lities often take a strict moral view. These individuals insist on conventional mores and virtues such as cleanliness, good manners and pur ity. Conversely, prejudiced personalites are intolerant of transgression of the conven tional mores and virtues. This can be viewed also as intolerance of weakness and of minority groups For example, the Nazis charged the Jews with violating conventional codes by accusing them of dirtiness and immorality. Allport asserts that this widespread propaganda was us ed to justify the tort ure and exportation of the Jews. Dichotomization Research also suggests that bo th prejudiced ch ildren and adults more than non-prejudiced controls tend to polarize the world into good and bad (Allport, 1954/1979). For example, there are only two ki nds of women, good and bad. Further, the belief exists that there is only one correct way of doing a nything. Consequently, there is little room for ambiguity; rather, the world is viewed categorically as being good or bad. Need for definiteness It has been observed that prej udiced individuals have a thought pattern consistent with their way of th inking (Allport, 1954/1979). Put more simply, individuals who are prejudiced, are prejudice in their way of thinking about everything.

PAGE 53

42 In a study of memory traces using truncat ed pyramids, Fisher (1951) observed that individuals who were higher in prejudice tended to form simplified memory traces of an unusual object such as the truncated pyramid. Individuals lower in prejudice were more likely to identify the object as unusual a nd not easy to classify. Other studies demonstrated that individuals high in prejudice were le ss likely to say I dont know during an experiment and more likely to cli ng to known images for longer periods of time (Frenkel-Brunswik, 1949). This line of research led to the theory that individuals high in prejudice have a perseverative thought process, meaning that old and tried solutions are considered safe anchorage. (Allport, 1954/1979, p.402). Externalization Individuals high in pr ejudice have also been found to project or externalize more than in dividuals low in prejudi ce (Allport, 1954/1979). Allport maintained that individuals suffering from e go-alienation avoid intros pection in favor of looking outward, it is better to think of things happening to him rather than caused by him (p. 404), consequently, individuals high in prejudice do not view themselves as injuring or hating others, rather it is others who injure or hate them. Institutionalization. Individuals high in prejudice like order but more importantly, social order (Allport, 1954/1979) Consequently, these individua ls are more dedicated to institutions than those lower in prejudice (Allport). Stagner (1944) discussed nationalism as a form of membership in an institution. Fu rther, prejudiced indi viduals would distrust those with liberal political perspectives and political reformers because they are attempting to destroy the institution that func tions to provide protec tion to a way of life and, ultimately, to protect the individual (Allport; Stagner, 1944) Authoritarianism The prejudiced personality is prone to authoritarianism. That is society should be orderly,

PAGE 54

43 powerful and authoritative. To this end, nationa lism, as discussed in the previous section, is consistent with this belief. A society that places emphasis on the individual results in uncertainty and change. According to Allport the consequence of personal freedom they find unpredictable. (1954/1979, p.406). The prejudi ced personality looks to hierarchy in authority to remedy the messiness of individu alism. Power structures are definite and function to make life predictable. Ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism maintains that one group is the center of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with refere nce to it (Sumner, 1960, p. 27). Therefore, if ones group is believed to be superior intellectually, psychologically and physically (Atkinson, Morten, & Sue, 1998) all ot her groups are inherently inferior. In its extreme form, ethnocentrism can lead to bias or discrimination, of which hate crime is an example (McMahon et al., 2004). Perpetrators of Bias Crime The theories of why people commit hate crimes can be seen to emerge in what is known about the typology of offenders of bias crim e. Hate crime offenders tend to be white males between the ages of 13 and 24 (Anderson, Dyson, & Brooks, 2002; McDevitt, Levin, & Bennett, 2002). Levin and McDevitt (1993) suggested that offenders who commit bias crimes are motivated by three diffe rent factors that result in three separate typologies. These three t ypologies include: 1) the thrill seeker who is motivated by power and excitement, 2) the defensive who is motivated by defending ones turf or resources, and 3) the mission who believes he or she is on a crusade to rid the world of groups considered evil or inferior. In 2002, Mc Devitt (Bureau of Jus tice Statistics, 2000) included retaliatory as a fourth typology of hate crim e offender. The retaliatory offender

PAGE 55

44 is motivated by a desire to avenge their gr oup as a result of a perceived assault or degradation. Bias Crime Reporting McDevitt (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000) outlined a process of bias crime reporting, which can be conceptualized as a series of decision points. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, p. 34). The following is a list of the decision points: 1. Victim understanding that a crime has been committed 2. Victim Recognition that hate may be a motivating factor 3. Victim or another party solicits law enforcement intervention 4. Victim or another party communicates with law enforcement about motivation of the crime 5. Law enforcement recognizes the element of hate 6. Law enforcement documents the element of hate, and as appropriate, charges suspect with civil rights of hate/bias offense 7. Law enforcement records the incident and submits the information to the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), Hate Crime Reporting Unit. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, p. 34). In a 1987 study conducted by McDevitt and his co lleagues (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000), 452 bias incidents handled by the Bo ston Police Department were examined. McDevitt found that only 19 or 4.2% of the cas es were appropriately identified as bias incidents by reporting officers (L evin, 1992). Levin asserted that critics of police officer reporting cite prejudice as the main factor influencing misidentification of bias incidences. Nolan and Akiyama (1999) conduc ted a series of focus groups with 147 police officers from four juri sdictions from the Northeast, West, Central and Southern United States. Two precincts participated in bias crime reporting and two precincts did not participate. The results of the study cons isted of variables that affected whether the agency and the individual reported a bias crime. The numbe r one factor affecting whether an agency participated in bias crime reporting was Shared attitudes/beliefs about hate crime reporting. (Nolan & Akiyama, p. 120). Th e number one factor a ffecting individual

PAGE 56

45 reporting was supportive organizational policies and procedures. Th e number two factor affecting whether an individual officer reported a hate crime was individual attitudes and beliefs about hate crime reporting. (Nolan & Akiyama, p.121). Victim Selection Another aspect of criminal investigation is that of perpetrator motivation. McMahon et al. (2004) discusse d the differences between crimes motivated by group animus and those by motivated by actuarial oppor tunity. An actuarial crime refers to the offenders evaluation of potential crime vic tims in terms of their ability to defend themselves (McMahon et al.). Although these crimes may appear to be spontaneous in nature, the predatory nature of the offender st ill engages in a process whereby he or she selects prey. In contrast to actuarial crimes, group animus refers to the offenders selection of a crime victim because of their membership in a group; rather what that potential victim symbolizes (McMahon et al., 2004). Animus is an important component of victim selection to bias crime classi fication because according to la w enforcement, if animus is not present, then a bias crime has not been committed (McMahon et al.). Problems with Bias Crime Data Many problems exist with the reporting and co llection of bias crime data (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000). Some of the problem s that interfere with the accurate reporting of bias crimes include: 1) voluntary reporting by law enforcement agencies; 2) variability in definition and reporting format by state a nd local jurisdiction; and 3) Supreme Court decisions that affect the criminal investigation itself. Although the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990 requires the Federal government to collect data on bias crimes, pa rticipation in the reporting is voluntary. Moreover, of those

PAGE 57

46 agencies that participate, 83% reported zero hate crimes occurred in their jurisdiction (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000, p.13). More importantly, McDevitt s research study involved interviews of police officers from zero reporting agencies who reported they had been directly involved in bias crime inve stigations and had recorded them as such (Bureau of Justice Statistics, p. 37). Specifi cally, 31% of the respondents who worked in jurisdictions that reported zer o hate crimes believe that their department investigated one or more hate crimes (Bureau of Justice Statistics). Even more interesting, 37.1% of the respondents who worked in jurisdictions th at did not report to the UCR believed their jurisdiction had inve stigated one or more hate crimes (B ureau of Justice St atistics, 2000). Another problem related to hate crime sta tistics is the definitio n. The definition of a bias crime often varies from state/local juri sdiction (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000). Further, although the FBI has started moving away from th e UCR, which collects more summary data, to the National Incident Base d Reporting System (NIBRS), which collects incident specific data, there is much variab ility across states/jurisdictions as to which reporting system is used (Bureau of Justice Statistics). As a result, crimes are reported using either the UCR or the NIBRS system, resu lting in significant variability in the data collected. Prior to the US Supreme Court Decision on Apprendi v. New Jersey the sentencing enhancement for a crime suspected to be based on animus was presented by the prosecuting attorney and determined by the sentencing judge, which requires a preponderance of the evidence (Hoffman, 2003). In Apprendi v. New Jersey Apprendis sentence was enhanced from a 5-10 year mi nimum to a 10-20 year minimum after the sentencing judge determined the preponderan ce of evidence supporte d the victims were

PAGE 58

47 chosen based on group animus. Apprendi appe aled the case to the U.S. Supreme Court and the sentence was overturned. The majority decision written by Justice Paul Stevens stated that due process required by the f ourteenth amendment requires that any enhancement of sentence beyond that allowed by statute must be submitted to the jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt (Hoffm an, 2003; Oyez, 2000). If prosecutors are required to collect evidence of group animus, which is difficult to prove, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is possible prosecuting attorneys will scrutinize cases more closely. Although no investigation has been conducted to look at this, anecdotal comments from a Florida LEO investigating hate crimes supported the difficulty in substantiating bias motiva tion to a prosecuting attorney (M. Endara, personal communication, August 7, 2005). Bias Crime and People with Disabilities As discussed previously, people with disabi lities were included in the Hate Crime Statistics Act in 1996 although data collec tion didnt begin until 1997. McMahon et al. (2004) collected the entire universe of data from the period 1997-2001, a total of five years. Although lack of complete participa tion of law enforcement agencies prevents a complete universe, McMahon et al. estimated that the 12,000 law enforcement agencies that participated across 49 stat es represented jurisdictions that cover approximately 85% of the U.S. population.A total of 41,442 bias crimes were reported for the five-year period (McMahon et al., 2004). The majority of the crimes were committed because of race (22,030), followed by religion (7,846), sexual orient ation (6,371), ethnicity (5,428), and disability (127). The relative risk of victimizat ion was assessed by calculating a within-group odds-ratio for type of hate crime and location. The relative risk for a racially ba sed bias crime (1.19)

PAGE 59

48 was 350 times that of disability (.002) (McMa hon et al.). The most common types of hate crimes were simple assault, intimidation, and property damage, which was consistent across all categories. However, the risk for simple assault was greater for people with disabilities than for any other group (McMahon et al.). The top three locations where bias crimes were committed were personal residence, street, and other. Although these top three were consistent across categories, people with disabilities were at greatest risk in their residence, followed by college campuses and government buildings. McMahon et al. (2004) asserted that it is unlikely people with disabilities experience bias crimes at a rate lower than other protected cate gories. In fact, many disability theorists are looking to the issue of unde rreporting as a possible explanation for the relatively low risk of bias crime fo r people with disabilities (Berkeleyan, 2002; McMahon et al.; Sherry, 2003; Sorensen, 2001). McMahon et al. (2004) offers the fo llowing possible explanations for underreporting of bias crimes: (1) Disability was included as a protected ca tegory almost six years after the development of the initial system for hate crime repor ting, consequently, only half of the states included disability in their hate crime legislat ion; (2) the marginal status of people with disabilities results in lack of accessibility to the crimin al justice system so law enforcement has little experience working w ith people with disabilities and people with disabilities lack attent ion from law enforcement; (3) the lack of appellate cases dealing with disability in hate crime legislation; (4) th e perpetrators of crimes against people with disabilities are often known to them e.g. family members, caret akers, etc. and victims are less likely to report a crime to law enforcement when the offender is know to the victim;

PAGE 60

49 and (5) if reports to law enforcement do not result in prosecution and conviction, people with disabilities will lose faith in law enfor cement and the benefits of reporting will not outweigh the risk association with # 4. Pr oblems with bias crime data discussed previously, also apply to peopl e with disabilities. An analys is of the problems with bias crime data for people with disabilities will be presented below. As mentioned previously, people with disabilities are included in bias crime legislation in approximately 21, roughly half, of the United States (Perry, 2001). Yet, this doesnt appear to impact the reporting of bias cr imes against people with disabilities. For example, the data from 1997 to 2003 was analyzed by state (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999a, 1998, 1997) A total of 199 bias crimes committed against a person with a disability were reported. Twenty-two states reported no bias crimes, which included Florida, Geor gia, and Iowa, each of which have bias crime legislation including people with disa bilities. Conversely, California, Washington and Wisconsin do not have bias crime legislati on but have each reported at least one bias crime during this period. The largest number of crimes reported was from the state of South Carolina, who reported 32 (or 16% of the total) bias motivated crimes. The South Carolina and Tennessee were the only two states in the southeast that reported any bias crimes against PWD during the period. The t op three states reporting for the period were South Carolina with 32, California with 21, a nd Tennessee with 18. The fact that two of the top three reporting states are located in th e southeast when the ot her southeast states did not report any bias crime incidents is suspect. Additionally, of the top three states, California doesnt have legislation allowi ng sentencing enhancement for bias crimes

PAGE 61

50 committed against persons with disabilities. From this analysis, there appears to be no pattern for which states report and no expl anation for the disparity across states. Bias Crime and Gender There are factors associated with gender motivated hate crimes that warrant discussion here. First, at the ti me disability was included in the Hate Crime Statistics Act, a number of other groups lobbied for inclusion in the Act, including gender, children, and the elderly (McMahon et al., 2004). A lthough gender was not included in the reauthorization of the act, approximately 20 st ates include gender in state-level hate crime legislation. As a result, hate crimes motivated by animus towards gender are monitored by the Southern Poverty Law Center as well as other local interest groups and researchers. Individuals who opposed the inclusion of gender in the Hate Crime Statistics Act cited the following reasons: 1) Perpetrators of a hate crime have little of no relationship to the victim. Because crimes against wome n are often perpetrated by individuals known to them, crimes against women dont fit the hate crime model; 2) special laws already exist that address violence against women; 3) the addition of gender into the hate crime category will overwhelm data collection; and 4) men who attack women do not necessarily hate them. (McPhail, 2002). The first objection, perp etrators of a hate crimes have little or no relationship to the victim, is of particular interest to this discussion because: 1) research suggests that the overwhe lming majority of perpetrators of crimes against people with disabilities are known to them; and 2) the notion that a perpetrator of a hate crime can not know the victim is a misi nformed belief (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000; Lawrence, 1999; National Institute of Just ice, 1999). In fact, perpetrators of hate crimes can be neighbors or co-workers (McPhail, 2002). If misinformation purporting

PAGE 62

51 that perpetrators of hate crimes will can not be known to the victim, then victims of gender and disability motivated hate crimes are at a disadvantage because the dynamics of the crime do not fit the accepted profile albeit misinformed, of a hate crime. Another similarity is the prosecution rate for perpetrators of crime against women. As stated, individuals who oppos e the inclusion of gender in the HCSA use the fact that special laws are already in effect that address violence against women. However, with these special laws, is it estimated that more than half of all rape prosecutions result in acquittal or the case is dismissed. Moreover, approximately 98% of rape victims will never see the perpetrator apprehended, convi cted, and incarcerat ed (McPhail, 2002). These statistics are similar to those reporte d by Mishra (2001) on prosecution rates for perpetrators of crimes agains t persons with disabilities. The belief that men who attack women are not perpetrators of a hate crime because they do not hate women is another example of common misinformation on hate crimes. Victim selection has to do with bias and prejudice not hate. Fra nklin (1998) discovered through interviews of perpetra tors of assault on gay men th at motivation was rarely as simple as hatred of homosexuality alone. The Franklin interviews revealed that the crime was often used as a means to allevi ate boredom, garner social approval, and demonstrate masculinity. Evidence of si milarities between gender and disability motivated hate crimes exists in the literature It appears that misinf ormation regarding: 1) the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim; 2) prosecution rates for perpetrators of crime against women and PW Ds is disproportionately lower than the general population; and 3) mo tivation to commit hate crimes is complex and possibly misunderstood.

PAGE 63

52 Vulnerability as a Negative Attitude It has been suggested that people with disabilities may be perceived as victims (McMahon et al., 2004; Sorense n, 2001). McMahon et al. assert s that disability experts attribute the perception of vulnera bility of people with disabilitie s to negative attitudes. If people with disabilities are per ceived as vulnerable or victims, the process of teasing out whether the perpetrator was motivated by ac tuarial reasons or animus may become increasingly more difficult. The definition of a bias crime is one that is committed in whole or in part by the offenders bias. Therefore, even if there are bias indicators at a crime scene of a person with a disability, having elements of both bi as and actuarial motiv ation could make the elements of the crime scene ambiguous, at best Attitude accessibility theory suggests that if the law enforcement officer holds the att itude that people with disabilities are more vulnerable, being in the presen ce of a person with a disabil ity might activat e that attitude and become the salient feature of the investigation. From a more practical perspective, the ambiguity created by having bias crime indicators and actuarial indicators would result in the officer deferring to a state attorney whose job is to gather enough evidence of bias motivation, often defined as 3-4 bias incidents in a sequence (M. Endara, personal communication, August 7, 2005), to prove bias beyond a reasonable doubt. Summary and Conclusion Bias crimes have garnered the attention of American citizens over the past decade. Bias crimes are regarded as being more seve re than other crimes because of the attempt on behalf of the perpetrator to marginalize a particular group of citizens, thereby sending a clear message to all members of the targ eted group. For this r eason, bias motivated crimes strike at the very heart of the Amer ican value that all me n are created equal.

PAGE 64

53 People with disabilities were recently include d as a protected category in the Hate Crime Statistics Act, in part, because of the longstanding history of negative attitudes, prejudice and discrimination against people with disabi lities in areas such as employment, poverty, etc. Since its inclusion, the number of bias crimes committed against people with disabilities is disproportionately lowe r than other protected categories. It has been suggested that no other group of citizens has been treated with the same degree of prejudice and discrimi nation than people with disabilities. Evidence exists that people with disabilities have th e highest rate of unemployment of any protected class of citizens, live in poverty at a rate dispr oportionate to the ge neral population, and experience crime at a rate and duration dispr oportionate to the gene ral population. As the first class of citizens targeted for extinction by Nazi physicians, it is arguable that people with disabilities were the first victims of bias motivated crime during World War II. Given the history of prejudice and discrimi nation of people with disabilities, data suggesting that people with disabilities in the Un ited States are victims of bias crimes at a rate disproportionately lower than othe r protected categories are highly suspect (McMahon et al., 2004). Although it is reasonable to entertain the idea that people with disabilities are not victims of bi as crimes at the same rate as other protected categories, the pervasiveness and prevalence of inequality in other areas demands this conclusion be drawn only after other possible explanations have been explored. Research attempting to explain inequality for people w ith disabilities in other areas has resulted in a substantial amount of evidence that attitudes may be a si gnificant factor in determining how people perceive and behave towards people with disabilities.

PAGE 65

54 Although not consistent in the research, it is accepted among attitude theorists that attitudes influence perception and behavior Negative attitudes towards people with disabilities are well documented in the literatu re. Attitudes appear to vary as a function of gender, age, education and occupation. Contact theory suggests that contact between an individual in an official capacity where the pe rson with a disability is in a dependent role can result in the forming of negative attitudes. Law enforcement is re garded as a helping profession where the interacti on with people with disabilities is in a dependent role. Research has documented that an overwhelming number of crimes with bias indicators were missed by law enforcement officials duri ng the investigation. It has been suggested that attitudes could influence the perception of whether a crime should be enhanced as a bias crime. If people with disabilities are victims of hate crimes more frequently than the number of cases reported, then the hate crime reporting framework discussed earlier suggests that the problem with underreporting c ould reside with the individual victim or with law enforcement. The first four of McDevitts series of decision points in bias crime reporting deal with factors that influence victim reporting of a crime to law enforcement (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000). The fi rst two points deal with the victims understanding that a bias crime has been co mmitted and recognition by the victim that bias may be a motivating factor. These deci sion points in hate crime reporting beg the question(s) Are people with disa bilities aware that they can be a victim of a hate crime? If so, Are people with disa bilities aware of the bias indicators to present to law enforcement during and interview? Further, inequality present in prosecution and conviction rates of offenders of crimes agai nst persons with disabi lities can result in

PAGE 66

55 diminished faith that law enforcement will re spond appropriately to a report and render the victim reluctant to repor t the crime to law enforcemen t. These questions, although relevant to this discussion, lie outs ide the scope of th is project. Available literature suggests that a number of factors could influence the recognition of hate by a police officer, in cluding (1) the U.S. Supreme Court case Apprendi vs. New Jersey may have resulted in greater scrutiny of eviden ce presented by law enforcement to the state attorneys offi ce because of the increa sed burden of proving bias motivation beyond a reasonable doubt instea d of as a preponderance of evidence; (2) attitudes about hate crime reporting by the law enforcement agency, which may include the state attorneys office, affect the repor ting of bias motivated crimes; and (3) the attitudes of the investigating police officer has been suggested to be the second most important factor as to whether a cr ime is reported as a bias crime. The focus of this investigation is on the fifth of McDevi tts series of decision points in bias crime reporting whether law enforcement rec ognizes the element of hate?, particularly, when the crime is committed ag ainst a person with a disability (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000). This study will inve stigate law enforcement officers level of agreement about whether a series of crime s cenarios should be enhanced as a bias crime if the victim is a person with a disability, compared to crim e scenarios where the victims protected category is race, gende r, religion or sexual orientat ion. Further, this project will investigate whether law enforcement officer agreement with bias crime enhancement varies as a function of the gender of the pa rticipant, moreover, whether an interaction exists between gender and protected categor y. Finally, this investigation will explore whether the level of agreement with bias cr ime enhancement can be predicted by the age

PAGE 67

56 of the law enforcement officer, law enforcem ent officer attitudes toward people with disabilities, and law enforcement officer contact with people with disabilities

PAGE 68

57 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY This chapter describes the methods used in the present study to determine whether law enforcement officer attitudes about hate crimes vary across protected category. The major areas addressed in this chapter include the research questions, research design, participants, instrumentation, pr ocedures and da ta collection. Research Questions 5. Research Question One: Does law enforcement officers level of agreement with hate crime classification vary across protected category? 6. Research Question Two: Does law enforcement officers mean level of agreement with hate crime classifi cation vary by gender? 7. Research Question Three: Is there an interaction be tween protected category and gender on law enforcement officers mean level of agreement with hate crime enhancement? 8. Research Question Four: Does age, attitudes towards persons with disabilities, and contact with persons with disabil ities provide predictive ability for law enforcement officers agreement with hate crime enhancement for persons with disabilities? Research Design A quantitative correlational design was us ed that employed a convenience sample. Participants were asked to complete a Modified Hate Crime Survey (MHCS), the Attitudes towards Disabled Persons (ATDP-A) scale-Form A, the Modified version of the Contact with Disabled Persons Scale (C DP), and a demographic questionnaire. Participants The goal of the project was to recruit tw o hundred and forty Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) participants from the Alachua County Sheriffs department. The sample size was

PAGE 69

58 determined by conducting a power analysis for a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a multiple regression analysis. De grees of freedom for the F-ratio (u) was determined by calculating (k-1) (r-1) where k and r are the number of levels of interacting main effects (Cohen, 1988). In the present st udy, u= (5-1) (2-1) = 4. The number of participants required to find a small effect size f=.10 (Cohen, 1988) with u=4 with power of .80 and an alpha level of .05 is 240 (Cohen, 1988). The regression analysis was de signed with 3 predictors in the model. A sample size of 51 is required to detect a squared multiple correlation coefficient of R2=.20 with power = .80 and a type-II error rate = .05. However, the .95 confidence interval with a sample size of 51 is R2 +/.20, which means there is a 95% chance the squared multiple correlation will be between .00 and .40, which is too wide. The sample size required to achieve a 95% confidence inte rval +/.10 is 200, which mean s there is a 95% chance the squared multiple correlation will be between .10 and .30. A sample size of 240 is sufficient to achieve this confidence band. A brief overview of the nature of the research, type of instruments and time required was made to all prospective partic ipants. Law Enforcement Officers reviewed the informed consent form from the Institut ional Review Board (IRB) and signed consent forms were obtained prior to partic ipants taking the instruments. Instruments The instruments used in this research st udy included: 1) the Modified Hate Crime Survey (MHCS), a survey designed to measure attitudes towards hate crime scenarios from each of 5 protected categories (race, religion, sexual orientation, gender and disability); 2) the ATDP-A, a self-report measure of attitudes towards people with

PAGE 70

59 disabilities; 3) the Wang (1998) version of the CDP (Yuker & Hurley, 1987), a measure of contact with persons with disabilitie s; and 4) a demographic questionnaire. The Modified Hate Crime Survey The Hate Crime Survey was constructe d by Alexandra Miller (2001) to study whether criminal justice students agreement w ith labeling crime scenarios as hate crimes would differ from students in other disciplines. The original survey consists of 20 actual hate crime scenarios reported to the FBI a nd offenses tracked by the Southern Poverty Law Center included in its annual report, Klanwatch (Miller, 2001). The 20 items included five scenarios from each of four protected categories: race, religion, sexual orientation, and gender. Particip ants rate on a 7-point scale their level of agreement for whether each crime scenario constitutes a ha te crime. This survey was of particular interest for this research study for the follo wing reasons: (1) the su rvey included gender as a protected category which, as stated in Chap ter 2, has similarities to disability; (2) it is the only survey designed to look for differen ces across protected ca tegories; and (3) the author of the survey agreed to allow modifi cation of the survey to include people with disabilities. Millers (2001) Hate Crime Survey was modi fied to: (1) include 5 crime scenarios that involve a bias crime committed against a person with a disability, (2) include five crime scenarios (one scenario for each protected ca tegory) that did not have any bias crime indicators, and (3) modify the remaining scenar ios so they were balanced with regard to the type of indicator and severity of cr ime (SEE Appendix A). The five bias crime scenarios introduced in the modified versi on include a sensory di sability, a mental disability, a developmental di sability, an infectious di sease, and a neuromuscular disability. Although the disabi lities represented are not in clusive of all types of

PAGE 71

60 disabilities, each of the five scenarios consiste d of a different category of disability that spans at least physical, sensory and mental di sabilities. Miller (2001) obtained the crime scenarios for the original survey from the Southern Poverty Law Ce nter. When contacted, they do not track crimes committed against people with disabilities as with other protected categories. Therefor e, the crime scenarios were obtained from a review of available literature that reported specifics on hate crimes committed against people with disabilities. One possible flaw with the original Hate Crime Survey construc ted by Miller (2001) consists of the content of the scenarios. In a national survey of police officers and police officer supervisors, McDevitt learned from 610 respondents that graffiti or bias symbols at the crime scene, offender membership in a hate group, and bias charged language constituted the top three most important f actors in determining whether a crime was potentially motivated by bias (Bureau of Ju stice Statistics, 2000). In other words, the above factors indicate to an officer that bias motivation is possible and are considered cues to investigate further. There was disp arity across protected cat egories in the crime scenarios in Millers (2001) survey. For example, only one of the crime scenarios in the gender category included a bias indicator wh ereas all but one of the scenarios in the religion category included a bias indicator. As a result, the cr ime scenarios were modified only to include at least one of the top thr ee bias indicators descri bed in the McDevitt study (Bureau of Justice Statistics). The goal wa s to maintain the inte grity of the original crime scenarios as much as possible. Therefore, if a bias indicator wa s present, it was not changed. However, bias indicators were adde d to those scenarios where no indicator was present. The items from each protected category include one item where the offender is a

PAGE 72

61 member of a hate group, one scenario where gr affiti or bias symbols are present at the crime scene and three scenarios where bias la nguage is used verbally or in writing. There is one exception to this rule. The religion category has two crime scenarios where bias symbols are present and no indicators where the perpetrators were members of a hate group. In order to make the religion category consistent with the other categories, it would require removing a bias indicator from the original survey. It was believed that maintaining the integrity of the scenarios was more important than further altering an aspect of the scenario to correct a difference of one bias indicator. Another possible flaw with the MHCS was the severity or hei nousness of the crime scenarios in terms of balan ce across protected categories. There is no standardized instrument for measuring the severity of crime scenarios (Welner, 1998, 2003). However, Welner (2003) devised a measure that is curr ently being field teste d. Welner (2003) uses a three-point scale to measure severity of a crime. The lowest point on the scale is a measure of absence of severity, not deprav ed. Because the goal was to balance crime scenario severity of the MHCS, the not severe point on the scale was modified to measure somewhat severe. The items on the MHCS were used to create an assessment of severity (SEE Appendix E). The assessmen t was given to a panel of 3 experts who rated each item in terms of somewhat hei nous, heinous, and very heinous. Comments from the first review indicated the following pa ttern of severity: 1) murder and rape were considered very heinous, 2) assault/ba ttery and physical harm was considered heinous, and 3) verbal threats, name cal ling, and graffiti, was considered somewhat heinous. The scale was modified so that each protected cat egory had two crime scenarios in the very heinous category and at least one item in each of the heinous and somewhat

PAGE 73

62 heinous categories with the ex ception of religion, which had three items in the somewhat heinous category. The final survey was revi ewed by the expert panel a second time and there was 100% agreement among the panel as to the balance of severity across categories. Responses. A seven-point Likert-scale is used by the participant to indicate their level of agreement/disagreement with the asser tion that each crime s cenario constitutes a bias crime. The scale ranges from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). There are no anchors for 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. The participants are asked to circle the number that corresponds to their level of agreement along the scale. Scoring. The scores of all 30 items on the M odified Hate Crime Survey were summed and yield a total raw sc ore ranging from thirty to tw o hundred and ten: the lower the score, the lower the agreement and the hi gher the score the greater the agreement. A subscale score was calculated for each of th e five protected categories. The subscale scores can range from five to thirty-five: Again, the lower the score, the lower the agreement and the higher the scor e the greater the agreement. Reliability. Miller (2001) conducted a pilot st udy using 304 criminology students on the original survey. She reported a .94 alpha reliability for the scale. A total of 27 Law Enforcement Officers were recruited to participate in the pilot study of the instrument. The instrument was administered on two se parate days in the same location, The Kirkpatrick Criminal Justi ce Training Center in Ga inesville, Florida. Both administrations of the instrument were done immediately before a training session began.The law enforcement participants were given an opportunity to read the consent form and ask questions before signing the informed consent form and. Once all the

PAGE 74

63 participants completed the survey, they were given an opportunity to provide feedback to the principle investigator on the survey in strument. Comments made by participants included: 1) some items lacked information, a nd 2) one of the crime scenarios should be modified so at least one of the victims was Caucasian. The first comment that some items lacked information pertained specifically to th e items that were designed to eliminate bias crime indicators. The second comment concerni ng the inclusion of a bias crime involving a Caucasian victim appeared to be a philosophic al issue of one officer that was not shared by the other officers. As a result, it was not determined to have a significant bearing on the instrument. Reliability The results of the pilot study of 27 participants revealed a Cronbachs alpha for the total scale of .89. The alpha coe fficients for the subscales were .70 for race, .62 for disability, .72 for gender, .64 for re ligion, and .63 for sexual preference. The lower than desired internal consistency for the subscales can be attributed to the low number of items for each subscale (e.g. 6) and that each subscale contains one item that is designed to not have any bias crime indicators in the crime scenario. Validity. A Repeated Measures ANOVA was c onducted and found that the betweensubjects effects was significant at F (26,1070) = .76, p <.001. Pairwise comparisons found that the non-bias indicator scenarios were significantly different than each of the protected categories at p <.001. The mean score for the non-bias indicator subscale was 10, which is equivalent to a 2 on the scale. This indicates that partic ipants were able to distinguish between bias and non-bias crime scenarios. Additionally, it suggests that participants were truthf ul in their responses.

PAGE 75

64 Attitudes toward Disabled Persons Scale (ATDP) The ATDP is a self-report measure of an i ndividuals attitudes towards people with disabilities and is the most widely used meas ure of general attitudes towards persons with disabilities (Antonak & Livneh, 1988). It was developed as a unidimensional scale of attitudes. The scale is desi gned primarily to measure atti tudes towards persons with disabilities (Antonak & Livneh, 1988).The scale was origin ally published in 1960 as a 20-item scale (Yuker, Block, & Campbell, 1960). The original scale, Form-O was altered and published in 1962 (Yuker, Block, Younng, 1966) as a 30-item scale with two Forms, A and B. Each scale takes approximately 10 mi nutes to administer although the scale is untimed. One criticism of the ATDP was the language used. Specifically, the wording of the scale had not been updated since the emergen ce of person first language. However, Pruett modified the ATDP Form-A to person first language in 2004 (SEE Appendix C). Responses. The ATDP utilizes a six-point Likert -scale for individua ls to indicate their agreement or disagreement with each it em. The scale ranges fr om -3 (I disagree very much), -2 (I disagree pretty much), -1 (I disagree a little), +1 (I agree a little), +2 (I agree pretty much), to +3 (I agree very much). Individuals are asked to circle the response at the right of each statem ent based on how they feel in each case. Scoring Form-A of the ATDP yields a summated scale score. The scoring for twelve items on Form-A must be reversed (Items 5, 9, 12, 14, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, and 29). Once the scoring for these items is reversed, the scores for all 30 items are summed, and the sign of the sum is reversed. The raw score is scaled by adding a c onstant (90) to the sum thereby ensuring the total score isnt a ne gative value. The range of possible scores is 0 to 180. A lower number reflects more negative attitudes towards people with

PAGE 76

65 disabilities and a higher number reflects mo re positive attitudes towards persons with disabilities (Yuker & Block, 1986; Yuker et al., 1966). Reliability The test-retest reliability estimates of forms O, A, and B range from +.66 to +.89. Alternate form reliability betw een forms A and B was reported to be +.85 and split-half reliability ra nged from +.72 to +.89 for the three versions (Antonak & Livneh, 1988). Validity. Content validation was conducted th rough an extensiv e extraction of statements made about individuals with disabilities in the literature followed by psychologists reviewing the items for relevance to put into the scal e (Antonak & Livneh, 1988). Item analyses were then conducted to test for item discri mination. Scores were correlated to demographic variables such as age, gender, and e ducation to establish construct and criterion related validity. Th e authors found a positive relationship between education and attitude, gender and attitude with female attitudes being more positive than males and no relationship between scale sc ores and age (Antonak & Livneh, 1988). Although the authors of the ATDP claim that the dimension measured is unidimensional, other empirical factorial studi es found that the three form s of the scale may contain between two and nine independent factors, which suggests the scale is susceptible to variance from changes other than attitude (Antonak & Livneh, 1988), affecting the validity of the instrument. Additional criticis m reflects problems with scores clustering at the top and bottom end of the range (Antona k, 1980), suggesting little variation and spread and questionable item discrimination. Nevertheless, the ATDP was used in this study because of the amount of research on the scale, despite these weaknesses.

PAGE 77

66 Contact with Disabled Persons Scale (CDP) The CDP scale is a 20-item self-report invent ory that uses a five -point Likert scale to measure the amount of contact a particip ant has had with peopl e with disabilities (Yuker & Hurley, 1987). As stated in Chapte r 2, Allport (1954/ 1978) described that contact between an individual and a member of an out-group that meets certain criteria can serve to reduce prejudice. Recent rese arch on contact theory (Dixon, et. al., 2005) emphasizes the importance of the quality of cont act in addition to the quantity of contact. More recent developments on scales that m easure contact have focused on both quantity and quality of contact with out-group members (Islam & Hewstone, 1993). However, these scales do not measure contact with pers ons with disabilities. Modifying the CDP to measure quality of contact or modifying the Islam & Hewstone (1993) scale to include people with disabilities is beyond the scope of th is project. At this time, the CDP is the only scale in existence to measure cont act with persons with disabilities. Responses Participants are asked to read each item and then indicate the corresponding quantity of contact that corresponds to the item 1 (never), 2 (once or twice), 3 (a few times), 4 (often), or 5 (v ery often) by circling th e appropriate number. Like the ATDP, the CDP was modified by Wang (1998) to include pe rson first language. The Wang version of the CDP was used in this study. See Appendix D for a copy of the modified CDP. Scoring The scores of all 20 items on the CDP are summed and yield a total raw score ranging from twenty to one hundred: the lowe r the score, the lower the quantity of contact with persons with disabilities and th e higher the score the greater the amount of contact.

PAGE 78

67 Reliability. Reliability coefficients reported for the CDP range from .87-.93 between the original and modifi ed versions of the scale demo nstrating good reliability of the scale. Yuker and Hurley (1987) reported a split-half reliability of .93 and Cronbachs alpha of .92. Wang (1998) reported a Cronbachs alpha of .87 for the modified version and Pruett (2004) reported a two-week test-ret est reliability of .90 and a Cronbachs alpha of .91. Demographic Questionnaire The demographic questionnaire was de signed to elicit sp ecific background information about the participants that could be related to attitudes about hate crimes and people with disabilities. The demographic questionnaire is designed to collect more demographic data than was utilized in th is study (SEE Appendix B). Although each of the demographic variables is relevant to this study, including each factor in the regression model will require a sample size necessary to achieve sufficient power that is unrealistic for this study but helpful in future studies designed to increase the sample size. The items in the demographic questionnair e are designed to gather information on gender, age, ethnicity, race, education, law enforcement experience, and qualitative aspects of contact with people with disabilities. This study u tilized gender and age in the data analysis. Gender has specific relevance in the literature to bot h perception of hate crimes and attitudes towards people with di sabilities. Miller ( 2001) found differences between males and females on the level of ag reement with the hate crime scenarios on the hate crime survey. Further, females have been found to have more positive attitudes towards people with disabili ties (Yuker & Block, 1986). As mentioned previously, Yuker & Block (1986) discuss that level of educati on is probably the single greatest factor that predicts attitudes towards persons with disabilities.

PAGE 79

68 Data Collection Procedure There are 250 sworn Law Enforcement Officers (LEO) employed by the Alachua County Sheriffs Department. Of those 250 LEO s, 27 consented to participate in the pilot study and 184 consented to participate in the present study. Th e convenience sample of 184 LEOs were participati ng in a routine bi-monthly trai ning at the Kirkpatrick Law Enforcement Officer Training Center in Gain esville, Florida. The bi-monthly training was designed to provide continuing education units to maintain LEO certification. LEO certification in Florida requi res specific training in huma n diversity. The present study was used to partially fulfill the hum an diversity training requirement. The instruments were designed in the form of a packet to ease in the administration in a group setting. The were placed in the following order: The Modified Hate Crime Survey (MHCS), Demographic Questionnaire, ATDP-A, and the CDP scale. Each participant received a consent form with a description of the research study and the survey instruments, in that order, held together with a pape r clip. The principal investigator was present for each data collection. Prior to taking the instruments, the inves tigator introduced himself by name and as a student at the University of Fl orida. Participants were instructed to 1) read the Research Protocol and ask questions to clarify points of confusion, 2) sign two copies of the informed consent form as required by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board-Psychology (IRB-02) if volunteeri ng for the research study, one for the investigator and the other for the law enforcem ent officer, 3) take th e surveys in the order they are presented, 4) when completed, bring the survey packet to the investigator. When participants returned the packet to the investigator, the consent forms were separated from the participant questionnaires. Participants were reminded to keep their

PAGE 80

69 copy of the informed consent on which there is contact information if they have any questions or concerns at a later date. Data Analysis Research Question One : Does law enforcement officers level of agreement with hate crime classification vary across protected category? Research Question Two : Does law enforcement officers mean level of agreement with hate crime classifi cation vary by gender? Research Question Three : Is there an interaction be tween protected category and gender on law enforcement officers mean level of agreement with hate crime enhancement? Analysis Related to Research Questions One, Two, and Three A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) wa s used to examine whether the mean of scores on level of agreement with hate crime enhancement vary across protected category or gender and whether the two va riables interact. The Two-Way ANOVA was used to answer the first research ques tion, which is to determine is there is main effect of protected category on mean agreement with ha te crime enhancement scores; the second research question which is whether there is a main effect of gender on mean agreement with hate crime enhancement scores; and th e third research question, which is whether gender and protected category interact or whether the effect of protected category depends on gender. Research Question Four : Does age, attitudes towards persons with disabilities, and contact with persons with disabil ities provide predictive ability for law enforcement officers agreement with hate crime enhancement for persons with disabilities? Analysis Related to Research Question Four A multiple regression analysis was utilized to answer research question four. As such, the goal will be to m odel level of agreement with th e subscale score of people with disabilities as a function of age, attitude score, and qua ntity of contact score.

PAGE 81

70 Although the ATDP and the CDP utilize Like rt scales to measure the constructs, respectively, data from both scales have been analyzed as interval scales. The literature documents analyzing ATDP data (Pruett, 2004; Satcher & Gamble, 2002) and CDP data (Pruett, 2004; Wang, 1998) as an interval scale. Limitations This study contains limitations with regards to internal and extern al validity. First, the results have limited genera lizability. Although practical, the use of law enforcement officers from Gainesville, Florida limits th e results to only Deputy Sheriffs from Gainesville, Florida. Second, legislation varies from across states as to what constitutes a protected category. Specifically, the state of Florida does not ha ve legislation that allows for courts to enhance a sentence if the perpetrator commits a crime against a person with a disability because of bias. As a result, th ere are variables outside the control of this study that can influence the interpre tation of bias crime indicators. Limitations also exist with th e internal validity of the st udy. First, the us e of self-report measures can introduce an element of respons e bias into the study. Self-report measures, particularly with attitude measures of su rveys of sensitive information can elicit respondents answering in a manner that is soci ally acceptable. Social desirability is not controlled for in this study. As a result, it isnt possible to determine what extent participants responses were influenced by so cial desirability. A s econd limitation is the nature of the study itself. The methodol ogy of the study did not allow for causal interpretation of the data.

PAGE 82

71 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The primary focus of this study was to determine whether group membership influenced law enforcement officer agreement to categorize a crime as a bias crime and to determine what factors influenced their de cision. The study utili zed a sample of 184 certified law enforcement officers LEOs. The following research questions were addressed: 1. Research Question One: Does law enforcement officer level of agreement with hate crime classification vary across protected category? 2. Research Question Two: Does law enforcement officer mean level of agreement with hate crime classifi cation vary by gender? 3. Research Question Three: Is there an interaction be tween protected category and gender on law enforcement officer mean level of agreement with hate crime classification? 4. Research Question Four: Does age, attitudes towards persons with disabilities, and contact with persons with disabil ities provide predictive ability for law enforcement officers agreement with hate crime enhancement for persons with disabilities? The first three questions were answer ed by conducting a two-way (repeated measure) ANOVA and a series of one-way ANOVAs as post-hoc analyses. Protected category and gender were included in the ANOVA model to answer questions 1 and 2 while the interaction term in the model wa s used to answer question 3. Question 4 was answered by modeling the MHCS disability sub-scale score as a function of the CDP score, ATDP-A score, and age of LEO.

PAGE 83

72 Response to non-hate crime scenarios. A crime scenario was included in each protected category that did not include indicators of a bias crime. There were a total of five crime scenarios that were not hate cr imes. A separate sub-category consisting of these items was formed for the purpose of analysis. The non-bias crime scenarios were rated markedly lower on the scale compared to the bias crime items ( M = 10.17, SD = 4.67, Range = 5 to 31) (See Figure 4.1). The ANOVA indicated a significant interaction across all categories, incl uding the non-hate items F (5,1096) = 589.26, p > .001. Levenes test was significant F (5,1096) = 17.51, p > .001 indicating the assumption of equal variances had been violated. Tamhanes test was used to correct for the violation and the mean score difference between non-ha te items and the five sub-scales were significant p <.001. These results are consistent with the pilot study resu lts for the same items and provided evidence of the discriminant -validity of particip ant responses to the instrument. The non-hate crime items were removed from the analysis when the ANOVAs for subsequent analyses were performed. The in itial purpose of the nonhate crime items was to establish LEOs ability to discriminate between hate crime and non-hate crime items. Once established, the items were eliminated fr om the sub-scale scores for each protected category. The aim of the study was to look for variability across similar items. It was believed the non-hate crime items would in troduce unnecessary variability into the subscales. Therefore, no other analysis in this study included th e non-hate crime items. Two-way ANOVA A 5 x 2 two-way (repeated measures) ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the effect of five protected cat egory and gender on law enforcement officer

PAGE 84

73 Table 4.1: Analysis of Variance fo r Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores ________________________________________________________________________ Source df F p 2 p ________________________________________________________________________ Between subjects Category 4 25.15 .10 .001* Gender 1 17.79 .02 .001* Category X Gender 4 .73 <.01 .570 S within-group 893 (19.77) error ________________________________________________________________________ Note : Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors. p 2 denotes partial eta squared. An asterisk indicates significant results p <.01. MHCS scores. The ANOVA indicated no signif icant interaction between protected category and gender F(4,893) = .733 p > .05, partial eta square ( p2) = .003, but significant main effects for prot ected category F(4,893) = 25.15, p < .001, p2 = .10, and gender, F(1,893) = 17.79, p < .001, p2 = .02 (See Table 4.1). The multiple correlation coefficient squared or R2 is a measure of the strength of relationship. The multiple correlation coefficient squared for the 5 x 2 two-way ANOVA model was R2 = .29 and the adjusted R2 for the model was adjusted R2 = .28. A Levenes test of unequal variance was conducted to determine whether the assumption of equal error variance had been violated. Levenes test was significant F(9,893) = 9.87, p < .001 indicating the assump tion had been violated concluding the error variance is not equal across gro ups. A one-way ANOVA was conducted for protected category and gender separately to explore whether the violation of equal variance occurred in both analyses.

PAGE 85

74 Research Questions Research question #1: Does law enforcement officer level of agr eement with hate crime classification vary across protected category? Differences in responses across protected category. As stated previously, the main effect of protected category was significant F (4,893) = 25.15, p < .001, p 2 = .10 (See Table 4.1). The results of the one way ANOVA for protected category was also significant, F (4,913) = 83.64, p < .001 (See Table 4.2). The p 2 is a measure of effect size or strength of relationship. It is a measure of variance that is uniquely accounted for by a particular variable: p 2 = SSeffect / (SSeffect + SSerror) The effect size for protected category was moderate-large p 2 = .10 (Pallant, 2005) Table 4.2: One-way Analysis of Varian ce for Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores by Protected Category ________________________________________________________________________ Source df F p 2 p ________________________________________________________________________ Between subjects Category 4 83.64 .27 .001* S within-group 913 (20.41) error ________________________________________________________________________ Note : Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors p 2 denotes partial eta squared. An asterisk indicates significant results p <.01 A Levenes test of unequal variance was conducted to dete rmine whether the assumption of equal error variances had been violated. Levenes test for protected categories was significant F (4,913) = 22.56, p < .001 indicating the assumpti on had been violated and the error variance is not equal across groups.

PAGE 86

75 The violation of equal vari ance assumption was addressed in two ways: first, the large sample size functions to counteract the effects of the assumpti on on the type I error rate, and second, post-hoc analyses were chos en to take the violation into account. The Tamhane test is considered one of the more conservative tests when the equal error variance assumption has been violated (Green & Salkind, 2003) and adjusts the degrees of freedom to account for the violation. For the multiple comparison tests, the difference between the mean disability sub-scale sc ore and that for race, religion, and sexual orientation was statistically significant p < .001. The differe nce between disability and gender was not statistically significant. Participants taking the Modified Hate Crime Survey (MHCS) agreed with categorizing a crime as a bias crime less often when the crime was committed against a person with a disability ( M = 26.32, SD = 5.13, Range = 8 to 35, 95% CI 25.57 to 27.07), than when the bias crime scenario was committed against a person because of sexual orientation ( M = 28.79, SD = 4.40, Range = 16 to 35, 95% CI 28.15 to 29.43), religion ( M = 31.00, SD = 3.76, Range = 14 to 35, 95% CI 38.52 to 23.48), or race ( M = 32.86, SD = 3.07, Range = 20 to 35, 95% CI 32.42 to 33.31). The mean response for gender was similar to disability in te rms of mean score, variabili ty and range of responses ( M = 25.68, SD = 5.72, Range = 9 to 35, 95% CI 24.85 to 26.52). (See Figure 4.1)

PAGE 87

76 Note : Values on solid line in center of the box represent mean score of the subscale, the box represents one standard deviation from the mean, and the line or whisker represents the 95% confidence band. The protected categories are religion (religion), sexual orientation (sex orient), gender (gender), race (race), and disability (disability). The non-hate crime item categor y (non-hate) is not a protected category. Those items that did not have bias crime indicators were separated into a separate category to illustrate the LEO ability to distin guish between items with and without bias crime indicators. Figure 4.1: Mean MHCS Subscal e Score by Protected Category non hate religion sex orient gender race disability Protected Category 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 Mean Score 2.00 5.10 6.60 5.30 6.20 5.80

PAGE 88

77 Table 4.3: One-way Analysis of Variance fo r Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores by Gender ________________________________________________________________________ Source df F p 2 p ________________________________________________________________________ Between subjects Gender 1 12.97 .01 .001* S within-group 901 (27.04) error ________________________________________________________________________ Note : Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors. p 2 denotes partial eta squared. An asterisk indicates significant results p <.01 The mean score for each of the subscale s corresponds to the following point on the seven-point scale: race, 6.6, religion, 6.2, sexual orient ation, 5.8, disability, 5.3, and gender, 5.1. (See Figure 4.1) It is noteworthy that the same tr end noted with mean scores was evident with the variability in the data with the excepti on of disability and gender, which were reversed: race ( SD = 3.067), religion ( SD = 3.790), sexual orientation ( SD = 4.399), disability ( SD = 5.139) and gender ( SD = 5.690) (See Figure 4.1). Research question #2: Does law enforcement officer mean level of agreement with hate crime classification vary by gender? Differences across gender. The 5 x 2 ANOVA was signi ficant for gender, F (1,893) = 17.79, p < .001, p 2 = .02 (See Table 4.1). The one-way ANOVA for gender was also significant, F (1,901) = 12.97, p < .001, p 2 = .01 (See Table 4.3). The effect size for gender was small p 2 = .02 (Pallant, 2005). The Le vene test was significant F (1,901) = 7.78, p < .05 indicating the assumption of equal variance was violated.

PAGE 89

78 Research question #3: Is there an intera ction between protected category and gender on law enforcement officer mean level of agreement with hate crime enhancement? The 5 x 2 two-way ANOVA was conducted to determine whether an interaction existed between protected category and gender. The ANOVA for gender X category interaction was not significant F (4,893) = .73, p >.05. (See Figure 4.2) (See Table 4.1) Research question #4: Does age, attitudes towards persons with disabilities, and contact with persons with disabilitie s provide predictive ability for law enforcement officers agreement with hate crime enhancement for persons with disabilities? It was hypothesized that age, contact with people with disabilities, and attitudes toward people with disabili ties would provide some predic tion of the MHCS subscale score for disability. Table 4.4: Summary of Multiple Regression An alysis for Variables Predicting Level of Agreement with Bias Crime Enhancement (N = 166) ________________________________________________________________________ Variable B SE B ________________________________________________________________________ Age -.006 .045 -.010 CDP Score .041 .033 .097 ATDP-A .038 .019 .159 ________________________________________________________________________ Note: R2 for the multiple regression model w as .041 and the adjusted R2 was .023.

PAGE 90

79 Table 4.5: Analysis of Variance for Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores by Race, Gender, Race X Gender ________________________________________________________________________ Source df F p 2 p ________________________________________________________________________ Between subjects Race 1 2.96 <.01 .086 Gender 1 3.07 <.01 .080 Race X Gender 1 .11 <.01 .744 S within-group 1074 (75.18) error ________________________________________________________________________ Note : Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors p 2 reported is a partial eta squared. Where = predicted MHCS-Disability subscale score, = the intercept, 1 = the slope for ATDP-A score, 2 = the slope for the CDP score, and 3 = the slope for age. The model was not significant F (3,162) = 2.29, p >.05 (See Table 4.4) (See Figure 4.3). The MHCSdisability subscale score pred iction equation including the three predictor variables is as follows: Predicted MHCS-disability subscale score = 19.66 [Age (.01)] + [CDP (.04)] + [ATDP-A (.04)]. The unstandardized regr ession equation allows prediction of the MHCS Disability Subscale score from the th ree predictor variables used in the present study. The multiple correlation coefficient squared or R2 is a measure of the strength of relationship. The multiple correlation coefficient squared for the multiple regression model was R2 = .04 and the adjusted R2 for the model was adjusted R2 = .02.

PAGE 91

80 Additional Analyses Variation of Mean Scores Across Protected Category for Race and Gender It appeared from examining the data th at a relationship exis ted between race and gender with regard to MHCS subscale mean scores. Additional analyses were necessary to determine whether the observed differences were significant. A 2 X 2, two-way ANOVA was conducted to determine whether the mean level of agreement with bias crime enhancemen t depended on gender and race. The ANOVA indicated no significant interaction between gender and race F (1,1074) = .107, p > .05, no significant main effects for gender F (1,1074) = 3.07, p >.05, or race, F (1,1074) = 2.96, p >.05 (See Table 4.5). Variation of Mean Scores Across Severity of Crime and Type of Crime Indicator As reported in Chapter 3, the crime scenario s were balanced with regard to severity of crime. The scale was modified so that e ach protected category had two crime scenarios in the very heinous category and at least one item in each of the heinous and somewhat heinous categories with the ex ception of religion, which has three items in the somewhat heinous category. The pattern of severity that emerged from the expert panel was as follows: 1) murder and rape were consider ed very heinous, 2) assault/battery and physical harm were considered heinous, and 3) verbal threats, na me calling and graffiti, were considered somewhat heinous. This includes the MHCS items where bias crime indicators were intentionally removed. A one way ANOVA was conducted to dete rmine whether MHCS mean scores varied across severity of crime and the results were significant F (2,547) = 40.97, p >.001, p 2 = .13. (See Table 4.6). The Levene statis tic for the model was not significant indicating the assumption of equal variances was not viol ated. Post-hoc comparisons

PAGE 92

81 were conducted with Bonferroni correction to cont rol the group-wise error rate. The mean score difference between proper ty damage and verbal threats ( M = 6.23, SD = .79) and both the physical harm items ( M = 5.51, SD = .87) and the murder /rape/torture items ( M = 5.62, SD = .79) was significant p < .001. The difference between the physical harm and murder/rape/torture items was not significant. Crime scenarios were also balanced with re gard to type of bias crime symbols at the crime scene. Each protected category includes one item where the offender is a member of a hate group, one scenario where gr affiti or bias symbols are present at the crime scene and three scenarios where bias la nguage is used verbally or in writing. There is one exception to this rule. The religion category has two crime scenarios where bias symbols are present and no indicators where the perpetrators were members of a hate group.Table 4.6: One-way Analysis of Varian ce for Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores by Severity of Crime ________________________________________________________________________ Source df F p 2 p ________________________________________________________________________ Between subjects Severity 2 40.97 .13 .001* S within-group 547 (.67) error ________________________________________________________________________ Note : Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors p 2 reported is a partial eta squared. An asterisk indicates significant results p <.01

PAGE 93

82 Table 4.7: One-way Analysis of Variance fo r Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores by Bias Crime Indicator ________________________________________________________________________ Source df F p 2 p ________________________________________________________________________ Between subjects Indicator 2 68.65 .20 .001* S within-group 547 (.90) error ________________________________________________________________________ Note : 1) Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors 2) p 2 reported is a partial eta squared. An asterisk indicates significant results p <.01 A one way ANOVA was conducted to determ ine whether mean scores varied across type of crime indicator a nd the results were significant F (2,547) = 68.65, p >.001, p 2 = .20 (See Table 4.7). The Levene statisti c for the model was significant indicating the assumption of equal variances was viol ated. Post-hoc comparisons were conducted with the Tamhane test to control for the violation of equal va riance assumption. The mean score for language ( M = 6.19, SD = .76) was significantly different p < .001 from both bias symbols ( M = 5.14, SD = .98) and the hate group membership of the perpetrator ( M = 5.24, SD = 1.08). The difference between the bi as symbols and group membership items was not significant (See Table 4.7).

PAGE 94

83 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Summary People with disabilities have been subject ed to negative attitu des, prejudice and discrimination throughout history. Evidence of th is lies in the fact that PWD experience abject poverty, employment disc rimination, and crime victimizat ion at rates greater than the general population. The numbe r of hate crimes reported for PWD is surprisingly much lower than other protected categories, a trend inconsistent with prejudicial treatment that often occurs in other areas of th eir lives. If the investig ation of a hate crime involving a victim with a disa bility is subjected to the same forms of prejudicial treatment, the lower than expected number of hate crimes reported could be the result of underreporting. One possible explanation for un derreporting of hate crimes is if law enforcement officers fail to recognize the elements of a hate crime. 1. It has been the goal of this research to determine whether a law enforcement officer is less likely to agree with the bias enhan cement of a crime if the victim is a person with a disability compared to other protected classes. To that end, the Hate Crime Survey instrument (Miller, 2001) was modifi ed to include scenarios of bias crimes committed against PWD. The MHCS instru ment was administered to 184 sworn and certified law enforcement officers em ployed by the Alachua County Sheriffs department. The following is a summary of specific findings: 2. The mean score for level of agreemen t with endorsement of bias crime classification appears to be influenced by protected category. The mean score among LEOs was significantly lower for crimes committed against a person because of a disability than for crimes committed because of the victims race, religion, or sexual orientation. In addition, th e variability in the data was greater for disability, gender and sexual orientation categories compared to the race and religion categories. The difference in le vel of agreement among law enforcement officers was not significant between disa bility and gender. Protected category accounted for 10% of the variance in the data. The partial eta squared of .10 is

PAGE 95

84 conservatively regarded as a medium to large effect size (Green & Salkind, 2003). Although the difference between disabil ity and race, religion, and sexual orientation is statistically significant, it is important to comment on the practical significance of the difference. The mean score for the disability sub-scale corresponds to a 5.1 on the 7 point scale, which places the mean score on the agreement half of the scale. Therefore, although the extent of agreement is less, the mean score is closer to agreement w ith bias crime categorization than nonagreement. Additionally, the seven poin t scale was useful in detecting small variations in the agreement with bias crim e categorization but it is unclear how that translates into differences in decision-making in the field. 3. Overall MHCS score appears to be influe nced by gender. Although this finding is consistent with the result s found by Miller (2001), it s hould be interpreted with caution. The assumption of equal variance was violated and the sample size for females (n=12) was substantially smalle r than for males (n= 161). Although the trend in this study was for females to ra te crime scenarios higher than males, gender accounted for only 2% of the varian ce in the data, which is considered a small effect size (Green & Salkind, 2003). 4. There does not appear to be a protec ted category X gender interaction. The category by gender interaction in the ANOVA model was not significant p > .05. Although an interaction does not exist, it is important to point out that the ANOVA model including both gender and protected category as factors accounted for 28% of the variance in the data. 5. Attitudes towards persons with disabilitie s, age, and contact with people with disabilities does not appear to contribute any information towards the prediction of MHCS-disability subscale score. However, the lack of significance could be an issue of power. The regression model requ ired 240 subjects to have sufficient power .80 to detect a small effect size. 184 LEOs consented to pa rticipate in this study. However, due to missing data, the total sample for the multiple regression model was N = 166. 6. The mean law enforcement officer attitude towards people with disabilities was higher than expected given the literature on contact and attitude The nature of the relationship between a LEO and a PWD is that of unequal status. Therefore, it would be hypothesized that police officer at titudes would be more negative because the nature of the relationship is not consistent with All ports (1954) criteria for the formation of positive attitudes (Amir, 1969; Dixon et. al., 2005) and is consistent with other professions where negative attitudes have been reported in the literature (Wills, 1978). The mean attitude score on a scale of 0 to 180 was 126 ( M = 126, SD = 21.48) with 95% CI of the scores between 84 and 168. 7. The MHCS mean score appears to vary as a function of severity of crime and type of bias crime indicators present. The re sults showed that damage to property and threats (the least severe of the crimes) had a significantly higher mean score than the more severe categories of physical harm, rape, torture, and murder.

PAGE 96

85 Additionally, means scores for crime scenarios with bias language were significantly higher than for crime scenes with bias symbols of an individuals membership in a hate group. One officer, in a post-survey discussion, indicated that items involving language often convey the in tent of the perpetrator. For example, bias symbols and group membership may be indicators of a bias crime but in order to build a case to prove motive, its necessa ry to have proof of intent. This supports the discussion on Apprendi v. New Jersey in terms of the increased burden to prove motivation when building a case for sentence enhancement. Discussion The major aim of this study was to determine whether law enforcement officer agreement with bias crime enhancement woul d vary as a function of protected category. Moreover, the study attempted to isolate some of the variables that might account for the variation in MHCS disability sub-scale scores. Several inte resting patterns emerged from the data. 1) The strongest agreement with bias crime enhancement was for race and religion followed by sexual orientation, and last ly gender and disability ; 2) the variability in the data was smallest for the race cat egory, followed by religion, sexual orientation, gender and disability, in that or der; 3) mean scores tended to be higher for females than for males; 4) Attitudes towards people with di sabilities, age and contact does not allow for any prediction of the va riance of crime scenarios in the disability category. Agreement with bias crime enhancement. Findings of this study suggest that law enforcement officer agreement to enhance a crime as a bias crime may vary depending on the victims membership in a protected class. Specifica lly, law enforcement officers may perceive bias crime indicators differently if the victim was chosen because of his or her disability or because of gender compared to race, religion, and sexual orientation. Conversely, officer agreement with bias enhancement ma y be higher for protected classes such as race, religion, and sexual orientation. There ar e several explanations that may account for the variability in the data across protecte d categories, including: 1) law enforcement

PAGE 97

86 officers may have greater exposure to hate crimes committed against people in protected classes other than persons with disabilities; 2) Gender and race trends; 3) the theory that persons with disabilities are of ten perceived by others as victims and helpless. As a result, crimes against persons with disabilities are of ten considered crimes of opportunity rather than bias crimes, and 4) The psychomet ric properties of the MHCS instrument. Increased exposure There are several possible explan ations to explain why LEOs may have greater exposure to hate crimes committed against people in protected classes other than PWD. 1) The number of hate crimes re ported each year is largest for race, followed by religion, sexual orientation, ethn icity and disability, in that order. Given the fact that hate crimes based on race are reported more of ten, it is reasonable that LEOs have more experience with race based hate crimes than with other categories, and may therefore tend to recognize the elements of hate crimes or bias indicators more often for crimes committed against victims in those categories. 2) Race, religion, and ethnicity were included in the first congre ssional hearings on hate crime in 1985 (McPhail, 2002). However, between 1985 and the passing of th e act in 1990, the influence of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered (GLBT) organizatio ns prompted congressional hearings on anti-gay violence, which resulted in sexual orientation being included in the passing of the Act in 1990. Although sexual orientation was included in the initi al passing of the act in 1990, anti-gay violence was introduced in th e discussions later th an race, religion and ethnic violence (McPhail, 2002). Disability was included in the Hate Crime Statistics Act 7 years after the initial passing of the Act. A lthough gender isnt include d in the Act, it is recognized as a protected categ ory in bias crime legislati on in approximately 20 states and advocates lobbied for the inclusion of gender at the time disability was included.

