Hate Crimes Criminal Law And Identity Politics

In the early 1980s, a new category of crime appeared in the criminal law lexicon. In response to concerted advocacy-group lobbying, Congress and many state legislatures passed a wave of "hate crime" laws requiring the collection of statistics on, and enhancing the punishment for, crimes motivated by certain prejudices. This book places the evolution of the hate crime concept in socio-legal perspective. James B. Jacobs and Kimberly Potter adopt a skeptical if not critical stance, maintaining that legal definitions of hate crime are riddled with ambiguity and subjectivity. No matter how hate crime is defined, and despite an apparent media consensus to the contrary, the authors find no evidence to support the claim that the United States is experiencing a hate crime epidemic--instead, they cast doubt on whether the number of hate crimes is even increasing. The authors further assert that, while the federal effort to establish a reliable hate crime accounting system has failed, data collected for this purpose have led to widespread misinterpretation of the state of intergroup relations in this country. The book contends that hate crime as a socio-legal category represents the elaboration of an identity politics now manifesting itself in many areas of the law. But the attempt to apply the anti-discrimination paradigm to criminal law generates problems and anomalies. For one thing, members of minority groups are frequently hate crime perpetrators. Moreover, the underlying conduct prohibited by hate crime law is already subject to criminal punishment. Jacobs and Potter question whether hate crimes are worse or more serious than similar crimes attributable to other anti-social motivations. They also argue that the effort to single out hate crime for greater punishment is, in effect, an effort to punish some offenders more seriously simply because of their beliefs, opinions, or values, thus implicating the First Amendment. Advancing a provocative argument in clear and persuasive terms, Jacobs and Potter show how the recriminalization of hate crime has little (if any) value with respect to law enforcement or criminal justice. Indeed, enforcement of such laws may exacerbate intergroup tensions rather than eradicate prejudice.

In the early 1980s, a new category of crime appeared in the criminal law lexicon. In response to concerted advocacy-group lobbying, Congress and many state legislatures passed a wave of "hate crime" laws requiring the collection of statistics on, and enhancing the punishment for, crimes motivated by certain prejudices. This book places the evolution of the hate crime concept in socio-legal perspective. James B. Jacobs and Kimberly Potter adopt a skeptical if not critical stance, maintaining that legal definitions of hate crime are riddled with ambiguity and subjectivity. No matter how hate crime is defined, and despite an apparent media consensus to the contrary, the authors find no evidence to support the claim that the United States is experiencing a hate crime epidemic--instead, they cast doubt on whether the number of hate crimes is even increasing. The authors further assert that, while the federal effort to establish a reliable hate crime accounting system has failed, data collected for this purpose have led to widespread misinterpretation of the state of intergroup relations in this country. The book contends that hate crime as a socio-legal category represents the elaboration of an identity politics now manifesting itself in many areas of the law. But the attempt to apply the anti-discrimination paradigm to criminal law generates problems and anomalies. For one thing, members of minority groups are frequently hate crime perpetrators. Moreover, the underlying conduct prohibited by hate crime law is already subject to criminal punishment. Jacobs and Potter question whether hate crimes are worse or more serious than similar crimes attributable to other anti-social motivations. They also argue that the effort to single out hate crime for greater punishment is, in effect, an effort to punish some offenders more seriously simply because of their beliefs, opinions, or values, thus implicating the First Amendment. Advancing a provocative argument in clear and persuasive terms, Jacobs and Potter show how the recriminalization of hate crime has little (if any) value with respect to law enforcement or criminal justice. Indeed, enforcement of such laws may exacerbate intergroup tensions rather than eradicate prejudice.

Hate, Politics, Law: Critical Perspectives on Combating of Hate offers a critical exploration and assessment of the basic assumptions, ideals, and agendas behind the modern fight against hate. The essays in this volumes explore these issues and provide a range of explanatory and normative perspectives on the awkward relationship between hate and liberal democracy.

Why do we know every gory crime scene detail about such victims as Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. and yet almost nothing about the vast majority of other hate crime victims? Now that federal anti-hate-crimes laws have been passed, why has the number of these crimes not declined significantly? To answer such questions, Clara S. Lewis challenges us to reconsider our understanding of hate crimes. In doing so, she raises startling issues about the trajectory of civil and minority rights. Tough on Hate is the first book to examine the cultural politics of hate crimes both within and beyond the law. Drawing on a wide range of sources—including personal interviews, unarchived documents, television news broadcasts, legislative debates, and presidential speeches—the book calls attention to a disturbing irony: the sympathetic attention paid to certain shocking hate crime murders further legitimizes an already pervasive unwillingness to act on the urgent civil rights issues of our time. Worse still, it reveals the widespread acceptance of ideas about difference, tolerance, and crime that work against future progress on behalf of historically marginalized communities.

These previously unpublished essays explore the international phenomenon of hate crimes, examining the socio-psychological dynamics of these crimes and the settings in which they occur, the relationships between offenders and their victims, the emotional states of the participants, and the legal and law enforcement responses to these crimes. The essays address religious, racial, ethnic, and sexual crimes in the United States, Latin America, Africa, Europe, and the Middle East. The essayists provide historical reviews of the problems and the ways local authorities understand and cope with the dilemmas as well as prognoses about the persistence of hate crime and the measures that can be taken to control and contain it. "Introduction", Robert J. Kelly and Jess Maghan "Black Rage, Murder, Racism, and Madness: The Metamorphosis of Colin Ferguson", Robert J. Kelly "The Neo-Nazis and Skinheads of Germany: Purveyors of Hate", Robert Harnishmacher and Robert J. Kelly "The Ku Klux Klan: Recurring Hate in America", Robert J. Kelly "The Homeless Palestinians in Israel and the Arab World", Ghada Talhami "Hate Crimes in India: A Historical Perspective", Asad ur Rahman "Social Cleansing in Colombia: The War on Street Children", Suzanne Wilson and Julia Greider-Durango "The Emergence and Implications of American Hate Crime Jurisprudence", James B. Jacobs "Spectacular Punishment and the Orchestration of Hate: The Pillory and Popular Morality in Eighteenth-Century England", Antony E. Simpson "Epilogue", Robert J. Kelly and Jess Maghan "An Annotated Bibliography of Hate Crime Literature", Jess Maghan

This book presents both a new theoretical framework for the criminalisation of hate, referred to as “law as social justice liberalism”, and a comprehensive analysis of hate crime laws that have been enacted globally. The book begins by reflecting back on 30 years of theorisation on hate crime laws, arguing that there has been a failure to adequately capture the distinct harms of hate-based criminal conduct within legal frameworks. The book posits that liberal societies interested in advancing social equality ought to expand conventional paradigms of harm used in criminal law by comprehending hate-based conduct as a form of social injustice. Drawing on the work of Iris Young, the book sets out a comprehensive analysis of the harms of hate crime as a form of group-based oppression and uses this to set out criteria for the inclusion of protected characteristics under legislation. The second half of the book presents findings from a comparative study of hate crime laws enacted in 190 different legal jurisdictions. This includes a new taxonomy of types, models and legal tests used by legislatures to capture the myriad forms of hate-based criminal conduct that occur globally. Further evaluation of case law and empirical research on the application of these diverging legislative approaches is used to provide recommendations on how legislators ought to construct hate crime laws. The book completes its analysis of law as social justice liberalism by synthesising law, punishment and restorative justice as a means of ensuring that liberal systems of “justice” are more firmly anchored to the advancement of “social justice”.

Debating Hate Crime examines the language used by parliamentarians, senators, and committee witnesses to debate Canada’s hate laws. Drawing on discourse analysis, semiotics, and critical psychoanalysis, Allyson Lunny explores how the tropes, metaphors, and other linguistic signifiers used in these debates expose the particular concerns, trepidations, and anxieties of Canadian lawmakers and the expert witnesses called before their committees. Lunny reveals the meaning and social signification of the endorsement of, and resistance to, hate law. The result is a rich historical account of some of Canada’s most passionate public debates on victimization, rightful citizenship, social threat, and moral erosion.