Motives, Reasons, and Responsibility in Hate/Bias Crime Legislation

2016 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 230-248 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Brax
Keyword(s):  
2012 ◽  
Vol 37 (02) ◽  
pp. 456-474 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean Robertson

US bias crime jurisprudence follows the discrimination model and ejects “hate” from scrutiny. It is suggestive of improvements that should be made to Canadian law insofar as it also better tracks the enactment of discrimination against difference occasioned in the everyday. Criminal law, however, remains weak at preventing crime. And where the law requires evidence of discrimination, it iterates the stereotypes and social backdrop of hate crime. But this view on law and culture underestimates how outgroups may produce countermeanings and influence the law. Turning to the more material basis of identity, neoconservatism has given the law a broad ambit whereby coercion as opposed to investment in human capacities is promoted as the means to social order. Where scholars argue that discursive collaboration with retributionist policy requires outgroups to pursue cultural revalorization, given the decreasing freedom under the contemporary authoritarian paradigm, I argue that they must also pursue distributional justice.


1996 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie Jenness ◽  
Ryken Grattet

Violence born of hatred, bias, or prejudice has become the source of highly politicized public debate and subsequent mandates that “somebody do something.” Accordingly, many federal, state, county, and city officials have taken measures to curb hate-motivated violence through new legislation. This criminalization of hate is a fairly recent development in legal and criminal history, and it is not surprising that little scholarly attention has so far been paid to understanding the adoption of hate crime legislation throughout the United States. We describe the content and distribution of “hate crime” laws, also known as “bias crime” laws. Then, we rely upon a complete inventory of hate crime statutes in the United States and social indicator data to investigate the social forces shaping the adoption of one particular type of hate crime legislation, so-called “bias-motivated violence and intimidation” statutes. Logistic regression analyses are used to determine how various structural and political variables compare and interact in terms of their impact on the criminalization process. Our findings suggest that structural and political determinants of criminalization posited by contemporary theoretical arguments are insufficient to explain the recent criminalization of hate.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document