PAGE 98

87 Moreover, individuals who opposed the incl usion of gender in federal hate crime legislation referenced the fact that perpetra tors of gender based crimes are often known to the victim, a characteristic shared by perpetrators of crimes against people with disabilities. The late entry of discussions on disability and gender as protected categories results in decreased exposure to discussions for those protected classes. Further, the information LEOs receive may be misinfor mation. For example, the fact that the perpetrator-victim relationship is often used as a reason fo r non-inclusion might function to reinforce biases, which in turn may result in a LEOs resistance to classify an incident as a hate crime. 3). Historical evidence of race, religion and sexual orientation-based hate crimes has been prominently reflected in media coverage for those crimes. For example, in 1998, James Byrd, an African American, was tied to a car and drag ged to his death in Jasper, Texas. In the same year, Matthew Shephard, a homosexual male, was beaten to death in Laramie, Wyoming. The Byrd and Shephard case received widespread media coverage, with good reason. However, in the same year, the Department of Justice received 23 reports of hate crimes committe d against a person because of disability. Three of the cases were reported from the stat e of Texas. Yet none of these stories were reported in the media. The proportion of crimes reported in the race, religion and sexual orientation categories, the late inclusion of disability in the federal legislation, and lack of media coverage may all have resulted in LEOs r eceiving less exposure to disability motivated hate crimes and the characteristics associated with them. If true, LEOs may have less knowledge about hate crimes against persons with disabilities and less experience working with a crime victim with a disability.

PAGE 99

88 Gender and race trends It appears that females scores on the MHCS overall were higher than for their male counterparts. A lthough the difference was significant, the small effect size and the lack of significant with gender x category interaction offer little support for further exploration of gender. A dditionally, it appears that there is not a significant difference between Caucasia n and non-Caucasian participants. Persons with disabilities perceived by as victims. It has been suggested that people with disabilities may be perceived as vi ctims (McMahon, et. al., 2004; Sorensen, 2001). McMahon et. al. reported that disability expert s attribute the perception of vulnerability of people with disabilities as a possible expl anation for the low number of reported hate crimes. If people with disabilities are percei ved as vulnerable or victims, the process of LEOs determining whether the perpetrator was motivated by actuarial reasons or animus becomes increasingly more difficult.A bias crime is one that is committed in whole or in part by the offenders bias. However, the proc ess of gathering information to prove the perpetrator acted out of animus becomes increasingly more difficult if there are multiple motivations. Therefore, even if there are bias indicators at a crime scene involving a person with a disability, havi ng elements of both bias and actuarial motivation could make the bias indicators seem ambiguous. As a matter of course, the other motivating factors may become the salient feature of the investigation. Although there is evidence that perpetrators of hate crimes may have multiple motivations for committing the criminal act (McPhail, 2002) the complex ity of multiple perpetrator motivation may influence LEO decision-making more if they be lieve a person with a disability cannot be the victim of a hate crime. Conversely, LEOs may focus more on th e aspects of a crime scene that supports the belief that PWD are vi ctims of actuarial crim es because of their

PAGE 100

89 vulnerability. From a practical standpoint, if evidence of hate crime motivation must be robust for a prosecuting attorney to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury, the complexity of multiple motivations may ma ke proving hate motivation difficult. This may explain why the highest agreement with hate crime enhancement was for crime scenarios involving bias language because it conveyed the in tent of the perpetrator. The MHCS instrument Another possible explanation for th e variability in the data is the modification of the MHCS instrument. The scen arios were modified to ensure that they were balanced with regard to the number and type of bias crime indi cators and severity of the crime. However, the reliability of the sub-scales was lower than ideal with the disability subscale having an internal consistency of =.61. With a large portion of the variability resulting from error, further expl oration is needed to determine what other factors contribute to LEO decision-making. It is possible that balancing the crime scenarios with regard to bias crime indicators resulted in th e disability and gender items lacking face validity. For example, MHCS item #5, A Caucasian woman is found raped and murdered and covered in a flag that is painted with the word bitch was modified from the original version A woman is found raped and murdered to include graffiti at the crime scene. However, that graffiti ma y not correspond well to actual bias crimes committed against a women. The item mean ( M = 3.59, SD = 2.12) was considerably lower than the scale mean ( M = 5.13, SD = 1.71) for gender. Another component of the instrument that may account for the variability is the apparent ceiling effect for the race a nd religion subscales. Although one possible explanation for the lower amount of variability with these subscales is more confidence in rating crime scenarios falling in these protect ed classes, it can also be a function of a

PAGE 101

90 ceiling effect. A problem with side effects is that it functions to reduce overall variability and the scales items ability to discriminate. Attitude, age, and contact as predictors. The fact that attitudes towards people with disabilities, age, and contact with people w ith disabilities was not found to significantly predict LEOs agreement with bias crime classification of disability hate crimes is interesting. As stated previous ly, one possible explanation coul d be the lack of power to detect a meaningful effect size. However, it is possible that attitudes and contact with people with disabilities must be situation specific. For exampl e, the result of McDevitts (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000) survey of police officers suggests that police officer attitudes is an important factor in determin ing whether a crime is categorized as a hate crime. However, the police officers were refe rring to police officer attitudes about hate crimes, not about the individual. Therefor e, although it was hypothesi zed that attitudes concerning PWD may provide some prediction, it is possible that the ATDP-A and the CDP are too general as measures and need to be situation specific. For example, neither the ATDP-A or the CDP ask questions specific to crime or victimi zation of people with disabilities. Therefore, its possible that fam iliarity with investigating crimes where the victim is a PWD would be a better predicto r of agreement with the classification of a disability motivated bias crime. It was interesting to find generally more positive attitudes towards people with disabilities among the LEOs in this study. Although Allports (1954) theory suggests that contact functions to mode rate prejudice, it has been theo rized that the contact must be of equal status; otherwise the contact can form negative attitudes (Amir, 1969; Dixon et. al., 2005) which has been used to explain negative attitudes among health

PAGE 102

91 professionals, etc. However, the nature of the relationship between a victim with a disability and LEO is one of unequal status and yet law enforcement officer attitudes towards people with disabilities appear to be related to contact. Moreover, the findings appear to refute the theories of Allport ( 1954) and Amir (1969) and are consistent with the results of the meta-analysis performed by Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) that shows contact of any type functions to form positive a ttitudes. It is also important to recall that the attitude and contact scales do not measure the constructs relative to law enforcement. Therefore, although the nature of the relationship is one of unequal status, a high CDP score does not necessarily mean it is measuri ng unequal status relationships. It could be measuring equal status from contact with a friend, spouse, or other family member. Finally, the higher than expected attitude scores for LEOs may be attributable to the high number of officers reporting tr aining on disability issues, specifically, 81% of the 126 participants who answered the question con cerning training reported training on disability issues. Law enforcement officers also rated crim es involving bias language and verbal threats higher than for crimes with bias sym bols or the perpetrators membership in a hate group. Taking into consideration LEO commen ts, it appears that language may be a particularly important component of the crime scenario in es tablishing the intent of the perpetrator. As a result, future modificatio ns of the MHCS instrument should consider crime scenarios that include more than one bi as indicator and ensure there is evidence of intent.

PAGE 103

92 Limitations The following limitations were recognized in the present study regarding the external validity, reliability and validity of the instrument, assumption violations, response bias, and research design. 1. External validity. The convenience samp le used suggests that the sample is probably not representative of all law en forcement officers. This prevents the results from being generalized beyond th e Alachua County Sheriffs Department. 2. Instrument Reliability. Alt hough the MHCS yielded an alpha coefficient of .81, the alpha coefficient for the subscales ranged fr om .72 to .61 with the highest reliability for the race sub-scale and the lowest for th e disability sub-scale. The lower internal consistency of the sub-scales can result in an underestimation of the amount of variability in the subscale accounted for by attitudes and other va riables. Moreover, lower reliability can also reduce power making thereby making detection of relationships difficult. It is noteworthy th at the alpha coefficient for the overall scale increases to .88 with the non-hate items removed from the analysis. 3. Assumption violations. Although the Ta mhane, Dennett T3, and Games-Howell tests were used to account for unequal vari ance, the violation of the assumption is noteworthy and the results should be interpreted with caution. 4. Instrument validity. It is im portant to recognize that this research project utilized crime scene scenarios, which have little resemblance to actual bias crime investigation. In other words, law enfor cement officers rarely are in a position where they are forced to make a decision on a crime where he or she cannot investigate further and gather additional information. In addition, the apparent ceiling effect with the ra ce and religion subscales may account for the lower variability with those subscales. 5. Response bias. Although ther e is evidence that LEOs were truthful in their responses, the fact that some of the offi cers were reluctant to sign their forms, missing data, and comments by training offi cers suggests that participants may not have been forthright in their responses. 6. Research design. The present research study did not employ an experimental research design. Therefore, the relations hips observed do not allow for causal interpretation. The limitations in this study suggest that any results should be interpreted with caution. The modest reliability of the instru ment suggests that it may not be measuring the effect of protected category on bias crim e enhancement or the large amount of error

PAGE 104

93 variance could be the result of a response bias, such as defensiveness, from participants. The validity of the instrument has yet to be established. The instrument was initially created for criminal justice students and this is the first research study where it was administered to LEOs. As a result, it is unclear what impact a lower mean agreement score on the MHCS-disability subscale has on an officers investigation of a crime scene or decision to arrest an alleged perpetrator fo r a hate crime or not. The significant results of the study should also be in terpreted with caution. The a ssumption of equal variance was violated. Although this was accounted for in post-hoc analyses, it is noteworthy and future studies should consider this in the research design. Because the study did not use an experimental design, the re sulting relationships in the data do not allow for causal interpretation. This should al so be addressed in future research.Its also necessary to weigh the limitations with the positive aspe cts of this research study. No published research study has ever surveyed law enfor cement officers on factors that contribute to law enforcement officer agreement with bias crime enhancement. Moreover, no study has ever measured LEO attitudes towards or contac t with people with disabilities. Over the two month period, the training officers a ppeared to become increasingly more comfortable with discussing the research study and offer useful feedback on the instrument they heard from officers after co mpleting the survey. This information has proven to be invaluable in the interpretation of the data and will most probably guide the approach to measurement with future projects. Recommendations for Future Research This research is a first step toward unde rstanding why the number of reported bias crimes against persons with disabilities is considerably lower than other protected categories. Generally, future re search efforts should focus on: 1) the sample and research

PAGE 105

94 design so results can be generalized beyond the scope of this study 2) improvement of the MHCS instrument, 3) exploration of factors th at will contribute to the prediction of the differences observed in this study. Sample First, a larger, more representative sample would allow for replication of the results in this study and fo r the results of future studies to be generalized beyond the Alachua County Sheriffs department. Future st udies should also increase the sample size for the regression analysis to have sufficien t power to detect a re lationship between the predictor and outcome variables. Perpetrator profile Greater insight into the perpetrators of hate crimes against a person with a disability is needed. Approximately 200 hate crimes have been reported through 2003. A qualitative analysis of court documents su ch as depositions, investigative reports, etc. could provide some insight into whether th e perpetrators fit one more of the profiles reported by McDevitt, Levin a nd Bennett (2002) or whether a different profile exists, similar to the perpetrators of parallel crimes against people with disabilities. Perpetrator information of this kind is a necessary precursor to formal law enforcement officer training. Moreover, the validity of gender and disability bias crime items require a deeper understanding of the contributing factors of bias crime classifi cation in those cases and an exploration of how they differ from race, re ligion, and sexual orientation bias crimes. Research design. As mentioned previousl y, of the 126 participants who answered the questions concerning training, 81% reporte d participating in tr aining on disability issues and yet only 54% reporte d participating in training on the investigation of a hate crime. Clearly, there is a need for further training with the Alachua County Sheriffs department on the investigation of hate crimes Moreover, an experime ntal design such as

PAGE 106

95 a Solomon four-group design would be able to determine the effect of training on police officer agreement. Instrument reliability and validity Future work on the MHCS should explore the temporal stability of the instrument with a se ries of test-retest reliability experiments. Future validity studie s could create a larger item pool and involve law enforcement officers in choosing the items for inclusi on in the scale. Additionally, a Guttman scale (agree versus disagree) coul d be used to evaluate the predictive validity or practical implications of the MHCS.State attorney pa rticipants. Although the focus of this study was on factors that affect police deci sion making, anecdotal comments from law enforcement officers suggest th at the LEO often consults th e state attorneys office who ultimately charges the alleged perpetrator. Th erefore, future studies should involve the local state attorneys office that work with th e LEOs to ascertain what they contribute to any variance across categories. Involvement of people with disabilities Although this research project has focused on law enforcement officer decision-maki ng, future studies should explore victim variables that affect reporting such as: 1) Are people with disabilities aware they can be the victim of a hate crime? 2) Are advocacy groups (e.g. Centers for Independent Living, Developmental Disabilities Counc ils, etc) aware that persons with disabilities can be the victim of a hate crime and, if so, do they mon itor crime in their respective area or provide advocacy services to persons with disabilities who have been the victim of a crime? It is possible that a lack of awareness of hate crimes against persons with disabilities has resulted in a lower likelihood that the vi ctims themselves advocate for hate crime designations.

PAGE 107

96 Law enforcement officer. A research study explori ng the relationship between MHCS scores and judgment or decision maki ng would provide important information to law enforcement. As stated previously, the decision to classify a crime as a bias crime is a dichotomous outcome, it either is or it isnt. Future research should explore the use of the MHCS as a predictor variable for a dichotomous outcome, classi fy as a hate crime or not. Law enforcement officers may also provide ad ditional insight into variables that may account for police officer decision-making. A focus group of law enforcement officers may prove to be useful in identifying additi onal factors to measure in future studies. Future studies should also look at a larg er sample size to include additional predictor variables in the model. For example, hate crime investigation training, experience investigating hate crimes, experi ence investigating crimes involving victims with disabilities (situation sp ecific contact), attitudes about persons with disabilities as potential victims of hate crimes, years of LEO experience, disability training, agency practice and policy, and state legislation are potential vari ables that may account for a larger portion of the variance. Implications for Practice and Education The results of this study may have implicat ions for: 1) law enforcement, 2) crime victim advocates, 3) rehabilitation counselors, and 4) rehabilitati on counselor educators and researchers. This section contains sugge stions for each of these professional groups in terms of recommendations for practice, policies, procedures, continuing education training, and education. Law enforcement agencies would benefit from examining the policies and procedures of the agency as well as the tr aining of law enforcement officers. Nolan & Akiyama (1999) mention organizational policies and procedures as the number one factor

PAGE 108

97 in determining hate crime reporting by LEO s. Agency policy that mandates specific training on disability issues and hate crim e investigation, including disability motivated hate crimes, could increase LEO recognition of disability motivated hate crimes. Law enforcement administration could also consid er policies that require a crime victim advocate trained in the investigation of disabi lity motivated hate crimes to respond with a LEO to the interview the victim. Most jurisdictions have one or more programs consisting of Crime Victim Advocates that provide assist ance to victims of crime. These programs may be funded through the United States Department of Jus tice or through state or local government monies. These agencies often work in close contact with law enforcement agencies and LEOs. In fact, some agencies are co-located with the law enforcement agency. Crime Victims Advocates would probabl y also benefit from training similar to LEOs in terms of disability awareness with a particular emphasis on fact ors that affect individual reporting and techniques fo r interviewing crime victims with disabilities. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) qu ite often develops following hate crime victimization (Cheng, 2004; Craig-Hende rson, Kellina, & Sloan, 2002); Kaysen, Lostutter, & Goines, 2005)). If disability motivated hate crimes go unreported, it may be more likely that the residual psychological effects of the crime may go undiagnosed and untreated. If a person with a disability is e xperiencing post-traumatic stress disorder and the rehabilitation counselor is unaware, the untreated condition can interfere with the rehabilitation plan (Cheng, 2004). Moreover, PT SD can interfere with an individuals ability to function in the wo rk environment (Keim, Males ky, & Strauser, 2003) and with overall life satisfaction (Keim, et. al.). Re habilitation counselors might wish to inquire

PAGE 109

98 about criminal victimization during intake as sessments. Moreover, the policies of the vocational rehabilitation agency may want to reflect a similar interest in gathering data on the criminal victimization of their clients with disabilities. Rehabilitation counselor educat ors might wish to consider incorporating information on disability motivated hate crime into the pre-service training curriculum.For example, educators might create opportunities to role-p lay interviewing of a crime victim in counseling skills and techniques classes. Add itionally, various issues related to hate crimes and other types of victimization could be addressed in course s on ethics, diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders, treat ment planning and case management, human growth and development, and evaluation a nd assessment. Moreover, a crime victim advocacy program can serve as a practicum site for the development of counseling skills. The maintenance of the Certified Reha bilitation Counselor through continuing education provides another avenue for keepi ng the rehabili tation professional updated on advancements in knowledge about disabil ity motivated hate crimes. Professional conferences and journals provi de an excellent opportunity to educate professionals in rehabilitation counseling as well as prof essionals in other counseling disciplines. Conclusion Although disability experts speculated as to the reasons for the low numbers of disability motivated hate crimes, no evidence existed before now to substantiate these explanations or to refute the alternative, that people with disabilities are simply not victims of hate crimes at a rate similar to ot her protected classes. The results of this study suggest that LEOs may not rec ognize the elements of a hate crime to the same degree when it involves a person with a disability. Moreover, LEOs may be less certain of their thoughts on hate crime categorization when th e victim is a person with a disability.

PAGE 110

99 This awareness has implications for future research. Continuing to ask questions about the factors that influe nce law enforcement officer decision making is important. Moreover, there are a number of questions concerning factors that affect reporting of crimes by PWD. A greater understanding of la w enforcement and victim variables is necessary to understand the overa ll validity of the hate crime data collected. Further, interventions in the form of training, educat ion, and advocacy are necessary to adequately estimate the extent of the problem in the lives of people with disabilities. The importance of this study to the live d experience of people with disabilities should not go unstated. Never before have LEO s in the United States been surveyed on the combined issues of crime against people with disabilities, at titudes towards people with disabilities, and contact with people with disabilities. The results of this research suggest the need for further training and awareness of LEO, involvement of disability experts in crime victim advocacy, and the de velopment of understand ing and recognition of hate crimes among persons with disabilities. The result of these interventions can and should be to facilitate participation in the criminal justice proce ss in a manner accessible for a crime victim with a disa bility. Accessibility is meant to mean more than physical accessibility. It is about attitudi nal accessibility, pro cess accessibility, and the like. It is the recognition, the awareness, that there are factors that deter participation by persons with disabilities. More importa ntly, persons with disabilities have a right to expect equal participation in the criminal justice system when their civil liberties have been violated in the same way they have a righ t to expect equal liberties.

PAGE 111

100 APPENDIX A MODIFIED HATE CRIME SURVEY The Modified Hate Crime Survey (MHCS) INSTRUCTIONS The purpose of this study is to gather info rmation from a wide range of people on crimescene related issues. The crime scenarios presen ted in this survey are actual crimes that were committed in different areas of the United States. There is only one section to the survey, consisting of a total of thirty crime scenarios. Read each case scenario and then indicate, using the scale below, your opinion of the likelihood that each crime scenario constituted a hate crime. We are simply looking for your opinion (i.e., the degree to which you pers onally agree the crime scenario presented constitutes a hate crime). A hate crime is defined as a criminal offense committed against person or property that is motivated in whole or in part, by the offenders bias. The scale below is an example of the scale you will be asked to use to rate the crimes scenarios in the survey. Please familiarize yourself with the scale before taking the survey. If you feel the crime scenario absolutely cons tituted a hate crime ci rcle a "1"on the scale following the item. If you feel the crime scenar io absolutely did not constitute a hate crime circlet a "7" on the scale following the item. The other numbers on the scale indicate partial agreement or partial disagreement with these statements. The survey should take you approximately 15 minutes to complete. Please rate all the items. Strongl y Agree Strongl y Disagr ee 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 112

101 Please proceed to page 3 Crime Scenario Strongly Disagre e Strongly Agree 1. A man who was blind was crossing the street in front of a local program for the blind when two men grabbed his cane and beat him. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. A group of women is attacked by assailants from a white supremacist group for wearing mens clothing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Three employees were killed in the bombing of a Muslim businessmans office. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. A woman enters an elevator in her apartment building and is battered by an unknown assailant. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. A Caucasian woman is found raped and murdered and covered in a flag that is painted with the word bitch. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. A cross is burned in front of a couple house. The couple happens to be white, however, they have adopted an African American baby. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. The parents of a child who contracted HIV/AIDS from a transfusion, had the windows of their car smashed in and a note was found stating people with AIDS arent welcome in the neighborhood. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. A white man yelling racial slurs hits a black man with a shovel. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. A gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) community center is set on fire killing three members of the GLBT community. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. A Muslim man awakes to all Muslims are terrorists painted on his house. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. A black man is chased by four white men from the Klu Klux Klan who threw rocks and bottles at him, eventually killing him. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 113

102 Please proceed to page 4STOP Crime Scenario Strongly Disagre e Strongly Agree 12. A male with schizophrenia is the victim of an assault and battery while waiting at a local bus stop. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. A homosexual is attacked by a group of three men in the parking lot outside his place of employment. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. A man with cerebral palsy was stuffed into a garbage can with taunts of you belong in the trash you cripple. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. Death threats are sent to several women members of the United States Congress with the message women shouldnt hold political office. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. A Jewish man is robbed and beaten while walking home from a local movie theater. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. The word queer is painted on a gay couples car and the windshield is smashed in. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18. While walking down the street, a gay couple is beaten and robbed of their money by three teens, each with a history of hate violence. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. An Hispanic female is found beaten and unconscious in the restroom of a convenience store. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20. A man with a mental disability was kidnapped by nine men and women from a white supremacist group and tortured for three hours. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21. A Jewish synagogue is painted with swastikas. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 114

103 The MHCS was reprinted and modified with the pe rmission of Dr. Alexandra Miller. Reference at: Miller, A. J. (2001). Student perceptions of hate crime. American Journal of Criminal Justice 25 (2), 293-307. Crime Scenario Strongly Disagre e Strongly Agree 22. While walking through campus, a woman is raped, mugged and is st abbed in the stomach and told women shouldnt be educated. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23. A gay man is stabbed while being robbed in the park. The offender told the victim he was robbing queers in the park. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 24. A black man is found hanging from a tree with a black piece of canvas over his head; beneath him is a note that reads d eath to all niggers. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 25. Some of the Womens National Basketball Association (WNBA) players are threatened to be killed while playing a sport that is only for men. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 26. The schoolmates of an 18-year-old high school student with a developmental disability soaked his lunch with urine and watched him eat it, telling him that retards dont belong in this school. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 27. A racist, threatening letter is sent to a black family that operates a hair salon, warning them to stop making niggers hair look like white peoples. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 28. A homosexual is found murdered and the word faggot is found carved in a nearby tree. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 29. A threatening note is left at a Jewish Synagogue stating that all Jews should be executed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 30. Swastikas and anti-Semitic slurs are painted on an outside wall of a private country club next to the body of a Jewish member who was murdered. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 115

104 APPENDIX B DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE Law Enforcement Officer Demographic Questionnaire INSTRUCTIONS The demographic questionnaire consists of three sections. Read the inst ructions at the top of each section and answer each question. I. Place a check in the box next to gender, race, ethnicity, major and standing. Enter your age, in years in the blank space provided Gender Male Female Age _________ (in years) Ethnicity Hispanic Non-Hispanic Race Caucasian African American Asian American Native American Other Education High School Associates Degree Bachelors Degree Masters Degree Post Graduate Law Enforcement Experience _________ (in years) II. Place a check in the box to the right of each question indicating your response. Additional Questions Have you ever interacted with a person with a disability? Yes No Have you ever worked with a person with a disability in a professional capacity where you were in a position of authority? Yes No If you have come in contact with a person or persons with a disability, how would you most often evaluate the experience? Pleasant Unpleasant How would you classify the level of the most meaningful interaction you have had with a PWD? Intimate Superficial III. Place a check in the box to the right of each question indicating your response. Additional Questions Have you ever been involved in an investigation where the victim was a person with a disability? Yes No Have you ever investigated a hate crime? Yes No

PAGE 116

105 Have you received specific training in the investigation of hate crimes ? Yes No Have you ever taken a course or participated in training on disability issues? Yes No

PAGE 117

106 APPENDIX C ATTITUDE TOWARDS DISABLED PERSONS SCALE Read each statement below and circle the co rresponding number according to how much you agree or disagree with it. Please mark every one. +3 I Agree Very Much -1 I Disagree a Little +2 I Agree Pretty Much -2 I Disagree Pretty Much +1 I Agree a Little -3 I Disagree Very Much 1. People with disabilities are ofte n unfriendly. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 2. People with disabilities should not have to compete for jobs with physically normal people. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 3. People with disabilities are more emotional than other people. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 4. Most persons with disabilities are more self-conscious than other people. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 5. We should expect just as much from people with disabilities as from persons without disabilities. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 6. Workers with disabilities cannot be as successful as other workers. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 7. People with disabilities usua lly do not make much of a contribution to society. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 8. Most people without disabilities would not want to marry anyone who has a physically disability. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 9. People with disabilitie s show as much enthusiasm as other people. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 10. Persons with a disability are usually more sensitive than other people. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 11. Persons with a severe disability are usually untidy. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 12. Most people with disabilities feel that they are as good as other people. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3

PAGE 118

107 13. The driving test given to a pe rson with a disability should be more severe than the one given to someone without a disability. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 14. People with disabilities are usua lly sociable -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 15. Persons with a disability usually are not as conscientious as physically normal persons. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 16. Persons with severe disabiliti es probably worry more about their health than those who have minor disabilities. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 17. Most persons with disabilitie s are not dissatisfied with themselves. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 18. There are more misfits among pe rsons with disabilities than among those without disabilities. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 19. Most persons with a disability do not get discouraged easily. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 20. Most persons with a disabili ty resent physically normal people. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 21. Children with disabilities shoul d compete with physically normal children. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 22. Most persons with a disab ility can take care of them selves. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 23. It would be best if persons w ith a disability would live and work with people without disabilities. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 24. Most persons with severe disa bilities are just as ambitious as physically normal persons. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 25. People with disabilities are just as self-confident as other people. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 26. Most persons with a disabili ty want more affection and praise than other people. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 27. Persons with a physical disabili ty are often le ss intelligent than those who have no disability. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 28. Most people with disabilities are different from people -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3

PAGE 119

108 without disabilities. 29. Persons with disabilities don t want any more sympathy than other people. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 30. The way people with disabilities ac t is irritating. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3

PAGE 120

109 APPENDIX D CONTACT WITH DISABLED PERSONS SCALE Please circle the number to th e right of each statement indi cating your answer to each question. Use a number from 1 to 5 to indicate the following: 1 = never; 2 = once or twice; 3 = a few times; 4 = often; 5 = very often. 1. How often have you had a long talk with a person with a disability? 1 2 3 4 5 2. How often have you had a brief c onversation with persons with disabilities? 1 2 3 4 5 3. How often have you eaten a meal with a person with a physical disability? 1 2 3 4 5 4. How often have you contributed money to organizations that help persons with disabilities? 1 2 3 4 5 5. How often have persons with disa bilities discussed their lives or problems with you? 1 2 3 4 5 6. How often have you discussed your life or problems with a person with a disability? 1 2 3 4 5 7. How often have you tried to help pers ons with disabilities with their problems? 1 2 3 4 5 8. How often have persons with disabi lities tried to help you with your problems? 1 2 3 4 5 9. How often have you worked with a c lient, student or patient with a disability on the job? 1 2 3 4 5 10How often have you worked with a co-worker with a disability? 1 2 3 4 5 11How often has a friend with a disability visited you at your home? 1 2 3 4 5 12How often have you visited persons with disabilities in their homes? 1 2 3 4 5 13How often have you met a person with a disability you like? 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 121

110 14How often have you met a person with a disability you dislike? 1 2 3 4 5 15How often have you met a person with a disability that you admire? 1 2 3 4 5 16How often have met a person with a disability for whom you feel sorry? 1 2 3 4 5 17How often have you been annoyed or disturbed by the behavior of a person with a disability? 1 2 3 4 5 18How often have you been pleased by the behavior of a person with a disability? 1 2 3 4 5 19How often have you had pleasant experiences interacting with persons with disabilities? 1 2 3 4 5 20How often have you had unpleasant experiences interacting with persons with disabilities? 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 122

111 APPENDIX E ASSESSMENT OF HEINOUSNESS SURVEY Instructions: The scale below contains 25 actual crime scenarios. Please indicate to the right of each item whether you believe the crime was somewhat he inous, heinous, or very heinous.

