Suicide & Hate Crimes:

Contextualizing LGBT Adolescent Crisis

Tracy Hipp

Introduction

Research in the field of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender adolescent suicide indicates that LGBT youth are two to three times more likely to make a serious suicide attempt than heterosexual youth and may account for 30% of completed suicides (Kulkin, Chauvin & Percle, 2000).

The majority of studies attempting to contextualize the epidemic of LGBT adolescent suicide are viewed in relation to protective factors within an individual’s microsystems (Eisenberg & Resnick, 2006). There have been very few studies conducted looking at rates of adolescent suicide in relation to a larger cultural context such as state and federal laws (Jesdale & Zierler, 2002)

THIS STUDY:

By looking at crude estimated rates of LGBT adolescent suicide I will attempt to relate the LGBT suicide rate to the existence of protective status given by hate crime laws in the 50 states and District of Columbia.

Applying Durkheim’s Suicide Theory, I will propose an explanation for the increased risk that this population faces (Durkheim, 1951).

Table 1: Hate Crime Laws and Inclusion Status of 50 States and the District of Columbia, Suicides Committed, Population, Crude Rate and LGBT Estimates.Method

Participants: Data were taken from the

CDC’s NCHS Vital Statistics System and Bureau of Census

Completed adolescent suicides in 2004 = 5,036*

LGBT adolescent suicide rates estimated at 30% for 2004 = 1,511*

• Ages 13-25• Both Sexes• All Races/Ethnicities

Hate Crime Laws:State hate crime laws from

2004 were taken from the Anti-Defamation League State Hate Crime Statutory Provisions and assigned to one of four groups

• Full Inclusion Status: States have hate crime laws which include sexual orientation and gender

• Sexual Orientation Inclusion: States have hate crime laws which include sexual orientation as a protected status

• No Inclusion: States have hate crimes laws but do not include sexual orientation as a protected status

• No Hate Crime Laws: States do not have hate crime laws or do not protect any specified group.

Procedure:• Estimated LGBT crude

suicide rates were recorded by state.

• Rates were stratified by state into four groups dependent upon protection status.

DiscussionThese data suggested that LGBT youth living in states which acknowledge the importance of protection

from harm, but excluded this population from such privilege may be at increased risk of suicide. Durkheim’s Theory of Egoistic Suicide suggests that a lack of integration or normalizing of a group’s experience may result in a greater risk of suicide for that group (1951) and although no significant difference exists between states which harbor partial or full inclusion laws and those states which do not have hate crime laws, it may be the intentional omission of this group from protective status that carries the greatest ramifications.

Frequently acknowledged as a group critically at risk of suicide, LGBT youth have been overrepresented in studies conducted on ideation and attempt (Kourany, 1987; Schneider, Farberow, & Kruks, 1989; Ramfedi, 1990). No reliable data are available which report the number of adolescents identified as LGBT and consequently the number of LGBT adolescents who have committed suicide. As suggested by Kulkin, Chauvin & Percle (2000), using a 30% estimate of adolescent suicides committed to reflect the number of LGBT adolescent suicides may serve as a starting point to create dialogue on the issue of LGBT adolescent crisis until such statistics begin to emerge.

Results

Full Inclusion:

22 States, M = 2.94 Suicides

764 Deaths - Crude Rate 64.76 per 100,000

Partial Inclusion:

9 States, M = 2.99

248 Deaths - Crude Rate 26.92 per 100,000

No Inclusion:

14 States, M = 4.26

356 Deaths - Crude Rate 59.61 per 100,000

No Hate Crime Laws:

6 States**, M = 2.99

141 Deaths - Crude Rate 17.96 per 100,000

*Rates per 100,000

* *GA and UT

Note: GA enhances penalties for “bias or prejudice”, UT ties penalties for hate crime violations to constitutional or civil rights

Green: Full Inclusion, White: Partial Inclusion, Orange & Yellow: Hate Crime Laws With No Inclusion, Red: No Hate Crime Laws

