The Experts below are selected from a list of 5457 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Jon Garland - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Hate Crime impact causes responses
2015Co-Authors: Neil Chakraborti, Jon GarlandAbstract:Chapter One: Understanding Hate Crime Chapter Two: Racist Hate Crime Chapter Three: Religiously Motivated Hate Crime Chapter Four: Homophobic Hate Crime Chapter Five: Transphobic Hate Crime Chapter Six: Disablist Hate Crime Chapter Seven: Vulnerability, 'Difference' and Gendered Violence Chapter Eight: Perpetrators of Hate Crime Chapter Nine: Responding to Hate Crime Chapter Ten: International Perspectives on Hate Crime Chapter Eleven: Conclusions and Future Directions
-
f king freak what the hell do you think you look like experiences of targeted victimization among goths and developing notions of Hate Crime
British Journal of Criminology, 2014Co-Authors: Jon Garland, Paul HodkinsonAbstract:Greater Manchester Police’s categorisation of targeted attacks on ‘alternative subculture’ members as Hate Crimes prompted extensive debate about whether such incidents are comparable to those of recognised Hate Crime groups. Hate Crime experts have contributed to this debate but there is a lack of detailed empirical research on the subject. Drawing on qualitative interviews with twenty-one respondents mostly affiliated to the goth scene, this paper uncovers extensive experience of verbal harassment and, for some respondents, repeated incidents of targeted violence. The nature and impact of such experiences, we argue, bears comparison with key facets of Hate Crime. Such evidence informs and underlines the importance of conceptual arguments about whether Hate Crime can or should be extended beyond recognised minority groups.
-
reconceptualizing Hate Crime victimization through the lens of vulnerability and difference
Theoretical Criminology, 2012Co-Authors: Neil Chakraborti, Jon GarlandAbstract:This article suggests that the concepts of vulnerability and ‘difference’ should be focal points of Hate Crime scholarship if the values at the heart of the Hate Crime movement are not to be diluted. By stringently associating Hate Crime with particular strands of victims and sets of motivations through singular constructions of identity, criminologists have created a divisive and hierarchical approach to understanding Hate Crime. To counter these limitations, we propose that vulnerability and ‘difference’, rather than identity and group membership alone, should be central to investigations of Hate Crime. These concepts would allow for a more inclusive conceptual framework enabling hitherto overlooked and vulnerable victims of targeted violence to receive the recognition they urgently need.
-
difficulties in defining Hate Crime victimization
International Review of Victimology, 2012Co-Authors: Jon GarlandAbstract:This article analyses the issues involved with deciding which identity groups are categorized as specific Hate Crime victim groups and which are not. It assesses whether theories of Hate Crime based around hierarchical notions of group dominance and subordination are helpful in determining which groups should be included under the Hate Crime 'umbrella'. Through a discussion of the victimization of disabled people, the elderly and the homeless, the article outlines key concepts - relating to community, risk, harm and vulnerability - that are central to comprehending the nature of the abuse that they suffer. It also notes the common misreading of 'low-level' targeted harassment as anti-social behaviour, and assesses the impact this has upon the development of a more in-depth understanding of the circumstances of victims. The article also highlights the problems with using collective terms like 'communities' or 'groups' in this context, as such entities can be very diverse - indeed 'separate' groups often intersect with each other. As an alternative, it is suggested that moving the debate away from collective terminology towards an understanding of the risk of targeted victimization that individuals face would be helpful when trying to assess the circumstances of disabled people, the elderly and the homeless, who currently are still at the margins of the Hate debate. © The Author(s) 2011.
-
divided by a common concept assessing the implications of different conceptualizations of Hate Crime in the european union
European Journal of Criminology, 2012Co-Authors: Jon Garland, Neil ChakrabortiAbstract:In recent years the European Union (EU) has witnessed rising levels of Hate Crime. However, although there have been a number of legislative and other policy initiatives introduced across the EU to combat such offences, these have developed in a piecemeal and sometimes half-hearted fashion. This article outlines the difficulties evident in theorizing Hate Crime and how these problems have been reflected in the divergent ways that Hate Crime legislation has developed across the EU. It argues that an approach to combating Hate Crime based on human rights, which is endorsed by many EU institutions, has failed to tackle the problem effectively and has resulted in the uneven protection of Hate Crime victim groups. By utilizing an individual rather than a group-based human rights approach, the damaging nature and effect of such ‘targeted victimization’ upon all Hate Crime victims can be better understood and addressed.
Neil Chakraborti - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
More than a tick-box? The role of training in improving police responses to Hate Crime
2020Co-Authors: Stevie-jade Hardy, Neil Chakraborti, Ilda CukoAbstract:In the years since the publication of the Macpherson report, many countries across the world have implemented policy and legislative frameworks in order to respond more effectively to Hate Crime. Within the UK, and despite laudable progress in some contexts, a set of significant challenges remain in relation to the under-reporting of Hate Crime, widespread victim dissatisfaction with police responses and inconsistent recording practices. This broader landscape of flawed responses illustrates the need for and importance of effective training for police professionals, and yet little is known in connection to what training is delivered and to whom, despite a series of government action plans committing to the roll out of a national training package.Drawing from a body of empirical evidence gathered from Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, in-depth semi-structured interviews and observations of police training, this article highlights that although Hate Crime training is being delivered within forces, there are a series of structural, organisational, operational and individual barriers which undermine its delivery and effectiveness. At a time when levels of Hate Crime are rising, it is imperative that police officers and staff are equipped with the necessary understanding and skills to deliver a service which meets the needs of diverse communities. This article identifies how existing training provision can be improved in order to facilitate such an outcome.
-
responding to Hate Crime escalating problems continued failings
Criminology & Criminal Justice, 2018Co-Authors: Neil ChakrabortiAbstract:The need for fresh responses to Hate Crime has become all the more apparent at a time when numbers of incidents have risen to record levels, both within the UK and beyond. Despite progress within the domains of scholarship and policy, these escalating levels of Hate Crime – and the associated increase in tensions, scapegoating and targeted hostility that accompanies such spikes – casts doubt over the effectiveness of existing measures and their capacity to address the needs of Hate Crime victims. This article draws from extensive fieldwork conducted with more than 2000 victims of Hate Crime to illustrate failings in relation to dismantling barriers to reporting, prioritizing meaningful engagement with diverse communities and delivering effective criminal justice interventions. It highlights how these failings can exacerbate the sense of distress felt by victims from a diverse range of backgrounds and communities, and calls for urgent action to plug the ever-widening chasm between state-level narratives an...
-
mind the gap making stronger connections between Hate Crime policy and scholarship
Criminal Justice Policy Review, 2016Co-Authors: Neil ChakrabortiAbstract:Despite recent progress, our collective responses to Hate Crime have been undermined by a disconnected approach to scholarship and policy. This article focuses on a series of problems that are crea...
-
re thinking Hate Crime fresh challenges for policy and practice
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2015Co-Authors: Neil ChakrabortiAbstract:Hate Crime has become an increasingly familiar term in recent times as the harms associated with acts of bigotry and prejudice continue to pose complex challenges for societies across the world. However, despite the greater recognition now afforded to Hate Crimes by scholars, policy makers and law enforcers, uncertainty continues to cloud the scope and legitimacy of existing policy frameworks. This article draws from an emerging body of inter-disciplinary scholarship and empirical research to highlight a series of important realities about Hate Crime victimization and perpetration that tend to remain peripheral to the process of policy formation. It suggests that the focus on particular strands of victims and particular sets of motivations has overshadowed a range of significant issues, including the experiences of “marginal” groups of victims, and the way in which identity characteristics intersect with one another—and with other situational factors and context—to leave some targets of Hate Crime especia...
-
Hate Crime impact causes responses
2015Co-Authors: Neil Chakraborti, Jon GarlandAbstract:Chapter One: Understanding Hate Crime Chapter Two: Racist Hate Crime Chapter Three: Religiously Motivated Hate Crime Chapter Four: Homophobic Hate Crime Chapter Five: Transphobic Hate Crime Chapter Six: Disablist Hate Crime Chapter Seven: Vulnerability, 'Difference' and Gendered Violence Chapter Eight: Perpetrators of Hate Crime Chapter Nine: Responding to Hate Crime Chapter Ten: International Perspectives on Hate Crime Chapter Eleven: Conclusions and Future Directions
Mark Walters - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
healing harms and engendering tolerance the promise of restorative justice for Hate Crime
Social Science Research Network, 2017Co-Authors: Mark Walters, Carolyn HoyleAbstract:Hate Crime scholars have spent the best part of twenty years investigating the prevalence of Hate Crime, its aetiological determinants, the harms it causes, and how - within a democratic and diverse society – it could be diminished or eradicated (Herek & Berrill 1992; McDevitt & Levin 1993; Jacobs & Potter 1998; Lawrence 1999; Perry 2001; Iganksi 2008). Yet within the ‘Hate debate’ there has been little attention paid to the potential efficacy of restorative justice. This chapter explores whether restorative justice practices (henceforth RJ) might have the potential to help to repair the harms caused by acts of hatred. It draws upon theoretical and empirical research on both Hate Crime and RJ and proffers some tentative observations from the early stage of a three-year empirical study into RJ and Hate Crime being carried out by the first author.