PAGE 123

112 Crime Scenario Somewhat Heinous Heinous Very Heinous A man with a mental disability was kidnapped by nine men and women from a white supremacist group and tortured for three hours 1 2 3 A Caucasian woman is found raped, murdered and covered in a flag that is painted with the words male dominance 1 2 3 A homosexual is found murdered and the word faggot is found carved into a nearby tree 1 2 3 While walking down the street, a gay couple is beaten and robbed of their money by three teens, each with a history of hate violence 1 2 3 A racist, threatening letter is sent to a black family that operates a hair salon, warning them to stop making niggers hair look like white peoples 1 2 3 A group of women is attacked by assailants from a white supremacist group for wearing mens clothing 1 2 3 A Jewish synagogue is painted with swastikas 1 2 3 A black man is found hanging from a tree with a black piece of canvas over his head; beneath him is a note that reads death to all niggers 1 2 3 A Muslim man awakes to all Muslims are terrorists painted on his house 1 2 3 Death threats are sent to severa l women members of the United States Congress with the message women shouldnt hold political office. 1 2 3 While walking through campus, a woman is raped, mugged and is stabbed in the stomach and told women shouldnt be educated. 1 2 3

PAGE 124

113 Crime Scenario Somewhat Heinous Heinous Very Heinous A cross is burned in front of a coup le house. The couple happens to be white, however, they have adopted an African American baby 1 2 3 The schoolmates of an 18-year-old high school student with a developmental disability soaked his lunch with urine and watched him eat it while the student with a disability was told retards dont belong in this school. 1 2 3 The word queer is painted on a gay couples car and the windshield is smashed in 1 2 3 A black man is chased by four white men from the Klu Klux Klan who throw rocks and bottles at him, eventually killing him 1 2 3 Three employees were killed in the bombing of a Muslim businessmans office 1 2 3 The parents of a child who cont racted HIV/AIDS from a blood transfusion, had the windows of t heir automobile smashed in and a note was found stating people with AIDS arent welcome in the neighborhood. 1 2 3 A gay man is stabbed while being robbed in the park. The offender told the victim he was robbing queers in the park. 1 2 3 A man with cerebral palsy was stuff ed into a garbage can with taunts of you belong in the trash you cripple. 1 2 3 A man who was blind was crossing the st reet in front of a local program for the blind when two men grabbed his cane and beat him 1 2 3 Swastikas and anti-Semitic slurs are painted on an outside wall of a private country club next to the body of a Jewish member who was murdered 1 2 3

PAGE 125

114 Crime Scenario Somewhat Heinous Heinous Very Heinous A threatening note is left at a Jewish Synagogue stating that all Jews should be executed 1 2 3 A gay, lesbian and bisexual (GLB) community center is set on fire killing three members of GLB community 1 2 3 A white man yelling racial slurs hits a black man with a shovel 1 2 3 Some of the Womens National Basketball Association (WNBA) players are threatened to be killed for playing a sport that is only for men 1 2 3

PAGE 126

115 LIST OF REFERENCES Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and Operation of Attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52 27-58. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50 179-211. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and pr edicting social behavior Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Allport, G. W. (1935). Attitudes. In C. Murchinson (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 798-884). Worcester, MA: Clark University Press. Allport, G. W. (19541979). The nature of prejudice, 25th Anniversary Edition Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books Amir, Y. (1969). Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. Psychological Bulletin, 71 319342. Anderson, J. F., Dyson, L., & Brooks, W. ( 2002). Preventing hate crime and profiling hate crime offenders. The Western Journal of Black Studies, 26 (3), 140-148. Antonak, R.F., & Livneh, H. (1988). The measurement of attitudes towards people with disabilities: Methods, psychometrics and scales Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher. Antonak, R.F. (1980). Psychometric analysis of attitudes towards disabled persons scale, Form-O. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 23 169-176. Aquinas, T. (1264/1905). Summa contra gentiles (J. Richaby, Trans.) London: Burns & Oates. (Original work published in 1264). Aristotle (1962). Nichomachean ethics. (M Ostwald, Trans.) I ndianapolis, IN: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc. (Original work published in 350 B.C.) Bailey, A., Barr, O., & Bunting, B. (2001) Police attitudes toward people with intellectual disability: An ev aluation of awareness training. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 45 344-350. Baladerian, N. (1991). Sexual abuse of pe ople with developmental disabilities. Sexuality and Disability 9, 323-335.

PAGE 127

116 Bandura, A., Ross, R., & Ross, S. (1961). Transmission of aggr ession through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 71 364-374. Bandura., A. (1977). Social learning theory Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Baron, S. (2003). Social control, social consequences, and crim inal behavior: Street youth and the general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 40 403-425. Behnke, S. H., Winick, B. J., & Perez, A. M. (2000). The essentials of Florida mental health law New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. Berkeleyan. (2002). One in a million? Tell it to the Feds Retrieved January 22, 2003 from http://www.berkeley.edu/news .berkeleyan/2003/01/22disabl.html. Block, R. (1974). Why notify the police: The vi ctims decision to no tify the police of an assault. Criminology, 11 555-569. Brand, D. (1997). The future of law enforcement recr uiting: The impact of generation X. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Depart ment of Law Enforcement. Brehm, S. S., Kassin, S., & Fein, S. (2005). Social psychology (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co. Brodwin, M. G. & Orange, L. M. (2002). Attitu des toward disability. In J. D. Andrew & C. W. Faubion (Eds.), Rehabilitation services: An introduction for the human service professional (pp. 174-197). Osage Beach, MO: Aspen Professional Services. Bureau of Justice Statistics (2000). Improving the accuracy of bias crime statistics nationally: An assessment of the first ten years of bias crime data collection Washington, D.C.: Author. Burger, W. R., & Youkeles, M. (2004). Human services in contemporary America (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Cheng, Z. (2004). Hate crimes, posttraumatic stress disorder and implications for counseling lesbians and gay men. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 35 (4), 8-16. Chesler, M.A. (1965). Ethnocentrism and a ttitudes toward the physically disabled. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2 877-882.7 Chubon, R.A. (1982). An analysis of research de aling with the attit udes of professionals toward disability. Journal of Rehabilitation, 48 (1), 25-30. Clark, R. (1970). Crime in America: Observations on its nature, causes, prevention and control New York: Simon & Schuster.

PAGE 128

117 Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Cook, R. J. & Farewell, V. T. (1996). Multip licity considerations in the design and analysis of clinical trials. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 159 93-110. Corey, S. M. (1937). Professed at titudes and actual behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology, 28 271-280. Craig-Henderson, K. & Sloan, L. R. (2002). After the hate: Helping psychologists help victims of racist hate crime. Clinical Psychology Science & Practice, 10 481-490. Crime Victims with Disabilities Awareness Act of 1998, P.L. 105-301. Davis, J. (1959). A formal interpretation of the theory of relative deprivation. Sociometry, 22 28-29. Divine, P. G. (1989). Stereo types and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56 5-18. Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C. (2005) Beyond the optimal contact strategy: A reality check for the contact hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60 697-711. Dovidio, J., Gaertner, S., & Kawakami, K. ( 2003). Intergroup contac t: The past, present and future. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6 5-20. English, R.W., & Oberle, J. (1971). Toward s the development of new methodology for examining attitudes toward disabled persons. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 15 88-96. Estes, J. Deyer, C. A., Hansen, R. A., & Russell, J. C. (1991). Influence of occupational therapy curricula on studen ts attitudes towards persons with disabilities. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45 156-158. Fazio, R. H., Chen, J., McDonel, E. C., & Sherman, S. J. (1982). Attitude accessibility, attitude behavior consistency, and the stre ngth of the object evaluation association. Journal of Experiment al Social Psychology, 18 339-357. Fazio, R. H., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Powell, M. C., & Kardes, F. R. (1986). On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50 229-238. Fazio, R. H., & Towles-Schwen, T. (1999) The MODE model of attitude-behavior processes (pp. 97-116). In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope Eds Dual-Process in Social Psychology New York: Guilford Press

PAGE 129

118 Fazio, R. H., & Williams, C. J. (1986). Attit ude accessibility as a moderator of the attitude-perception and atti tude-behavior relations: An investigation of the 1984 Presidential election. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 51 505-514. Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1981). Direct ex perience and attitude behavior consistency. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experime ntal social psychology (Vol. 14, 162202). New York: Academic press. Federal Bureau of I nvestigation (2003). Hate crime statistics Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Federal Bureau of I nvestigation (2002). Hate crime statistics Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Federal Bureau of I nvestigation (2001). Hate crime statistics Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Federal Bureau of I nvestigation (2000). Hate crime statistics Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Federal Bureau of I nvestigation (1999a). Hate crime statistics Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Federal Bureau of I nvestigation (1999b). Hate crime data reporting guidelines Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Federal Bureau of I nvestigation. (1999c). Uniform Crime Reports: Crime in the United States Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of I nvestigation (1998). Hate crime statistics Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Federal Bureau of I nvestigation (1997). Hate crime statistics Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Fine, M., & Asch, A. (1988). Disabili ty beyond stigma: Social interaction, discrimination, and activism. Journal of Social Issues, 44 3-21. Fisher, J. (1951). The memory process and cer tain psychosocial att itudes with special reference to the law of Pragnanz. Journal of Personality, 19 406-420. Franklin, K. (1998). Unassuming motivations: C ontextualizing the narr atives of anti-gay assailants. In G. M. Herek (Ed.), Sigma and sexual orientation (pp. 1-23). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers. Frenkel-Brunswik, E. (1949). Intolerance of ambiguity as an emotional and perceptual personality variable. Journal of Personality, 18 271-291.

PAGE 130

119 Gosse, V. F., & Sheppard, G. (1979). Attitudes towards physically disabled persons: Do education and personal contact make a difference? Canadian Counselor, 13 131135. Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of a spoiled identity New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc. Gove, W. R., Hughes, M., & Geerken, M. (1985). Are uniform crime reports a valid indicator of the index crimes? An affirm ative answer with minor qualifications. Criminology, 23 451-501. Green, S. B. & Salkind, N. J. (2003). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh : Analyzing and understanding data. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Hegel, G. W. (1807/1967). The phenomenology of mind. (J. B. Baillie, Trans.) Moscow, ID: Harper & Rowe Torchbooks. (O riginal work published in 1807) Hiday, V.A., Swartz, M.S., Swanson, J.W., Bo rum, R. & Wagner, H.R. (1999). Criminal victimization of persons with severe mental illness. Psychiatric Services 50 62-68. Higgins, T. J. (1954). Man as man: The science and art of ethics Milwaukee, WI: The Bruce Publishing Company. Hoffman, M. B. (2003). The case for jury sentencing. [Electronic version]. Duke Law Journal, 52 951-1010. Hutchins, R. M. (1952). American stat e papers. In R. M. Hutchins (Ed.) Great books of the western world : Vol. 43. American state papers, the federalist, on liberty, representative government, utilitarianism (pp. 1-28). Chicago: William Benton, Publisher. Islam, M. R., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Dimensions of contact as predictors of intergroup anxiety, perceived out-group variability, and out-group attitude: An integrative model. Personality and Social Ps ychology Bulletin, 19 700-710. Jamieson, D. W., & Zanna, M. P. (1989). Need for structure in attitude formation and expression. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude structure and function (pp. 383-406). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Kant, I. (1797/1999). Metaphysical elemen ts of justice (2nd ed.). (J. Ladd, Trans.) Indianapolis: Hackett Pub lishing Company, Inc. (Original work published 1797). Katz, D. (17971960). The functional appr oach to the study of attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly 24 163-204.

PAGE 131

120 Kaysen, D., Lostutter, T. W., & Goines, M. A. (2005). Cognitive processing therapy for acute stress disorder resulting from anti-gay assault. Cognitive & Behavioral Practice, 12 278-289. Keim, J., Malesky, L. A., & Strauser, D. R. (2003). Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), life satisfaction and work persona lity: Exploring the relationship with disability. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling 34 (3), 41-45. Kruglanski, A. W., & Freund, T. (1983). The freezing and unfreezing of lay inferences: Effects on impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping, and nu merical anchoring. Journal of Experime ntal Social Psychology 19 448-468. LaPiere, R. T. (1934). Attitudes vs. actions. Social Forces, 13 230-237. Lawrence, F. M. (1999). Punishing hate: Bias crimes under American law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lee, T. M. C., Paterson, J. G., & Chan, C. C. H. (1994). The effect of occupational therapy education on students percei ved attitudes towards persons with disabilities. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 48 633-638. Levin, B. (1992). Bias crimes: A th eoretical and practical overview Stanford Law & Policy Review 4 165-171. Levin, J., & McDevitt, J. (1993). Hate crimes: The rising tid e of bigotry and bloodshed New York: Plenum. Levine, R. A., & Campbell, D. T. (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes, and group behavior. New York: Wiley. Lifton, R. J. (1986). The Nazi doctors: Medi cal killing and the psychology of genocide. Basic Books. Luckasson, R. (1992). People with mental reta rdation as victims of crime. In R.W. Conley, R. Luckasson, & G.N. Bouthilet (Eds.), The criminal justice system and mental retardation (pp.209-220). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brooks Publishing Co. Livneh, H. & Cook, D. (2005) Psychosocial impact of disability. In. R. M. Parker, E. M. Szymanski, & J. B. Patterson (Eds.) Rehabilitation counseling: Basics and beyond 4th ed. Austin, TX: ProEd. Locke, J. (1690/1968). Of civil government: Second treatise Chicago, IL: H. Regnery Publisher. (Original work published in 1690) McDaniel, J. M. (1976). Physical disability and human behavior (2nd ed.). New York: Pergamon Press

PAGE 132

121 McDevitt, J., Levin, J., & Bennett, S. ( 2002). Hate crime offenders: An expanded typology. Journal of Social Issues 58 303-317. McMahon, B.T., West, S.L., Lewis, A.N., Ar mstrong, A.J., & Conway, J.P. (2004). Hate crimes and disability in America Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 47 66-75. McPhail, B. A. (2002). Gender-b ias hate crimes: A review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 3 125-143. Miller, A. (2001). Student perceptions of hate crimes. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 25 293-296. Miller, E. L. (1996). Questions that matter (4th ed.) New York: McGraw Hill Companies, Inc. Mishra, R. (2001, June 10). In attacks on disabled, few verdicts. The Boston Globe Muccigrosso, L. (1991). Sexual abuse preven tion strategies and programs for persons with developmental disabilities. Sexuality and Disability 9 261-272. National Council on Disability. (2000). Harris Survey of Americans with Disabilities. Washington, DC: Author. National Institute of Justice. (1999). Final report on the psyc hological and behavioral effects of bias and non bias motivated assault Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. National Organization on Disability. (2003, January 27). The state of the union 2003 for Americans with disabilities. Retr eived January 10, 2005 from National Organization on Disability online: ht tp://www.nod.org/content.cfm?id=1293 National Organization on Disability. (2001, Ju ly 24) Employment ra tes of people with disabilities. Retreived January 10, 2005 fr om National Organization on Disability online: http://www.nod.org/content.cfm?id=134. Newcomer, K. E. (1994). Using statistics approp riately. In J. S. Wholy, H. P. Hatry, & K. E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Nolan, J. J. & Akiyama, Y. (1999). An analys is of factors that a ffect law enforcement participation in hate crime reporting. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 15 111-127. Nosek, M.A. (1996). Sexual abuse of women with physical disabilities. In D.M. Krotoski, M.A., Nosek, & M.A. Turk (Eds.), Women with physical disabilities (pp. 153-173). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Co.

PAGE 133

122 Nosek, M.A., Howland, C.A., Rintala, D. H., Young, M.E., & Chanpong, G.F. (1997). National study of women with phy sical disabilities: Final report Houston: Center for Research on Women with Disabilities. Oyez (2000, June 26). Apprendi v. New Jersey 530 U.S. 466 (2000) Docket number: 99478. Retrieved January 7, 2006, from http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1218/ Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS Survival manual 2nd Ed. New York, NY: Open University Press. Pederson, L.L., & Carlson, P.M. (1981). Rehabi litation service provide rs: Their attitudes towards people with physical disabilities, and their attitudes towards each other. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 24 275-282 Pegis, A. C. (1948). An introduction to St. Thomas Aquinas Toronto, Canada: Random House. Pettigrew, T. F. & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-a nalytic test of inte rgroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90 751-783. Perry, B. (2001). In the name of hate: Understanding hate crimes New York, NY: Routledge. Petty, R. E., Wegener, D. T., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1997). Attitude and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 48 609-647. Pruett, S. R. (2004). A psychometric validation of a disability attitude implicit association test. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65 (4-A), 1278. Roeher Institute (1993). Answering the call: The police resp onse to family and care-giver violence against peop le with disabilities Roeher Institute, Ontario. Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R., & Fazio, R. H. (1992) On the orienting value of attitudes: Attitude accessibility as a de terminant of an objects attr action of visual attention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63 198-211. Ryan, K.M. (1981). Developmental differences in reactions to the physically disabled. Human Development, 24 240-256. Sanbonmatsu, D. M. & Fazio, R. H. (1990). The role of attitudes in memory-based decision making. The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59 614-622. Satcher, J., & Gamble, D. (2002). Attitude s of law students toward persons with disabilities. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 33 13-16. Schneider, D. (Executive Pr oducer). (2005, November 10). Supreme Court justices on the rule of law [Television broadcast]. Washington, DC: C-SPAN.

PAGE 134

123 Schuette, R. A., & Fazio, R. H. (1990). A ttitude accessibility and motivation as determinants of biased processing: A te st of the MODE model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21 704-710. Schuman, H., & Johnson, M. P. (1979). Attitudes and behavior. Annual Review of Sociology, 2 161-207. Shapiro, J. P. (1994). No pity: People with disabili ties forging a new civil rights movement New York: Times Books. Sherry, M. (2003). Hate crime against disabled persons: One in a million? IURD Developments 13 3-4. Siller, J. (1963). Reactio ns to physical disability Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 7 12-16. Skolnick, J. H. (2002). Corruption and the blue code of silence. Police Practice and Research 3 7-19. Skolnick, J. H., & Bayley, D. H. (1986). The new blue line: Police innovation in six American cities New York: Free Press. Smart, J. (2001). Disability society and the individual Austin, Texas: ProEd Smith, M. B., Bruner, J. S ., & White, R. W. (1956). Opinions and personality New York: Wiley. Sobsey, D. (1994). Violence and abuse in the lives of peopl e with disabilitie s: The end of silent acceptance? Baltimore, MD: Paul Brooks Publishing Co. Sobsey, D., & Doe, T. (1991). Patterns of sexual abuse and assault. Journal of Sexuality and Disability 9 243-259. Sorensen, D. D. (2001). Hate crimes against peop le with disabilities Unpublished manuscript. Stagner, R. (1944). Studies of aggressive social attitudes. Journal of Social Psychology, 20 109-140. Sullivan, P.M., & Knutson, J.F. (1998). The association between child maltreatment and disabilities in a hospitalbased epidemiological study. Child Abuse & Neglect 22 271-288. Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psyc hology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33 1-39. Tajfel, H., Billing, M. G., B undy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971) Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1 149-178.

PAGE 135

124 Thurstone, L. L. (1931). The meas urement of social attitudes. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 26 249-269. Triandis, H. C., & Malpass, R. S. (1971). St udies of black and white interaction in job settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1 101-117. Tsang, H. W. H., Chan, F., & Chan, C. C. H. (2004). Factors in fluencing occupational therapy students attitudes toward persons with disabilities: A conjoint analysis. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 58 426-434. The Heidelberg Catechism (1563/1988). Grand Rapids, MI: CRC Publications (Original work published 1563). Turner, J. C., Brown, R. J., & Tajfel, H. ( 1979). Social comparison and group interest in ingroup favourtism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 9 187-204. U.S. Census Bureau. (2004, March). U.S. Interim Projections by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin. Retreived January 6, 2006 from U.S. Census Bureau online: http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj/ Walker, I., & Smith, H. J. (2002). Relative depravation: Speci fication, development, and integration Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wang, M. H. (1998). Factors influencing pref erences for persons with disabilities: A conjoint analysis and cr oss-cultural comparison. Dissertation Abstracts International 60 (1-R), 0414.. Welner, M. (1998). Defining evil: A de pravity scale for todays court. Forensic echo, 2 1-8. Welner, M. (2003). Response to Simon: Lega l relevance demands that evil be defined and standardized. Journal American Academy of Psychiatry Law, 31 417-421. Wicker, A. W. (1969). Attitudes vs. actions : The relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social Issues, 25 41-78. Wills, T.A. (1978). Perceptions of clients by professional helpers. Psychological Bulletin, 85 968-1000. Wilson, C., & Brewer, N. (1992). The incidence of criminal victimization of individuals with intellectual disability. Australian Psychologist 27 114-117. Young, M.E., Nosek, M.A., Howland, C.A., Chanpong, G., & Rintala, D.H. (1997). Prevalence of abuse of women with physical disabilities. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Supplement 5 78 34-38. Yuker, H. E. (1994). Variables that influen ce attitudes toward peopl e with disabilities: Conclusions from the data. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 9 3-22.

PAGE 136

125 Yuker, H. E. (1988). The effects of contact on attitudes toward disabled persons: Some empirical generalizations. In H. E. Yuker (Ed.), Attitudes Towards Persons with Disabilities New York: Springer Publishing Company. Yuker, H. E., & Block, J. R. (1986). Research with the attitudes toward disabled persons scales (ATDP): 1960-1985 Hempstead, NY: Hofstra University. Yuker, H. E., Block, J. R., & Younng, J. H. (1966). The measurement of attitudes towards disabled persons. (Human Resources Study No. 7). Albertson, NY: Human Resources Center. Yuker, H. E. Block, J. R., & Campbell, W. J. (1960). A scale to measure attitudes toward disabled persons (Human Resources Study No. 5). Albertson, NY: Human Resources Center. Yuker, H. E., & Hurley, M. K. (1987). Cont act with and attitudes toward people with disabilities: The measurement of intergroup contact. Rehabilitation Psychology 32 145-154.

PAGE 137

126 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Frank Lane earned a Bachelor of Arts de gree in psychology from St. Leo College in 1988 and a Master of Health Science De gree in rehabilitation and mental health counseling from the University of Florida in 2000. Mr. Lane began work towards his doctorate in rehabilitation science in 2000. He has over 18 years of experience in human services working with individuals with mental illness and physical disabilities, including six years as a practicing rehabi litation counselor in Gaines ville, Florida. Mr. Lanes research interests include attitudes toward s people with disabilities, contact as a mechanism for attitude change, and areas in society where attitudes function as a barrier to full participation by people with disabilities.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0015650/00001

Material Information

Title: Law Enforcement Officers' Endorsement of Bias Characterization of Crime Scenarios: A Prospective Study of Differences between Disability and Other Protected Categories
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0015650:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0015650/00001

Material Information

Title: Law Enforcement Officers' Endorsement of Bias Characterization of Crime Scenarios: A Prospective Study of Differences between Disability and Other Protected Categories
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0015650:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS' ENDORSEMENT OF THE BIAS
CATEGORIZATION OF CRIME SCENARIOS: A PROSPECTIVE STUDY OF
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DISABILITY AND OTHER PROTECTED CATEGORIES
















By

FRANK J. LANE


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2006


































Copyright 2006

by

Frank J. Lane

































"History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period...was not the vitriolic
words and violent actions of the bad people but the appalling silence and indifference of
the good people" Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. This dissertation is dedicated to all people
with disabilities who have been the victim of a crime--may the words contained on these
pages serve as a voice.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I extend my thanks to Sheriff Stephen M. Oelrich and the law enforcement officer

participants from the Alachua County Sheriff s department. Without these individuals

this research would not have been possible.

I am very fortunate to have conducted my doctoral studies at the University of

Florida. I am grateful to the members of my committee, Drs. Linda Shaw, Mary Ellen

Young, David Miller, Michael Scicchitano, and Steven Pruett, each of who have provided

valuable direction, criticism and support along my journey. I am forever indebted to

Michael Scicchittano who opened a door and made it possible to survey law enforcement

officers, thereby enhancing the quality and relevance of this study. I am also grateful to

Mary Ellen Young who ultimately recruited me to the rehabilitation science doctoral

program. Her work on abuse of women with disabilities established an important

foundation for research on crime against people with disabilities in the United States. I

owe many thanks to Steven Pruett whose friendship and mentoring was always available

during some of my darkest hours. His knowledge of attitudes and philosophy have been

most useful in developing my thoughts on the topic of hate crimes against people with

disabilities.

I am particularly indebted to Dr. Linda Shaw, my advisor, mentor and colleague.

Her guidance, support, and example have functioned to keep me motivated and grounded

during this research project. Her patience, generosity, passion, and work ethic have made

her an ideal supervisor. I am looking forward to future collaborations.









I am grateful to Dr. Brian McMahon for his foresight and wisdom in showing us a

dark area in the lives of people with disabilities that had to be brought into the light.

I owe most of my interest and passion in the area of attitudes to my late

grandmother, Cecelia Sorbera. Her stories about the struggles faced by Italian immigrants

while attempting to learn, work, and participate in society particularly, how her father,

Joseph Morelli, died of pneumonia from working long hours digging tunnels in the

subway system in Boston, leaving her family without the means to support themselves

helped to illuminate the importance of workers compensation laws in the early 1900s.

The courage and tenacity of my ancestors to transcend the attitudinal barriers of their

time serves to inspire and motivate my work during frustrating times.

To my parents, Marie and Jerry, for their constant support and belief in me, I am

grateful to you both. To my sister, Johanna, whose interest in my work and thoughts on

the subject never cease to expand my awareness.

To my best friend Rayford Riels who sat alone through many Gator tennis matches

at Scott Linder Stadium while I was writing. Thank you for your friendship and sacrifice

while I pursued this goal.

Finally, yet the most, I would like to thank my partner, Robbie Parish, and our

daughter Sophia. Without your tolerance, support, dedication, sacrifice, and unwavering

love the completion of this degree would not have been possible. I love you.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv

L IST O F T A B L E S .............. ...... ..................................... ......... ... ............ .. ix

A B ST R A C T ................. .......................................................................................... x

CHAPTER

1 IN TR OD U CTION ............................................... .. ......................... ..

State ent of the Problem ............................................................................. ........ 4
Significance of the Study .............................................................................. ...... .6
O verview of the L iterature............................................................................ ... ..........8
R research Q u estion s............ .......................................................... .... .. ... .... 10

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................ ...............12

Theoretical B ackground.................................................... .............................. 12
H um an R rights ...................................... .............................. ................12
N natural law ..................................................... ......... .. ......... 13
H um ans as social beings ........................................ ......................... 14
Social justice ....... .................................................. 16
Equality and bias ................................. .......... .. ........ ...... 17
Crim e .................................. ......................................... ........... 18
Crim e and protected classes ........................................ ...... ............... 20
Crime and people with disabilities.............................................................21
A ttitu d e s ...............................................................................2 5
D definition of attitude ............................................................................ 26
A attitude and behavior ................................................................. ............ 26
Attitudes towards persons with disabilities ..............................................31
Contact Theory ........................................... .. ... .... ............... 33
Bias Crime ............................. .................................. 35
W hat is a bias crim e? ...........................................................................35
W hy bias crime e is m ore serious ............................ ........................ .........37
R e alistic co n flict..................................................................................... 3 8
R elative deprivation ........................................ .......... .... ........ .... 38
S o c ia l id e n tity ......................................................................................... 3 8
S o cial learn in g .......................................................................... 3 9









P sychodynam ic........ .......................................................... .... .... .... ... 39
Perpetrators of B ias C rim e .............................. ............................................ 43
B ias C rim e R reporting ...................... .. .. .................. ................. ............... 44
Victim Selection .................................................................. ............. ........ .. ........ 45
Problem s w ith Bias Crim e D ata ........................................ ....... ............... 45
Bias Crime and People with Disabilities............... ................ .......... 47
B ias C rim e and G ender ........................................................... ............... 50
Vulnerability as a Negative Attitude ....................... ........ ............... 52
Summary and Conclusion......................................... 52

3 M E T H O D O L O G Y .......................................................................... .....................57

R research Q uestions.......... ..... .............................................................. ........ .. ... 57
R e se arch D e sig n ................................................................................................... 5 7
P a rtic ip a n ts ........................................................................................................... 5 7
Instruments .....................................................58
The Modified Hate Crime Survey ...................................... .......... 59
Attitudes toward Disabled Persons Scale (ATDP) ...........................................64
Contact with Disabled Persons Scale (CDP) ....................................................66
D em graphic Questionnaire ..................................................... ... ........... 67
Data Collection Procedure ................................. .......................... ....... 68
D ata A analysis ............................... .. ... ....... ............... 69
Analysis Related to Research Questions One, Two, and Three ........................69
Analysis Related to Research Question Four...................................................69
L im station s ................................................................ .... .... 70

4 RE SU LTS ................................ ............. ............. ........ 71

Research Questions................ ........... ................ ..... ........................... 74
Research question #1: Does law enforcement officer level of agreement with
hate crime classification vary across protected category? ...............................74
Research question #2: Does law enforcement officer mean level of agreement
with hate crime classification vary by gender? ................................ .............77
Research question #3: Is there an interaction between protected category and
gender on law enforcement officer mean level of agreement with hate
crime e enhance ent?............................. ........... ..................7...78
Research question #4: Does age, attitudes towards persons with disabilities,
and contact with persons with disabilities provide predictive ability for law
enforcement officers' agreement with hate crime enhancement for persons
w ith disabilities? .................................... ................. ......... 78
A additional A nalyses................ ............... ....... .. ... .. ............ .................... 80
Variation of Mean Scores Across Protected Category for Race and Gender......80
Variation of Mean Scores Across Severity of Crime and Type of Crime
Indicator ................................... ................................ .........80










5 SUM M ARY AND CONCLU SION ................................... .....................................83

S u m m a ry ................................................................................................................ 8 3
D isc u ssio n .............................................................................................................. 8 5
Lim stations .............................. ......................................... ........ 92
Recommendations for Future Research ............... ...............................93
Im plications for Practice and Education.............................................. 96
C conclusion ....................................................................................................... ........ 98

APPENDIX

A M ODIFIED HATE CRIM E SURVEY ........................................ ............... 100

B DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE .......................................... 104

C ATTITUDE TOWARDS DISABLED PERSONS SCALE ..................................... 106

D CONTACT WITH DISABLED PERSONS SCALE .........................................109

E ASSESSMENT OF HEINOUSNESS SURVEY ...............................................111

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ............................................................................................ 115

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .............................................................................126






























V111iii
















LIST OF TABLES


Table page

4.1 Analysis of Variance for Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores................................ 73

4.2 One-way Analysis of Variance for Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores by Protected
C a te g o ry .......................................................................... 7 4

4.3 One-way Analysis of Variance for Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores by Gender ......77

4.4 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Level of
Agreement with Bias Crime Enhancement (N = 166) ...........................................78

4.5 Analysis of Variance for Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores by Race, Gender, Race
X G en d er ............................................................................ 7 9

4.7 One-way Analysis of Variance for Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores by Bias
C rim e In dictator ...................................................... .............. 82















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS' ENDORSEMENT OF THE BIAS
CATEGORIZATION OF CRIME SCENARIOS: A PROSPECTIVE STUDY OF
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DISABILITY AND OTHER PROTECTED CATEGORIES


By

Frank J. Lane

August 2006

Chair: Linda R. Shaw
Major Department: Rehabilitation Science

People with disabilities were included in the Hate Crime Statistics Act in 1996.

Data available for the 7 years since inclusion in the act document 199 cases of bias

crimes committed against an individual because of his or her disability status. Odds ratio

analyses reveals that a person with a disability is 150 times less likely to be the victim of

a bias crime than for race. The disproportionately lower incidence of bias crimes for

people with disabilities is surprising considering people with disabilities experience a

70% unemployment rate, live in poverty at a rate 2-3 times greater than the general

population, and are victims of crime at a rate as high as 10 times the general population.

This research study modified a Hate Crime Survey that consisted of crimes

scenarios from each of four protected categories to include crimes scenarios where the

victim was a person with a disability. The survey was administered to 184 law

enforcement officers along with the Attitudes Towards Disabled Persons (ATDP) scale,









the Contact with Disabled Persons (CDP) scale, and a brief demographic survey. The

data were analyzed using a two-way, repeated measures ANOVA and a multiple

regression analysis.

The results of the study show that an individual's membership in a protected

category and law enforcement officer attitude towards people with disabilities contributes

to a law enforcement officer's agreement with classifying a crime as a hate crime. Future

research studies should seek to expand the scope of the study and replicate results in

addition to exploring the effect of law enforcement officer training on the investigation of

hate crimes committed against people with disabilities.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Persons with disabilities represent the largest single minority group in the United

States. Approximately 54 million Americans, or 20% of the United States population,

have a disability (National Council on Disability, 2000). It is anticipated that the

proportion of persons with disabilities will increase as the population ages (National

Council on Disability, 2000). US Census projected population data shows an increasing

trend in the proportion of individuals of retirement age, age 65 and up. Specifically, it is

anticipated that by the year 2030, approximately 20% of the United States population will

be retirees, compared to 12.5% currently (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). Considering that

approximately 50% of persons over the age of 65 report various health impairments, the

proportion of people with disabilities in the United States will increase exponentially.

Some of the problems experienced by people with disabilities include the highest rate of

unemployment (National Organization on Disability, 2003), abject poverty at a rate 2-3

times greater than the general population (National Organization on Disability), and

crime victimization at a rate 2-10 times greater than the general population and for longer

periods of time (Baladerian, 1991; Hiday, Swartz, Swanson, Borum, & Wagner, 1999;

Nosek, Howland, Rintala, Young, & Chanpong., 1997; Sobsey & Doe, 1991; Sullivan &

Knutson, 1998). As a result, the problems faced by people with disabilities will be

augmented on a national level as the population ages.

Persons with disabilities (PWD) experience a 68% unemployment rate, as a group









(National Organization on Disability, 2003). Only 32% of persons with disabilities are

employed on a full-time or part-time basis compared to 81% of people without a

disability (National Organization on Disability) and more people with disabilities are

working in part-time employment without benefits (National Council on Disability,

2000).

In addition to the low rate of employment, people with disabilities are 2-3 times

more likely to live in poverty (National Organization on Disability, 2003). Individuals

with disabilities live with higher levels of poverty, 29% versus 10% in the general

population (National Council on Disability, 2000) and persons with severe disabilities are

three times more likely (33%) to live at or below the poverty line ($15,000 or less) than a

person without a disability (10%) (National Organization on Disability). The 2004

Progress Report on National Disability Policy estimates that approximately 40% of the

persons receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), also known as

"Welfare," during 2003-2004 had a disability (National Council on Disability, 2004). The

same report projected the percentage to be much higher presently. Because persons with

disabilities often reside in poverty, they are forced to live in low income neighborhoods

(Burger & Youkeles, 2004). Low income neighborhoods are often associated with higher

rates of crime (Burger & Youkeles).

It is suggested in the literature that people with disabilities are victims of crime at a

rate that is higher than the general population; some conservative estimates suggest the

rate is between 2-3 times higher while others suggest the rate is as much as 10 times

higher (Baladerian, 2001; Hiday et al., 1999; Sobsey & Doe, 1991; Sullivan & Knutson,

1998). Moreover, people with disabilities experience victimization and abuse for longer









periods of time (Nosek et al., 1997). Although the rate of crime committed against people

with disabilities is estimated to be considerably higher than the general population, a

study conducted in Boston, Massachusetts estimated that approximately 5% of the

perpetrators of crimes against persons with disabilities are prosecuted compared to a 70%

prosecution rate for the general population (Mishra, 2001). He reported that some of the

reasons provided for the alarmingly low prosecution rate of perpetrators of crimes against

people with disabilities include: (1) police are concerned about how people with

disabilities will "hold up" in court; (2) police believe that people with disabilities have

poor memories and do not comprehend the importance of telling the truth; (3) prosecutors

are concerned that juries will disregard the testimony of a person with a disability; and

(4) victims with disabilities may embellish their accounts to the police. Mishra's

contentions that people with disabilities are believed to have poor memories and do not

comprehend the importance of telling the truth was supported by Bailey, Barr, and

Bunting (2001). The belief that people with disabilities may embellish their accounts to

the police was initially proposed by researchers at the Roeher Institute (1993).

People with disabilities were included as a protected category in the Hate Crime

Statistics Act in 1997 (McMahon, West, Lewis, Armstrong, & Conway, 2004). Since that

time, the number of hate crimes reported to the FBI where the victim was chosen because

of his or her disability status has been remarkably low. A recent study (McMahon et al.)

of hate crimes reported between 1997 and 2002 concluded that a person with a disability

is 350 times less likely to be the victim of a hate crime than if the victim was African

American (McMahon et al.). It is possible that people with disabilities simply are not

victims of hate or bias crime at a rate comparable to other protected categories. However,









if the reported rates are accurate indications, hate crimes represent less than one half of

one percent of the crimes committed against people with disabilities (McMahon et al.).

This statistic, although possible, is unlikely given the estimates of general crime

committed against people with disabilities.

This chapter will include: (1) the context of bias crimes committed against people

with disabilities; (2) a statement of the research problem and discussion of its

significance; (3) a brief overview of the literature; (4) how the proposed research will

address at least one of the theories proposed by McMahon et al.(2004); and (5) research

questions to be answered.

Statement of the Problem

It's possible that people with disabilities are victims of bias crimes at a

substantially lower rate than other protected groups. Although possible, the examples of

discrimination discussed previously contribute to disability theorists suggesting that this

is an unlikely explanation (McMahon et al., 2004). Merton's four factors that influence

crime reporting can be used to conceptualize the points at which alternative explanations

can be considered (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000).

Robert Merton, a criminologist, used the term "successive layers of error" to

describe the problems associated with documenting and collecting records of crime from

law enforcement (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000). McDevitt categorized Merton's

components of error into four categories: 1) factors which discourage victims from

reporting, 2) factors which affect police decision making, 3) political influences which

affect agency crime reporting, and 4) legislative differences in determining the type of

offense (Bureau of Justice Statistics).









Barriers to hate crime reporting can be further compartmentalized into two

categories: 1) individual inhibitors, and 2) police disincentives (Bureau of Justice

Statistics, 2000). Individual inhibitors consist of factors that affect a "person's

willingness and likelihood of contacting law enforcement" (Bureau of Justice Statistics,

p.34). Police disincentives consist of departmental or personal factors, "which interfere

with accurate law enforcement identification or recording of a bias crime" (Bureau of

Justice Statistics, p. 34). Individual inhibitors and police disincentives are of particular

concern when exploring possible explanations for why crimes committed against persons

with disabilities go unreported. These two categories of factors that affect victim

reporting and police decision making will be examined more closely.

Factors that affect whether a victim reports a crime or individual inhibitors,

include: 1) the victim's awareness that a crime has been committed (Block, 1974); 2) the

victim's belief that the crime is serious enough to warrant law enforcement attention

(Gove, Hughes, & Geerken, 1985); 3) The victim's belief that law enforcement can do

something about the crime, including the victim's confidence in law enforcement (Bureau

of Justice Statistics, 2000; Gove et al., 1985); and 4) the victim's relationship to the

perpetrator (Bureau of Justice Statistics).

It has been suggested that the ability of people with disabilities to comprehend the

criminal act (McMahon et al., 2004), community resources (McMahon et al.), and

mistrust that the criminal justice system will investigate, arrest and prosecute perpetrators

(Mishra, 2001) function as individual inhibitors to reporting a crime. Additionally,

reporting might be affected by the fact that perpetrators of crimes against persons with

disabilities are often family members, neighbors, and persons with whom the individual









is acquainted because of their disability (Baladerian, 2001; Sobsey & Doe, 1991).

Clearly, underreporting by a victim with a disability is a valid concern not just from the

perspective of disability rights activists but criminologists, as well.

The second category consists of police disincentives or those factors that affect

police decision making. These factors consist of: 1) whether the officer has sufficient

evidence to indicate a crime has been committed; 2) whether the victim wishes to

formally have the perpetrator charged; 3) the seriousness of the crime; and 4) the level of

professionalism of the department (Gove et al., 1985).

Significance of the Study

Research regarding possible explanations for underreporting of bias crimes

committed against people with disabilities is of particular significance to rehabilitation

researchers and educators because the reasons for including people with disabilities in the

act were based on a set of assumptions rather than hard data (McMahon et al., 2004).

Consequently, it is possible that legislators might conclude that the low number of crimes

reported since inclusion is evidence that the problem is not as large as was originally

anticipated. Given this possibility, it is important to determine whether there might be

competing explanations. Specifically, it is important to determine whether law

enforcement decision-making is affecting reported rates of bias crimes against persons

with disabilities and to determine what factors influence law enforcement judgment. At a

societal level, an enhanced understanding of criminal investigation provides insight into

the larger issue of accessibility to law enforcement by people with disabilities who are

victim of any crime. In addition, access to the criminal justice system is a fundamental

right necessary to guarantee the rights afforded to all citizens under the constitution

(Schneider, 2005).









Disability was included as a protected category over other groups such as gender,

children, police officers, union members, and the elderly who also lobbied for inclusion

under the act and whose request was denied. Disability was included in the act for four

reasons, the first and most persuasive was the enactment of the Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA), which included disability as a standard in civil rights and

discrimination law within the federal government (McMahon et al., 2004). The other

reasons disability was included consist of: (1) the fact that there are approximately 54

million American citizens with a disability; (2) citizens with disabilities have a degree of

collective identity in American society (National Council on Disability, 2000; Shapiro,

1994); and (3) the historical evidence of discrimination.

The historical documentation of discrimination against persons with disabilities is

put succinctly by Smart (2001) who concluded that "No other racial, cultural, ethnic,

linguistic, religious, political, national, sexual orientation, or gender group has

experienced this pervasive degree of generalized prejudice and discrimination" (Smart,

p.72), which included killing babies with disabilities, forced sterilization of persons with

disabilities, institutionalization, mass murder, sexual abuse in families, assisted suicides,

physical abuse in institutions, aversive conditioning, electro-convulsive therapy,

psychosurgery, experimentation, excessive medication (Goffman, 1963; Lifton,

1986;;Smart). Because the primary purpose of the Hate Crime Statistics Act is to collect

data to determine the extent of the problem (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000), it is

possible that disability will be removed as a protected class due to the low numbers

reported. Moreover, although speculation exists as to the reason for the low numbers

(Berkeleyan, 2002; McMahon et al., 2004; Sherry, 2003; Sorensen, 2001), no research









has been conducted to date to substantiate the theories posited by disability advocates to

explain the possible reasons for the low numbers.

Overview of the Literature

Attitudes have been discussed in the literature as affecting law enforcement's

reporting of bias crimes (Levin, 1992; Nolan & Akiyama, 1999). In one study that

reviewed 452 criminal investigations, it was discovered that investigators missed

evidence of a bias crime in approximately 96% of the cases (Levin). Another study

consisting of a series of focus groups with police officers reported that individual

attitudes and beliefs about bias crimes was the second most influential factor in

determining whether a bias crime was reported by law enforcement (Nolan & Akiyama).

It has been suggested that attitudes are the most important construct to the field of

social psychology (Petty, Wegener, & Fabrigar, 1997). Attitudes, the "categorization of

an object along an evaluative dimension" (Fazio, Chen, McDonel, & Sherman, 1982, p.

341), are believed to influence behavior automatically (Ajzen, 2001; Fazio & Williams,

1986; Fazio et al., 1982; Fazio & Zanna, 1981) or through a complex deliberative process

that requires the opportunity and determination to evaluate information (Fazio & Towles-

Schwen, 1999; Kruglanski & Freund, 1983; Sanbonmatsu & Fazio, 1990). The

generalstudy of attitudes has been used by disability researchers to explain the pervasive

discrimination against people with disabilities.

Research on the study of attitudes it relates to disabilities has been robust with

particular emphasis on those factors that are associated with negative attitudes, and how

those attitudes impact the ability of people with disabilities to participate in society

(employment, independent living, and others.) Research on attitudes towards people with

disabilities suggests they tend to vary as a function of 1) gender (Chesler, 1965; Siller,









1963; Yuker, Block, & Campbell, 1960) with females reporting more positive attitudes

than males; 2) age (Ryan, 1981; Siller, 1963; Yuker, Block, & Younng, 1966) with

younger and middle aged individuals reporting more positive attitudes than post-

adolescent and seniors; 3) education (Gosse & Sheppard, 1979; Yuker et al., 1966) with

more positive attitudes being associated with higher education levels; and 4) occupation

(Chubon, 1982; English & Oberle, 1971; Pederson & Carlson, 1981; Wills, 1978) with

surprisingly more negative attitudes among individuals in the helping professions and

unequal status relationships.

Contact theory (Allport, 1954/1979) was originally proposed to understand what

factors prevent the formation of negative attitudes and, moreover, the mechanism

whereby negative attitudes can be changed. Research designed to understand the

conditions whereby contact functions to change attitudes also resulted in the development

of theories to explain the formation of negative attitudes. Specifically, it was theorized

that the absence of the conditions necessary for positive attitude change would result in

the formation of negative attitudes. For example, a series of research studies discovered

that individuals in the helping professions (Wills, 1978), including rehabilitation

personnel (Chubon; 1982; Pederson & Carlson, 1981), have more negative attitudes

towards people with disabilities. It has been suggested that any relationship where one

individual is in an inferior status or dependent relationship can function to increase

negative attitudes (Amir, 1969), which can be said of the nature of the relationship

between rehabilitation professionals and people with disabilities (Wills). Extending this

theory to law enforcement, the nature of the relationship between a member of law









enforcement and crime victim is one where the law enforcement officer is in a position of

authority and the crime victim in an inferior or dependent role. Therefore, it is logical to

hypothesize that police officers, like other helping professionals, can form negative

attitudes towards people with disabilities; and, these attitudes can influence their

behavior.

Research Questions

As mentioned previously, one possible explanation for the relatively low numbers

of hate crimes reported is the possibility that law enforcement officer's (LEO) may have

learned to regard people with disabilities as vulnerable (McMahon et al., 2004; Sorensen,

2001). Therefore, when presented with evidence of a crime committed against a person

with a disability, the individual focuses more on the victimization of the individual and

less on the bias aspect of the crime. If this is the case, when presented with an actual bias

crime scene scenario with key elements of bias motivation, the individual's level of

agreement about whether a crime should be classified as a hate crime will be lower when

the victim is a person with a disability that when the victim is an individual in another

protected category.Gender may also influence the level of agreement with classifying a

crime as a bias crime. Miller (2001) found a significant difference in the mean agreement

score on the Hate Crime Survey between male and female criminology students. The

literature on attitude and disability also documents a difference in attitude across gender

(Ryan, 1981; Siller, 1963; Yuker & Block, 1986; Yuker, et. al., 1966)

1. Research Question One: Does law enforcement officers' level of agreement with
hate crime classification vary across protected category?

2. Research Question Two: Does law enforcement officers' mean level of agreement
with hate crime classification vary by gender?






11


3. Research Question Three: Is there an interaction between protected category and
gender on law enforcement officers' mean level of agreement with hate crime
enhancement?

4. Research Question Four: Does age, attitudes towards persons with disabilities,
and contact with persons with disabilities provide predictive ability for law
enforcement officers' agreement with hate crime enhancement for persons with
disabilities?














CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter is a review of the literature concerning bias crimes committed against

people with disabilities. The major theoretical areas that underlie this investigation

include discussions on basic human rights, crime, attitudes, contact theory, and bias

motivated crime. The conversation on human rights provides the foundation for the

discussion on crime, bias crime and the severity of bias crime relative to other forms of

crime. The discussion of attitude includes a general overview of attitudes, the

relationships between attitudes and behavior, particularly judgment, and contact theory as

it relates to the formation and change of attitudes. Once the theoretical framework is

established, a discussion on bias crime will include a definition of bias motivated crime,

why bias crimes are considered more serious than other forms of crime, profile(s) of hate

crime perpetrators, theories about why people commit bias crimes, and bias crime

reporting. Special focus will be placed on bias crimes committed against people with

disabilities.

Theoretical Background

Human Rights

Modem study of human rights are believed to have originated from the writings of

theorists like John Locke, St. Thomas Aquinas, and others, who believed that basic

human rights originated from natural law (Higgins, 1954; Pegis, 1948). As a result, basic

human rights consisted of freedom and equality. Higgins believed that natural law, which









guides humankind's behavior, also defines our existence as social beings, which is

inevitable.

However, man is incapable of always respecting the basic human rights of others,

which is why society requires laws and the authority to enforce laws, which is regarded

as part of a society's core value system. The core value system of the United States of

America is embedded in its constitution and guarantees that each citizen is free and equal.

Because freedom and equality represents an important aspect of American society, any

crime that violates these values strikes at the core of its value system. Society also places

a great emphasis on protecting the basic human rights of citizens who are incapable of

protecting their rights individually. As discussed previously, bias crimes, in particular,

are more serious because of the intent of the offender. But, when a bias crime is

committed against a protected class of citizens, it warrants particularly close attention.

Natural law

The historical underpinnings of basic human rights has been credited, in part, to

John Locke. Locke challenged what was referred to as the divine right of kings during his

lifetime, which stated that kings were chosen by God (Locke, 1690/1968; Miller, 1996).

Commoners were believed to be born into servitude and, as such, had no rights or

freedoms other than those granted by kings (Miller). Locke argued that natural law

"legislates freedom, equality, and therefore inherent rights for all." (Miller, p. 510).

According to St. Thomas Aquinas, natural law originates from the belief that human

beings are, by nature, rational beings, and this rationality is derived from God (Aquinas,

1264/1905; Higgins, 1954; Pegis, 1948). Further, human beings should behave in a way

that is consistent with their rational nature (Pegis). Artistotle had a different view of the

origin of natural law than Aquinas (Aristotle, 350 B.C./ 1962). He believed natural law









"is derived from the natural order of the world and (the) built-in tendencies of human

nature" (Miller, 1996, p.499). The difference in Aquinas' view of natural law can be

attributed to the influence of his Christian beliefs (Miller).

According to Higgins (1954), natural law commands that individuals treat other

human beings with the same regard they have for themselves. Higgins asserted that

humans are not required to love each other to the same degree they love themselves.

However, he believed that natural law requires human kind to love each other with the

same quality of benevolence (Higgins). This premise is embodied in the proverb, Do unto

others as you would have them do unto you. Higgins maintains that this is a basic

principle of human conduct that cannot be compromised for the good of society.

Humans as social beings

Humankind is considered by many theorists to be social beings (Higgins, 1954; Miller,

1996). The foundation of this belief lies in the understanding that humankind is not fully

self-sufficient, and requires interaction with other humans in a social setting (Higgins).

However, if humankind is to co-exist in a social setting, then individual needs must not

abound. In order to curtail the pursuit of individual rights lest they infringe upon the

rights of others, a social contract is required. A social contract is an agreement between

its members where, like any contract, each individual preserves certain rights at the cost

of others (Miller). "Thus I see it is to my advantage to submit myself to government, to

obey laws, etc., if thereby I can secure my fundamental rights and freedoms..." (Miller,

p. 511). Locke believed that the social contract logically followed the state of nature

(Locke, 1690/1968; Miller). The main purpose then of a social contract is the secure

freedom and equality for all.









In contrast to the view that humankind is basically rational, the Calvinist view

believes that man is naturally selfish, weak, and corrupt. (Clark, 1970; The Heidelberg

Catechism, 1563/1988; Higgins, 1954). For these reasons, humankind is unwilling to set

aside personal interests for the good of society (Higgins). Therefore, when an individual

violates the rights of another person, it is believed that permissiveness on the part of

society has brought out his basic selfish instincts (Clark). According to the Calvinist

view, humankind will respond to coercion (Higgins) as well as God's grace, which is

viewed as irresistible. However, it is the responsibility of society to respond to violations

with discipline to control humankind's basic selfish instincts (Clark).

Although the Calvinist view has a different premise from that of Locke, the

outcome was generally the same. Locke maintained that individuals cannot live in a state

of freedom and equality for three important reasons: (1) individuals don't pay enough

attention to the rational natural law; (2) the selfish concerns of individuals would result in

a biased application of the principles of natural law; and (3) individuals require authority

so natural law can be meaningfully enforced (Locke, 1690/1968; Miller, 1996).

Locke maintained that members of a society give tacit consent to its social contract.

Tacit consent is consent that is assumed by an individual's participation in a society

(Locke, 1690/1968; Miller, 1996). When humankind participates in society, they agree to

adhere to its laws and rules as well as give the state the authority and power to enforce its

laws and rules (Higgins, 1954).

Authority to secure human rights.According to Higgins (1954) society must have

the power to compel individual members to cooperate on a permanent basis. The power

granted to society to compel others to obey and enforce laws is authority (Higgins). The









need for authority is considered to be self-evident and an essential component of any

society (Higgins). Higgins asserted that in order for a society to work, its members must

be aware of the commonly agreed upon good sought individually and collectively and

how the laws are designed to safeguard these pursuits (Higgins). The laws of a particular

society therefore can be thought of as representing not only the rights of its citizens but

the authority of the state to enforce the laws and punish those citizens who violate the

rights of individual members of that society (Higgins).

Social justice

John Locke has been referred to as "the spiritual father of the constitution" (Miller, 1996,

p. 516) because Thomas Jefferson stated that his intent was to embody the social and

political principles of Locke in the Declaration of Independence (Miller). The philosophy

of individualism can be found in the first ten amendments to the constitution of the

United States (Miller) and it is clear that the values held by United States citizens at the

time the Declaration was written were deeply influenced by Locke's ideas (Miller).

Freedom for all individuals is a value that is guaranteed to all United States citizens in its

creed and is protected under the constitution as an inalienable right (Hutchins, 1952).

When the United States declared that all people are created equal as part of its foundation

for declaring independence, it became part of the country's core value system (Hutchins).

The liberties afforded American citizens under its constitution were considered necessary

for humankind to develop the qualities within each other regarded as good. As such, the

fundamental premise underlying the liberties afforded Americans is the previously

discussed belief that man is essentially good and if given the chance will develop into a

kind and gentle human being (Clark, 1970). These liberties also represent the American









citizen's emphasis on the individual's quest for actualization and individual liberty and

freedom as necessary for individuals to pursue self-actualization (Higgins, 1954).

The individual rights of a society are formalized and codified into what Artistotle

referred to as conventional law (Aquinas, 350 B.C./1962) and Aquinas referred to as

human law (Aquinas, 1264/1905); which are laws, created by citizens, to protect person

and property, also referred to as basic human rights derived from natural law (Higgins,

1954). These human or conventional laws are codified natural laws and first foundational

laws (Higgins; Miller, 1996).

The same declaration that guarantees equal rights also recognizes that governments

are instituted among men to secure these rights (Hutchins, 1952). Therefore, the United

States Constitution guarantees defense of its citizens against discrimination, abuse of

power, and harm to person or property (Hutchins). Citizens have the right to ask their

government to enforce their constitutional rights (Hutchins). As a result, government is

charged with upholding the rights of its citizens, which is the enforcement of human or

conventional laws (Miller, 1996). The enforcement of laws is how society guarantees that

the core value system is upheld and protected for all citizens. The process of ensuring

equal rights through enforcement is a major component of social justice (Higgins, 1954).

Equality and bias

The discussion on equality in the previous section is significant because it represents the

core value system of the United States. However, there are other means of identifying the

core value system of a society. According to Lawrence (1999), the range of bias that is

tolerated and accepted by a nation or other politically organized society is a statement of

what that society values and, more important, its sense of equality (Lawrence). Because

equality and bias are considered to be at opposite ends of the spectrum a society that









values equality cannot tolerate bias. In other words, society cannot theoretically value

equality and tolerate bias at the same time. Consequently, any time bias functions to

violate basic human rights, the act is considered a serious offense.

Crime

Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) presented a general theory of crime in which they

asserted that discipline dependent definitions of crime reflect the interest of the

discipline. For example, economists view crime as being economically determined,

sociologists view crime as being socially determined, and psychologists view crime as

determined by psychopathology, etc. As a result, Gottfredson and Hirschi offered the

following general definition of crime: "behaviors that are attempts to satisfy immediate

needs rather than delaying gratification." Gottfredson and Hirschi's theory of crime has

been criticized in the literature because their theory of why people commit crime is based

solely on self-control (Baron, 2003). The intent here is to adopt the definition and not

discuss the merits of the theory by weighing the pros and cons of self-control as an

etiology of criminal behavior. Because, placed within the context of the previous

discussion on social justice, Gottfredson and Hirschi's definition of crime is consistent

with the idea that in general terms crime is a discourse to social justice. At the level of the

individual, crime is behavior that meets an individual need at the risk of violating the

social contract.Punishment

When an individual commits a crime against person or property, the act is said to

reflect not only on the character of the individual but also on that of society (Clark,

1970). Consequently, how a society responds to the criminal behavior is also a reflection

on society (Clark). Therefore, when an individual violates the rights of another person, it

is believed that permissiveness has brought out his basic selfish instincts (Clark).









Consequently, the individual is not acting according to the commonly agreed upon good

(Higgins, 1954) and society must respond with discipline to control the individual's basic

selfish instincts (Clark).

Two schools of punishment theory exist, the retributionist theory and the consequentialist

theory (Lawrence, 1999). The consequentialist theory is a utilitarian theory that believes

punishment is justified to the extent that it improves society, for example reducing crime.

The retribution theory is a deontological approach to punishment and supports giving the

criminal his "just desserts." Further, the retributionist believes that the offender deserves

to be punished because he has violated the norms of society (Lawrence). Theorists such

as Hegel supported punishment by asserting that the offender has the right to be punished

because society respects the individual as an autonomous being and punishes him for his

choice to break the law (Hegel, 1807/1967). Kant believed in the idea that an offender

has an obligation to society (Kant, 1797/1999). He believed there was a substantial

benefit to citizens for obeying the laws of society (Kant; Miller, 1996). When a citizen

breaks the law, he incurs a debt to society, which is repaid through punishment. It is clear

that widespread support exists for punishment across theoretical backgrounds. However,

it is also accepted that for punishment to be morally justifiable, the severity of the

punishment must fit the severity of the crime (Lawrence).

The notion that the severity of punishment must fit the crime is easier than the

adage "an eye for an eye." The measure used by criminal justice theorists is to place

punishment along the continuum of all punishment, if it falls at the same point on the

continuum occupied by the crime along the continuum of all crimes, then it is believed to









be just (Lawrence, 1999). In simpler terms, it is the "relative amount of punishment

corresponding to the relative amount of crime." (Lawrence, p. 48).

Theorists look to culpability and harm caused to society to evaluate the severity of

the crime. Culpability refers to the state of mind or mens rea, of the offender, the more

purposeful the conduct, the more severe the penalty (Lawrence, 1999). Conversely,

reckless conduct is considered less severe than conduct that is purposeful in nature.

Although culpability is a generally accepted principle in evaluating severity, criminal law

doctrine provides little direction about the issue of harm. As a result, evaluating harm

relies more heavily on theory (Lawrence).

Lawrence (1999) asserts that there are three theories that focus on how to measure the

harm committed by a particular crime, they is the ex-ante analysis, the ex-post facto

measuring of harm, and the living standard analysis. The ex-ante analysis is a means of

assessing the relative risk preference of a rational person. Applied, the analysis concludes

that the least harmful crime is the one that a rational person would risk facing. The ex-

post facto method ranks what the victim lost in the commission of the crime. The living

standards analysis (LSA) was designed to establish vocabulary for the discussion of harm

and form a set of principles or standards. The two key variables in establishing harm

based on the LSA are (1) the severity of the crimes invasion on personal interest, and (2)

the various kinds of interests that may be violated, such as personal safety, protection of

material possessions, etc. The discussion on crime severity will continue with the

application of theory to evaluate the severity of bias crime.

Crime and protected classes

Human kind generally agrees that "the rights of individuals persist even if their rights are

overridden by physical force" (Higgins, 1954, p. 492). In other words, rights exist for









individuals whether they have the physical ability to protect them or not. Examples of

citizens who are viewed as being particularly vulnerable and less able to protect their

rights are children, the elderly and people with disabilities (Behnke, Winick, & Perez,

2000). Because these groups of people are less able to protect themselves than other

groups in society, society places a high value on ensuring their health and well-being

(Behnke et al.). An example of this in practice is mandatory reporting laws. Most states

have mandatory reporting laws for healthcare professionals that require the reporting of

known or suspected abuse of individuals in these protected classes (Behnke et al.).

Society takes the interests of citizens in these protected classes so seriously that

mandatory reporting laws outweigh an individual's right to privacy and privileged

communication with healthcare professionals (Behnke et al.). Additionally, crimes

committed against individuals in protected classes are considered more severe in nature

(Higgins).

Crime and people with disabilities

A review of the literature suggests that the prevalence for violence among children and

adults with disabilities is higher than the general population in terms of the rate,

frequency, duration. Further, the offender profile is different when the victim has a

disability than for similar crimes where the victim does not have a disability. Moreover,

differences exist across age, type of abuse, and disability category.

Rate of crime. Researchers estimate that the incidence of violent crime in general

against adults and children with disabilities is two and a half times that in the general

population (Baladerian, 2001; Hiday, Swartz, Swanson, Borum, & Wagner, 1999; Sobsey

& Doe, 1991; Sullivan & Knutson, 1998). Regarding incidences of sexual abuse in

particular, the estimated prevalence is five to ten times that in the general population









(Sobsey & Doe). In an Australian study of individuals with intellectual disabilities,

Wilson and Brewer (1992) concluded that rate of sexual assault was 10.7 times higher,

robbery was 12.8 times higher, and overall violent crime was 4.2 times higher than the

general population.

Frequency. There is a fair amount of consistency in the research concerning the

frequency and duration of incidences of abuse sustained by persons with disabilities. In

the Sobsey & Doe (1991) study on sexual abuse, they reported that of the participants

reporting sexual abuse, approximately 20% reported a single incident, 20% reported

between five and ten incidences, and 49.6% reported greater than ten incidences (Sobsey

& Doe). In addition, 9.7% of the participants reported the abuse as "repeated" (Sobsey &

Doe). In a study conducted by Sullivan & Knutson (1998), persons with disabilities

experienced an increased duration of abuse and neglect.

Duration. Research on abuse and neglect of women with disabilities identified similar

findings. In a study of 946 women with disabilities who participated in the National

Study of Women with Physical Disabilities, 62% of the women reported they had

experienced some form of sexual, emotional, or physical abuse (Nosek et al., 1997). The

percentage of women experiencing abuse was the same for a group of non-disabled

controls. However, women with disabilities reported experiencing the abuse for longer

periods of time (3.9 years) compared to women without a disability (2.5 years) (Young,

Nosek, Howland, Chanpong, & Rintala, 1997). In addition, women with disabilities

experienced forms of abuse that were disability related such as withholding: (1)

medication, (2) transportation, (3) assistance with activities of daily living, and (4)

equipment for ambulation (Nosek et al.).









Perpetrator characteristics. Research suggests that the perpetrators of crimes

against persons with disabilities are often family members, neighbors, and acquaintances

the person has because of their disability. The Federal Bureau of Investigation in their

hate crime data reporting guidelines state that reporting decreases when the victim knows

the perpetrator (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1999b). Often, the victim fears

retribution from the perpetrator in the form of further abuse, neglect or an interruption of

services (Sobsey & Doe, 1991). In addition, victims may be reluctant to report crimes

because they believe the report lacks value and will not be taken seriously at any level of

the criminal justice system (Luckasson, 1992), a perception that appears to have some

validity (Mishra, 2001).

Sobsey and Doe (1991) found that in 56% of the reported cases of abuse the perpetrator

had a relationship to the person with a disability, which is consistent with data from non-

disabled victims. However, in the other 44% of the cases, the reported abusers had a

relationship with the victim that was specific to the disability. In 27.7% of the cases, the

perpetrator was a personal care attendant, residential care staff, hospital staff,

psychiatrist, and so on (Sobsey & Doe). Other perpetrator categories included

transportation providers, therapeutic foster parents, and other persons with disabilities

(Sobsey & Doe). Although the percentage of cases where the perpetrator is a family

member or friend is consistent with the national average, the results of this study suggests

the percentage of crime against persons with disabilities where the perpetrator in known to

the victim could be as high as 100%. This is not difficult to conceive when 2/3 of the

respondents to the Harris survey reported that their disability results in social isolation

(National Council on Disability, 2000). This places persons with disabilities almost









exclusively in contact with persons known to them such as family, friends, and

caregivers.

In the Sullivan and Knutson (1998) review of abuse of children with disabilities,

98% of the perpetrators were family members. In the Sobsey & Doe (1991) study,

although 95.6% of the victims knew of the perpetrator, 65.9% of the cases went

unreported to law enforcement by the victim (Sobsey & Doe). Other reasons for charges

not being filed included refusal by the police in 19% of the cases, refusal by the

prosecutors in 5.5% of the cases, and court dismissal in 2.2% of the cases (Sobsey &

Doe). Of the cases that were reported, 22% were charged and of the alleged perpetrators

charged, only 36% were convicted of the offense.

Disability category. Research has also found higher incidences of abuse in specific

disability categories. For example, Sullivan and Knutson (1998) found that 62.1% of the

children in the communicative disorder category of their study were abused by someone

in the family compared to 39.4% in the non-disabled group. The communication category

in the Sullivan and Knutson study included children who were deaf. This finding is

consistent with that of Sullivan, Vernon, and Scanlan (1987, as cited in Sobsey & Doe,

1991) who reported a review of research suggesting that 54% of deaf boys and 50% of

deaf girls have been sexually abused as children. Muccigrosso (1991) in a review of

literature suggested that 90-99% of individuals with developmental disabilities have been

sexually abused by the time they turn 18.

Much of the research conducted on abuse against persons with disabilities in the

United States has been on the prevalence of abuse in children with developmental

disabilities (Nosek, 1996). This may explain the passage of the Crime Victims with









Disabilities Awareness Act in 1998. The Act reported that research had been conducted

suggesting the incidence of abuse among individuals with developmental disabilities is

four to ten times higher than the general population. However, it was noted that the

studies were conducted in other countries (Canada, Australia, and England) and Congress

was not aware of the extent of the problem in the United States. Although Congress

mandated that data collection begin within two years of the passage of the act, the first

data collection for individuals with developmental disabilities in the National Crime

Victims Survey began in January, 2004 (Crime Victims with Disabilities Awareness Act

of 1998, P.L. 105-301). However, the act is specific to developmental disabilities.

Presently, data is being collected in the United States on hate crimes committed against

all disability categories and any crime committed against individuals with developmental

disabilities.

Attitudes

Gordon Allport stated that attitudes are "the single most indispensable construct in social

psychology" (Allport, 1935 p. 798). The volume of research since that time on attitude

structure and function, attitude-behavior relationships, and attitude change supports

Allport's claim.

Attitude theorists have considered the role and function of attitudes for some time.

It is generally accepted that one of the major functions of attitudes is to organize or

structure an otherwise chaotic universe (Katz, 1960; Smith, Bruner, & White, 1956).

From an evolutionary perspective, attitudes represent a process whereby humankind can

"size-up" events or objects in the environment, what is referred to as an object-evaluation

association (Fazio, Sanbonmatsu, Powell, & Kardes, 1986; Smith et al.). From an

evolutionary perspective, humankind used the object-evaluation association as a means to









forego reflective thought about an object and guide behavior quickly as a means of

survival. This section will address some working definitions of attitudes, the process

whereby attitudes are formed, and the complex association between attitudes and

behavior.

Definition of attitude

The most basic definition of attitude is a general evaluation or summary evaluation of an

object (Petty et al., 1997). Two early definitions were provided by Thurstone (1931) and

Allport (1935). Thurstone's early and well known (Petty et al., 1997) definition of

attitude was "affect for or against a psychological object" (Thurstone, 1931, p. 261). The

term affect was used by researchers at that time in the same way attitude is now used

(Ajzen, 2001). Today, affect is used to describe general moods and specific emotions

(Ajzen). In 1935, Allport offered an expanded definition as "a mental or neural state of

readiness, organized through experience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon

the individual's response to all objects and situations with which it is related" (Allport, p.

810). Ajzen & Fishbein (1980) reported that there were in excess of 500 definitions of

attitude. In an attempt to bring focus to the breadth of attitude definitions, Fazio et al.

(1982) suggested that all definitions of attitude include "the notion that an attitude

involves categorization of an object along an evaluative dimension." (Fazio et al., p.341).

Attitude and behavior

Fazio et al. (1982) suggested that earlier research was focused on I heIth'r there was

a relationship between attitudes and behavior (Corey, 1937; LaPiere, 1934; Wicker,

1969). Moreover, little evidence existed of congruence between attitude and behavior.

Conversely, evidence suggested the two may be incongruent (Wicker). Even though

evidence suggested an attitude-behavior relationship didn't exist, attitude research









continued as if there was a relationship (Ajzen, 2001). Since the research of LaPiere,

Corey (1937), and Wicker that focused on hediler a relationship existed, research has

focused on when attitudes might predict behavior or what are the moderators in the

attitude-behavior relationship (Fazio & Towles-Schwen, 1999) and it was suggested by

Fazio et al. that future research in this are should focus on how attitudes guide behavior.

The MODE model of the attitude-behavior process is an example of the focus of how

attitudes guide behavior and is explained in greater depth in the next section.

Attitude-behavior processes. Two classes or attitude behavior processes exist that

provide a conceptual framework for understanding the mechanism of how attitude

influences behavior, a spontaneous process and a deliberative attitude to behavior process

(Fazio & Towles-Schwen, 1999). The difference between the two processes can be

conceptualized as the difference between a process whereby) there is an immediate

influence of attitude on behavior as with the spontaneous process or 2) a process whereby

a conscious evaluation occurs considering the alternatives of behavior as with the

deliberative attitude to behavior process (Fazio & Towles-Schwen).

Spontaneous process. Support for the theory of the automatic activation of

attitudes is present in the literature. The theory, originally proposed in the 1980s by Fazio

and his colleagues, is focused on the automatic activation of attitude from memories. Put

simply, the model asserts that an individual's behavior is influenced by an individual's

perception of an attitude object and the context or situation in which the object is

encountered (Fazio & Williams, 1986). According to the model, attitudes are also thought

to influence perception of the object such that a selective processing occurs (Fazio &

Williams). The processing of the attitude object is selective to the extent that it's









consistent with the individual' attitude (Fazio & Williams). The key component to the

model is the accessibility of the attitude from memory. When activated from memory, the

attitude is believed to affect both perception and behavior (Fazio & Williams).

Research on the spontaneous process has focused on the accessibility of attitude

from memory, the strength of association, speed of access, and the factors that influence

each of these. Fazio and Zanna (1981) suggest that the manner in which attitudes are

formed plays a large role in the extent to which attitudes influence behavior. If an attitude

is formed through direct contact with the attitude object, that attitude will have a stronger

influence on behavior than if the attitude was formed without a behavioral experience

(Devine, 1989). It is noteworthy that criticism emerged on the selective processing effects

of attitudes because research has failed to provide clear support for the theory with results

being inconsistent or weak (Ajzen, 2001).Fazio et al. (1982) maintained that an attitude

must first be accessed from memory for it to have any influence over behavior. Further,

the accessibility of an attitude from memory is directly related to the strength of

association. This led to an exploration of the factors that contributed to the strength of

association. Measures of attitude strength used in research studies consist of resistance to

counter-persuasion, the clarity and definition of the attitude, and reported confidence in

the attitude (Schuman & Johnson, 1979). Fazio and Zanna (1981) reported evidence that

of the three strength-indicators mentioned, an individual's reported confidence in an

attitude and the clarity and definition of the attitude have a positive correlation with the

number of direct behavioral experiences with the attitude object. Fazio et al. reported that

repeated attitudinal expression also functions to strengthen the association between the

attitude and object as evidenced by increased accessibility and behavior consistent with









the attitude. The results of this study are particularly relevant because as mentioned in

Fazio et al. the presentation of an attitude can elicit the same attitude the survey is

designed to assess. Fazio et al. also demonstrated that direct experience with the attitude

object is more likely than indirect experience to be accessed when later observing the

attitude object and more likely to influence behavior.

Roskos-Ewoldsen and Fazio (1992) discovered that the strongest attitudes from memory

are more likely to attract the attention of the observer. In the Roskos-Ewoldsen and Fazio

study, when subjects were presented with a visual display of objects, the objects were

more likely to be noticed if there was an associated evaluation from memory. Roskos-

Ewoldsen and Fazio concluded that attitudes serve as an orienting function. Moreover,

attitudes can influence the processing of visual information. Conversely, the visual

stimulus can activate the attitude from memory (Roskos-Ewoldsen & Fazio).

Deliberative process. The deliberative process model focuses on the individual's

focus on the attributes or raw data instead of a preexisting attitude (Fazio & Towles-

Schwen, 1999). The most common deliberative process model is Ajzen's (1991) Theory

of Planned Behavior and its predecessor, the Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen &

Fishbein, 1980). The theory is based on the belief that human kind is rational and makes

use of available information (Ajzen & Fishbein). Further, that human kind weighs the

pros and cons of options available to them before making a decision (Ajzen & Fishbein).

The MODE model. MODE is an acronym for Motivation and Opportunity as

DEterminants (Fazio & Towles-Schwen, 1999). The MODE model was developed by

Fazio in an attempt to integrate both the spontaneous and deliberative process theories

(Fazio, 1990). The MODE is considered an application of Kruglanski's theory of lay









epistemics (Sanbonmatsu & Fazio, 1990). Kruglanski's research on this theory attempted

to understand the general process whereby individuals acquire knowledge (Sanbonmatsu

& Fazio). Kruglanski theorized that knowledge consists of the content of knowledge and

the confidence each individual places in the content (Kruglanski & Freund, 1983). The

process whereby individuals gain confidence in the content is that of hypothesis

generation and validation (Kruglanski & Freund). Humankind has three individual needs

that motivate an individual to engage in the process of hypothesis formation and

validation: (1) 'fear of invalidity', (2) the need for structure, and (3) the need for specific

conclusions (Kruglanski & Freund) These needs provide the necessary motivation

necessary for an individual to engage in careful reflection and deliberation to arrive at a

valid conclusion (Sanbonmatsu & Fazio). Sanbonmatsu and Fazio concluded that the

same needs theorized by Kruglanski and Freund provided the motivation necessary for an

individual to engage in an attribute-based decision as opposed to an attitude-based

decision (Sanbonmatsu & Fazio). Opportunity is considered a prerequisite to deliberation

in the MODE model (Fazio & Towles-Schwen) and has been manipulated experimentally

with the use of time. (Kruglanski & Freund; Sanbonmatsu & Fazio).

Kruglanski and Freund (1983) experimentally manipulated motivation by

enhancing the fear of invalidity. In the study, participants were informed that their

selection would be compared to other participants and they would have to explain their

decisions to the other participants and the investigator (Fazio & Towles-Schwen, 1999;

Kruglanski & Freund). In a similar study, Schuette and Fazio (1990) experimentally

manipulated the motivation of participants to engage in a deliberate process by informing

participants their responses to a survey would be compared to a panel of social scientists









and later discussed with them. The results of both studies provided evidence that

individuals can engage in careful and reflective deliberation and ignore potentially

biasing attitudes when motivated (Fazio & Towles-Schwen).

Kruglanski and Freund (1983) and Jamieson and Zanna (1989) experimentally

manipulated opportunity by adding time pressure to the participants. In both studies,

participant decision-making was influenced by personal attitudes when time-pressure was

a factor. This provides support for the belief that sufficient opportunity, time, is required

for careful and reflective deliberation to occur (Fazio & Towles-Schwen, 1999).

Attitudes towards persons with disabilities

Attitudes towards people with disabilities tend to vary as a function of gender, age,

education, and occupation, to name a few. Although there are other correlates in the

literature such as personality, locus of control, and so on. the focus here will be on those

factors that may have a relationship to attitudes as they relate to perception of bias crime.

Research has demonstrated that women tend to report more positive attitudes

towards people with physical disabilities than do men (Chesler, 1965; Siller, 1963; Yuker

et al., 1960). A possible explanation for this difference was proposed by Siller who

theorized that women may feel a different amount of social pressure to convey a socially

acceptable attitude. However, the number of studies showing females with more positive

attitudes is decreasing over time with 20% of the studies showed positive attitudes in the

1980's versus 59% of the studies before 1970, resulting in the conclusion that the gap that

exists between men and women appears to be closing over time (Yuker & Block, 1986).

The relationship between age and attitudes towards people with disabilities is more

complex than gender. Ryan (1981) reviewed the literature and concluded that attitudes

are positive during early childhood through adolescence (Siller, 1963) at which point they









show a trend towards becoming more negative. Attitudes again show a change in a

positive direction from early to late adulthood and then decline when reaching senior

years (Ryan). Yuker et al. (1966) cautioned that the relationship between age and attitude

may be confounded by other variables. Yuker & Block (1986) suggested that education

level and contact with persons with disabilities were confounding with age.

Education is believed to be a confounding variable with age (Yuker & Block, 1986)

although the results are inconsistent (Tsang, Chan, & Chan, 2004). The number of years

of education an individual has appears to be related to more positive attitudes toward

people with disabilities (Gosse & Sheppard, 1979; Yuker et al., 1966). Yuker and Block

(1986) maintain after a review of the literature that the confounding effect of age and

education appears strongest under the age of 25. Education was not found to have a

significant effect on the attitudes of occupational therapy students in Hong Kong (Lee,

Paterson, & Chan, 1994). However, the positive effect of occupational therapy

curriculum on attitudes has been observed in America and Hong Kong (Estes, Deyer,

Hansen, & Russell, 1991; Lee et al.).

Attitudes towards persons with disabilities also vary with occupation. Although

many individuals believe a priori that individuals who work in the helping professions

have more positive attitudes that does not bear itself out in the literature. Data indicates

that individuals in the helping professions have a more negative attitude towards people

with disabilities than the general population (Brodwin & Orange, 2002; Chubon, 1982;

Livneh & Cook, 2005; Wills, 1978).

Pederson and Carlson (1981) and Chubon (1982) documented negative attitudes of

people with disabilities by rehabilitation personnel. It has been suggested that negative









attitudes among rehabilitation professionals may have to do with the nature of the contact

between the professional and client. Specifically, in rehabilitation settings the nature of

the relationship between the rehabilitation professional and client with a disability is one

of inferior status and dependence (Amir, 1969). Further, the person with a disability is

not necessarily at his/her best when working with the rehabilitation professional, which

can also contribute to the formation of a negative attitude (Wills, 1978).

In a study of professions other than human service professionals, English and Oberle

(1971) reported that attitudes towards persons with disabilities by airline stewardesses

were more negative than typists. The results of these studies support the hypothesis that

certain types of contact are related to increased negative attitudes towards persons with

disabilities. However, the relationship between contact and attitude is complex and

warrants a more detailed exploration.

Contact Theory

The idea of contact was originally discussed by Lee and Humphrey in their analysis

of the Detroit riot of 1943 (Allport, 1954/1979). At that time, it was observed that amidst

the riot, white and black workers in the war plants worked peacefully, white and black

students at Wayne University continued to attend classes together and white and black

neighbors avoided participating in riots (Allport, 1954/1979). This phenomenon,

provided the underpinnings for the development of a contact hypothesis in the 1950's and

1960's the goal of which was to integrate racial and ethnic minorities (Allport; Amir,

1969; Smart, 2001).

In the formative years of contact theory, it was believed that contact of any type between

members of the minority and majority group would change attitudes, resulting in

behavior change, particularly that of prejudice (Dixon, Durrheim, & Tredoux, 2005;









Smart, 2001). However, Allport (1954/1979) emphasized that the relationship between

contact and out-group evaluations was not simple. As a result, he outlined a taxonomy of

'optimal' factors for contact. Dixon et. al. organized the factors as follows: Contact

should: (1) be regular and frequent; (2) involve a balance of in-group and out-group

members; (3) have genuine acquaintance potential; (4) occur across a variety of social

settings and situations; (5) be free from competition; (6) be evaluated by the participants

as important; (7) involve individuals regarding each other as having equal status; (8)

involve non-stereotypic members of the out-group; (8) be organized around a

superordinate goal; (9) be sanctioned by local or cultural norms and institutions; (10) be

free from negative emotions such as anxiety; (11) be personalized and involve genuine

friendship formation, and (12) be with an individual regarded as representative or typical

of the out-group.

A key component of Allport's (1954/1979) taxonomy is the recognition that quality

of contact was as important as quantity for positive changes in attitude to occur (Islam &

Hewstone, 1993), which was later supported by research (Amir, 1969). The contact

theory research paradigm has been very productive since the 1960's (Dixon et al., 2005).

Even though contact theory has been touted as the most effective strategy in psychology

for improving relations between in and out groups (Dovidio, Gaertner, & Kawakami,

2003), the theory is far from perfect.

Dixon et al. (2005) provide a critical evaluation of the research and remind contact

theorists that research since the 1960's has demonstrated the paradox of contact theory,

simply, some types of contact function to change attitudes in a positive direction whereas

other types of contact change attitudes in a negative direction (Dixon et al.). The process









whereby contact can serve to increase negative attitudes is multifaceted. Dixon et al.

recently suggested that there is a tendency for "informal systems of preferential

segregation" (p. 704) to re-emerge following optimal contact. Additionally, it is widely

accepted that any deviation from optimal contact can result in no change in attitude or a

change in a negative direction. Some of the conditions include: 1) whether the contact

was perceived as superficial or intimate, 2) pleasant or unpleasant, and 3) the person with

a disability is perceived as being representative of the disability group as a whole or

atypical (Islam & Hewstone, 1993). Additionally, contact where the outgroup member is

in an inferior or dependent status can function to increase negative attitudes (Amir, 1969)

a hypothesis that has been used to explain an increase in negative attitudes among health

care professionals (Wills, 1978).

Bias Crime

What is a bias crime?

The term bias crime is synonymous with hate crime. The terms are used

interchangeably in the literature although bias crime is generally considered the most

appropriate name (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000; Federal Bureau of Investigation,

1999b; Lawrence, 1999; McMahon et al., 2004). "Bias is a preformed negative attitude

toward a group based on race, religion, ethnicity/national origin, sexual orientation, or

disability status" (McMahon et al., p. 68) A bias crime is a crime against person or

property that is motivated in whole or in part based on the offender's bias." (McMahon et

al., p. 68)

The process of determining if a crime is a bias crime is a two tiered process (Federal

Bureau of Investigation, 1999b). The investigating officer determines whether there was

any indication that bias was the motivation of the alleged perpetrator. If the answer to the









question is yes, then the case is designated as a "suspected bias incident." A second

review is conducted by an officer trained in the investigation of bias motivated crimes

and he or she makes the final decision. The criteria for categorizing a crime as a hate

crime at the second tier is more stringent. To classify a crime as a hate crime, the

objective facts must lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the

perpetrator's actions were motivated by bias. The victim- related criteria for classification

include: (1) membership in a targeted group; (2) active role or advocacy in a community

group; (3) representation of victims group in the community; (4) previous records of

victimization; or (5) visitation to a high tension community. The perpetrator-related

criteria are: (1) presence or comments, gestures or written statements supporting bias; (2)

appreciation of crime impact upon the victim; (3) membership in a hate group; or (4)

previous record as a perpetrator.

Bias crimes are also two-tiered in nature (Lawrence, 1999). The first tier consists of

a crime that is committed against person or property, such as assault and battery or

robbery, which Lawrence also refers to as parallel crimes. The second tier involves the

addition of bias motivation, also referred to as an enhancement. It is important to clarify

that a bias crime is not a category by itself. If a crime is determined beyond a reasonable

doubt to have been motivated by bias, then the bias motivation carries a sentence

enhancement. For example, an offender may be found guilty of the crime of assault and

battery, which carries a minimum sentence of 5 year in prison. However, if the offender

is found guilty of choosing the victim based on his or her membership in a protected

group bias, the sentence can be enhanced to a minimum mandatory sentence of 10 years.









In 1990, then President George Bush signed into law the Hate Crime Statistics Act

(HCSA), which requires the Attorney General to collect data on crimes committed where

the victims are chosen based on their membership in a race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual

orientation (Perry, 2001). In 1997, disability was included as a protected category in the

Act (McMahon et al., 2004). However, there is disparity across states in terms of what

constitutes a protected class. Minnesota, for example, includes gender, age, and national

origin in their legislation. Oregon protects based on "perceived" race, sexual orientation,

color, religion, national origin, marital status, political affiliation of beliefs, membership

or activity in or on behalf of a labor organization or against a labor organization, age,

physical or mental handicap, economic or social status, or citizenship. In 2001, Perry

noted that of the 50 states, only 21 included disability in the hate crime statutes.

Why bias crime is more serious

The idea that bias crimes are more severe and require sentence enhancements is a

controversial topic. Proponents of sentencing enhancement for bias crimes argue that bias

crimes are more severe thus warranting more severe sentences. The following analysis

will show the logic of the argument.

Applying the features of a bias crime to the theory of determining crime severity

discussed previously, Lawrence (1999) asserts that the increased severity of bias crimes

becomes clear. In terms of culpability, offenders who are motivated by bias are more

likely to cause harm (more likely to commit assaults and the assaults are often more

violent). Moreover, the motivation of the perpetrator of a hate crime violates the equality

principle, which is one of the most deeply held tenets in our culture and, consequently

our legal system (Lawrence). When the Ex-Ante Analysis is applied, the question is

"would a rational person risk a parallel crime before he or she would risk a bias crime?"









The answer to the question is almost certainly yes. The living standards analysis applied

to bias crimes results in a potential threat to dignity, autonomy, and perceived threat to

physical safety. Theories of Why People Commit Bias Crime

Realistic conflict

The realistic conflict theory maintains that competition for scarce but necessary

resources results in hostility and conflict between groups (Levine & Campbell, 1972).

The realistic conflict theory is a matter of economics (Brehm, Kassin, & Fein, 2005). If

one group acquires more resources, such as land, homes, jobs, etc, the group with less

resources becomes frustrated (Brehm et al.). The group with resources becomes

protective over their possessions and the resulting conflict escalates.

Relative deprivation

The theory of relative deprivation suggests that there is more to prejudice than

conflict, as suggested in the realistic conflict model (Brehm et al., 2005). The theory of

relative deprivation supports the idea that the mere perception of an imbalance in

resources, power or opportunity will result in conflict (Davis 1959; Katz, 1981; Walker &

Smith, 2002). For example, what matters to the proverbial Jones' is not the type of car

they drive, but whether their car is smaller in size than the one the Brady's drive. The

theory can also be extended to the perception of job opportunities for one group versus

another, etc.

Social identity

The theory of social identity is predicated on the research of Henry Tajfel (Tajfel,

Billing, Bundy, and Flament, 1971). Tajfel et al. conducted an experiment with high

school boys in Bristol, England. The young male participants were randomly assigned to

one of two groups. The groups did not compete for scarce resources nor were they









frustrated by perceived differences. The boys had no history together as a group and yet

Tajfel et al. found that participants consistently awarded more points to members of their

in-group than their out-group, a pattern he termed in-group favoritism. Tajfel and Turner

developed the theory of social identity to explain the in-group favoritism they observed

(Brehm et al., 2005; Tajfel, 1982). The theory is based on the premise that each

individual strives to enhance his or her self-esteem. Further, self- esteem can be enhanced

through personal identity or social identity (Brehm et al.). Personal identity can be

achieved through personal achievement whereas social identity is achieved through the

achievements of the group and favoritism towards the in-group. Similarly, favoritism can

also be enhanced by disparaging the out-group (Turner, Brown, & Tajfel, 1979).

Social learning

Social learning theory was originally proposed by Albert Bandura (1977) to

explain how behavior is learned. Influenced by the results of the classic Bobo doll

experiment where Bandura, Ross, and Ross (1961) observed that children who watched

adults aggressing on an inflatable doll (punching, kicking, etc) displayed more aggression

towards the doll later than controls who did not observe the parents treatment of the doll.

Social learning theory claims that behavior is not learned merely through reinforcement

schedule of reward and punishment. Rather, behavior is also learned by observing others

and being reinforced vicariously. Consequently, targeted violence towards specific

groups is observed and the violence is modeled.

Psychodynamic

Much research has been devoted to describing the "prejudiced personality" as the agent

of hatred (Allport, 1979). Some controversy exists over the investigation of the

prejudiced personality. For one, although many acts of hatred are committed by









individuals with a prejudiced personality, not all individuals with prejudiced personalities

commit acts of hatred. Therefore, identifying a personality type can create the same

stereotypes this line of research aims to eliminate. Further, Yuker (1988) asserts that

research efforts are better spent elsewhere as personality types are relatively intractable to

change. That said, the psychodynamics of the prejudice personality warrant some

attention for a comprehensive discussion of bias crime.

Insecurity appears to be at the root of the prejudiced personality (Allport,

1954/1979). Theoretically, insecurity stems from a fear of: self, instincts, consciousness,

change, and the social environment. The etiology of insecurity stems from unmet needs

from parents resulting in unresolved infantile conflicts or a persistent pattern of failure in

adult life. Regardless of the etiology, an observable personality pattern appears to emerge

from the described "threat orientation." (Allport, p.396). Allport asserted that any

personality that feels threatened is most likely going to develop patterns of ego-alienation

and a longing for definiteness, safety, and authority. "the ego simply fails to integrate the

myriad of impulses that arise within the personality and the myriad of environmental

presses without. This failure engenders feelings of insecurity, and these feelings

engender, in turn, repression." (Allport, p. 397).

The individual with a prejudiced personality is unable to consciously cope with

conflicts as they arise, so he represses then, in whole or in part, which results in them

being fragmented, forgotten or not faced at all. The consequences of repression are: 1)

ambivalence towards parents; 2) moralism; 3) dichotomization; 4) a need for

definiteness; 5) externalization of conflict; 6) institutionalism; and 7) authoritarianism.

(Allport, 1954/1979). Ambivalence. According to Allport (1954/1979) research shows









that individuals who are ambivalent towards their parents have a tendency to come from

homes where punishment, obedience, and threat of rejection abound, an environment

where power prevails instead of love. The individual learns from reward and punishment

that he or she is incapable of full acceptance of the self because he or she must constantly

avoid failure. Identification with parents is often difficult because parents from this type

of environment often do not meet the needs of the child. In a family situation such as this,

threat hangs over the child at all times.

Moralism. Allport (1954/1979) also asserted that prejudiced personalities often take

a strict moral view. These individuals insist on conventional mores and virtues such as

cleanliness, good manners and purity. Conversely, prejudiced personalities are intolerant

of transgression of the conventional mores and virtues. This can be viewed also as

intolerance of weakness and of minority groups. For example, the Nazis charged the Jews

with violating conventional codes by accusing them of dirtiness and immorality. Allport

asserts that this widespread propaganda was used to justify the torture and exportation of

the Jews.

Dichotomization. Research also suggests that both prejudiced children and adults

more than non-prejudiced controls tend to polarize the world into good and bad (Allport,

1954/1979). For example, there are only two kinds of women, good and bad. Further, the

belief exists that there is only one correct way of doing anything. Consequently, there is

little room for ambiguity; rather, the world is viewed categorically as being good or bad.

Needfor definiteness. It has been observed that prejudiced individuals have a thought

pattern consistent with their way of thinking (Allport, 1954/1979). Put more simply,

individuals who are prejudiced, are prejudice in their way of thinking about everything.









In a study of memory traces using truncated pyramids, Fisher (1951) observed that

individuals who were higher in prejudice tended to form simplified memory traces of an

unusual object such as the truncated pyramid. Individuals lower in prejudice were more

likely to identify the object as unusual and not easy to classify. Other studies

demonstrated that individuals high in prejudice were less likely to say "I don't know"

during an experiment and more likely to cling to known images for longer periods of time

(Frenkel-Brunswik, 1949). This line of research led to the theory that individuals high in

prejudice have a perseverative thought process, meaning that "old and tried solutions are

considered safe anchorage." (Allport, 1954/1979, p.402).

Externalization. Individuals high in prejudice have also been found to project or

externalize more than individuals low in prejudice (Allport, 1954/1979). Allport

maintained that individuals suffering from ego-alienation avoid introspection in favor of

looking outward, "it is better to think of things happening to him rather than caused by

him" (p. 404), consequently, individuals high in prejudice do not view themselves as

injuring or hating others, rather it is others who injure or hate them.

Institutionalization. Individuals high in prejudice like order but more importantly,

social order (Allport, 1954/1979). Consequently, these individuals are more dedicated to

institutions than those lower in prejudice (Allport). Stagner (1944) discussed nationalism

as a form of membership in an institution. Further, prejudiced individuals would distrust

those with liberal political perspectives and political reformers because they are

attempting to destroy the institution that functions to provide protection to a way of life

and, ultimately, to protect the individual (Allport; Stagner, 1944)Authoritarianism. The

prejudiced personality is prone to authoritarianism. That is, society should be orderly,









powerful and authoritative. To this end, nationalism, as discussed in the previous section,

is consistent with this belief. A society that places emphasis on the individual results in

uncertainty and change. According to Allport "the consequence of personal freedom they

find unpredictable." (1954/1979, p.406). The prejudiced personality looks to hierarchy in

authority to remedy the messiness of individualism. Power structures are definite and

function to make life predictable.

Ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism maintains that "one group is the center of

everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it "(Sumner, 1960, p. 27).

Therefore, if one's group is believed to be superior intellectually, psychologically and

physically (Atkinson, Morten, & Sue, 1998) all other groups are inherently inferior. In its

extreme form, ethnocentrism can lead to bias or discrimination, of which hate crime is an

example (McMahon et al., 2004).

Perpetrators of Bias Crime

The theories of why people commit hate crimes can be seen to emerge in what is known

about the typology of offenders of bias crime. Hate crime offenders tend to be white

males between the ages of 13 and 24 (Anderson, Dyson, & Brooks, 2002; McDevitt,

Levin, & Bennett, 2002). Levin and McDevitt (1993) suggested that offenders who

commit bias crimes are motivated by three different factors that result in three separate

typologies. These three typologies include: 1) the thrill seeker, who is motivated by

power and excitement, 2) the defensive who is motivated by defending ones turf or

resources, and 3) the mission, who believes he or she is on a crusade to rid the world of

groups considered evil or inferior. In 2002, McDevitt (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000)

included retaliatory as a fourth typology of hate crime offender. The retaliatory offender









is motivated by a desire to avenge their group as a result of a perceived assault or

degradation.