CONTACTTracy Hippthipp1@student.gsu.edu

STATE

HATE CRIME LAWS

SEXUAL ORIENTATION INCLUSION

GENDER INCLUSION

NUMBER OF SUICIDES POPULATION

CRUDE RATE

ESTIMATED LGBT NUMBER

LGBT ESTIMATED CRUDE RATE

ALABAMA YES NO NO 94 839,069 11.2 28 3.36ALASKA YES NO YES 50 135,486 36.9 15 11.07ARIZONA YES YES YES 154 1,073,177 14.35 46 4.30ARKANSAS NO NO NO 42 511,506 8.21 13 2.46CALIFORNIA YES YES YES 487 6,880,812 7.08 146 2.12COLORADO YES NO NO 123 852,168 14.43 37 4.33CONNECTICUT YES YES YES 47 594,216 7.91 14 2.37DELAWARE YES YES NO 10 150,643 6.64 3 1.99DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA YES YES YES 5 113,020 4.42 2 1.33FLORIDA YES YES NO 248 2,901,823 8.55 74 2.56GEORGIA * NO NO 157 1,694,484 9.27 47 2.78HAWAII YES YES YES 14 226,211 6.19 4 1.86IDAHO YES NO NO 37 281,618 13.14 11 3.94ILLINOIS YES YES YES 181 2,359,709 7.67 54 2.30INDIANA NO NO NO 112 1,169,966 9.57 34 2.87IOWA YES YES YES 64 560,439 11.42 19 3.43KANSAS YES YES NO 66 532,230 12.4 20 3.72KENTUCKY YES YES NO 87 753,977 11.54 26 3.46LOUISIANA YES YES YES 107 905,950 11.81 32 3.54MAINE YES YES YES 29 224,071 12.94 9 3.88MARYLAND YES NO NO 68 990,802 6.86 20 2.06MASSACHUSETTS YES YES NO 58 1,131,599 5.13 17 1.54MICHIGAN YES NO YES 162 1,878,695 8.62 49 2.59MINNESOTA YES YES YES 99 961,581 10.3 30 3.09MISSISSIPPI YES NO YES 60 576,698 10.4 18 3.12MISSOURI YES YES YES 112 1,076,714 10.4 34 3.12MONTANA YES NO NO 29 175,862 16.49 9 4.95NEBRASKA YES YES YES 36 340,014 10.59 11 3.18NEVADA YES YES NO 43 401,888 10.7 13 3.21NEW HAMPSHIRE YES YES YES 18 229,575 7.84 5 2.35NEW JERSEY YES YES YES 91 1,439,284 6.32 27 1.90NEW MEXICO YES YES YES 83 377,788 21.97 25 6.59NEW YORK YES YES YES 198 3,484,916 5.68 59 1.70NORTH CAROLINA YES NO YES 148 1,523,098 9.72 44 2.92NORTH DAKOTA YES NO YES 21 135,070 15.55 6 4.66OHIO YES NO NO 208 2,104,739 9.88 62 2.96OKLAHOMA YES YES YES 84 685,992 12.25 25 3.67OREGON YES YES NO 79 645,628 12.24 24 3.67PENNSYLVANIA YES YES YES 193 2,195,342 8.79 58 2.64RHODE ISLAND YES YES YES 16 203,377 7.87 5 2.36SOUTH CAROLINA NO NO NO 74 786,805 9.41 22 2.82SOUTH DAKOTA YES NO NO 34 152,624 22.28 10 6.68TENNESSEE YES YES NO 118 1,060,631 11.13 35 3.34TEXAS YES YES YES 397 4,456,098 8.91 119 2.67UTAH ** NO NO 72 580,453 12.4 22 3.72VERMONT YES YES YES 12 114,451 10.48 4 3.15VIRGINIA YES NO NO 111 1,346,619 8.24 33 2.47WASHINGTON YES YES YES 121 1,142,652 10.59 36 3.18WEST VIRGINIA YES NO YES 47 313,614 14.99 14 4.50WISCONSIN YES YES NO 119 1,040,654 11.44 36 3.43WYOMING NO NO NO 11 99,717 11.03 3 3.31

Chris Goode:

I actually don’t have any idea what this means!

Chris Goode:

I actually don’t have any idea what this means!