-
preventing Hate Crime
Social Science Research Network, 2016Co-Authors: Mark Walters, Rupert BrownAbstract:This report provides a comprehensive review of interventions that are currently being used to combat Hate Crime in England and Wales. The report complements another piece of work which was commissioned by the Equality and Human Rights Commission on the causes and motivations of Hate Crime and we recommend that both of these reports be read together (Walters, Brown and Wiedlitzka 2016). We have divided the report into three parts, the first and second examine the evidence-base for criminalisation, policing, and criminal justice and education-based interventions aimed at tackling Hate. Here we pinpoint a number of emerging practices, using case studies, to highlight the ways in which Hate-based incidents can be effectively challenged. We note also the limitations in research and offer recommendations for better evidence gathering to support the improved use of such practices. The third part of this report focuses on barriers to the effective management of criminal justice interventions for Hate Crime. In this final part of the report we set out a list of recommendations to enhance the effective management of Hate Crime offenders and the prevention of Hate Crime more generally. These recommendations are based on extensive consultations with research, policy and practitioner experts working in the area of Hate Crime.
-
causes and motivations of Hate Crime
Social Science Research Network, 2016Co-Authors: Mark Walters, Rupert Brown, Susann WiedlitzkaAbstract:This report is the result of work commissioned by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC, hereafter the Commission) on the causes and perpetration of Hate Crime in Great Britain.
-
Hate Crime and restorative justice exploring causes repairing harms
2014Co-Authors: Mark WaltersAbstract:The product of an 18 month empirical study which examined the use of restorative justice for Hate Crime in the United Kingdom, this book draws together theory and practice in order to examine the causes and consequences of Hate Crime victimisation. Hate Crime and Restorative Justice: Exploring Causes, Repairing Harms also identifies the key process variables within restorative practice that can help to repair the harms of hatred. In doing so, it challenges commonly held conceptions of both 'Hate Crime' and 'restorative justice' through its use of qualitative research of restorative interventions across the UK. The study's findings provide original data on the contextual variables that are intrinsic to both the cause and effect of Hate-motivated offences, revealing complex socio-cultural and socio-economic factors that are fundamental, both to our understanding of Hate Crime and to how such incidents can be best resolved. Through meticulous analysis and discussion, the book also provides new information on how restorative processes can be used to repair the harms of Hate and challenge the prejudices which give rise to Hate-motivated conflicts. The issue of group identity and cultural 'difference' amongst participants of restorative justice is explored and examined through the use of detailed case studies, allowing assessment of whether dialogical barriers to reconciliation can limit the success of restorative processes. In particular, the notion of 'community', a fundamental concept of restorative justice theory and practice, is reconceptualised by exploring both its healing and harming features. Utilising data from the first study of its kind, Hate Crime and Restorative Justice draws together theoretical assumptions about restorative philosophy and empirical evidence of its use for Hate Crime to offer a more holistic understanding of how restorative justice can help repair the harms caused by processes of Hate, while simultaneously challenging the identity-based prejudices that continue to pervade our multicultural communities.
-
a general theories of Hate Crime strain doing difference and self control
2010Co-Authors: Mark WaltersAbstract:This article attempts to put forward a more holistic vision of Hate Crime causation by exploring the intersections which exist between three separate criminological theories. Within the extant literature both Robert Merton’s strain theory and Barbara Perry’s structured action theory of ‘doing difference’ have been widely used to explain why prejudice motivated Crimes continue to pervade most communities. Together the theories help to illuminate the sociological factors which act to create immense fear of, and hatred towards, various minority identity groups. However, neither of these theories adequately explain why some individuals commit Hate Crimes while others, equally affected by socio-economic strains and social constructions of ‘difference’, do not. This article therefore moves beyond such macro explanations of Hate Crime by drawing upon Gottfredson and Hirschi’s A General Theory of Crime (1990). Using typology research carried out by various academics, the article attempts to illustrate how socio-economic strains and general fears of ‘difference’ become mutually reinforcing determinants, promulgating a culture of prejudice against certain ‘others’, which in turn ultimately triggers the Hate motivated behaviours of individuals with low self control.
Valerie Jenness - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
transforming symbolic law into organizational action Hate Crime policy and law enforcement practice
Social Forces, 2008Co-Authors: Ryken Grattet, Valerie JennessAbstract:For decades sociologists, criminologists, political scientists and socio-legal scholars alike have focused on the symbolic and instrumental dimensions of law in examinations of the effects of social reform and policy implementation. Following in this tradition, we focus on the relationship between Hate Crime policy and Hate Crime reporting to identify the conditions under which a symbolic law is accompanied by instrumental effects at the initial phase of the law enforcement process —the official recording of a Hate Crime event. Using data on California police and sheriff's agencies we estimate hierarchical Poisson models to determine how agency-level enforcement efforts, chiefly the creation of a formal policy on Hate Crime, affect official Hate Crime reporting. We also examine how community and agency attributes influence the effects of policy on the reporting of Hate Crime. We find that agency characteristics, in this case measures of the integration of the local agency within the community, shape the degree to which agency policies affect the official reporting of Hate Crime. Our findings reveal that while symbolic law is not intrinsically incapable of producing changes in enforcement patterns, such effects are contingent upon agency and community processes. Thus, we conclude by conceptualizing the varied enforcement contexts within which a body of symbolic law is rendered instrumental.
-
managing differences and making legislation social movements and the racialization sexualization and gendering of federal Hate Crime law in the u s 1985 1998
Social Problems, 1999Co-Authors: Valerie JennessAbstract:This work addresses a central question in both social problems theory and sociolegal studies: how can we understand and account for the content of legal categories that define social problems and attendant victims? It offers an empirical analysis of the emergence and evolution of federal Hate Crime laws—the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, the Violence Against Women Act, and the Rate Crimes Penalty Enhancement Act—that determine who is and is not eligible for Hate Crime victim status. By examining the legislative histories of these laws as evidence of “critical discursive moments” (Gamson 1992), I show how the substantive character of the law was shaped over time: 1 first establish a historical context for federal Hate Crime law: then I analyze how an important element Hate Crime law—the adoption of select status provisions, such as race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, and disabilities—unfolded such that some victims of discriminatory violence have been recognized as Hate Crime victims while others have gone unnoticed. In particular, people of color, Jews, gays and lesbians, women, and those with disabilities increasingly have been recognized as victims of Hate Crime, while union members, the elderly, children, and police officers, for example, have not. The findings suggest that the content of federal Hate Crime law was shaped by a series of temporally bound institutionally qualified processes whereby: 1) the empirical credibility of the scope of Hate Crime as a social problem was established by the claimsmaking of established social movement organizations; 2) a trio of core provisions for Hate Crime law—race, religion, and ethnicity—was cemented as the anchoring provisions of all Hate Crime law through discursive strategies that rendered particular types of violence empirically credible and worthy of federal attention; 3) the domain of the law expanded to include additional provisions, most notably sexual orientation and gender, in qualitatively distinct ways; and 4) the increased differentiation of legal subjects in subsequent law occurred in ways consistent with previously established and institutionalized policy pedigrees. Taken together, these findings reveal how microlevel processes of categorization work, mesolevel processes of social movement mobilization, and larger processes of institutionalization interface as political actors create and coalesce around legal meanings that define both “condition-categories” and “people-categories” (Loseke 1993).
Doug Meyer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
resisting Hate Crime discourse queer and intersectional challenges to neoliberal Hate Crime laws
Critical Criminology, 2014Co-Authors: Doug MeyerAbstract:Hate Crime laws have reinforced neoliberalism by expanding police and prosecutorial power, adding to the rapid expansion of incarcerated populations. Further, Hate Crime discourse associates anti-queer violence with notions of “stranger danger,” and thereby reproduces problematic race and social class politics in which an innocent, implicitly middle-class, person is suddenly and randomly attacked by a Hateful, implicitly low-income, person. Thus, the author argues that queer and intersectional resistance should reject Hate Crime discourse and, instead, focus on the experiences of marginalized lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. By doing so, scholarship and activism concerned with reducing anti-queer violence can benefit a wide range of LGBT people without reinforcing inequalities based on race and social class.
-
evaluating the severity of Hate motivated violence intersectional differences among lgbt Hate Crime victims
Sociology, 2010Co-Authors: Doug MeyerAbstract:This article employs an intersectional approach to examine the ways in which lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people evaluate the severity of Hate-motivated violence. Previous studies of LGBT Hate Crime victims have typically focused on the psychological effects of violence. In contrast, this article explores the sociological components of Hate Crime by comparing the perceptions of poor and working-class LGBT people of colour with the perceptions of white, middle-class LGBT people. Data were collected from semi-structured, in-depth interviews, conducted in New York City, with 44 people who experienced anti-LGBT violence. Results indicate that middle-class white respondents were more likely than low-income people of colour to perceive their violent experiences as severe, even though the latter experienced more physical violence than the former. This finding suggests that the social position of LGBT people plays an instrumental role in structuring how they evaluate the severity of Hate-motivated violence.