Bias Crime Reporting

McDevitt (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000) outlined a process of bias crime

reporting, which can be conceptualizedd as a series of decision points." (Bureau of

Justice Statistics, p. 34). The following is a list of the decision points:

1. Victim understanding that a crime has been committed
2. Victim Recognition that hate may be a motivating factor
3. Victim or another party solicits law enforcement intervention
4. Victim or another party communicates in ilh law enforcement about motivation of
the crime
5. Law enforcement recognizes the element of hate
6. Law enforcement documents the element of hate, and as appropriate, charges
suspect with civil rights of hate/bias offense
7. Law enforcement records the incident and submits the information to the Uniform
Crime Reports (UCR), Hate Crime Reporting Unit.
(Bureau of Justice Statistics, p. 34).

In a 1987 study conducted by McDevitt and his colleagues (Bureau of Justice Statistics,

2000), 452 bias incidents handled by the Boston Police Department were examined.

McDevitt found that only 19 or 4.2% of the cases were appropriately identified as bias

incidents by reporting officers (Levin, 1992). Levin asserted that critics of police officer

reporting cite prejudice as the main factor influencing misidentification of bias

incidences. Nolan and Akiyama (1999) conducted a series of focus groups with 147

police officers from four jurisdictions from the Northeast, West, Central and Southern

United States. Two precincts participated in bias crime reporting and two precincts did

not participate. The results of the study consisted of variables that affected whether the

agency and the individual reported a bias crime. The number one factor affecting whether

an agency participated in bias crime reporting was "Shared attitudes/heIiej\ about hate

crime reporting." (Nolan & Akiyama, p. 120). The number one factor affecting individual









reporting was supportive organizational policies and procedures. The number two factor

affecting whether an individual officer reported a hate crime was "individual attitudes

and beliefs about hate crime reporting." (Nolan & Akiyama, p.121).

Victim Selection

Another aspect of criminal investigation is that of perpetrator motivation.

McMahon et al. (2004) discussed the differences between crimes motivated by group

animus and those by motivated by actuarial opportunity. An actuarial crime refers to the

offender's evaluation of potential crime victims in terms of their ability to defend

themselves (McMahon et al.). Although these crimes may appear to be spontaneous in

nature, the predatory nature of the offender still engages in a process whereby he or she

selects prey.

In contrast to actuarial crimes, group animus refers to the offender's selection of a

crime victim because of their membership in a group; rather what that potential victim

symbolizes (McMahon et al., 2004). Animus is an important component of victim

selection to bias crime classification because according to law enforcement, if animus is

not present, then a bias crime has not been committed (McMahon et al.).

Problems with Bias Crime Data

Many problems exist with the reporting and collection of bias crime data (Bureau of

Justice Statistics, 2000). Some of the problems that interfere with the accurate reporting

of bias crimes include: 1) voluntary reporting by law enforcement agencies; 2) variability

in definition and reporting format by state and local jurisdiction; and 3) Supreme Court

decisions that affect the criminal investigation itself.

Although the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990 requires the Federal government to

collect data on bias crimes, participation in the reporting is voluntary. Moreover, of those









agencies that participate, 83% "reported 'zero' hate crimes occurred in their jurisdiction"

(Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000, p. 13). More importantly, McDevitt's research study

involved interviews of police officers from "zero" reporting agencies who reported "they

had been directly involved in bias crime investigations and had recorded them as such"

(Bureau of Justice Statistics, p. 37). Specifically, 31% of the respondents who worked in

jurisdictions that reported 'zero' hate crimes believe that their department investigated

one or more hate crimes (Bureau of Justice Statistics). Even more interesting, 37.1% of

the respondents who worked in jurisdictions that did not report to the UCR believed their

jurisdiction had investigated one or more hate crimes (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000).

Another problem related to hate crime statistics is the definition. The definition of a

bias crime often varies from state/local jurisdiction (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000).

Further, although the FBI has started moving away from the UCR, which collects more

summary data, to the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS), which collects

incident specific data, there is much variability across states/jurisdictions as to which

reporting system is used (Bureau of Justice Statistics). As a result, crimes are reported

using either the UCR or the NIBRS system, resulting in significant variability in the data

collected.

Prior to the US Supreme Court Decision on Apprendi v. New Jersey, the sentencing

enhancement for a crime suspected to be based on animus was presented by the

prosecuting attorney and determined by the sentencing judge, which requires a

preponderance of the evidence (Hoffman, 2003). In Apprendi v. New Jersey, Apprendi's

sentence was enhanced from a 5-10 year minimum to a 10-20 year minimum after the

sentencing judge determined the preponderance of evidence supported the victims were









chosen based on group animus. Apprendi appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court

and the sentence was overturned. The majority decision written by Justice Paul Stevens

stated that due process required by the fourteenth amendment requires that any

enhancement of sentence beyond that allowed by statute must be submitted to the jury

and proved beyond a reasonable doubt (Hoffman, 2003; Oyez, 2000). If prosecutors are

required to collect evidence of group animus, which is difficult to prove, to prove beyond

a reasonable doubt, then it is possible prosecuting attorneys will scrutinize cases more

closely. Although no investigation has been conducted to look at this, anecdotal

comments from a Florida LEO investigating hate crimes supported the difficulty in

substantiating bias motivation to a prosecuting attorney (M. Endara, personal

communication, August 7, 2005).

Bias Crime and People with Disabilities

As discussed previously, people with disabilities were included in the Hate Crime

Statistics Act in 1996 although data collection didn't begin until 1997. McMahon et al.

(2004) collected the entire universe of data from the period 1997-2001, a total of five

years. Although lack of complete participation of law enforcement agencies prevents a

complete universe, McMahon et al. estimated that the 12,000 law enforcement agencies

that participated across 49 states represented jurisdictions that cover approximately 85%

of the U.S. population.A total of 41,442 bias crimes were reported for the five-year

period (McMahon et al., 2004). The majority of the crimes were committed because of

race (22,030), followed

by religion (7,846), sexual orientation (6,371), ethnicity (5,428), and disability (127). The

relative risk of victimization was assessed by calculating a within-group odds-ratio for

type of hate crime and location. The relative risk for a racially based bias crime (1.19)









was 350 times that of disability (.002) (McMahon et al.). The most common types of hate

crimes were simple assault, intimidation, and property damage, which was consistent

across all categories. However, the risk for simple assault was greater for people with

disabilities than for any other group (McMahon et al.). The top three locations where bias

crimes were committed were personal residence, street, and other. Although these top

three were consistent across categories, people with disabilities were at greatest risk in

their residence, followed by college campuses and government buildings.

McMahon et al. (2004) asserted that it is unlikely people with disabilities

experience bias crimes at a rate lower than other protected categories. In fact, many

disability theorists are looking to the issue of underreporting as a possible explanation for

the relatively low risk of bias crime for people with disabilities (Berkeleyan, 2002;

McMahon et al.; Sherry, 2003; Sorensen, 2001).

McMahon et al. (2004) offers the following possible explanations for

underreporting of bias crimes:

(1) Disability was included as a protected category almost six years after the development

of the initial system for hate crime reporting, consequently, only half of the states

included disability in their hate crime legislation; (2) the marginal status of people with

disabilities results in lack of accessibility to the criminal justice system so law

enforcement has little experience working with people with disabilities and people with

disabilities lack attention from law enforcement; (3) the lack of appellate cases dealing

with disability in hate crime legislation; (4) the perpetrators of crimes against people with

disabilities are often known to them e.g. family members, caretakers, etc. and victims are

less likely to report a crime to law enforcement when the offender is know to the victim;









and (5) if reports to law enforcement do not result in prosecution and conviction, people

with disabilities will lose faith in law enforcement and the benefits of reporting will not

outweigh the risk association with # 4. Problems with bias crime data discussed

previously, also apply to people with disabilities. An analysis of the problems with bias

crime data for people with disabilities will be presented below.

As mentioned previously, people with disabilities are included in bias crime legislation in

approximately 21, roughly half, of the United States (Perry, 2001). Yet, this doesn't

appear to impact the reporting of bias crimes against people with disabilities. For

example, the data from 1997 to 2003 was analyzed by state (Federal Bureau of

Investigation, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999a, 1998, 1997). A total of 199 bias crimes

committed against a person with a disability were reported. Twenty-two states reported

no bias crimes, which included Florida, Georgia, and Iowa, each of which have bias

crime legislation including people with disabilities. Conversely, California, Washington

and Wisconsin do not have bias crime legislation but have each reported at least one bias

crime during this period. The largest number of crimes reported was from the state of

South Carolina, who reported 32 (or 16% of the total) bias motivated crimes. The South

Carolina and Tennessee were the only two states in the southeast that reported any bias

crimes against PWD during the period. The top three states reporting for the period were

South Carolina with 32, California with 21, and Tennessee with 18. The fact that two of

the top three reporting states are located in the southeast when the other southeast states

did not report any bias crime incidents is suspect. Additionally, of the top three states,

California doesn't have legislation allowing sentencing enhancement for bias crimes









committed against persons with disabilities. From this analysis, there appears to be no

pattern for which states report and no explanation for the disparity across states.

Bias Crime and Gender

There are factors associated with gender motivated hate crimes that warrant

discussion here. First, at the time disability was included in the Hate Crime Statistics Act,

a number of other groups lobbied for inclusion in the Act, including gender, children, and

the elderly (McMahon et al., 2004). Although gender was not included in the

reauthorization of the act, approximately 20 states include gender in state-level hate

crime legislation. As a result, hate crimes motivated by animus towards gender are

monitored by the Southern Poverty Law Center as well as other local interest groups and

researchers.

Individuals who opposed the inclusion of gender in the Hate Crime Statistics Act

cited the following reasons: 1) Perpetrators of a hate crime have little of no relationship

to the victim. Because crimes against women are often perpetrated by individuals known

to them, crimes against women don't fit the hate crime model; 2) special laws already

exist that address violence against women; 3) the addition of gender into the hate crime

category will overwhelm data collection; and 4) men who attack women do not

necessarily hate them. (McPhail, 2002). The first objection, perpetrators of a hate crimes

have little or no relationship to the victim, is of particular interest to this discussion

because: 1) research suggests that the overwhelming majority of perpetrators of crimes

against people with disabilities are known to them; and 2) the notion that a perpetrator of

a hate crime can not know the victim is a misinformed belief (Bureau of Justice Statistics,

2000; Lawrence, 1999; National Institute of Justice, 1999). In fact, perpetrators of hate

crimes can be neighbors or co-workers (McPhail, 2002). If misinformation purporting









that perpetrators of hate crimes will can not be known to the victim, then victims of

gender and disability motivated hate crimes are at a disadvantage because the dynamics

of the crime do not fit the accepted profile, albeit misinformed, of a hate crime.

Another similarity is the prosecution rate for perpetrators of crime against women.

As stated, individuals who oppose the inclusion of gender in the HCSA use the fact that

special laws are already in effect that address violence against women. However, with

these "special laws," is it estimated that more than half of all rape prosecutions result in

acquittal or the case is dismissed. Moreover, approximately 98% of rape victims will

never see the perpetrator apprehended, convicted, and incarcerated (McPhail, 2002).

These statistics are similar to those reported by Mishra (2001) on prosecution rates for

perpetrators of crimes against persons with disabilities.

The belief that men who attack women are not perpetrators of a hate crime because they

do not "hate" women is another example of common misinformation on hate crimes.

Victim selection has to do with bias and prejudice not hate. Franklin (1998) discovered

through interviews of perpetrators of assault on gay men that motivation was rarely as

simple as "hatred" of homosexuality alone. The Franklin interviews revealed that the

crime was often used as a means to alleviate boredom, garner social approval, and

demonstrate masculinity. Evidence of similarities between gender and disability

motivated hate crimes exists in the literature. It appears that misinformation regarding: 1)

the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim; 2) prosecution rates for

perpetrators of crime against women and PWDs is disproportionately lower than the

general population; and 3) motivation to commit hate crimes is complex and possibly

misunderstood.









Vulnerability as a Negative Attitude

It has been suggested that people with disabilities may be perceived as victims

(McMahon et al., 2004; Sorensen, 2001). McMahon et al. asserts that disability experts

attribute the perception of vulnerability of people with disabilities to negative attitudes. If

people with disabilities are perceived as vulnerable or victims, the process of teasing out

whether the perpetrator was motivated by actuarial reasons or animus may become

increasingly more difficult.

The definition of a bias crime is one that is committed in whole or in part by the

offender's bias. Therefore, even if there are bias indicators at a crime scene of a person

with a disability, having elements of both bias and actuarial motivation could make the

elements of the crime scene ambiguous, at best. Attitude accessibility theory suggests that

if the law enforcement officer holds the attitude that people with disabilities are more

vulnerable, being in the presence of a person with a disability might activate that attitude

and become the salient feature of the investigation. From a more practical perspective,

the ambiguity created by having bias crime indicators and actuarial indicators would

result in the officer deferring to a state attorney whose job is to gather "enough" evidence

of bias motivation, often defined as 3-4 bias incidents in a sequence (M. Endara, personal

communication, August 7, 2005), to prove bias beyond a reasonable doubt.

Summary and Conclusion

Bias crimes have garnered the attention of American citizens over the past decade.

Bias crimes are regarded as being more severe than other crimes because of the attempt

on behalf of the perpetrator to marginalize a particular group of citizens, thereby sending

a clear message to all members of the targeted group. For this reason, bias motivated

crimes strike at the very heart of the American value that all men are created equal.









People with disabilities were recently included as a protected category in the Hate Crime

Statistics Act, in part, because of the longstanding history of negative attitudes, prejudice

and discrimination against people with disabilities in areas such as employment, poverty,

etc. Since its inclusion, the number of bias crimes committed against people with

disabilities is disproportionately lower than other protected categories.

It has been suggested that no other group of citizens has been treated with the same

degree of prejudice and discrimination than people with disabilities. Evidence exists that

people with disabilities have the highest rate of unemployment of any protected class of

citizens, live in poverty at a rate disproportionate to the general population, and

experience crime at a rate and duration disproportionate to the general population. As the

first class of citizens targeted for extinction by Nazi physicians, it is arguable that people

with disabilities were the first victims of bias motivated crime during World War II.

Given the history of prejudice and discrimination of people with disabilities, data

suggesting that people with disabilities in the United States are victims of bias crimes at a

rate disproportionately lower than other protected categories are highly suspect

(McMahon et al., 2004). Although it is reasonable to entertain the idea that people with

disabilities are not victims of bias crimes at the same rate as other protected categories,

the pervasiveness and prevalence of inequality in other areas demands this conclusion be

drawn only after other possible explanations have been explored. Research attempting to

explain inequality for people with disabilities in other areas has resulted in a substantial

amount of evidence that attitudes may be a significant factor in determining how people

perceive and behave towards people with disabilities.









Although not consistent in the research, it is accepted among attitude theorists that

attitudes influence perception and behavior. Negative attitudes towards people with

disabilities are well documented in the literature. Attitudes appear to vary as a function of

gender, age, education and occupation. Contact theory suggests that contact between an

individual in an official capacity where the person with a disability is in a dependent role

can result in the forming of negative attitudes. Law enforcement is regarded as a helping

profession where the interaction with people with disabilities is in a dependent role.

Research has documented that an overwhelming number of crimes with bias indicators

were missed by law enforcement officials during the investigation. It has been suggested

that attitudes could influence the perception of whether a crime should be enhanced as a

bias crime.

If people with disabilities are victims of hate crimes more frequently than the

number of cases reported, then the hate crime reporting framework discussed earlier

suggests that the problem with underreporting could reside with the individual victim or

with law enforcement. The first four of McDevitt's series of decision points in bias crime

reporting deal with factors that influence victim reporting of a crime to law enforcement

(Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000). The first two points deal with the victim's

understanding that a bias crime has been committed and recognition by the victim that

bias may be a motivating factor. These decision points in hate crime reporting beg the

questions) Are people with disabilities aware that they can be a victim of a hate crime?"

If so, "Are people with disabilities aware of the bias indicators to present to law

enforcement during and interview?" Further, inequality present in prosecution and

conviction rates of offenders of crimes against persons with disabilities can result in









diminished faith that law enforcement will respond appropriately to a report and render

the victim reluctant to report the crime to law enforcement. These questions, although

relevant to this discussion, lie outside the scope of this project.

Available literature suggests that a number of factors could influence the

recognition of hate by a police officer, including (1) the U.S. Supreme Court case

Apprendi vs. New Jersey, may have resulted in greater scrutiny of evidence presented by

law enforcement to the state attorney's office because of the increased burden of proving

bias motivation beyond a reasonable doubt instead of as a preponderance of evidence; (2)

attitudes about hate crime reporting by the law enforcement agency, which may include

the state attorney's office, affect the reporting of bias motivated crimes; and (3) the

attitudes of the investigating police officer has been suggested to be the second most

important factor as to whether a crime is reported as a bias crime.

The focus of this investigation is on the fifth of McDevitt's series of decision points in

bias crime reporting, whether law enforcement recognizes the element of hate?,

particularly, when the crime is committed against a person with a disability (Bureau of

Justice Statistics, 2000). This study will investigate law enforcement officers' level of

agreement about whether a series of crime scenarios should be enhanced as a bias crime

if the victim is a person with a disability, compared to crime scenarios where the victim's

protected category is race, gender, religion or sexual orientation. Further, this project will

investigate whether law enforcement officer agreement with bias crime enhancement

varies as a function of the gender of the participant, moreover, whether an interaction

exists between gender and protected category. Finally, this investigation will explore

whether the level of agreement with bias crime enhancement can be predicted by the age






56


of the law enforcement officer, law enforcement officer attitudes toward people with

disabilities, and law enforcement officer contact with people with disabilities














CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the methods used in the present study to determine whether

law enforcement officer attitudes about hate crimes vary across protected category. The

major areas addressed in this chapter include the research questions, research design,

participants, instrumentation, procedures and data collection.

Research Questions

5. Research Question One: Does law enforcement officers' level of agreement with
hate crime classification vary across protected category?

6. Research Question Two: Does law enforcement officers' mean level of agreement
with hate crime classification vary by gender?

7. Research Question Three: Is there an interaction between protected category and
gender on law enforcement officers' mean level of agreement with hate crime
enhancement?

8. Research Question Four: Does age, attitudes towards persons with disabilities,
and contact with persons with disabilities provide predictive ability for law
enforcement officers' agreement with hate crime enhancement for persons with
disabilities?

Research Design

A quantitative correlational design was used that employed a convenience sample.

Participants were asked to complete a Modified Hate Crime Survey (MHCS), the

Attitudes towards Disabled Persons (ATDP-A) scale-Form A, the Modified version of the

Contact with Disabled Persons Scale (CDP), and a demographic questionnaire.

Participants

The goal of the project was to recruit two hundred and forty Law Enforcement Officer

(LEO) participants from the Alachua County Sheriff s department. The sample size was









determined by conducting a power analysis for a repeated measures analysis of variance

(ANOVA) and a multiple regression analysis. Degrees of freedom for the F-ratio (u) was

determined by calculating (k-1) (r-1) where k and r are the number of levels of interacting

main effects (Cohen, 1988). In the present study, u= (5-1) (2-1) = 4. The number of

participants required to find a small effect size f=. 10 (Cohen, 1988) with u=4 with power

of .80 and an alpha level of .05 is 240 (Cohen, 1988).

The regression analysis was designed with 3 predictors in the model. A sample size

of 51 is required to detect a squared multiple correlation coefficient of R2=.20 with power

= .80 and a type-II error rate a = .05. However, the .95 confidence interval with a sample

size of 51 is R2 +/- .20, which means there is a 95% chance the squared multiple

correlation will be between .00 and .40, which is too wide. The sample size required to

achieve a 95% confidence interval +/- .10 is 200, which means there is a 95% chance the

squared multiple correlation will be between .10 and .30. A sample size of 240 is

sufficient to achieve this confidence band.

A brief overview of the nature of the research, type of instruments and time

required was made to all prospective participants. Law Enforcement Officers reviewed

the informed consent form from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and signed consent

forms were obtained prior to participants taking the instruments.

Instruments

The instruments used in this research study included: 1) the Modified Hate Crime

Survey (MHCS), a survey designed to measure attitudes towards hate crime scenarios

from each of 5 protected categories (race, religion, sexual orientation, gender and

disability); 2) the ATDP-A, a self-report measure of attitudes towards people with









disabilities; 3) the Wang (1998) version of the CDP (Yuker & Hurley, 1987), a measure

of contact with persons with disabilities; and 4) a demographic questionnaire.

The Modified Hate Crime Survey

The Hate Crime Survey was constructed by Alexandra Miller (2001) to study

whether criminal justice students' agreement with labeling crime scenarios as hate crimes

would differ from students in other disciplines. The original survey consists of 20 actual

hate crime scenarios reported to the FBI and offenses tracked by the Southern Poverty

Law Center included in its annual report, Klanwatch (Miller, 2001). The 20 items

included five scenarios from each of four protected categories: race, religion, sexual

orientation, and gender. Participants rate on a 7-point scale their level of agreement for

whether each crime scenario constitutes a hate crime. This survey was of particular

interest for this research study for the following reasons: (1) the survey included gender

as a protected category which, as stated in Chapter 2, has similarities to disability; (2) it is

the only survey designed to look for differences across protected categories; and (3) the

author of the survey agreed to allow modification of the survey to include people with

disabilities.

Miller's (2001) Hate Crime Survey was modified to: (1) include 5 crime scenarios that

involve a bias crime committed against a person with a disability, (2) include five crime

scenarios (one scenario for each protected category) that did not have any bias crime

indicators, and (3) modify the remaining scenarios so they were balanced with regard to

the type of indicator and severity of crime (SEE Appendix A). The five bias crime

scenarios introduced in the modified version include a sensory disability, a mental

disability, a developmental disability, an infectious disease, and a neuromuscular

disability. Although the disabilities represented are not inclusive of all types of









disabilities, each of the five scenarios consisted of a different category of disability that

spans at least physical, sensory and mental disabilities. Miller (2001) obtained the crime

scenarios for the original survey from the Southern Poverty Law Center. When contacted,

they do not track crimes committed against people with disabilities as with other

protected categories. Therefore, the crime scenarios were obtained from a review of

available literature that reported specifics on hate crimes committed against people with

disabilities.

One possible flaw with the original Hate Crime Survey constructed by Miller (2001)

consists of the content of the scenarios. In a national survey of police officers and police

officer supervisors, McDevitt learned from 610 respondents that graffiti or bias symbols

at the crime scene, offender membership in a hate group, and bias charged language

constituted the top three most important factors in determining whether a crime was

potentially motivated by bias (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000). In other words, the

above factors indicate to an officer that bias motivation is possible and are considered

cues to investigate further. There was disparity across protected categories in the crime

scenarios in Miller's (2001) survey. For example, only one of the crime scenarios in the

gender category included a bias indicator whereas all but one of the scenarios in the

religion category included a bias indicator. As a result, the crime scenarios were modified

only to include at least one of the top three bias indicators described in the McDevitt

study (Bureau of Justice Statistics). The goal was to maintain the integrity of the original

crime scenarios as much as possible. Therefore, if a bias indicator was present, it was not

changed. However, bias indicators were added to those scenarios where no indicator was

present. The items from each protected category include one item where the offender is a









member of a hate group, one scenario where graffiti or bias symbols are present at the

crime scene and three scenarios where bias language is used verbally or in writing. There

is one exception to this rule. The religion category has two crime scenarios where bias

symbols are present and no indicators where the perpetrators were members of a hate

group. In order to make the religion category consistent with the other categories, it

would require removing a bias indicator from the original survey. It was believed that

maintaining the integrity of the scenarios was more important than further altering an

aspect of the scenario to correct a difference of one bias indicator.

Another possible flaw with the MHCS was the severity or heinousness of the crime

scenarios in terms of balance across protected categories. There is no standardized

instrument for measuring the severity of crime scenarios (Welner, 1998, 2003). However,

Welner (2003) devised a measure that is currently being field tested. Welner (2003) uses

a three-point scale to measure severity of a crime. The lowest point on the scale is a

measure of absence of severity, "not depraved." Because the goal was to balance crime

scenario severity of the MHCS, the "not severe" point on the scale was modified to

measure "somewhat severe." The items on the MHCS were used to create an assessment

of severity (SEE Appendix E). The assessment was given to a panel of 3 experts who

rated each item in terms of somewhat heinous, heinous, and very heinous. Comments

from the first review indicated the following pattern of severity: 1) murder and rape were

considered "very heinous", 2) assault/battery and physical harm was considered

"heinous", and 3) verbal threats, name calling, and graffiti, was considered somewhat

heinous. The scale was modified so that each protected category had two crime scenarios

in the very heinous category and at least one item in each of the heinous and somewhat









heinous categories with the exception of religion, which had three items in the somewhat

heinous category. The final survey was reviewed by the expert panel a second time and

there was 100% agreement among the panel as to the balance of severity across

categories.

Responses. A seven-point Likert-scale is used by the participant to indicate their

level of agreement/disagreement with the assertion that each crime scenario constitutes a

bias crime. The scale ranges from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). There are no

anchors for 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. The participants are asked to circle the number that

corresponds to their level of agreement along the scale.

Scoring. The scores of all 30 items on the Modified Hate Crime Survey were

summed and yield a total raw score ranging from thirty to two hundred and ten: the lower

the score, the lower the agreement and the higher the score the greater the agreement. A

subscale score was calculated for each of the five protected categories. The subscale

scores can range from five to thirty-five: Again, the lower the score, the lower the

agreement and the higher the score the greater the agreement.

Reliability. Miller (2001) conducted a pilot study using 304 criminology students

on the original survey. She reported a .94 alpha reliability for the scale.

A total of 27 Law Enforcement Officers were recruited to participate in the pilot

study of the instrument. The instrument was administered on two separate days in the

same location, The Kirkpatrick Criminal Justice Training Center in Gainesville, Florida.

Both administrations of the instrument were done immediately before a training session

began.The law enforcement participants were given an opportunity to read the consent

form and ask questions before signing the informed consent form and. Once all the









participants completed the survey, they were given an opportunity to provide feedback to

the principle investigator on the survey instrument. Comments made by participants

included: 1) some items lacked information, and 2) one of the crime scenarios should be

modified so at least one of the victims was Caucasian. The first comment that some items

lacked information pertained specifically to the items that were designed to eliminate bias

crime indicators. The second comment concerning the inclusion of a bias crime involving

a Caucasian victim appeared to be a philosophical issue of one officer that was not shared

by the other officers. As a result, it was not determined to have a significant bearing on

the instrument.

Reliability. The results of the pilot study of 27 participants revealed a Cronbach's

alpha for the total scale of .89. The alpha coefficients for the subscales were .70 for race,

.62 for disability, .72 for gender, .64 for religion, and .63 for sexual preference. The

lower than desired internal consistency for the subscales can be attributed to the low

number of items for each subscale (e.g. 6) and that each subscale contains one item that is

designed to not have any bias crime indicators in the crime scenario.

Validity. A Repeated Measures ANOVA was conducted and found that the between-

subjects effects was significant at F(26,1070) = .76, p<.001. Pairwise comparisons found

that the non-bias indicator scenarios were significantly different than each of the

protected categories atp<.001. The mean score for the non-bias indicator subscale was

10, which is equivalent to a 2 on the scale. This indicates that participants were able to

distinguish between bias and non-bias crime scenarios. Additionally, it suggests that

participants were truthful in their responses.









Attitudes toward Disabled Persons Scale (ATDP)

The ATDP is a self-report measure of an individual's attitudes towards people with

disabilities and is the most widely used measure of general attitudes towards persons with

disabilities (Antonak & Livneh, 1988). It was developed as a unidimensional scale of

attitudes. The scale is designed primarily to measure attitudes towards persons with

disabilities (Antonak & Livneh, 1988).The scale was originally published in 1960 as a

20-item scale (Yuker, Block, & Campbell, 1960). The original scale, Form-O was altered

and published in 1962 (Yuker, Block, Younng, 1966) as a 30-item scale with two Forms,

A and B. Each scale takes approximately 10 minutes to administer although the scale is

untimed.

One criticism of the ATDP was the language used. Specifically, the wording of the

scale had not been updated since the emergence of person first language. However, Pruett

modified the ATDP Form-A to person first language in 2004 (SEE Appendix C).

Responses. The ATDP utilizes a six-point Likert-scale for individuals to indicate

their agreement or disagreement with each item. The scale ranges from -3 ("I disagree

very much"), -2 ("I disagree pretty much"), -1 ("I disagree a little"), +1 (I agree a little),

+2 ("I agree pretty much"), to +3 ("I agree very much"). Individuals are asked to circle

the response at the right of each statement based on how they feel in each case.

Scoring. Form-A of the ATDP yields a summated scale score. The scoring for twelve

items on Form-A must be reversed (Items 5, 9, 12, 14, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, and 29).

Once the scoring for these items is reversed, the scores for all 30 items are summed, and

the sign of the sum is reversed. The raw score is scaled by adding a constant (90) to the

sum thereby ensuring the total score isn't a negative value. The range of possible scores

is 0 to 180. A lower number reflects more negative attitudes towards people with









disabilities and a higher number reflects more positive attitudes towards persons with

disabilities (Yuker & Block, 1986; Yuker et al., 1966).

Reliability. The test-retest reliability estimates of forms O, A, and B range from

+.66 to +.89. Alternate form reliability between forms A and B was reported to be +.85

and split-half reliability ranged from +.72 to +.89 for the three versions (Antonak &

Livneh, 1988).

Validity. Content validation was conducted through an extensive extraction of

statements made about individuals with disabilities in the literature followed by

psychologists reviewing the items for relevance to put into the scale (Antonak & Livneh,

1988). Item analyses were then conducted to test for item discrimination. Scores were

correlated to demographic variables such as age, gender, and education to establish

construct and criterion related validity. The authors found a positive relationship between

education and attitude, gender and attitude with female attitudes being more positive than

males and no relationship between scale scores and age (Antonak & Livneh, 1988).

Although the authors of the ATDP claim that the dimension measured is unidimensional,

other empirical factorial studies found that the three forms of the scale may contain

between two and nine independent factors, which suggests the scale is susceptible to

variance from changes other than attitude (Antonak & Livneh, 1988), affecting the

validity of the instrument. Additional criticism reflects problems with scores clustering at

the top and bottom end of the range (Antonak, 1980), suggesting little variation and

spread and questionable item discrimination. Nevertheless, the ATDP was used in this

study because of the amount of research on the scale, despite these weaknesses.









Contact with Disabled Persons Scale (CDP)

The CDP scale is a 20-item self-report inventory that uses a five-point Likert scale

to measure the amount of contact a participant has had with people with disabilities

(Yuker & Hurley, 1987). As stated in Chapter 2, Allport (1954/1978) described that

contact between an individual and a member of an out-group that meets certain criteria

can serve to reduce prejudice. Recent research on contact theory (Dixon, et. al., 2005)

emphasizes the importance of the quality of contact in addition to the quantity of contact.

More recent developments on scales that measure contact have focused on both quantity

and quality of contact with out-group members (Islam & Hewstone, 1993). However,

these scales do not measure contact with persons with disabilities. Modifying the CDP to

measure quality of contact or modifying the Islam & Hewstone (1993) scale to include

people with disabilities is beyond the scope of this project. At this time, the CDP is the

only scale in existence to measure contact with persons with disabilities.

Responses. Participants are asked to read each item and then indicate the

corresponding quantity of contact that corresponds to the item 1 (never), 2 (once or

twice), 3 (a few times), 4 (often), or 5 (very often) by circling the appropriate number.

Like the ATDP, the CDP was modified by Wang (1998) to include person first language.

The Wang version of the CDP was used in this study. See Appendix D for a copy of the

modified CDP.

Scoring. The scores of all 20 items on the CDP are summed and yield a total raw score

ranging from twenty to one hundred: the lower the score, the lower the quantity of

contact with persons with disabilities and the higher the score the greater the amount of

contact.









Reliability. Reliability coefficients reported for the CDP range from .87-.93

between the original and modified versions of the scale demonstrating good reliability of

the scale. Yuker and Hurley (1987) reported a split-half reliability of .93 and Cronbach's

alpha of .92. Wang (1998) reported a Cronbach's alpha of .87 for the modified version

and Pruett (2004) reported a two-week test-retest reliability of .90 and a Cronbach's alpha

of .91.

Demographic Questionnaire

The demographic questionnaire was designed to elicit specific background

information about the participants that could be related to attitudes about hate crimes and

people with disabilities. The demographic questionnaire is designed to collect more

demographic data than was utilized in this study (SEE Appendix B). Although each of

the demographic variables is relevant to this study, including each factor in the regression

model will require a sample size necessary to achieve sufficient power that is unrealistic

for this study but helpful in future studies designed to increase the sample size.

The items in the demographic questionnaire are designed to gather information on

gender, age, ethnicity, race, education, law enforcement experience, and qualitative

aspects of contact with people with disabilities. This study utilized gender and age in the

data analysis. Gender has specific relevance in the literature to both perception of hate

crimes and attitudes towards people with disabilities. Miller (2001) found differences

between males and females on the level of agreement with the hate crime scenarios on

the hate crime survey. Further, females have been found to have more positive attitudes

towards people with disabilities (Yuker & Block, 1986). As mentioned previously, Yuker

& Block (1986) discuss that level of education is probably the single greatest factor that

predicts attitudes towards persons with disabilities.









Data Collection Procedure

There are 250 sworn Law Enforcement Officers (LEO) employed by the Alachua

County Sheriff s Department. Of those 250 LEO's, 27 consented to participate in the

pilot study and 184 consented to participate in the present study. The convenience sample

of 184 LEO's were participating in a routine bi-monthly training at the Kirkpatrick Law

Enforcement Officer Training Center in Gainesville, Florida. The bi-monthly training

was designed to provide continuing education units to maintain LEO certification. LEO

certification in Florida requires specific training in human diversity. The present study

was used to partially fulfill the human diversity training requirement.

The instruments were designed in the form of a packet to ease in the administration

in a group setting. The were placed in the following order: The Modified Hate Crime

Survey (MHCS), Demographic Questionnaire, ATDP-A, and the CDP scale. Each

participant received a consent form with a description of the research study and the

survey instruments, in that order, held together with a paper clip. The principal

investigator was present for each data collection.

Prior to taking the instruments, the investigator introduced himself by name and as a

student at the University of Florida. Participants were instructed to 1) read the Research

Protocol and ask questions to clarify points of confusion, 2) sign two copies of the

informed consent form as required by the University of Florida Institutional Review

Board-Psychology (IRB-02) if volunteering for the research study, one for the

investigator and the other for the law enforcement officer, 3) take the surveys in the order

they are presented, 4) when completed, bring the survey packet to the investigator.

When participants returned the packet to the investigator, the consent forms were

separated from the participant questionnaires. Participants were reminded to keep their









copy of the informed consent on which there is contact information if they have any

questions or concerns at a later date.

Data Analysis

* Research Question One: Does law enforcement officers' level of agreement with
hate crime classification vary across protected category?
* Research Question Two: Does law enforcement officers' mean level of agreement
with hate crime classification vary by gender?
* Research Question Three: Is there an interaction between protected category and
gender on law enforcement officers' mean level of agreement with hate crime
enhancement?


Analysis Related to Research Questions One, Two, and Three

A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine whether the mean

of scores on level of agreement with hate crime enhancement vary across protected

category or gender and whether the two variables interact. The Two-Way ANOVA was

used to answer the first research question, which is to determine is there is main effect of

protected category on mean agreement with hate crime enhancement scores; the second

research question which is whether there is a main effect of gender on mean agreement

with hate crime enhancement scores; and the third research question, which is whether

gender and protected category interact or whether the effect of protected category

depends on gender.

* Research Question Four: Does age, attitudes towards persons with disabilities,
and contact with persons with disabilities provide predictive ability for law
enforcement officers' agreement with hate crime enhancement for person's with
disabilities?

Analysis Related to Research Question Four

A multiple regression analysis was utilized to answer research question four. As

such, the goal will be to model level of agreement with the subscale score of people with

disabilities as a function of age, attitude score, and quantity of contact score.









Although the ATDP and the CDP utilize Likert scales to measure the constructs,

respectively, data from both scales have been analyzed as interval scales. The literature

documents analyzing ATDP data (Pruett, 2004; Satcher & Gamble, 2002) and CDP data

(Pruett, 2004; Wang, 1998) as an interval scale.

Limitations

This study contains limitations with regards to internal and external validity. First,

the results have limited generalizability. Although practical, the use of law enforcement

officers from Gainesville, Florida limits the results to only Deputy Sheriffs from

Gainesville, Florida. Second, legislation varies from across states as to what constitutes a

protected category. Specifically, the state of Florida does not have legislation that allows

for courts to enhance a sentence if the perpetrator commits a crime against a person with

a disability because of bias. As a result, there are variables outside the control of this

study that can influence the interpretation of bias crime indicators.

Limitations also exist with the internal validity of the study. First, the use of self-report

measures can introduce an element of response bias into the study. Self-report measures,

particularly with attitude measures of surveys of sensitive information can elicit

respondents answering in a manner that is socially acceptable. Social desirability is not

controlled for in this study. As a result, it isn't possible to determine what extent

participant's responses were influenced by social desirability. A second limitation is the

nature of the study itself. The methodology of the study did not allow for causal

interpretation of the data.














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

The primary focus of this study was to determine whether group membership

influenced law enforcement officer agreement to categorize a crime as a bias crime and to

determine what factors influenced their decision. The study utilized a sample of 184

certified law enforcement officers LEOs. The following research questions were

addressed:

1. Research Question One: Does law enforcement officer level of agreement with
hate crime classification vary across protected category?

2. Research Question Two: Does law enforcement officer mean level of agreement
with hate crime classification vary by gender?

3. Research Question Three: Is there an interaction between protected category and
gender on law enforcement officer mean level of agreement with hate crime
classification?

4. Research Question Four: Does age, attitudes towards persons with disabilities,
and contact with persons with disabilities provide predictive ability for law
enforcement officers' agreement with hate crime enhancement for persons with
disabilities?

The first three questions were answered by conducting a two-way (repeated

measure) ANOVA and a series of one-way ANOVA's as post-hoc analyses. Protected

category and gender were included in the ANOVA model to answer questions 1 and 2

while the interaction term in the model was used to answer question 3. Question 4 was

answered by modeling the MHCS disability sub-scale score as a function of the CDP

score, ATDP-A score, and age of LEO.









Response to non-hate crime scenarios. A crime scenario was included in each

protected category that did not include indicators of a bias crime. There were a total of

five crime scenarios that were not hate crimes. A separate sub-category consisting of

these items was formed for the purpose of analysis. The non-bias crime scenarios were

rated markedly lower on the scale compared to the bias crime items (M= 10.17, SD =

4.67, Range = 5 to 31) (See Figure 4.1). The ANOVA indicated a significant interaction

across all categories, including the non-hate items F(5,1096) = 589.26, p > .001.

Levene's test was significant F(5,1096) = 17.51, p > .001 indicating the assumption of

equal variances had been violated. Tamhane's test was used to correct for the violation

and the mean score difference between non-hate items and the five sub-scales were

significant <.001. These results are consistent with the pilot study results for the same

items and provided evidence of the discriminant-validity of participant responses to the

instrument.

The non-hate crime items were removed from the analysis when the ANOVA's for

subsequent analyses were performed. The initial purpose of the non-hate crime items was

to establish LEO's ability to discriminate between hate crime and non-hate crime items.

Once established, the items were eliminated from the sub-scale scores for each protected

category. The aim of the study was to look for variability across similar items. It was

believed the non-hate crime items would introduce unnecessary variability into the

subscales. Therefore, no other analysis in this study included the non-hate crime items.

Two-way ANOVA. A 5 x 2 two-way (repeated measures) ANOVA was conducted

to evaluate the effect of five protected category and gender on law enforcement officer












Table 4.1: Analysis of Variance for Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores


Source df F rp2 p


Between subjects

Category 4 25.15 .10 .001*

Gender 1 17.79 .02 .001*

Category X Gender 4 .73 <.01 .570

S within-group 893 (19.77)
error

Note: Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors. rp2 denotes partial eta squared. An
asterisk indicates significant results p <.01.

MHCS scores. The ANOVA indicated no significant interaction between protected

category and gender F(4,893) = .733, p > .05, partial eta square (rip2) = .003, but

significant main effects for protected category F(4,893) = 25.15, p < .001, rip2 = .10, and

gender, F(1,893) = 17.79, p < .001, rip2 = .02 (See Table 4.1). The multiple correlation

coefficient squared or R2 is a measure of the strength of relationship. The multiple

correlation coefficient squared for the 5 x 2 two-way ANOVA model was R2 = .29 and

the adjusted R2 for the model was adjusted R2 = .28.

A Levene's test of unequal variance was conducted to determine whether the

assumption of equal error variance had been violated. Levene's test was significant

F(9,893) = 9.87, p < .001 indicating the assumption had been violated concluding the

error variance is not equal across groups. A one-way ANOVA was conducted for

protected category and gender separately to explore whether the violation of equal

variance occurred in both analyses.









Research Questions

Research question #1: Does law enforcement officer level of agreement with hate
crime classification vary across protected category?

Differences in responses across protected category. As stated previously, the main

effect of protected category was significant F(4,893) = 25.15, p < .001, lp2 = .10 (See

Table 4.1). The results of the one way ANOVA for protected category was also

significant, F(4,913) = 83.64, p < .001 (See Table 4.2). The rp2 is a measure of effect size

or strength of relationship. It is a measure of variance that is uniquely accounted for by a

particular variable:

ip2 = SSeffect / (SSeffect + SSerror)

The effect size for protected category was moderate-large lp2 = .10 (Pallant, 2005)

Table 4.2: One-way Analysis of Variance for Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores by
Protected Category


Source df F rlp2 p


Between subjects

Category 4 83.64 .27 .001*

S within-group 913 (20.41)
error

Note: Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors lp2 denotes partial eta squared. An
asterisk indicates significant results p <.01

A Levene's test of unequal variance was conducted to determine whether the assumption

of equal error variances had been violated. Levene's test for protected categories was

significant F(4,913) = 22.56, p < .001 indicating the assumption had been violated and

the error variance is not equal across groups.









The violation of equal variance assumption was addressed in two ways: first, the

large sample size functions to counteract the effects of the assumption on the type I error

rate, and second, post-hoc analyses were chosen to take the violation into account. The

Tamhane test is considered one of the more conservative tests when the equal error

variance assumption has been violated (Green & Salkind, 2003) and adjusts the degrees

of freedom to account for the violation. For the multiple comparison tests, the difference

between the mean disability sub-scale score and that for race, religion, and sexual

orientation was statistically significant p < .001. The difference between disability and

gender was not statistically significant.

Participants taking the Modified Hate Crime Survey (MHCS) agreed with

categorizing a crime as a bias crime less often when the crime was committed against a

person with a disability (M= 26.32, SD = 5.13, Range = 8 to 35, 95% CI25.57 to 27.07),

than when the bias crime scenario was committed against a person because of sexual

orientation (M= 28.79, SD= 4.40, Range = 16 to 35, 95% CI28.15 to 29.43), religion (M

= 31.00, SD = 3.76, Range = 14 to 35, 95% CI 38.52 to 23.48), or race (M= 32.86, SD =

3.07, Range = 20 to 35, 95% CI 32.42 to 33.31). The mean response for gender was

similar to disability in terms of mean score, variability and range of responses (M=

25.68, SD = 5.72, Range = 9 to 35, 95% CI 24.85 to 26.52). (See Figure 4.1)
















non hate- -




religion- 6.20


0

o
sex orient -




S gender-
0



race-




disability-



I I I I I I I
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00

Mean Score



Note: Values on solid line in center of the box represent mean score of the
subscale, the box represents one standard deviation from the mean, and the line or
"whisker" represents the 95% confidence band. The protected categories are religion
(religion), sexual orientation (sex orient), gender (gender), race (race), and disability
(disability). The non-hate crime item category (non-hate) is not a protected category.
Those items that did not have bias crime indicators were separated into a separate
category to illustrate the LEO ability to distinguish between items with and without bias
crime indicators.


Figure 4.1: Mean MHCS Subscale Score by Protected Category











Table 4.3: One-way Analysis of Variance for Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores by Gender


Source df F rp2 p


Between subjects

Gender 1 12.97 .01 .001*

S within-group 901 (27.04)
error

Note: Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors. rp2 denotes partial eta squared. An
asterisk indicates significant results p <.01
The mean score for each of the subscales corresponds to the following point on the

seven-point scale: race, 6.6, religion, 6.2, sexual orientation, 5.8, disability, 5.3, and

gender, 5.1. (See Figure 4.1) It is noteworthy that the same trend noted with mean scores

was evident with the variability in the data with the exception of disability and gender,

which were reversed: race (SD = 3.067), religion (SD = 3.790), sexual orientation (SD =

4.399), disability (SD = 5.139) and gender (SD = 5.690) (See Figure 4.1).

Research question #2: Does law enforcement officer mean level of agreement with
hate crime classification vary by gender?

Differences across gender. The 5 x 2 ANOVA was significant for gender, F(1,893)

= 17.79, p < .001, rp2 = .02 (See Table 4.1). The one-way ANOVA for gender was also

significant, F(1,901) = 12.97, p < .001, p2 = .01 (See Table 4.3). The effect size for

gender was small rp2 = .02 (Pallant, 2005). The Levene test was significant F(1,901) =

7.78, p < .05 indicating the assumption of equal variance was violated.









Research question #3: Is there an interaction between protected category and
gender on law enforcement officer mean level of agreement with hate crime
enhancement?

The 5 x 2 two-way ANOVA was conducted to determine whether an interaction

existed between protected category and gender. The ANOVA for gender X category

interaction was not significant F(4,893) = .73, p >.05. (See Figure 4.2) (See Table 4.1)

Research question #4: Does age, attitudes towards persons with disabilities, and
contact with persons with disabilities provide predictive ability for law
enforcement officers' agreement with hate crime enhancement for persons with
disabilities?

It was hypothesized that age, contact with people with disabilities, and attitudes

toward people with disabilities would provide some prediction of the MHCS subscale

score for disability.

Table 4.4: Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Level of
Agreement with Bias Crime Enhancement (N = 166)


Variable


Age

CDP Score

ATDP-A


-.006

.041


.038


SE B



.045

.033

.019


-.010

.097

.159


Note: R2 for the multiple regression model was .041 and the adjusted R2 was .023.











Table 4.5: Analysis of Variance for Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores by Race, Gender,
Race X Gender


Source df F rp2 p


Between subjects

Race 1 2.96 <.01 .086

Gender 1 3.07 <.01 .080

Race X Gender 1 .11 <.01 .744

S within-group 1074 (75.18)
error

Note: Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors rp2 reported is a partial eta squared.

Where y = predicted MHCS-Disability subscale score, a = the intercept, 1 = the slope for

ATDP-A score, 12 = the slope for the CDP score, and 3 = the slope for age. The model

was not significant F(3,162) = 2.29, p >.05 (See Table 4.4) (See Figure 4.3). The MHCS-

disability subscale score prediction equation including the three predictor variables is as

follows: PredictedMHCS-disability subscale score = 19.66 [Age (.01)] + [CDP (.04)]

+ [ATDP-A (.04)]. The unstandardized regression equation allows prediction of the

MHCS Disability Subscale score from the three predictor variables used in the present

study. The multiple correlation coefficient squared or R2 is a measure of the strength of

relationship. The multiple correlation coefficient squared for the multiple regression

model was R2 = .04 and the adjusted R2 for the model was adjusted R2 = .02.









Additional Analyses

Variation of Mean Scores Across Protected Category for Race and Gender

It appeared from examining the data that a relationship existed between race and

gender with regard to MHCS subscale mean scores. Additional analyses were necessary

to determine whether the observed differences were significant.

A 2 X 2, two-way ANOVA was conducted to determine whether the mean level of

agreement with bias crime enhancement depended on gender and race. The ANOVA

indicated no significant interaction between gender and race F(1,1074) = .107, p > .05, no

significant main effects for gender F(1,1074) = 3.07,p >.05, or race, F(1,1074) = 2.96, p

>.05 (See Table 4.5).

Variation of Mean Scores Across Severity of Crime and Type of Crime Indicator

As reported in Chapter 3, the crime scenarios were balanced with regard to severity

of crime. The scale was modified so that each protected category had two crime scenarios

in the very heinous category and at least one item in each of the heinous and somewhat

heinous categories with the exception of religion, which has three items in the somewhat

heinous category. The pattern of severity that emerged from the expert panel was as

follows: 1) murder and rape were considered "very heinous", 2) assault/battery and

physical harm were considered "heinous", and 3) verbal threats, name calling and graffiti,

were considered somewhat heinous. This includes the MHCS items where bias crime

indicators were intentionally removed.

A one way ANOVA was conducted to determine whether MHCS mean scores

varied across severity of crime and the results were significant F(2,547) = 40.97, p >.001,

rp2 = .13. (See Table 4.6). The Levene statistic for the model was not significant

indicating the assumption of equal variances was not violated. Post-hoc comparisons









were conducted with Bonferroni correction to control the group-wise error rate. The

mean score difference between property damage and verbal threats (M= 6.23, SD = .79)

and both the physical harm items (M= 5.51, SD = .87) and the murder/rape/torture items

(M= 5.62, SD = .79) was significant < .001. The difference between the physical harm

and murder/rape/torture items was not significant.

Crime scenarios were also balanced with regard to type of bias crime symbols at

the crime scene. Each protected category includes one item where the offender is a

member of a hate group, one scenario where graffiti or bias symbols are present at the

crime scene and three scenarios where bias language is used verbally or in writing. There

is one exception to this rule. The religion category has two crime scenarios where bias

symbols are present and no indicators where the perpetrators were members of a hate

group.Table 4.6: One-way Analysis of Variance for Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores by

Severity of Crime



Source df F rlp2 p


Between subjects

Severity 2 40.97 .13 .001*

S within-group 547 (.67)
error

Note: Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors rp,2 reported is a partial eta squared. An
asterisk indicates significant results p <.01










Table 4.7: One-way Analysis of Variance for Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores by Bias
Crime Indicator


Source df F rlp2 p


Between subjects

Indicator 2 68.65 .20 .001*

S within-group 547 (.90)
error

Note: 1) Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors 2) rp2 reported is a partial eta
squared. An asterisk indicates significant results p <.01

A one way ANOVA was conducted to determine whether mean scores varied

across type of crime indicator and the results were significant F(2,547) = 68.65, p >.001,

rp2 = .20 (See Table 4.7). The Levene statistic for the model was significant indicating

the assumption of equal variances was violated. Post-hoc comparisons were conducted

with the Tamhane test to control for the violation of equal variance assumption. The

mean score for language (M= 6.19, SD = .76) was significantly different < .001 from

both bias symbols (M= 5.14, SD = .98) and the hate group membership of the perpetrator

(M= 5.24, SD = 1.08). The difference between the bias symbols and group membership

items was not significant (See Table 4.7).














CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary

People with disabilities have been subjected to negative attitudes, prejudice and

discrimination throughout history. Evidence of this lies in the fact that PWD experience

abject poverty, employment discrimination, and crime victimization at rates greater than

the general population. The number of hate crimes reported for PWD is surprisingly

much lower than other protected categories, a trend inconsistent with prejudicial

treatment that often occurs in other areas of their lives. If the investigation of a hate crime

involving a victim with a disability is subjected to the same forms of prejudicial

treatment, the lower than expected number of hate crimes reported could be the result of

underreporting. One possible explanation for underreporting of hate crimes is if law

enforcement officers fail to recognize the elements of a hate crime.

1. It has been the goal of this research to determine whether a law enforcement officer
is less likely to agree with the bias enhancement of a crime if the victim is a person
with a disability compared to other protected classes. To that end, the Hate Crime
Survey instrument (Miller, 2001) was modified to include scenarios of bias crimes
committed against PWD. The MHCS instrument was administered to 184 sworn
and certified law enforcement officers employed by the Alachua County Sheriff s
department. The following is a summary of specific findings:

2. The mean score for level of agreement with endorsement of bias crime
classification appears to be influenced by protected category. The mean score
among LEO's was significantly lower for crimes committed against a person
because of a disability than for crimes committed because of the victim's race,
religion, or sexual orientation. In addition, the variability in the data was greater for
disability, gender and sexual orientation categories compared to the race and
religion categories. The difference in level of agreement among law enforcement
officers was not significant between disability and gender. Protected category
accounted for 10% of the variance in the data. The partial eta squared of .10 is









conservatively regarded as a medium to large effect size (Green & Salkind, 2003).
Although the difference between disability and race, religion, and sexual
orientation is statistically significant, it is important to comment on the practical
significance of the difference. The mean score for the disability sub-scale
corresponds to a 5.1 on the 7 point scale, which places the mean score on the
agreement half of the scale. Therefore, although the extent of agreement is less, the
mean score is closer to agreement with bias crime categorization than non-
agreement. Additionally, the seven point scale was useful in detecting small
variations in the agreement with bias crime categorization but it is unclear how that
translates into differences in decision-making in the field.

3. Overall MHCS score appears to be influenced by gender. Although this finding is
consistent with the results found by Miller (2001), it should be interpreted with
caution. The assumption of equal variance was violated and the sample size for
females (n=12) was substantially smaller than for males (n= 161). Although the
trend in this study was for females to rate crime scenarios higher than males,
gender accounted for only 2% of the variance in the data, which is considered a
small effect size (Green & Salkind, 2003).

4. There does not appear to be a protected category X gender interaction. The
category by gender interaction in the ANOVA model was not significant > .05.
Although an interaction does not exist, it is important to point out that the ANOVA
model including both gender and protected category as factors accounted for 28%
of the variance in the data.

5. Attitudes towards persons with disabilities, age, and contact with people with
disabilities does not appear to contribute any information towards the prediction of
MHCS-disability subscale score. However, the lack of significance could be an
issue of power. The regression model required 240 subjects to have sufficient
power .80 to detect a small effect size. 184 LEO's consented to participate in this
study. However, due to missing data, the total sample for the multiple regression
model was N = 166.

6. The mean law enforcement officer attitude towards people with disabilities was
higher than expected given the literature on contact and attitude. The nature of the
relationship between a LEO and a PWD is that of unequal status. Therefore, it
would be hypothesized that police officer attitudes would be more negative because
the nature of the relationship is not consistent with Allport's (1954) criteria for the
formation of positive attitudes (Amir, 1969; Dixon et. al., 2005) and is consistent
with other professions where negative attitudes have been reported in the literature
(Wills, 1978). The mean attitude score on a scale of 0 to 180 was 126 (M= 126, SD
= 21.48) with 95% CI of the scores between 84 and 168.

7. The MHCS mean score appears to vary as a function of severity of crime and type
of bias crime indicators present. The results showed that damage to property and
threats (the least severe of the crimes) had a significantly higher mean score than
the more severe categories of physical harm, rape, torture, and murder.









Additionally, means scores for crime scenarios with bias language were
significantly higher than for crime scenes with bias symbols of an individual's
membership in a hate group. One officer, in a post-survey discussion, indicated that
items involving language often convey the intent of the perpetrator. For example,
bias symbols and group membership may be indicators of a bias crime but in order
to build a case to prove motive, it's necessary to have proof of intent. This supports
the discussion on Apprendi v. New Jersey in terms of the increased burden to prove
motivation when building a case for sentence enhancement.

Discussion

The major aim of this study was to determine whether law enforcement officer

agreement with bias crime enhancement would vary as a function of protected category.

Moreover, the study attempted to isolate some of the variables that might account for the

variation in MHCS disability sub-scale scores. Several interesting patterns emerged from

the data. 1) The strongest agreement with bias crime enhancement was for race and

religion followed by sexual orientation, and lastly gender and disability; 2) the variability

in the data was smallest for the race category, followed by religion, sexual orientation,

gender and disability, in that order; 3) mean scores tended to be higher for females than

for males; 4) Attitudes towards people with disabilities, age and contact does not allow

for any prediction of the variance of crime scenarios in the disability category.Agreement

ii i/h bias crime enhancement. Findings of this study suggest that law enforcement officer

agreement to enhance a crime as a bias crime may vary depending on the victim's

membership in a protected class. Specifically, law enforcement officers may perceive

bias crime indicators differently if the victim was chosen because of his or her disability

or because of gender compared to race, religion, and sexual orientation. Conversely,

officer agreement with bias enhancement may be higher for protected classes such as

race, religion, and sexual orientation. There are several explanations that may account for

the variability in the data across protected categories, including: 1) law enforcement









officers' may have greater exposure to hate crimes committed against people in protected

classes other than persons with disabilities; 2) Gender and race trends; 3) the theory that

persons with disabilities are often perceived by others as victims and helpless. As a result,

crimes against persons with disabilities are often considered crimes of opportunity rather

than bias crimes, and 4) The psychometric properties of the MHCS instrument.

Increased exposure. There are several possible explanations to explain why LEO's may

have greater exposure to hate crimes committed against people in protected classes other

than PWD. 1) The number of hate crimes reported each year is largest for race, followed

by religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity and disability, in that order. Given the fact that

hate crimes based on race are reported more often, it is reasonable that LEO's have more

experience with race based hate crimes than with other categories, and may therefore tend

to recognize the elements of hate crimes or bias indicators more often for crimes

committed against victims in those categories. 2) Race, religion, and ethnicity were

included in the first congressional hearings on hate crime in 1985 (McPhail, 2002).

However, between 1985 and the passing of the act in 1990, the influence of gay, lesbian,

bisexual and transgendered (GLBT) organizations prompted congressional hearings on

anti-gay violence, which resulted in sexual orientation being included in the passing of

the Act in 1990. Although sexual orientation was included in the initial passing of the act

in 1990, anti-gay violence was introduced in the discussions later than race, religion and

ethnic violence (McPhail, 2002). Disability was included in the Hate Crime Statistics Act

7 years after the initial passing of the Act. Although gender isn't included in the Act, it is

recognized as a protected category in bias crime legislation in approximately 20 states

and advocates lobbied for the inclusion of gender at the time disability was included.









Moreover, individuals who opposed the inclusion of gender in federal hate crime

legislation referenced the fact that perpetrators of gender based crimes are often known to

the victim, a characteristic shared by perpetrators of crimes against people with

disabilities. The late entry of discussions on disability and gender as protected categories

results in decreased exposure to discussions for those protected classes. Further, the

information LEO's receive may be misinformation. For example, the fact that the

perpetrator-victim relationship is often used as a reason for non-inclusion might function

to reinforce biases, which in turn may result in a LEO's resistance to classify an incident

as a hate crime. 3). Historical evidence of race, religion and sexual orientation-based hate

crimes has been prominently reflected in media coverage for those crimes. For example,

in 1998, James Byrd, an African American, was tied to a car and dragged to his death in

Jasper, Texas. In the same year, Matthew Shephard, a homosexual male, was beaten to

death in Laramie, Wyoming. The Byrd and Shephard case received widespread media

coverage, with good reason. However, in the same year, the Department of Justice

received 23 reports of hate crimes committed against a person because of disability.

Three of the cases were reported from the state of Texas. Yet none of these stories were

reported in the media.

The proportion of crimes reported in the race, religion and sexual orientation

categories, the late inclusion of disability in the federal legislation, and lack of media

coverage may all have resulted in LEO's receiving less exposure to disability motivated

hate crimes and the characteristics associated with them. If true, LEO's may have less

knowledge about hate crimes against persons with disabilities and less experience

working with a crime victim with a disability.









Gender and race trends It appears that females scores on the MHCS overall were

higher than for their male counterparts. Although the difference was significant, the small

effect size and the lack of significant with gender x category interaction offer little

support for further exploration of gender. Additionally, it appears that there is not a

significant difference between Caucasian and non-Caucasian participants.

Persons i/h disabilities perceived by as victims. It has been suggested that people

with disabilities may be perceived as victims (McMahon, et. al., 2004; Sorensen, 2001).

McMahon et. al. reported that disability experts attribute the perception of vulnerability

of people with disabilities as a possible explanation for the low number of reported hate

crimes. If people with disabilities are perceived as vulnerable or victims, the process of

LEO's determining whether the perpetrator was motivated by actuarial reasons or animus

becomes increasingly more difficult.A bias crime is one that is committed in whole or in

part by the offender's bias. However, the process of gathering information to prove the

perpetrator acted out of animus becomes increasingly more difficult if there are multiple

motivations. Therefore, even if there are bias indicators at a crime scene involving a

person with a disability, having elements of both bias and actuarial motivation could

make the bias indicators seem ambiguous. As a matter of course, the other motivating

factors may become the salient feature of the investigation. Although there is evidence

that perpetrators of hate crimes may have multiple motivations for committing the

criminal act (McPhail, 2002) the complexity of multiple perpetrator motivation may

influence LEO decision-making more if they believe a person with a disability cannot be

the victim of a hate crime. Conversely, LEO's may focus more on the aspects of a crime

scene that supports the belief that PWD are victims of actuarial crimes because of their









vulnerability. From a practical standpoint, if evidence of hate crime motivation must be

robust for a prosecuting attorney to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury, the

complexity of multiple motivations may make proving hate motivation difficult. This

may explain why the highest agreement with hate crime enhancement was for crime

scenarios involving bias language because it conveyed the intent of the perpetrator.

The MHCS instrument Another possible explanation for the variability in the data is the

modification of the MHCS instrument. The scenarios were modified to ensure that they

were balanced with regard to the number and type of bias crime indicators and severity of

the crime. However, the reliability of the sub-scales was lower than ideal with the

disability subscale having an internal consistency of a =.61. With a large portion of the

variability resulting from error, further exploration is needed to determine what other

factors contribute to LEO decision-making. It is possible that balancing the crime

scenarios with regard to bias crime indicators resulted in the disability and gender items

lacking face validity. For example, MHCS item #5, "A Caucasian woman is found raped

and murdered and covered in a flag that is painted with the word bitch" was modified

from the original version "A woman is found raped and murdered" to include graffiti at

the crime scene. However, that graffiti may not correspond well to actual bias crimes

committed against a women. The item mean (M= 3.59, SD = 2.12) was considerably

lower than the scale mean (M= 5.13, SD = 1.71) for gender.

Another component of the instrument that may account for the variability is the

apparent ceiling effect for the race and religion subscales. Although one possible

explanation for the lower amount of variability with these subscales is more confidence

in rating crime scenarios falling in these protected classes, it can also be a function of a