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