Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 10:51 pm
Time: 10:51 pm
Results for bias-motivated crime
14 results foundAuthor: Fingerle, Michael Title: Hate Crime Survey Report: Perspectives of victims, at-risk groups and NGOs Summary: The "When Law and Hate Collide" project is funded by the Daphne III program of the European Union. The program aims at contributing to the protection of children, young people and women against all forms of violence and attains a high level of health protection, well-being and social cohesion. Its main objective is to contribute to the prevention of and the fight against all forms of violence and aims to take preventive measures and provide support and protection for victims and groups at risk. The project consists of a collaboration between three project partners: the Lancashire Law School at the University of Central Lancashire, United Kingdom, led by the project's Principal Investigator Professor Michael Salter; the Department of Philosophy, Linguistics and Theory of Science at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, led by Professor Christian Munthe; and the Institute of Special Needs Education within the Department of Education Sciences at the Goethe University Frankfurt, led by Professor Michael Fingerle. The overall aim of the project is to look at the concept of Hate Crime in a European context and explore possibilities for a Hate Crime law in Europe. The interdisciplinary project team looks therefore at the theme of Hate Crime from a legal (University of Central Lancashire), ethical (University of Gothenburg) and psychological (Goethe University) perspective. The project aim of the empirical part of the project partners at Goethe University is to understand the psychological aspects of Hate Crime regarding the experience of victimization, victim support and possibilities for preventive measures. This focus is motivated by two concepts. Firstly, we look at Hate Crimes as a variety of social discrimination. Hate crimes are identity crimes, their aim is to attack the social identity and to depreciate the value of people who belong to what is called "target groups". Usually, members of such groups are experiencing such acts of social discrimination on a broader scale whether these acts are classified as crimes or not. From this point of view, Hate Crimes happen in a certain social climate which exists in social localities or even in the society as a whole. To have an influence on these factors, it is not only important to document the pain of victims. It is necessary to give the victims and the members of target-groups a voice and to ask them about their experiences and about what they think about the usefulness of a Hate Crime legislation. Also NGOs - which are active as support groups and/or as a political lobby - play a crucial role in what one could call the empowerment of target groups. Secondly - and in a certain way, this point of view is linked to the question of empowerment - did we base the design of our empirical research on the concept of resilience, which has become pivotal in the area of both prevention and therapy over the last decade. Resilience is usually defined as a person's capacity to master adversaries and critical life events (e.g. Sroufe, 2005, Masten, 2010, Fingerle, 2011b). Of course, it would be misguided and even cynical to use the concept of resilience in the sense that members of target groups could develop personal abilities to avoid Hate Crimes. Instead of this misconception we are interested in personal resources which enable a person to cope with the trauma which comes along with being the victim of a Hate Crime. Moreover, according to a concept of resilience which was formulated already at the early stages of this kind of research and which has been emphasized recently under the notion of a (social) ecology of resilience (Ungar, 2011) we are interested in the documentation of the social resources victims and members of target groups need to cope with the aftermath of Hate Crimes and to empower themselves. Details: Frankfurt am Main: Goethe University, 2013. 50p, Source: Internet Resource: When Law and Hate Collide: Accessed July 18, 2014 at: https://www.uclan.ac.uk/research/explore/projects/assets/Hate_Crime_Survey_Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Europe URL: https://www.uclan.ac.uk/research/explore/projects/assets/Hate_Crime_Survey_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 138725 Keywords: Bias-Motivated CrimeDiscriminationHate Crime (Europe)Victims of Crime |
Author: Nwabuzo, Ojeaku Title: Racist Crime in Europe: ENAR Shadow Report 2013-2014 Summary: Civil society organisations across the EU report an increase in racist crimes in 2013, in particular against Black and Asian ethnic minorities, Roma, Jews and Muslims - or those perceived as such, according to the European Network Against Racism's latest Shadow Report on racist crime in Europe, covering 26 European countries. A total of 47,210 racist crimes were officially recorded, but this is only the tip of the iceberg, as many EU Member States do not properly record and report racially motivated crimes. There was an increase in anti-Semitic (Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands and Sweden) and Islamophobic (France, England and Wales) crimes in some countries, and these crimes increasingly take the form of online incitement to hatred and/or violence. There were cases of violence, abuse or incitement to violence against Roma in almost all EU Member States, and in particular those with a large Roma population. In many EU countries, including Estonia, Greece, Italy, Poland, Sweden and the United Kingdom, the most violent physical attacks reported are perpetrated against Black and Asian people. In Sweden for example, 980 crimes with an Afrophobic motive were recorded. In addition, crimes perpetrated by members of far-right groups are over-represented (49%) in racist crimes and complaints linked to political groups. In some countries there is no official or systematic data collection of racially motivated crimes; and in others, information about the racial, ethnic or religious background of the victims is not disaggregated. Only one third of EU countries have recorded and published information on racist crimes for 2013. In addition, because many feel ashamed, do not trust the police or think their testimony will not change anything, victims often do not come forward to report racist crimes. The investigation and prosecution of racist crimes is also problematic. Although most EU Member States recognise racially motived crimes in their legislation, narrow definitions of what constitutes racially motivated crime can result in incidents not being recorded, investigated or prosecuted properly. In the Czech Republic and Italy, an estimated 40-60% of reported racist crimes are not fully investigated by police. Under-qualification of racist crimes takes place throughout the justice system, from police reporting to court judgements. Details: Brussels: European Network Against Racism (ENAR), 2015. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 28, 2015 at: http://www.enar-eu.org/IMG/pdf/shadowreport_2013-14_en_final_lowres-2.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Europe URL: http://www.enar-eu.org/IMG/pdf/shadowreport_2013-14_en_final_lowres-2.pdf Shelf Number: 136616 Keywords: Bias-Motivated CrimeExtremist GroupsHate CrimesRacism |
Author: Burnett, Jon Title: Racial Violence and the Brexit State Summary: The explosion of racist violence that followed the announcement of the EU referendum result on 24 June 2016 has been well-documented. Though the political direction of travel in the UK on issues of immigration, race, religion and refugee policy has largely been disconnected from that violence, the sheer level of racist abuse and attacks could not be ignored. Home Secretary Amber Rudd, launching a hate crime strategy a few days after the referendum, declared that hate crimes were 'utterly unacceptable' and must be 'stamped out'. Former Prime Minister David Cameron described the situation as 'despicable', while the new one, Theresa May, said that hate 'has no place in the UK'. For Metropolitan police chief Bernard Hogan-Howe, the 2,300 (plus) racist incidents reported to the police in the thirty-eight days after the referendum, was a 'horrible spike'. This briefing paper is an attempt to restore much needed context to the 'hate crime' debate. Too many people in power, including those who supported the October 2016 Hate Crime Awareness Week, condemn racism because they pass it off as the actions of an insecure, badly-educated and thuggish minority. Verbal and physical abuse is treated almost like an act of nature or some inexplicable force – the explosive reaction of inadequate individuals. But when laws, policies and procedures are related back to explain the baseline for hateful acts, our legislators are not so keen to listen. Details: London: Institute of Race Relations, 2016. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 20, 2017 at: http://www.irr.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Racial-violence-and-the-Brexit-state-final.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.irr.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Racial-violence-and-the-Brexit-state-final.pdf Shelf Number: 146689 Keywords: Bias-Motivated CrimeBrexitHate CrimesRacist Violence |
Author: Strong, Suzanne M. Title: Racial Conflict and Bias Crimes Across US Cities: An Analysis of the Social Threat Perspective Summary: This research examines racially biased crimes across US cities, utilizing social threat and a general criminality perspective based on social disorganization and strain theories. Racially biased crime is compared to violent crime in general and to unbiased racially disaggregated homicide to further examine the effects of social threat and general crime variables on different forms of violent crime. Data is compiled mainly from the 1990 and 2000 US Censuses, the 1996-2000 Uniform Crime Reports and the 1996-2000 Supplemental Homicide Reports. The research shows bias crimes cannot be explained utilizing general crime predictors. In particular, anti-Black violent bias crimes committed by Whites are mainly driven by economic forces, though not necessarily economically threatening conditions. Anti-White violent bias crimes committed by Blacks are more similar to homicides of Whites committed by Blacks, which is consistent with prior research. Additionally, the research shows the importance of complying with hate crime reporting requirements and region, again consistent with prior research. That is, the more frequently a city reports data, the higher the counts of bias crimes. Cities located in the South are less likely to have high counts of bias crimes, suggesting a lack of compliance with reporting requirements. These findings pertaining to reporting compliance offer support for social constructionist perspectives in the study of bias crimes. Details: Albany, NY: State University of New York at Albany, 2015. 165p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed April 10, 2017 at: http://pqdtopen.proquest.com/doc/1666453286.html?FMT=ABS Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://pqdtopen.proquest.com/doc/1666453286.html?FMT=ABS Shelf Number: 144762 Keywords: Bias-Motivated CrimeHate CrimeRacial BiasSocial Disorganization |
Author: Chakraborti, Neil Title: Public authority commitment and action to eliminate targeted harassment and violence Summary: 'How Fair is Britain?', the Equality and Human Rights Commission's (the Commission's) first Triennial Review of inequality in 2010, identified targeted harassment as one of the most important challenges to human rights, equality and good relations facing Britain today. The Commission uses the term 'targeted harassment and violence' (hereafter referred to as targeted harassment) to describe any unwanted conduct, violence, harassment, or abuse targeted at a person because of their age, disability, gender, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation, transgender status or a combination of these characteristics. The reality faced by many people across Britain is one of being targeted on a daily basis because of who they are. The Commission initiated this project in January 2010, to examine public authority action to eliminate targeted harassment. At that time, the evidence base on public authorities' responses to targeted harassment was unsystematic and underdeveloped. When the research was conducted, public authorities were expected to prevent harassment as a result of different forms of disability, gender and race equality legislation. The Equality Act 2010 introduced a new Public Sector Equality Duty from April 2011. It applies in England, Scotland and Wales. This duty covers age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief and sexual orientation and will ensure that public authorities have due regard to the need to: - eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act; - advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; and - foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. The public authorities included in the research were those in the criminal justice system, including the Police, Probation, Crown Prosecution Services/Crown Office Prosecutor Fiscal Service, and additionally, Local Authorities, Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) and Passenger Transport Executives. Details: Manchester, UK: Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2011. 171p. Source: Internet Resource: Research report 74: Accessed September 28, 2017 at: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/rr74_targeted_harassment.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/rr74_targeted_harassment.pdf Shelf Number: 131583 Keywords: Bias-Motivated CrimeDiscriminationHarassmentHate CrimesInequality |
Author: Chalmers, James Title: A Comparative Analysis of Hate Crime Legislation: A Report to the Hate Crime Legislation Review Summary: In January 2017, the Scottish Government announced a review of hate crime legislation, chaired by Lord Bracadale. Lord Bracadale requested that, to assist the Review it its task, we produce a comparative report detailing principles underpinning hate crime legislation and approaches taken to hate crime in a range of jurisdictions. Work on this report commenced in late March 2017 and the final report was submitted to the Review in July 2017. Chapter 1 (What is Hate Crime?) explores what is meant by the term "hate crime", noting that different definitions may properly be used for different purposes. It notes that the legislative response to hate crime can be characterised by the definition offered by Chakraborti and Garland: the creation of offences, or sentencing provisions, "which adhere to the principle that crimes motivated by hatred or prejudice towards particular features of the victim's identity should be treated differently from 'ordinary' crimes". Chapter 2 (Hate Crime Legislation in Scotland) outlines the principal provisions of hate crime legislation, as identified in the Review's remit. These can be divided into two categories. First, sentence aggravation provisions, which do not create distinct criminal offences, but allow for offences aggravated by prejudice to be recorded as such and require the aggravation to be taken into account in sentencing. Secondly, substantive offences, which primarily consist of offences relating to the stirring up of racial hatred but also include offences of racially aggravated harassment and threatening communications intended to stir up hatred on religious grounds. Chapter 3 (Justifications for Punishing Hate Crime More Severely) considers the various possible justifications for treating hate crimes as more serious than parallel non-hate crimes. The possible justifications can be divided into three broad categories: harm-based justifications; culpability-based justifications; and denunciation-based justifications. Assessing the available evidence, it concludes that the argument that hate crimes are - compared to parallel non-hate crimes - more likely to cause harm both to the direct victim and to members of the group to which the victim belonged or was perceived to belong is particularly compelling. The argument that it is important to send a message to victims of hate crime that bias and inequality of treatment is roundly condemned by the State is also persuasive. Collectively, the harm argument and the denunciatory argument (and perhaps to a lesser extent the culpability argument) provide a compelling justification for punishing hate crime more severely Chapter 4 (Models of Hate Crime Legislation) considers two questions: first, how should hate crime be identified; and secondly, how should it be addressed - through substantive and distinct offences or the penalty attaching to general offences? In relation to the first question, it outlines two specific legislative models. The first is the discriminatory selection model (where a hate crime is committed where the victim has been selected because of their membership of a protected group). The second is the animus model (where the offender is motivated by, or demonstrates, prejudice against a protected group). It notes a clear preference for the animus model in legislative practice and strong arguments of principle in support. In relation to the second question, the chapter outlines three broad models: (i) the penalty enhancement model, (ii) the sentence aggravation model, and (iii) the substantive offence model, noting that jurisdictions may choose to combine these models rather than choosing one alone. It concludes by outlining the thresholds specified for a crime to count as a hate crime in a range of jurisdictions, and examines various questions about the precise formulation of these thresholds. Chapter 5 (Choice of Protected Characteristics) notes that the characteristics presently protected (in one form or another) under hate crime law in Scotland are race, religion, sexual orientation, disability and transgender identity. The chapter considers the range of characteristics protected in a range of other jurisdictions, noting that the characteristics protected in Scots law are the characteristics that are most commonly protected in the other jurisdictions analysed and that the two characteristics that are not presently protected in Scots law, but are most commonly protected in other jurisdictions, are age and sex . The chapter goes on to examine the principles which should guide a decision as to which characteristics should be protected. It notes a range of possibilities which have been identified in this respect, concluding that the most persuasive accounts are those that focus on identify groups that experience unjustified marginalisation or possess forms of difference that have a justifiable claim to respect. Chapter 6 (Hate Speech and Online Hate Crime) acknowledges that significant recent work has been carried out in relation to hate speech by the Law Commission and provides a high-level overview of the legal issues related to hate speech in a comparative perspective, including the applicability of legislation to online hate speech. It considers two questions of principle - what is hate speech, and what is the harm of hate speech? - before detailing offences relating to hate speech in a range of jurisdictions, considering both the legislative models adopted and the range of groups protected. It then outlines certain issues which arise in relation to hate speech online. Chapter 7 (Hate Crime Legislation in Selected Jurisdictions) details the legislative provisions relating to hate crime in a range of jurisdictions. The jurisdictions assessed are as follows: Australia (the six states and two territories are examined separately); Canada; England and Wales; New Zealand; Northern Ireland; Republic of Ireland; South Africa and ten jurisdictions in the United States of America (the jurisdictions selected for analysis being those which expressly protect characteristics which are not explicitly protected in any of the hate crime legislative provisions discussed elsewhere in the chapter). Chapter 8 (Approaches Taken in Other Jurisdictions Relevant to the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012) examines section 1 of the 2012 Act, which is distinct because it applies only to behaviour that takes place in relation to a regulated football match. The chapter outlines the background to the Act, sets out the offences contained in section 1 and details analogous legislation in other jurisdictions including England and Wales and Northern Ireland. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Government, 2017. 149p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 3, 2017 at: https://consult.scotland.gov.uk/hate-crime/independent-review-of-hate-crime-legislation/supporting_documents/495517_APPENDIX%20%20ACADEMIC%20REPORT.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://consult.scotland.gov.uk/hate-crime/independent-review-of-hate-crime-legislation/supporting_documents/495517_APPENDIX%20%20ACADEMIC%20REPORT.pdf Shelf Number: 147537 Keywords: Bias-Motivated CrimeHate CrimeHate Crime LegislationHate SpeechOnline VictimizationPrejudice |
Author: Staetsky, L. Daniel Title: Antisemitism in contemporary Great Britain: A Study of Attitudes Towards Jews and Israel Summary: This study takes an in-depth look at attitudes towards Jews and Israel among the population of Great Britain, both across society as a whole, and in key subgroups within the population, notably the far-left, the far-right, Christians and Muslims. It introduces the concept of the 'elastic view' of antisemitism, arguing that as antisemitism is an attitude, it exists at different scales and levels of intensity. Thus no single figure can capture the level of antisemitism in society, and all figures need to be carefully explained and understood. It finds that only a small proportion of British adults can be categorised as 'hard-core' antisemites - approximately 2% - yet antisemitic ideas can be found at varying degrees of intensity across 30% of British society. Whilst this categorically does not mean that 30% of the British population is antisemitic, it does demonstrate the outer boundary of the extent to which antisemitic ideas live and breathe in British society. As such, it goes some way towards explaining why British Jews appear to be so concerned about antisemitism, as the likelihood of them encountering an antisemitic idea is much higher than that suggested by simple measures of antisemitic individuals. In this way, the research draws an important distinction between 'counting antisemites' and 'measuring antisemitism' - the counts for each are very different from one another, and have important implications for how one tackles antisemitism going forward. The research finds that levels of anti-Israelism are considerably higher than levels of anti-Jewish feeling, and that the two attitudes exist both independently of one another and separately. However, the research also demonstrates that the greater the intensity of anti-Israel attitude, the more likely it is to be accompanied by antisemitic attitudes as well. Looking at subgroups within the population, the report finds that levels of antisemitism and anti-Israelism among Christians are no different from those found across society as a whole, but among Muslims they are considerably higher on both counts. On the political spectrum, levels of antisemitism are found to be highest among the far-right, and levels of anti-Israelism are heightened across all parts of the left-wing, but particularly on the far-left. In all cases, the higher the level of anti-Israelism, the more likely it is to be accompanied by antisemitism. Yet, importantly, most of the antisemitism found in British society exists outside of these three groups - the far-left, far-right and Muslims; even at its most heightened levels of intensity, only about 15% of it can be accounted for by them. Details: London: Institute for Jewish Policy Research, 2017. 82p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 4, 2017 at: http://archive.jpr.org.uk/object-uk450 Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://archive.jpr.org.uk/object-uk450 Shelf Number: 147546 Keywords: AntisemitismBias-Motivated CrimeHate CrimesPublic Attitudes |
Author: Graham, David Title: Understanding Antisemitic Hate Crime: Do the Experiences, Perceptions and Behaviors of Jews Vary by Gender, Age and Religiosity? Summary: This study was commissioned by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). The OSCE - the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe - is the world's largest regional security organisation, working for stability, peace and democracy for more than a billion people around the world, through political dialogue about shared values and other practical work that aims to make a lasting difference. ODIHR is one of the world's principal human rights bodies, promoting democratic elections, respect for human rights, tolerance and non-discrimination, and the rule of law. It has been written by Dr Daniel Graham and Dr Jonathan Boyd, two senior researchers at the Institute for Jewish Policy Research (JPR) in London. JPR is committed to investigating a wide range of issues relating to Jewish populations in the UK, across Europe and the wider world, in order to provide an empirical basis for Jewish and non-Jewish organisations to develop policy to support and protect individual Jews and Jewish communal life. In commissioning this report, the OSCE was particularly interested to understand more about how different types of Jews perceive, experience and respond to antisemitism, with a particular focus on three areas: gender (i.e. differences between men and women); age (difference between different age bands); and religiosity (differences between more observant and less observant Jews, who are also likely to be more or less identifiably Jewish based on the type of clothing they wear). In seeking to investigate these issues, we needed to identify an existing data source that was sufficiently detailed to be able to provide some answers. By far and away the best candidate was the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) survey of Jewish perceptions and experiences of antisemitism, undertaken in 2012 and published in 2013.1 With a sample size of close to 6,000, this remains the largest ever survey about European Jews on any topic, and is thus the ideal source for an investigation of this kind. In addition, the research for that study was conducted by JPR in partnership with the international polling agency, Ipsos MORI, so the researchers already had a strong degree of familiarity with it. Indeed, since the publication of the survey results by the FRA, JPR has published three further reports drawing on this data, with two further studies in the pipeline. The FRA survey covered Jews aged 16 and above living in nine EU Member States: Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Romania, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The Jewish populations of these eight countries together represent approximately 90% of the total Jewish population of Europe. The survey explored a range of issues, including experiences of antisemitic hate crime, levels of anxiety about it, tendency to report incidents and perceptions of what does and does not constitute antisemitism. In addition, it recorded the sex and age of all respondents, as well as several measures of their Jewish identity. Thus, all quantitative data within this report are drawn from the FRA survey, providing an analysis of that dataset which has never previously been undertaken. The findings are for the full sample, rather than for specific Member States as in previous publications, thereby presenting a picture of the situation for European Jews as a whole. In addition, this study involved a series of qualitative interviews with experts in hate crime in general, and antisemitic hate crime in particular, in order to deepen our understanding of the quantitative findings. These interviews were conducted in January and February 2017, and extracts from them are included throughout the report. The report is divided into three main sections, focusing, in turn, on gender, age and religiosity. We have only included findings where we have identified notable distinctions by each of these categories. In the cases where particular perceptions, experiences or responses to antisemitism are not included, one can assume that no significant distinctions were found. Details: Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, 2017. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 13, 2017 at: http://www.osce.org/odihr/320021?download=true Year: 2017 Country: Europe URL: http://www.osce.org/odihr/320021?download=true Shelf Number: 148157 Keywords: Antisemitic Hate Crime Bias-Motivated CrimeHate Crime |
Author: OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights Title: Understanding Anti-Semitic Hate Crimes and Addressing the Security Needs of Jewish Communities: A Practical Guide Summary: Anti-Semitic harassment, violence or discrimination targets Jewish women, men, boys and girls and people perceived to be Jewish across the OSCE region. Jewish institutions, including synagogues, schools and cemeteries, as well as entities or events related to Israel, are also targeted for violence and vandalism. Hate crimes and threats motivated by anti-Semitism have a profound impact, not just on the victims of specific attacks, but also on the daily lives of Jewish individuals and communities in a range of ways: - Fear of attending worship services, entering synagogues or wearing distinguishing religious attire or symbols negatively affects the right of individuals and communities to manifest their religion or belief; - Out of fear, Jewish individuals may abstain from identifying publicly as Jews, expressing their cultural identity or attending Jewish cultural events - practically excluding Jews from public life; - In school, the workplace, social settings or on social media, Jewish people often self-censor and could cause them to be reticent to express empathy or support for Israel to avoid being stigmatized; - Anti-Semitic violence has forced Jewish schools and youth activities in many OSCE participating States to operate under heavy security measures. Even the youngest children grow up with a sense of fear and a consciousness of their vulnerability; and - The need to build or harden security perimeters is a financial burden often borne by Jewish institutions instead of governments, diverting funds from religious, cultural and educational activities. As a result, anti-Semitic violence threatens both the physical security of Jewish communities and infuses a sense of fear and insecurity among individuals within those communities. Details: Warsaw, Poland: OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), 2017. 89p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 15, 2017 at: http://www.osce.org/odihr/317166?download=true Year: 2017 Country: Europe URL: http://www.osce.org/odihr/317166?download=true Shelf Number: 148183 Keywords: Anti-Semitic ViolenceBias-Motivated CrimeHate Crime |
Author: Paterson, Jenny Title: The Sussex Hate Crime Project: Final Report Summary: This report summarises the findings from a five year research project, the Sussex Hate Crime Project, funded by the Leverhulme Trust. The aim was to examine the indirect impacts of hate crimes how hate attacks on members of a community affect the thoughts, emotions and behaviours of other members of that community. The project focused on hate crimes targeted against LGB&T and Muslim communities and used a variety of different research methods, including questionnaire surveys, individual interviews and social psychological experiments. Key findings were: - Respondents were likely to have been victimised in a hate crime/incident in the past 3 years o 72% of LGB&T respondents and 71% of Muslim respondents had been victims - Respondents were likely to know someone else who had been victimised in a hate crime/incident in the past 3 years o 87% of LGB&T respondents and 83% of Muslim respondents knew another victim - Experiences of hate crime via the media and online were also extremely common o 83% of LGB&T respondents and 86% of Muslim respondents had been directly targeted online o 86% of LGB&T respondents and 88% of Muslim respondents knew someone who had been targeted online o 90% of LGB&T respondents had seen at least one hate crime reported in the media in the past 3 years - Hate crimes, whether experienced directly, indirectly, through the media, in person or online were consistently linked to: o Increased feelings of vulnerability, anxiety, anger, and sometimes shame o Being more security conscious, avoidant, and more active within the community - Hate crime victims received more empathy than non-hate crime victims and sometimes were blamed more than non-hate crime victims - The indirect effects of hate crimes can be described as a process: 1. Hate crimes increase feelings of vulnerability and empathy 2. Feelings of vulnerability and empathy then increase emotional reactions (anger, anxiety, shame) 3. These emotional reactions motivate specific behavioural responses: - Anger leads to pro-active behaviours and less avoidance - Anxiety leads to avoidance and security concerns - Shame, although not always felt strongly, is linked to avoidance, pro-active behaviours, security concerns, and uniquely to retaliation - Perceptions of the criminal justice system were generally negative - especially when people had indirect experiences of hate crimes - Around a quarter of respondents had contacted the police about a hate crime while less than 10% had experience with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) about a hate crime o Contact with the police was associated with more negative perceptions for Muslim respondents o Contact with the CPS did not significantly affect perceptions about this institution - Respondents were unlikely to report verbal or online abuse but were very likely to report acts of vandalism and assault to the police o Younger participants and those less identified with their community were less likely to report hate crimes to the police o Some participants would not report hate crimes because they felt that it would not help and that they may experience secondary victimisation by the police - 61% of LGB&T and Muslim participants preferred restorative justice (RJ) as a criminal justice response to hate crimes than an enhanced prison sentence o LGB&T participants perceived RJ to be more beneficial to the victim and the offender and were more satisfied with RJ compared to an enhanced sentence - The more identified people were with their community, the angrier they felt about hate crimes and the more they wanted to get involved in combating the harms of hate - Interviews revealed that LGB&T and Muslim people felt connected to their communities at three levels: locally, nationally and globally- Interview participants felt greater levels of anger and anxiety about hate crimes committed in their local neighbourhood - Some interview participants felt connected to other LGB&T and Muslim people globally through a sense of "shared suffering" - Interview participants felt angry about hate crimes against other groups but felt less vulnerable and anxious about these compared with hate crimes against their own community In sum, hate crimes spread fear and anger throughout communities that impact upon people's actions and their perceptions of the criminal justice system. Individuals themselves do not have to be targeted to be impacted: simply knowing someone who has been victimised is sufficient to cause these effects. Hate crimes, then, have the potential to cause injury and distress both at the individual and community level. Details: Brighton, UK: University of Sussex, 2018. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 2, 2018: https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=sussex-hate-crime-project-report.pdf&site=430 Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=sussex-hate-crime-project-report.pdf&site=430 Shelf Number: 148987 Keywords: Bias-Motivated CrimeDiscriminationHate Crimes |
Author: Godzisz, Piotr Title: Forgotten Friends: ODIHR and Civil Society in the Struggle to Counter Hate Crime in Poland Summary: The report provides an overview and comparison of key developments in two areas of hate crime policy in Poland: data collection and criminal law. By doing so, it seeks to shed light on the role of international organizations in developing national hate crime measures. It is the first report of its kind with a particular focus on the role of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) - the most specialized of all international institutions dealing with hate crime. The purpose of this report is to develop concrete policy recommendations, based on an analysis of ongoing efforts, to key stakeholders involved in the work on advancing the response to hate crime in Poland. Key findings include: - International organizations, through periodic reviews and other mechanisms, have a significant influence on Poland's response to hate crimes. - This influence is visible in the area of hate crime data collection. While a number of actors have been active in this domain, creating an effect of synergy, the influence of supranational bodies seems instrumental. - Despite on-going debates, the legal framework on hate crimes has not changed. - The lack of progress in this area can be linked with the fact that the bulk of the efforts was on the shoulders of civil society organizations, which lack the leverage that supranational bodies have. - Cooperation between Polish civil society organizations and supranational bodies, aimed at amplifying civil society demands with regard to hate crime, seems to be an effective strategy. - ODIHR had an instrumental role in improving Poland's data collection mechanisms, but was absent from the debate on the amendment of the Criminal Code. Civil society organizations were not aware of ODIHR's mandate in this area and the possible role it could play. The report suggests that through active cooperation with civil society, not limited to hate crime reporting only, ODIHR may be able to identify possible new ways to support the state in countering hate crime. For the moment, civil society organizations in Poland and ODIHR, while cooperating in some areas, "forget" about each other in other areas. For ODIHR, strengthening the cooperation may open channels of communication with political decision makers who are not aware of ODIHR's mandate, for example in the area of legislative support. For civil society, this could mean receiving tangible support in the area where support is most needed. Details: Unpublished paper, 2015. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 6, 2018 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2704306 Year: 2015 Country: Poland URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2704306 Shelf Number: 149002 Keywords: Bias-Motivated CrimeHate CrimeHomophobiaRacism |
Author: Walters, Mark A. Title: Hate Crime and the Legal Process: Options for Law Reform Summary: BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to assess the application of criminal laws and sentencing provisions for hate crime in England and Wales (Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (CDA), ss. 28- 32, and the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA), ss. 145 and 146) in order to capture best practices and identify barriers to the implementation of these rules. The study was carried out over a 24-month period and used a multitude of sources, both secondary and primary, to answer a number of key questions that were first set out by the Law Commission's 2014 report on hate crime law reform, as well as other questions set out as part of an EU crossjurisdictional project. The report is funded by the EU Directorate-General Justice and Consumers department and forms part of a wider European study into the use of hate crime laws across five EU member states (England and Wales; Ireland; Sweden; Latvia; and the Czech Republic). METHODOLOGY A mixed-methods approach was employed for the project which