Hate Crimes Hate Crimes
Studies in Crime and Public Policy

Hate Crimes

Criminal Law and Identity Politics

    • USD 57.99
    • USD 57.99

Descripción editorial

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.

GÉNERO
No ficción
PUBLICADO
2000
28 de diciembre
IDIOMA
EN
Inglés
EXTENSIÓN
224
Páginas
EDITORIAL
Oxford University Press
VENDEDOR
The Chancellor, Masters and Scholar s of the University of Oxford tradi ng as Oxford University Press
TAMAÑO
1.4
MB

Más libros de James B. Jacobs & Kimberly Potter

The Toughest Gun Control Law in the Nation The Toughest Gun Control Law in the Nation
2019
Drunk Driving Drunk Driving
2013
Stateville Stateville
2015
Breaking the Devil’s Pact Breaking the Devil’s Pact
2011

Otros libros de esta serie

Doing Justice, Preventing Crime Doing Justice, Preventing Crime
2020
Of One-eyed and Toothless Miscreants Of One-eyed and Toothless Miscreants
2019
Sentencing Fragments Sentencing Fragments
2015
Punishment, Communication, and Community Punishment, Communication, and Community
2003
Penal Populism and Public Opinion Penal Populism and Public Opinion
2002
Restorative Justice & Responsive Regulation Restorative Justice & Responsive Regulation
2001