The Hate Crime Canon and Beyond: A Critical Assessment

Although it remains an empirical question whether the U.S. is experiencing greater levels of hate-motivated-conduct than in the past, it is beyond dispute that the concept of ‘hate crime’ has been institutionalized in social, political, and legal discourse in the U.S. From the introduction and politicization of the term hate crime in the late 1970s to the continued enforcement of hate crime law at the beginning of the twenty-first century, social movements have constructed the problem of bias-motivated violence in particular ways, while politicians at both the federal and state level have made legislation that defines the parameters of hate crime. Accordingly, this article identifies and examines the parameters of a hate crime canon in the U.S., which can first and foremost be described as a body of law that 1) provides anew state policy action, by either creating anew criminal category, altering an existing law, or enhancing penalties for select extant crimes when they are committed for bias reasons; 2) contains an intent standard, which refers to the subjective intention of the perpetrator rather than relying solely on the basis of objective behavior; and 3) specifies a list of protected social statuses, such as race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, disabilities, etc. Arguing that these features constitute the core parameters of the hate crime canon and attendant discourse in the U.S., this article offers a critical assessment of the emergence, institutionalization, and arguable consequences of ‘hate crime’ as a recently developed social fact - in the Durkheimian sense of the word - that is consequential for the politics of victimization in the modern era and the social control of violence against minorities more particularly. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Mail vs. telephone surveys of criminal justice attitudes: A comparative analysis

This study compares results from surveys using two modes of administration. A subset of questions from the 1992Texas Crime Poll, a statewide poll conducted annually by mail, was replicated in telephone interviews using the Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing System. The phone survey yielded better participation rates but less complete responses to individual attitude questions than did the mail poll. As expected, the mail survey was less expensive but less efficient than the automated phone survey. The central finding was that all but one of the responses to five attitude questions difered significantly across the surveys. The samples differed in their demographic composition, but this did not explain differences in the substantive findings from the mail and phone surveys. The discussion considers alternative explanations for differences in the findings from the two surveys and suggests direction for further comparative research.     

电流斑的光镜和扫描电镜观察以及能谱测定

为了找出电流斑在扫描电镜下的特征性改变,作者用扫描电镜和能谱测定,配合光镜观察,对电击死者的22个皮肤电流斑和尸体上造成的18个皮肤电流斑和金属灼伤,进行了对比观察。结果表明,光镜下电流斑的形态改变与过去学者所述基本一致。非典型的电流斑难与热灼伤相鉴别。扫描电镜下电流斑的形态特征为:(1)损伤底部和壁上可见散在的小孔穴,直径为30～100μm,深浅不一,边缘不规则;(2)损伤组织表面大量细胞碎屑和颗粒;(3)组织和脱落细胞表面有裂纹;(4)损伤区内有散在的异物颗粒沉积,其形态为球形、方形或不规则形,电子密度较大。作者认为这些改变是电流作用造成,热灼伤不具备这些改变,故在扫描电镜下极易区别电流斑和热灼伤。所有电流斑均可测出与导体化学组成相同的金属元素。作者提出,扫描电镜下的上述形态改变和能谱测定结果可以作为诊断电流斑的依据。     

Law and the media

I would like to thank Margaret Andersen, Dan Slater, and Ron Roesch for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this essay.