enabled us to compare and contrast the stated aims and purposes of policies and legislation with the experiences of those tasked with enforcing and applying the law. This approach included: (a) an assessment of existing policies and publically available statistics; (b) a review of over 100 reported cases; and (c) 71 in-depth, qualitative semi-structured interviews with "hate crime coordinators" and "hate crime leads" at the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), District (Magistrates' Court) and Circuit (Crown Court) Judges, independent barristers, victims and staff at charitable organisations that support victims of hate crime, police officers, and local authority minority group liaison staff. Part A: Law, policy and statistics: Understanding the "life cycle" of a hate crime HATE CRIME STATISTICS Using publically available statistics on hate crime, we calculate an approximate number of offences that are likely to "drop out" of the criminal justice system. The total number of cases that drop out of the system represent what is known as the "justice gap" for hate crime. Analysis of the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) suggests that approximately 110,160 hate crimes are reported to police each year. The most recent police statistics recorded 62,518 hate crimes between 2015/16. This suggests that only 57% of those incidents reported to the police are recorded as hate crimes. During the same year, the CPS prosecuted 15,442 hate-based offences, of which 12,846 resulted in a conviction. The CPS recorded the announcement of sentencing uplifts in court as 33.8% of total hate crime convictions, which equates to 4,342 cases. If these data are accurate, it means that out of an approximate 110,160 reported hate crimes, only 4,342 offences (4%) resulted in a sentence uplift based on identity-based hostility. In other words, approximately 96% of reported hate Part B: Analysis and research findings PREPARING CASES FOR PROSECUTION: COLLATING EVIDENCE TO PROVE HOSTILITY - The most cogent form of evidence to prove the hostility element of a hate crime is witness testimony of verbalised prejudice, expressed during the commission of an offence. - Additional ways in which hate crimes can be proved in court include the use of audio and video recording of the incident. However, interviewees emphasised that, without a sound recording of verbal slurs, proving a demonstration of hostility beyond reasonable doubt via video footage is extraordinarily difficult. This was most apparent in relation to disability hate crime cases. - The defendant's prior record and bad character can be important factors in proving that a defendant was motivated by hostility. However, accessing this information is problematic, as the hostility element will not be noted on a perpetrator's record where a prior offence was aggravated by sexual orientation, disability or transgender identity hostility (under CJA provisions). - Other forms of evidence that can be sufficient to prove the hostility element of a hate crime include leaflets, letters and other written documentation which indicate an affiliation with right-wing hate groups. Social media comments, subscription to websites with links to racist organisations, and text messages displaying hate-based content are also useful forms of evidence in hate crime cases. GATHERING EVIDENCE: FAILURE TO IDENTIFY AND INVESTIGATE HOSTILITY EARLY ENOUGH - There was evidence to suggest that the CPS has made recent improvements to the identification of disability hate crimes. However, there remains a significant proportion of incidents that are not flagged correctly by the police. Interviewees noted that even where there is evidence of a disablist slur having been expressed during the commission of an offence (the most common type of evidence for all types of hate crime), the disability hate crime flag is still frequently not applied. - Conversely, in some cases, the "flags" that are added to case files can become a barrier to looking beyond the wider facts of the case. This may mean that other facts or types of prejudice are lost during the investigation. - There was a perception amongst some CPS interviewees that the police need to be more "proactive" in identifying the relevant pieces of evidence that will make for a compelling case, especially in complex cases that do not involve verbalised prejudice. However, even with more carefully crafted evidence files, prosecutors frequently fail to secure uplifts at sentence for disability hate crime, meaning that the effective enforcement of hate crime legislation for victims of disability hate crime remains in doubt. - CPS prosecutors pointed to issues with some police officers not being aware of hate crime sentencing provisions, which led to investigators not collating the necessary evidence of hostility towards the complainant's sexual orientation, transgender identity or disability. GATHERING EVIDENCE: THE IMPORTANCE OF GOOD RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN POLICE AND THE CPS - Gathering evidence and presenting it successfully in court depends on a good relationship between the police and the CPS. Breakdowns in this relationship can result in cases "dropping out" of the system. - Communication problems can occur if charging advice is not sought by the police early on. In some cases, this makes it difficult to gather the necessary evidence for the hostility element later in the process. Although all interviewees were aware that the CPS needed to be contacted for charging advice, CPS prosecutors noted that this did not always happen. - Open lines of communication are key to ensuring that charging advice is sought and that discussions regarding the quality of evidence are had early on in a case's "life cycle". Police officers indicated that more immediate contact with the CPS is necessary, especially because hate crime legislation can be confusing and the police may need advice before interviewing suspects. - Communication between the CPS and the police is sometimes strained due to difference in preferred styles of communication - with the CPS frequently preferring e-communication (and reviewing of files), whereas police officers often preferred interpersonal discussions about a case. - Independent barristers for the prosecution noted that advice is often not sought from them early in the process, and a breakdown of communication between barristers and police via the CPS can lead to evidence not being collated or presented in court. RECOMMENDATION We recommend that investigators use (a non-exhaustive) checklist during the investigation and charging stages of the criminal process (the items on the checklist can be found at 6.1 in the main report). We recommend that the CPS provide police (and independent barristers employed for the prosecution) with a direct and open line to CPS area hate crime leads. Independent barristers for the prosecution should also be included in the case review process where possible. Details: Brighton, UK: University of Sussex, Crime Research Centre, 2017. 214p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 2, 2018 at: https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=final-report---hate-crime-and-the-legal-process.pdf&site=539 Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=final-report---hate-crime-and-the-legal-process.pdf&site=539 Shelf Number: 149973 Keywords: Bias-Motivated Crime Crime Statistics Criminal Law ReformDiscrimination Hate Crimes Prejudice |
Author: Walach, Vaclav Title: Lifecycle of a Hate Crime. Country Report for the Czech Republic Summary: The objective of this research was to determine how hate crimes are investigated and punished in the Czech Republic (CR). This was achieved by analysing the experiences of individual actors in the criminal proceedings for this type of crime. Our corpus of data included the following categories of informants: offenders, victims, defense attorneys, public prosecutors, and judges. Additional sources of data consisted primarily of secondary literature (legislation, by-laws, concept documents, legal analyses, etc.). The project focus suggested a specific approach to the data construction. It is relatively difficult to gain access to the population for each of the categories in the hate crime research corpus. Informants within the justice system (public prosecutors and judges) are small in number and, additionally, are restricted by regulations imposed by superior bodies. In practice, this meant that potential informants could not be contacted directly, but only by submitting a formal request to individual courts and public prosecutors' offices. Access to these people was further complicated by the fact that, in the CR, hate crimes constitute a relatively narrow slice of criminal activity, and particular informants who deal with this activity are difficult to identify in advance (see below). To target these individuals, then, we relied upon help from the institutions representing individual categories of informants. Attorneys who had represented hate crime offenders or their victims in the past were also difficult to gain access to. Because no records are kept of these individuals, we were forced to identify potential informants in advance using our prior experience, or by analyzing court judgments or media content. This already reduced sample size shrank further with the frequent refusal of those contacted to take part in the research for a number of reasons. It was similarly difficult to gain access to offenders and victims of hate crime. Data protection laws, which mandate that personal data concerning offenders and victims be anonymized in judicial records provided to the public, have rendered the population in these two categories invisible. It was therefore necessary to approach these individuals via the prisons and probation institutions responsible for monitoring the offenders, along with organizations focused on helping hate crime victims. Identifying and Contacting Informants Informants were identified and contacted in two phases During the first phase, we contacted the lead organizations for the justice system, legal representation, and the prisons-the Czech Judicial Union (CJU), the Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office (SPPO), the Judicial Academy (JA), the Czech Bar Association (CBA) and the General Directorate of the Prison Service (GDPS). We anticipated that they would provide access to experts in the justice system, legal profession, and to offenders. But with the exception of the GDPS, none of these institutions mediated contact with any of the informants officially. Also unsuccessful was an attempt to make mass contact with all lawyers via the CBA. There was no response to requests posted on the CBA's website or in their official magazine, Bulletin Advokacie. For this reason, we embarked upon the second phase of contact and identification, this time primarily employing personal contacts, along with an analysis of court decisions in hate crime cases and a media analysis of cases in which hate crime was mentioned. The task of identifying appropriate informants, however, clearly differed based upon the type of actor being contacted. Details: Prague: in IUSTITIA, o.p.s., 2017. 124p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed may 2, 2018 at: https://www.iccl.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Life-Cycle-of-a-Hate-Crime-Country-Report-for-Czech-Republic-English.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Czech Republic URL: https://www.iccl.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Life-Cycle-of-a-Hate-Crime-Country-Report-for-Czech-Republic-English.pdf Shelf Number: 149974 Keywords: Bias-Motivated Crime Criminal InvestigationDiscrimination Hate Crimes Police InvestigationsPrejudice |
Author: Campbell, Alastair P. (Lord Bracadale) Title: Independent Review of Hate Crime Legislation in Scotland: Final Report Summary: Lord Bracadale was appointed by Scottish Ministers in January 2017 to conduct an independent review of hate crime legislation in Scotland. He was asked to consider: - the current law and consider how well it deals with hate crime behaviour - whether new statutory aggravations should be created for example in relation to age and gender - whether the religious statutory aggravation is fit for purpose or should be expanded - whether we should make hate crime laws simpler by bringing them all together in one place - any issues or gaps in the framework for hate crime laws and to make sure that hate crime laws are compatible with laws that protect human rights and equality Lord Bracadale's report provides his recommendations which are based on evidence and what he has learnt from a wide range of people about their experiences of hate crime and the impact that this can have on individuals and communities. Lord Bracadale's report considers: - Whether hate crime laws are needed - What is working well under the current system and should be retained - What should be changed and what the benefit would be - What policy and procedural developments are underway or planned Details: Edinburgh, Scottish Government, 2018. 148p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 8, 2018 at: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0053/00535892.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0053/00535892.pdf Shelf Number: 150512 Keywords: Bias-Motivated CrimeHate CrimeHate Crime LegislationHuman Rights Abuses |