A higher bar: Institutional impediments to hate crime prosecution

Why are hate crime cases so rarely prosecuted? Most states and the federal government have hate crime laws on their books, yet available data indicate few prosecutions in most jurisdictions. Drawing on case files and interviews with police and prosecutors in one jurisdiction, three institutional impediments to hate crime prosecution are identified: evidentiary inflation, by which law enforcement uses a higher burden of proof than what is required by statute; loose coupling between police departments and prosecutors' offices; and cultural distance between law enforcement and victims. Findings also reveal that advocacy groups and media can successfully increase the visibility of cases and draw the attention of prosecutors. The findings align with aspects of legal endogeneity theory and enhance our understanding of the role of organizations in constructing the meaning of law. The results also help explain why some laws are rarely enforced, even when they have support from key personnel in an organization.     

Global uncertainty,economic governance institutions and foreign direct investment inflow in Africa

Economic Change and Restructuring - Based on the fact that Africa has not fared well in attracting foreign direct investments in the last decade compared to other regions of the world, especially...     

Outcome assessment: a tool for enhancing quality,relevance and accountability

The issue of outcome assessment is receiving increased attention in the area of higher education, generally, and in the fields of public and business administration, more specifically. A variety of methodologies are available for such assessments. This article argues that survey methodology is the most appropriate approach and presents a model for designing survey-based outcome assessments. In addition, an example of the application of survey methods for outcome assessment of a unique graduate level management education program is presented.