Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Law Enforcement and Prosecution Dilemma

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Download book PDF
Download book EPUB
Hate Crime Statutes

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Criminology ((BRIEFSPOLICI))

  • 1463 Accesses

Abstract

Policy dilemmas such as citizen resentment, proliferation of prejudice, disproportionate prosecution of minorities, and social backlash invariably influence the enforcement and prosecution of hate crime statutes. Internal factors that influence the bias classification decision at the point of arrest include whether the police officer received training to assess bias motives and his or her personal beliefs in the efficacy of hate crime statutes. External factors also influence the bias classification decision including workload issues, the influence of the community and whether the police agency adopts a proactive hate crime enforcement policy. Issues that influence effective prosecution of hate crime statutes include whether the prosecutor can prove bias motivation beyond a reasonable doubt. This is particularly complicated in mixed bias and non-bias cases where bias is peripheral to the underlying offense.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Pursuant to FBI UCR guidelines, it is recommended that police agencies adopt a two tiered bias investigation process with first and second level judgment officers.

  2. 2.

    The parallel non-bias crime references the same crime absent the bias motivation. For instance, aggravated assault with and without bias motivation.

References

  • Adams, D. M. (2005). Punishing hate and achieving equality. Criminal Justice Ethics, 24(1), 19–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Criminal Justice Information Services, Division of Uniform Crime Reporting Program. (2015). Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines and Training Manual, version 2.0.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, S. W., McDevitt, J., Farrell, A., & Nolan, J. J. (2007). Bias-crime reporting organizational responses to ambiguity, uncertainty, and infrequency in eight police departments. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(2), 213–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freilich, J. D., & Chermak, S. M. (2013). Hate Crimes. Problem-oriented guides for police, Problem-Specific Guides Series, (72).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gellman, S. (1992/1993). Hate crime laws are thought crime laws. Annual Survey American Law, 509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grattet, R., & Jenness, V. (2001). Examining the boundaries of hate crime law: Disabilities and the dilemma of difference. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 91, 653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, B. (1999). Hate crimes worse by definition. Journal of contemporary criminal justice, 15(1), 6-21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maldonado, M. (1992/1993). Practical problems with enforcing hate crime legislation in New York. Annual Survey American Law, 555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, S. E. (1996). Investigating hate crimes: Case characteristics and law enforcement responses. Justice Quarterly, 13(3), 455–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, G. (2014). Legislating against hate. The Routledge International Handbook on Hate Crime, 59.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDevitt, J., Levin, J., & Bennett, S. (2002). Hate crime offenders: An expanded typology. Journal of Social Issues, 58(2), 303–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morsch, J. (1992). The problem of motive in hate crimes: The argument against presumptions of racial motivation. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82(3), 659–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nolan, J. J., & Akijama, Y. (1999). An analysis of factors that affect law enforcement participation in hate crime reporting. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 15(1), 111–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nolan III, J. J, McDevitt, J., Cronin, S., & Farrell, A. (2004). Learning to see hate crimes: A framework for understanding and clarifying ambiguities in bias crime classification. Criminal Justice Studies, 17(1), 91–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • State of Ohio v. Wyant 64 Ohio St. 3d 566 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, S., & Katz, C. M. (1995). Less than meets the eye: Police department bias crime units. American Journal of Police, 14, 29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Criminal Justice, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, NY, USA

    Frank S. Pezzella

Authors
  1. Frank S. Pezzella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frank S. Pezzella .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pezzella, F.S. (2017). The Law Enforcement and Prosecution Dilemma. In: Hate Crime Statutes. SpringerBriefs in Criminology(). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40842-2_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40842-2_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-40840-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-40842-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation