Terrorism and Hate Crime

Criminology ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colleen E. Mills ◽  
Joshua Freilich ◽  
Steven Chermak
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Hate Crime ◽  
The United States ◽  
Hate Crimes ◽  
Late 20Th Century ◽  
Modern Times ◽  
Hate Crime Legislation ◽  
History Of ◽  
Crime Legislation ◽  
Political Objective

This article focuses on political crimes, specifically terrorism and hate crime. Both terrorism and hate crime are criminal activities that are often committed to further a political objective, as opposed to typical or regular crimes that are usually committed for personal reasons such as greed, revenge, or other personal motivations. Political motivations encompass ideological, social, and religious objectives. Several works (e.g., Bruce Hoffman’s Inside Terrorism; see Hoffman 2006, cited under Defining Terrorism and Hate Crime) examine the evolution of terrorism from ancient to modern times. While bias-motivated violence and hate crimes are just as old as terrorism, the United States did not formally adopt hate crime legislation, through the passage of a variety of substantive penalty enhancement and data collection laws, until the late 20th century. Making Hate a Crime (Jenness and Grattet 2004, cited under Defining Terrorism and Hate Crime) explores the history of hate crime legislation, highlighting how various civil rights and victims’ rights movements played a role in the passage of hate crime legislation. In the classic text Hate Crimes Revisited, Jack Levin and Jack McDevitt outline the history of hate crimes, explain why some persons are motivated to commit these crimes, and discuss efforts to combat them (Levin and McDevitt 2002, cited under Defining Terrorism and Hate Crime).

The influence of the ‘gay-propaganda’ law on violence against LGBTIQ people in Russia: Evidence from criminal court rulings

2019 ◽  
pp. 147737081988751
Author(s):  
Alexander Kondakov
Keyword(s):  
Hate Crime ◽  
Hate Crimes ◽  
Original Method ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Actual Number ◽  
Hate Crime Legislation ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Crime Legislation ◽  
Descriptive Statistical Analysis

This article presents the results of a study of the victimization of queer people in Russia before and after the ‘gay-propaganda’ bill was signed into law in 2013. Despite the development of hate crime legislation, few violent incidents against LGBTIQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, and questioning) individuals are recorded in the Russian legal system. An original method of court rulings analysis is put forward in order to move towards an actual number of criminal offences against these groups. All court decisions that mention non-heterosexual victims are reviewed to identify whether these cases could have been considered hate crimes. As a result, 267 first-instance criminal court rulings dealing with 297 LGBTIQ victims are identified in 2011–16. Descriptive statistical analysis demonstrates that the number of victims grew substantially after 2013.

Hate Crime Policy in the United States

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan Osterbur
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Queer Theory ◽  
Hate Crime ◽  
The United States ◽  
Industrial Complex ◽  
Crime Policy ◽  
Police Powers ◽  
Prevention Act ◽  
Crime Legislation ◽  
Hate Crime Laws

Hate crime policy has developed from the early legislation of the 1968 Civil Rights Act to the 2009 Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crime Prevention Act, to be increasingly inclusive in terms of identity and comprehensive in terms of ramifications. Hence a body of scholarship around the trajectory and implications of hate crime laws has developed, as has a robust discourse on the definitions of hate crime itself and theories on who perpetrates bias-motivated violence and why it occurs. Between definitions of hate crime, a tension exists between legal definitions and those of theorists who are attempting incorporate understanding of context into the definition. Similarly, the theories on who perpetrates hate crimes and why they occur exhibit tensions between strain-based theories. While some scholars have deployed Merton’s (1938) strain theory associated with societal anomie, others point to changing norms. As hate crime laws have become more inclusive of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression, avenues of research into the disparities in experience of bias-motivated crimes between enumerated categories has increased. Persistent in the research on hate crime is the deficiency of data on victimization and ramifications beyond direct victims. While data on the scope of the policies is clear, inconsistencies in data collection around victimization render available resources insufficient. Most recently, research on hate crime policy has intersected with queer theory to question whether hate crime laws are positive for the LGBTQ community or society at large. Organizations such as the Silvia Rivera Law Project, for example, have pushed back on calls for inclusive hate crime laws via challenging the propensity to provide additional resources to the prison-industrial complex. Furthermore, queer scholars of history find a disconnect between the origins of the LGBTI movement in resisting police powers to be antithetical to promoting increased police powers in the form of hate crime legislation.

The Specters of Citizenship

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy L. Brandzel
Keyword(s):  
Hate Crime ◽  
Hate Crimes ◽  
State Violence ◽  
The State ◽  
Police Brutality ◽  
Structural Level ◽  
Hate Crime Legislation ◽  
The Social ◽  
Crime Legislation ◽  
Social Level

This chapter examines the violent maintenance of citizenship through the police state, and the uses of hate crime legislation to both name and disallow any recognition of this violence. The intervention into how we understand citizenship to be violently organized functions at two interconnected levels, that is, at the structural level of state violence, and at the social level of identity categories. At the level of the state, hate crime legislation offers us important information on how the violence of citizenship is managed, controlled, and directed. At the structural level of the state, the chapter adds to left critiques of hate crime legislation by unpacking how these laws are used to create a dangerous discontinuum, in which hate crimes are marked as individualized errors, while police brutality is systemically assuaged. By examining the machinations of hate crime legislation at these two levels, it is argued that hate crime legislation works, simultaneously, to recognize and deny: (1) the violence of citizenship; and (2) the fear that the oppressed will seek revenge and retaliate for this experience by using violence themselves.

scholarly journals Neglect, Marginalization, and Abuse: Hate Crime Legislation and Practice in the Labyrinth of Identity Politics, Minority Protection, and Penal Populism

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andras L. Pap
Keyword(s):  
Identity Politics ◽  
Hate Crime ◽  
Hate Crimes ◽  
Practical Application ◽  
Minority Communities ◽  
Minority Protection ◽  
Protection Mechanism ◽  
Hate Crime Legislation ◽  
Crime Legislation

Abstract Using Hungary as a case study and focusing on legislative policies and the practical application of hate crime legislation, this article shows the various ways legal policy can become misguided in the labyrinth of identity politics, minority protection, and penal populism. The first mistake states can make, the author argues, is not to adopt hate crime legislation. The second error arguably pertains to conceptualizing hate crimes as an identity protection but not a minority-protection mechanism and instrument. The third fallacy the author identifies concerns legislative and practical policies that conceptualize victims based on self-identification and not on the perpetrator’s (or the wider community’s) potential perception and classification. The fourth flaw concerns the abuse of the concept of hate crime when it is applied in interethnic conflicts wherein members of minority communities are perpetrators and the victims are members of the majority communities. The fifth is institutional discrimination through the systematic underpolicing of hate crimes.

scholarly journals South Africa - a home for all? The need for hate crime legislation

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Duncan Breen ◽  
Juan A A Nel
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
South African ◽  
Hate Crime ◽  
Hate Crimes ◽  
African Government ◽  
Policy Debates ◽  
Hate Crime Legislation ◽  
Repeated Calls ◽  
Policy Frameworks ◽  
Crime Legislation

The South African government is currently developing legislation on hate crimes. This follows repeated calls by civil society for an appropriate response to the apparent scourge of hate and bias-motivated crimes that tarnish the image of South Africa as a ‘rainbow nation’. This article is aimed at informing related policy debates and provides discussion of violence targeted at foreign nationals and at those who are (or perceived to be) sexual minorities and/or gender non-conforming. This will give an indication of the trends and challenges that the proposed legislation and policy frameworks will need to address.

Hate as an Aggravating Factor in Sentencing

2012 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 572-611 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamad Al-Hakim ◽  
Susan Dimock
Keyword(s):  
Hate Crime ◽  
Hate Crimes ◽  
Hate Crime Legislation ◽  
Theories Of Punishment ◽  
Crime Legislation ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality

Our principal concern in this paper is with the accusation that hate crime legislation violates the principle of proportionality and related principles of just sentencing, such as parity, fair notice, and representative labelling. We argue that most attempts to reconcile enhanced punishment for hate crimes with the principle of proportionality fail. More specifically, it seems that any argument that tries to justify hate crime legislation on the grounds that such crimes are more serious because their consequential harms are worse or their perpetrators are more culpable than their nonhateful counterparts will fail, and thus enhanced punishment will violate the principle of proportionality. Given the seeming irreconcilable tension between proportionality and hate crime legislation, we turn to consideration of hybrid theories of punishment that permit deviations from strict proportionality when needed to serve other important and legitimate purposes of sentencing. We argue that even if such hybrid theories can justify the enhanced punishments for hate crimes, existing theories cannot provide any principled limit on the extent from which proportionality can be deviated. We suggest such a limit and provide a principled justification for it.

scholarly journals Al-Mughtaribun

1997 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 116-118
Author(s):  
Omar Altalib
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Hate Crime ◽  
The United States ◽  
Muslim Community ◽  
Daily Lives ◽  
Court Records ◽  
Hate Crime Legislation ◽  
The Status ◽  
Crime Legislation ◽  
The One

The focus of this book is on "the gradual transformation of American Muslims'perceptions and self-identification, coaxed by the ways American civillaw has penetrated and come to dominate their daily lives" (p. vii). Hence, thebook attempts to show the link between law and society by using Muslims inthe United States as a case study. It is of interest to sociologists, legal historians,political scientists, and scholars of religion and touches on the themes ofcivil rights, freedom of religion, social change, the status of minorities, andassimilation.Moore shows how Muslims in the United States have been affected byAmerican immigration law (chapters 2 and 3), religious liberty laws affectingMuslims in prison (chapter 4), hate crime legislation affecting mosques (chapter5), and zoning laws that affect mosques (chapter 6). The sources Mooreuses are historical: court records, interviews, magazine articles, and newspaperstories. She points out that there has been a great transformation in theAmerican legal system's attitude toward Islam. In 1811, the New YorkSupreme Court ruled (in People vs. Ruggles) that the "religion of Mohammed"is an impostor religion, a superstition, and is equally false and unknown(p. x). ln 1962, on the other hand, the District of Columbia U.S. District Courtruled (in Fulwood vs. Clemmer) that Muslims believe in Allah as a supremebeing and as the one true god. It follows, therefore, that the Muslim faith is areligion {p. 82).Have American legal institutions been responsive to the Muslim community?Has the American legal setting transformed the Muslim community? Theanswer to the first question, according to Moore, is that in the 1800s, "No"; butgradually the courts have become more responsive and continue to be moreresponsive as time passes and as Muslims become more politically active. Theanswer to the second question is "Yes."How has the American legal setting transformed the Muslim community?It has limited the numbers of Muslims in the United States (through immigrationrestrictions). It has increasingly allowed Muslims in prison to pray jum'ah,wear kufis on their heads, eat nonpork foods, and obtain copies of the Qur'an.It has protected Muslim mosques from vandalism through stiffer penalties forpeople committing such a crime. It has also restricted the establishment of ...

Hate Crime Legislation

Criminology ◽  
2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susann Wiedlitzka
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Hate Crime ◽  
The United States ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
Annual Review ◽  
Crime Policy ◽  
Hate Crime Legislation ◽  
The World ◽  
Crime Legislation

Hate crime is a problem in many countries around the world. Scholars define hate crimes as unlawful conduct directed at different target groups, which can include violent acts, property damage, harassment, and trespassing (see Hate crime: An emergent research agenda. Annual Review of Sociology 27.1 [2001]: 479–504). Hate crime perpetrators target their victim’s race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, or disability, but also a variety of other characteristics. Several social movements (e.g., the civil rights movement, women’s movement, and LGBT movement) laid the foundation for anti-violence movements and placed the hate crime discourse on the political and legislative agenda. One way to better understand hate crime is to explore how governments in different parts of the world address the issue of crimes motivated by hate or prejudice. Targeted laws and policies transformed hate violence from ordinary to extraordinary crime (see Hate crime policy in western Europe: Responding to racist violence in Britain, Germany, and France. American Behavioral Scientist 51.2 [2007]: 149–165). Different countries implemented hate crime legislation in order to condemn crime committed due to prejudice or bias against an individual or group of people, introducing such legislation during different periods in time. The United States emerged as the leader of hate crime policy approaches, implementing legal responses to prejudice and bias in the early 20th century. The United States was also the first country to circulate the term “hate crime” during the 1980s (see Hate crime: An emergent research agenda. Annual Review of Sociology 27.1 [2001]: 479–504). Europe and the Asia-Pacific region followed suit in implementing their own responses to hate crime. The diversity of hate crime legislation in different countries makes it difficult to combine the legislative contexts under a common framework. A controversial debate exists around the need for a separate set of hate crime legislation. Scholars dispute the seriousness of the hate crime offense, the possibilities of proving motivational aspects of the hate crime, criminalizing hate, and introducing more severe punishments. They also debate the utilization of the civil versus the criminal code, the inclusion of different protected categories under hate crime legislation, the symbolic character of hate crime, and the social and political impact of hate crime legislation. This bibliography reviews key resources on hate crime legislation, including its historical context, its globalization, and the socio-criminological debate around hate crime legislation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document