Race Hate Crime And The Criminal Justice Response

AuthorEila Davis
Pages92-102
92
British Journal of Community Justice
©2020 Manchester Metropolitan University
ISSN 1475-0279
Vol. 16(2) 92102
RACE HATE CRIME AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSE
Eila Davis is employed in the Strategy Unit of Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, an executive agency
of the Ministry of Justice.1
Abstract
The paper refreshes our understanding of the established def initions of race hate crime, before reflecting on
the impact on victims and reviewing criminal justice responses. It explores the nature and context of offences,
in order to look at the characteristics of perpetrators and their rehabilitation. It considers briefly whether the
criminal justice response would be complemented by more emphasis on deterrence, before drawing to a
summary and conclusion.
Keywords
Hate crime; hate crime perpetrators; hate crime offender rehabilitation
What is Race Hate Crime?
The spectrum of race hate crime stretches from minor offences such as graffiti to - at the extreme - genocide.
To address rehabilitation across the whole range of possible offences is unrealistic and the paper covers offences
associated primarily with race, and to some extent religion or belief, of a seriousness likely to attract a
community order or short custodial penalty. Focus on these types of hate crime is timely in view of the impetus
created by the Black Lives Matter movement following the death of George Floyd, which has brought into clearer
focus a sense of the discrimination faced by members of minority ethnic communities including in contact with
the Criminal Justice System.
The paper does not explore those forms of hate crime that would be described as terrorist, which do not feature
routinely in centrally monitored hate crime recording (Home Office 2019).
In terms of how we define hate crime, commentators (Jacobs and Potter 1998, Hall 2005, Iganski 2008a) note
the linguistic and conceptual confusion that the term creates. They point out that in statute and authoritative
definitions of hate crime the word hate is not actually used, with words such as hostility and prejudice deployed
instead.
Perry (2003) argues that most hate crimes stem from an historically-entrenched hierarchy within which some
groups are systematically disadvantaged. She describes individual acts of hate crime as symbolic, salutary
reminders to members of minority groups to - in effect - ‘know their place’ within the social order (see also
Tomsen 2009, Sibbitt 1997). Even so, she recognises the limitations of the term ‘hate crime’ in that it implies the
kernel of the act is within the perpetrator’s pathology rather than the society of which they are part. She
questions how well the term gets across the structural realities that perpetuate and ‘permit’ such behaviour.
Allied to Perry’s viewpoint, a distinctive feature of hate crime is that, with the marked exception of terrorism, it
can be seen as the hostile and amplified expression of prejudice found within society (Cunneen, Fraser & Tomsen
1997, Sibbitt 1997, Tomsen 2009, Hall 2013, Levin 2007). Perpetrators of hate crime may find common ground
in their thinking with a non-offender, who may express his or her own biases in less conscious and direct ways.
1 She writes in a personal capacity and her views do not necessarily represent those of her employing organisation. Eila has
worked extensively within the Criminal Justice System and developed an intervention for hate crime perpetrators
recommended for national use.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT