what are the potential obstacles to successful prosecutions of hate/bias crimes?

Abstruse

Crime and violence motivated by hatred and bigotry, what we now refer to as detest or bias crime, is a centuries-old trouble. Withal, a coherent torso of police that explicitly punishes this conduct only emerged in the late 20th century. The outset detest criminal offence laws were enacted in the early 1980s, and today these laws announced in the criminal codes of 45 states and in federal law. The specific features of hate crime laws differ from state to state, merely there is no doubt that detest crime has been firmly institutionalized in American jurisprudence, and it represents a type of behavior that governments seek to curtail and scholars endeavor to understand and predict.

Keywords

• Hate criminal offence
• Police force
• Criminal justice

Notes

1. 1.

   Each identifies prohibited deport followed by list of groups protected under the police. For instance, the FBI (2018) defines detest law-breaking as a "criminal law-breaking against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender'due south bias confronting a race, faith, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity." This is logically similar to the 1968 CRA's prohibition of intimidation "of whatever person because of his race, color, religion, sex activity, handicap…or national origin" [Title IX, Sec. 901 (a)].

2. ii.

   4 years later, the HCSA was amended to include disability amidst the protected categories (Public Constabulary 103-322) and was to be carried out "for each agenda year" instead of "the succeeding four years" as part of the Church building Arson Prevention Act (Public Law 104-155).

3. iii.

   In addition to these laws, some scholars also consider the Violence Confronting Women Human action (Public Law 103-322) as a type of hate crime law. This law, amidst other provisions, declares that persons have a right to be free from crimes motivated past gender (see Jenness, 2007, p. 148 for an overview).

4. 4.

   The five states without criminal hate law-breaking laws are Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Wyoming. Georgia previously had a hate criminal offense law just information technology was declared unconstitutional by the Georgia Supreme Courtroom in 2004.

5. five.

   For a full description of the Wisconsin penalisation enhancement statute, meet The Wisconsin Advisory Committee to the U.Due south. Commission on Civil Rights (2017, p. 8).

6. 6.

   Two additional types of laws that could be considered detest crime statutes are laws that prohibit cross burning and institutional vandalism statutes. The latter criminalizes damage to places of worship and hence are more narrowly framed than other criminal detest criminal offense laws.

7. 7.

   Come across Jenness and Grattet (2001, Chap. two) for a listing and clarification of fundamental social motion organizations.

8. 8.

   In addition to criticisms stemming from the First Amendment, critics take also challenged detest crime laws on Fourteenth Subpoena grounds. From this perspective, hate law-breaking laws are either void for vagueness because information technology is unclear what qualifies as "hate motivated," or they allegedly violate the Equal Protection Clause considering some groups receive greater protection than others. While some appellate court cases have dealt with these problems, the First Subpoena sits at the eye of the debate and is the focus of most appellate court cases (see Jenness & Grattet, 2001, Chap. v and Phillips & Grattet, 2000 for a discussion of appellate court arguments).

9. 9.

   For elaboration on these and related ramble issues, see Abramovsky (1992), Gellman (1991), Gellman and Lawrence (2004), Gould (2005), Jacobs and Potter (1998, Chap. 8), and Lawrence (1999). For a sociological analysis of court cases dealing with hate crime, see Phillips and Grattet (2000).

10. 10.

    The assertion that detest crimes take a more devastating impact on victims than comparable non-hate crimes remains an open up question (Iganski & Lagou, 2015).

11. xi.

    Justice Scalia'south majority opinion was accompanied past three concurring opinions. These opinions, delivered by Justices White, Blackmun, and Stevens, reached the same conclusion but via different routes. Justice White, for example, argued that the statute was overbroad because it encompassed speech that was clearly protected by the Outset Amendment. Justice Stevens went so far as to disagree with the logic of Scalia'southward bulk opinion, only ultimately agreed that the statute was unconstitutional because it overreached and prohibited some protected speech.

12. 12.

    General orders limited an agencies' policies and procedures for specific issues, such as use of force or, in this example, responding to hate offense.

13. 13.

    The concept of perviousness is measured past community policing and engagement with community groups.

14. 14.

    For case, policing agencies in Alabama did not submit any hate crime data that year, and only a small percentage of constabulary enforcement agencies in several other states submitted hate crime reports (see U.s. Department of Justice, 1995, Table i).

15. 15.

    To cite two of many examples, then candidate Trump suggested on June xvi, 2015, that Mexican immigrants "take lots of issues… They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists." Later that year, he falsely claimed that thousands of Muslims cheered on September 11th, 2001, every bit the towers fell.

References

• Abramovsky, A. (1992). Bias law-breaking: A call for alternative responses. Fordham Urban Law Journal, nineteen, 875–914.

  Google Scholar

• Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of law-breaking and delinquency. Criminology, thirty(1), 47–88.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Balboni, J. M., & McDevitt, J. (2001). Hate criminal offense reporting: Agreement police officeholder perceptions, departmental protocol, and the part of the victim. Justice Research and Policy, three, 1–27.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Barnes, A., & Ephross, P. (1994). The impact of detest violence on victims: Emotional and behavioral responses to attacks. Social Work, 39, 247–251.

  Google Scholar

• Beck, E. Thousand., & Tolnay, S. E. (1990). The killing fields of the Deep South: The market for cotton and the lynching of blacks, 1882–1930. American Sociological Review, 55, 526–539.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Behrens, A., Uggen, C., & Manza, J. (2003). Ballot manipulation and the 'menace of Negro domination:' Racial threat and felon disenfranchisement in the United States, 1850–2002. American Journal of Sociology, 109, 559–605.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Bong, J. (2002). Policing hatred: Law enforcement, civil rights, and hate crime. New York: New York University Press.

  Google Scholar

• Blackness, D. (1970). Product of crime rates. American Sociological Review, 35, 733–748.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Blalock, H. M. (1967). Toward a theory of minority-group relations. New York: Wiley.

  Google Scholar

• Bobo, 50., & Hutchings, 5. L. (1996). Perceptions of racial group competition: Extending Blumer's theory of group position to a multiracial social context. American Sociological Review, 61, 951–972.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Boyd, E., Berk, R., & Hamner, Thousand. (1996). Motivated by hatred or prejudice: Categorization of hate-motivated crimes in 2 police divisions. Law and Order Review, 30, 819–850.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Chorba, C. (2001). The danger of federalizing hate crimes: Congressional misconceptions and the unintended consequences of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Virginia Police Review, 87, 319–379.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Craig, K. M. (1999). Retaliation, fear, or rage: An investigation of African American and white reactions to racist hate crimes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 138–151.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Defeis, E. F. (1992). Liberty of speech and international norms: A response to hate speech. Stanford Journal of International Law, 29, 57–130.

  Google Scholar

• DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The atomic number 26 cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and commonage rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Disha, I., Cavendish, J. C., & King, R. D. (2011). Historical events and spaces of hate: Hate crimes confronting Arabs and Muslims in post-nine/11 America. Social Issues, 58(1), 21–46.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Dunbar, Due east. (2003). Symbolic, relational, and ideological signifiers of bias-motivated offenders: Toward a strategy of assessment. American Periodical of Orthopsychiatry, 73, 203–211.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Earl, J., & Soule, Due south. A. (2001). The differential protection of minority groups: The inclusion of sexual orientation, gender and disability in land detest crime laws, 1976–1995. Research in Political Folklore, ix, 3–33.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• European Marriage Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2016). Current migration situation in the E.U.: Detest crime. Luxemburg: European Agency for Fundamental Rights.

  Google Scholar

• Falk, A., & Zweimüller, J. (2005). Unemployment and right-wing extremist offense. IZA Discussion Paper No. 1540. http://ssrn.com/abstract=695222.

• Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2002). Hate criminal offence statistics, 2002. http://www.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/ucr/hatecrime2002.pdf.

• Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2016). Hate criminal offense statistics, 2016. https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2016.

• Federal Agency of Investigation. (2018). Hate crimes. https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/hate-crimes.

• Garofalo, J. (1991). Racially motivated crimes in New York City. In Yard. J. Lynch & E. B. Paterson (Eds.), Race and criminal justice (pp. 161–173). Albany, NY: Harrow and Heston.

  Google Scholar

• Garofalo, J., & Martin, Southward. E. (1993). Bias-motivated crimes: Their characteristics and the police force enforcement response. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University, Center for the Study of Law-breaking, Delinquency, and Correction.

  Google Scholar

• Gellman, S. B. (1991). Sticks and stones can put you lot in jail, merely tin can words increase your sentence? Constitutional and policy dilemmas of indigenous intimidation laws. UCLA Law Review, 39, 333–396.

  Google Scholar

• Gellman, S. B., & Lawrence, F. One thousand. (2004). Symposium essay: Agreeing to agree: A proponent and opponent of hate law-breaking laws reach for common ground. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 41, 420–448.

  Google Scholar

• Gould, J. B. (2005). Speak no evil: The triumph of hate spoken language regulation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Grattet, R. (2009). The urban ecology of bias crime: A study of disorganized and dedicated neighborhoods. Social Issues, 56(1), 132–150.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Grattet, R., & Jenness, V. (2005). The reconstitution of law in local settings: Agency discretion, ambivalence, and a surplus of law in the policing of hate crime. Constabulary and Society Review, 39, 893–942.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Grattet, R., Jenness, Five., & Curry, T. (1998). The homogenization and differentiation of hate crime police force in the United States, 1978–1995: Innovations and improvidence in the criminalization of bigotry. American Sociological Review, 63, 286–307.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Light-green, D. P., Glaser, J., & Rich, A. (1998). From lynching to gay bashing: The elusive connexion between economical conditions and hate crime. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 82–92.

  Google Scholar

• Greenish, D. P., McFalls, L. H., & Smith, J. K. (2001). Detest crime: An emergent research agenda. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 479–504.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Dark-green, D. P., Strolovitch, D. Z., & Wong, J. S. (1998). Defended neighborhoods, integration, and racially motivated criminal offence. American Journal of Folklore, 104, 372–403.

  Google Scholar

• Greenspan, Fifty. I., & Levitt, C. R. (Eds.). (1993). Under the shadow of Weimar: Democracy, law, and racial incitement in six countries. Westport, CT: Praeger.

  Google Scholar

• Haider-Markel, D. P. (1998). The politics of social regulatory policy: Land and federal hate crime policy and implementation effort. Political Research Quarterly, 51, 69–88.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Hanes, E., & Machin, S. (2014). Hate crime in the wake of terror attacks: Evidence from 7/seven and ix/11. Periodical of Contemporary Criminal Justice, xxx(3), 247–267.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., Cogan, J. C., & Glunt, E. K. (1997). Hate crime victimization amid lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. Periodical of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 195–215.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Hernandez, T. K. (1990). Bias crimes: Unconscious racism in the prosecution of 'racially-motivated violence'. The Yale Law Journal, 99, 832–864.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

  Google Scholar

• Hovland, C. I., & Sears, R. R. (1940). Minor studies of assailment: VI. Correlation of lynchings with economic indices. Journal of Psychology, 9, 301–310.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Iganski, P., & Lagou, S. (2015). Hate crimes hurt some more than others: Implications for the just sentencing of offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, xxx(10), 1696–1718.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Jacobs, D., & Wood, K. (1999). Interracial conflict and interracial homicide: Do political and economic rivalries explain white killings of blacks or black killings of whites? American Journal of Folklore, 105, 157–190.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Jacobs, J., & Potter, K. (1998). Hate crimes: Criminal police and identity politics. New York: Oxford University Printing.

  Google Scholar

• Jacobs, J. B., & Henry, J. Due south. (1996). The social construction of a detest offense epidemic. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86, 366–391.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Jenness, V. (1999). Managing differences and making legislation: Social movements and the racialization, sexualization, and gendering of federal hate crime police force in the U.Southward., 1985–1998. Social Bug, 46, 548–571.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Jenness, V. (2007). The emergence, content, and institutionalization of hate crime law: How a diverse policy community produced a modern legal fact. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, iii, 141–160.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Jenness, 5., & Broad, Chiliad. (1997). Detest crimes: New social movements and the politics of violence. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

  Google Scholar

• Jenness, V., & Grattet, R. (2001). Making hate a law-breaking: From social motion to constabulary enforcement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

  Google Scholar

• Jenness, Five., & Grattet, R. (2005). The law in-betwixt: The effects of organizational perviousness on the policing of detest criminal offence. Social Problems, 52, 337–359.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• King, R. D. (2007). The context of minority group threat: Race, institutions, and complying with detest law-breaking law. Law and Gild Review, 41, 189–224.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• King, R. D. (2008). Conservatism, institutionalism, and the social control of intergroup conflict. American Journal of Sociology, 113, 1351–1393.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Male monarch, R. D., & Brustein, West. I. (2006). A political threat model of intergroup violence: Jews in pre-World State of war Two Frg. Criminology, 44, 867–891.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• King, R. D., & Sutton, G. 1000. (2013). High times for hate crimes: Explaining the temporal clustering of detest-motivated offending. Criminology, 51(4), 871–894.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Kitsuse, J. I., & Cicourel, A. V. (1963). A notation on the uses of official statistics. Social Problems, 11, 131–139.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Krueger, A. B., & Pischke, J. S. (1997). A statistical assay of criminal offense confronting foreigners in unified Germany. Periodical of Human Resources, 32, 182–209.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Lawrence, F. M. (1999). Punishing hate: Bias crimes under American law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Academy Press.

