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.
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
What Is Hate Crime?
Hate Crime Laws
Social Construction of a Hate Crime Epidemic
The Politics of Hate Crime Laws
Justification for Hate Crime Laws
Enforcing Hate Crime Laws
Hate Speech Hate Crime and the Constitution
Other editions - View all
advocacy groups Amendment anti-gay anti-Semitic arson Asian Asian Americans assault attack Attorney bias crime bias motivated bias-motivated bigotry church civil rights color committed Cong constitutional convicted Crime Statistics Act crimes motivated criminal conduct Criminal Justice criminal law defendant defendant’s discrimination ethnic ethnoviolence fighting words gays and lesbians graffiti group libel harassment hate crime epidemic hate crime laws hate crime legislation hate crime offenders hate crime reporting hate crime statute hate crime victims hate speech hatred HCSA Ibid identity politics individual intergroup intimidation Jack McDevitt Jewish Jim Sleeper Judiciary jury label law enforcement Law Review lesbians ment Mitchell motivated by prejudice murder national origin NIAPV offender’s officers percent perpetrators person police departments prejudiced Press problem prosecution prosecutors punishment race racial racist rape religion religious S.Ct sexual orientation social society Supreme Court symbolic Tawana Brawley tion U.S. Supreme Court University UWM Post vandalism violent crimes Wisconsin York