  Google Scholar

• Levin, B. (2001). Extremism and the constitution: How American's legal evolution affects the response to extremism. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 714–754.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Levin, J. (2002). The violence of hate: Against racism, anti-semitism, and other forms of bigotry. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

  Google Scholar

• Levin, J., & McDevitt, J. (1993). Hate crimes: The rising tide of bigotry and mortality. New York: Plenum Printing.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Levitt, Southward. D. (2001). Alternative strategies for identifying the link between unemployment and law-breaking. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 17, 377–390.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Lickel, B., Miller, N., Stenstrom, D. Chiliad., Denson, T. F., & Schmader, T. (2006). Vicarious retribution: The role of collective blame in intergroup assailment. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 372–390.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Lyons, C. J. (2007). Customs (dis)organization and racially motivated crime. American Journal of Folklore, 113, 815–863.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Lyons, C. J. (2008). Defending turf: Racial demographics and detest crime against blacks and whites. Social Forces, 87(ane), 357–385.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Lyons, C. J., & Roberts, A. (2014). The divergence "hate" makes in clearing criminal offense: An outcome history analysis of incident factors. Periodical of Gimmicky Criminal Justice, 30(iii), 268–289.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Maroney, T. (1998). The struggle against detest crime: Motility at a crossroads. New York Academy Law Review, 73, 564–620.

  Google Scholar

• Martin, S. (1995). A cross-burning is non just an arson: Police social structure of hate crimes in Baltimore County. Criminology, 33, 303–326.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Martin, S. (1996). Investigating detest crimes: Case characteristics and law enforcement responses. Justice Quarterly, xiii, 455–480.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• McDevitt, J., Levin, J., & Bennett, S. (2002). Hate crime offenders: An expanded typology. Journal of Social Bug, 58, 303–317.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• McLaren, L. Chiliad. (1999). Explaining right-fly violence in Germany: A fourth dimension series analysis. Social Science Quarterly, fourscore, 166–180.

  Google Scholar

• McPhail, B., & Jenness, 5. (2005). To accuse or not to charge—that is the question: The pursuit of strategic advantage in prosecutorial decision-making surrounding hate criminal offense. Periodical of Detest Studies, 4, 89–119.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• McVeigh, R., Welch, M. R., & Bjarnason, T. (2003). Hate criminal offense reporting equally a successful social move event. American Sociological Review, 68, 843–867.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Medoff, M. H. (1999). Allotment of fourth dimension and hateful behavior: A theoretical and positive analysis of hate and hate crimes. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 58, 959–973.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Messner, S. F., McHugh, S., & Felson, R. B. (2004). The distinctive characteristics of assaults motivated by bias. Criminology, 42, 585–618.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Morenoff, J. D., Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2001). Neighborhood inequality, collective efficacy, and the spatial dynamics of urban violence. Criminology, 39, 517–559.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Müller, One thousand., & Schwarz, C. (2018). Making America detest once again? Twitter and hate crime under Trump.

  Google Scholar

• Näsi, Grand., Aaltonen, One thousand., & Kivivuori, J. (2016). Youth detest crime offending: The office of strain, social command and self-control theories. Periodical of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 17(2), 177–184.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Nolan, J. J., Three, & Akiyama, Y. (1999). An assay of factors that touch on law enforcement participation in detest crime reporting. Periodical of Contemporary Criminal Justice, fifteen, 111–127.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Olzak, Due south. (1989). Labor unrest, immigration, and indigenous conflict in urban America, 1880–1914. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 1303–1333.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Olzak, S. (1990). Political context of competition: Lynching and urban racial violence, 1882–1914. Social Forces, 69, 395–421.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Perry, B. (2001). In the name of hate: Understanding hate crimes. New York: Routledge.

  Google Scholar

• Phillips, S., & Grattet, R. (2000). Judicial rhetoric, meaning-making, and the institutionalization of hate crime law. Law and Gild Review, 34, 567–606.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Pinderhughes, H. (1993). The anatomy of racially motivated violence in New York City: A example study of youth in Southern Brooklyn. Social Issues, 40, 478–492.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Pound, R. (1910). Law in books and law in activity. American Police Review, 44, 12.

  Google Scholar

• Quillian, Fifty. (1995). Prejudice as a response to perceived grouping threat: Population composition and anti-immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe. American Sociological Review, 60, 586–611.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Raphael, S., & Wintertime-Ebmer, R. (2001). Identifying the effects of unemployment and criminal offense. Journal of Police force and Economics, 44, 259–283.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Rushin, Due south., & Edwards, G. S. (2018). The effect of president Trump's election on hate crimes. Bachelor at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstruse=3102652 or http://dx.doi.org/ten.2139/ssrn.3102652.

• Savelsberg, J., & Male monarch, R. D. (2005). Institutionalizing commonage memories of detest: Law and law enforcement in Federal republic of germany and the U.s.. American Periodical of Sociology, 111, 579–616.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency in urban areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  Google Scholar

• Shively, M. (2005). Study of literature and legislation on hate crime in America. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/210300.pdf.

• Sikkink, K. (2011). The justice cascade: How human rights prosecutions are changing world politics (The Norton Series in World Politics). New York: WW Norton & Company.

  Google Scholar

• Soule, S. A., & Earl, J. (2001). The enactment of land-level hate law-breaking law in the United States: Intrastate and interstate factors. Sociological Perspectives, 44, 281–305.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Stacey, 1000., Carbone-López, Yard., & Rosenfeld, R. (2011). Demographic change and ethnically motivated crime: The impact of immigration on anti-hispanic detest crime in the U.s.a.. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 27(3), 278–298.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Stephens, J., & Jouvenal, J. (2013). Muslim cabdriver alleges assault by rider who cited Boston Marathon bombing. The Washington Postal service. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-xxx/local/38931470_1_hate-crime-passenger-muslim.

• Strom, K. J. (2001). Hate crimes reported in NIBRS, 1997–1999. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, US Department of Justice Statistics: NCJ 186765.

  Google Scholar

• Taylor, M. C. (1998). How white attitudes vary with the racial composition of local populations: Numbers count. American Sociological Review, 63, 512–535.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Tolnay, S. E., & Beck, Due east. Thousand. (1995). A festival of violence: An assay of southern lynchings, 1882–1930. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.

  Google Scholar

• United states of america Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1995). Uniform offense reports, hate crime—1995. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecm.htm#country. Retrieved January 23, 2009.

• Walfield, South. 1000., Socia, Thou. M., & Powers, R. A. (2017). Religious motivated hate crimes: Reporting to law enforcement and instance outcomes. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(1), 148–169.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Walker, S. (1994). Hate speech: The history of an American controversy. Lincoln, NE: Bison Books.

  Google Scholar

• Wisconsin Informational Committee on Civil Rights. (2017). Hate crime and civil rights in Wisconsin. http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/08-17-Wisconsin-hate-crimes.pdf.

Court Cases Cited

• Chaplinsky 5. New Hampshire, 315 U.South. 568 (1942).

  Google Scholar

• R.A.Five. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992).

  Google Scholar

• State v. Mitchell 485 North.W.2d 807 (1992).

  Google Scholar

• State v. Plowman, 838 P.2d 558 (1992).

  Google Scholar

• Country 5. Wyant, 68 Ohio St. 3d 162; 624 N.East.2d 722 (1994).

  Google Scholar

• Wisconsin 5 . Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993).

  Google Scholar

Statutes Cited

• Church Arson Prevention Act, Public Law 104-155, 110 stat. 1392 (1996).

  Google Scholar

• Ceremonious Rights Act, Public Law 90-284, 82 stat. 73 (1968).

  Google Scholar

• Hate Crime Sentencing Enhancement Act, 28 U.Due south.C 994 (1994).

  Google Scholar

• Detest Crimes Statistics Act, Public Police 101-275, 104 stat. 140, 28 USC 534 (1990).

  Google Scholar

• The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act, 18 U.s.a.C. § 249 (2009).

  Google Scholar

• Vehement Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, Public Law 103-322, 108 stat. 1796 (1994).

  Google Scholar

Download references

Writer data

Affiliations

1. Department of Sociology, The Ohio State University, 238 Townshend Hall, 1885 Neil Avenue Mall, Columbus, OH, 43085, USA

   Ryan D. Male monarch

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ryan D. King .

Copyright data

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

Well-nigh this chapter

Cite this chapter

King, R.D. (2019). Detest Crimes: Perspectives on Offending and the Law. In: Krohn, K., Hendrix, Northward., Penly Hall, Thousand., Lizotte, A. (eds) Handbook on Offense and Deviance. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20779-3_22

Download citation

• .RIS
• .ENW
• .BIB

• DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-three-030-20779-3_22

• Published: 29 August 2019

• Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

• Print ISBN: 978-3-030-20778-6

• Online ISBN: 978-3-030-20779-3

• eBook Packages: Social Sciences Social Sciences (R0)

pumphreycoureard.blogspot.com

Source: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-20779-3_22

Share this post