Search results

For more than a decade, public opinion polls have shown that nearly 80% of Americans support hate crime legislation as a response to violence committed because of the victim's race, color, religion, and sexual orientation. Americans' widespread support for legislation aimed at bias-motivated crimes is not matched by the federal and state efforts devoted to responding to such crimes. This chapter describes the myriad factors contributing to America's limited police and prosecutorial response to hate crimes. After a discussion of the patchwork of state and federal legislation aimed at hate crimes, the chapter analyzes the substantial legislative and administrative structures that hamper the enforcement of hate crime law in the United States.

The paper aims to provide a critical review of how variations in the conceptualization and contextualization of hate crime across US cities might impact how their individual law enforcement agencies collect hate crime data. Media reports and political discourses present hate crime as a prevalent problem in the USA. However, this representation of hate crime in the public sphere is not reflected in the relatively low national numbers of hate crimes published annually by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Drawing primarily on the national hate crime data for the period 2008–2018, this author conducted a secondary research study of the concept, context, extent and law enforcement collection of hate crime data in five cities in the USA.

This paper is a product of some of the findings of the study, which include the definition of hate crime at the federal, state and city levels and the contextualization of hate crimes at these levels. The findings show inconsistencies in how the five cities and associated law enforcement agencies conceptualize hate crime and in how they collect and report hate crime data at local and national levels.

Through its analysis of how five US cities and the associated law enforcement agencies interpret and respond to hate crime data collection, with recommendations of best practices for hate crime data collection by law enforcement agencies, the paper contributes to the academic and nonacademic debate on hate crime.

Criminal law has dramatically expanded since the 1970s. Despite popular and academic attention to overcriminalization in the United States, empirical research on how court actors and, in particular, prosecutors, use the legal tools associated with overcriminalization is scarce. In this chapter, we describe three forms of overcriminalization that, in theory, have created new tools for prosecutors: the criminalization of new behaviors, mandatory minimum sentencing statutes, and the internal expansion of criminal laws. We then use a unique dataset of felony filings and dispositions in Florida from 1995 to 2015 to test a series of hypotheses examining how overcriminalization influences prosecutorial practices given three changes to the political economy during this time: the decline in violent and property crime, the Great Recession, and a growing call for criminal justice reform. We find that prosecutors have been unconstrained by declining crime rates. Yet, rather than rely on new criminal statutes or mandatory minimum sentence laws, they maintained their caseloads by increasing their filing rates for traditional violent, property and drug offenses. At the same time, the data demonstrate nonviolent other offenses are the top charge in almost 20% of the felony caseload between 2005 and 2015. Our findings also suggest that, despite reform rhetoric, filing and conviction rates decreased due to the Recession, not changes in the law. We discuss the implications of these findings for criminal justice reform.

Donna L. Van Raaphorst provides a detailed statistical analysis of a large sample of Alcatraz Prison inmates using the Social Science Statistical Package. The data, drawn directly from the inmate files, is compared whenever possible with similar data provided by the Bureau of Prisons in order to determine if Alcatraz, often regarded as America's Devil's Island, really incarcerated the so-called “Worst of the Worst” in its time. The results would seem to indicate that Alcatraz inmates were, in fact, not remarkably different from those in any other Federal prison in the system.

This paper aims to explore some of the problems that arise in the execution of a joint force operation (JFO) involving various law enforcement agencies. Particular emphasis is placed on examining factors that impede inter‐agency cooperation and coordination in the context of a JFO targeting serious and major crimes.

This paper is informed by primary research that assessed the level of satisfaction of enforcement agencies involved in a Canadian‐based multi‐agency task force mandated to combat organized crime. Research for this study entailed a questionnaire survey of, and semi‐structured interviews with, operational and supervisory personnel assigned to the JFO, as well senior management within agencies participating in the JFO.

The research uncovered significant differences in the level of satisfaction with the execution of the JFO concept between members from the lead (federal) enforcement agency and those of other participating (municipal and provincial) agencies. The majority of survey participants overwhelmingly believe that the integrated, multi‐agency approach is an essential ingredient in the effectiveness of this JFO. However, among respondents from participating agencies there was a high rate of dissatisfaction with intelligence dissemination and sharing by the JFO, communication between the JFO and member agencies, and the contribution the JFO makes to the priorities and outputs of participating agencies in their own jurisdictions.

These problems strike at the very heart of a multi‐agency approach to major crimes enforcement and can be generalized to other jurisdictions and countries. Indeed, impediments to the timely sharing of criminal intelligence continue to constitute one of the most significant obstacles to inter‐agency cooperation and coordination, and, by extension, the optimal enforcement of organized crime and terrorism. The problems addressed in this study should be of concern to any manager of a multi‐agency task force, and similar research is recommended to unearth problems that may undermine inter‐agency cooperation and plague the effectiveness of a JFO.

Despite the increased prevalence and importance of multi‐agency operations in combating major and serious crimes, little research has been conducted into the issues and problems that obstruct inter‐agency cooperation within this context. This paper represents one attempt to fill this void.

Computer fraud, Law, Procedures, Punishment, USA Outlines in chart format the definitions, prohibitions, procedures and punishments of computer crime laws in the USA.

This chapter considers overlapping legal and policy issues related to hate crimes, summarizing the problem with an emphasis on societal responses. The theoretical insight that law can be understood as an expression of societal values is combined with an emphasis on the empirical study of law in action. The approach taken is theoretical and conceptual in nature, but is also informed by relevant case law and various empirical studies and is concerned to suggest how hate crime research can address issues of both theoretical and policy significance by analyzing how hate crime law is practiced. Some of the findings are that hate crime law can be seen to express values in a wide variety of settings and to express values intentionally, neither of which has been properly acknowledged to date. It is important for public policy analysis and practice as well as for theory development to acknowledge the limitations of both rational choice/deterrence approaches and moral education theories in the hate crime policy domain. Instead of understanding criminal law as a type of threat or type of instruction, in the case of hate crimes the law may be practiced and evaluated most realistically without assuming that hate criminals will be attentive to potential legal sanctions or amenable to moral education. The discussion includes elements of literature review, policy debate, theoretical analysis, and methodological reflection suggesting how hate crime law can be analyzed as expressive law in action, providing material relevant for students, theorists, policy-makers and analysts, and researchers.

This chapter discusses the confinement conditions that women doing time for federal offenses in Mexico nowadays face. This discussion focuses on two conditions: the evolution of theories about feminine criminal behavior; and the effects that policies against drugs, prevailing in Latin America and other world regions, have on this population.

Some 149 out of 300 women doing time in an Island prison in Mexico were interviewed by the author, who tried to understand the conditions that women faced before committing the crime and once they were in prison.

The study shows that policies against drugs have caused severe damage and brought about few, if any, benefits. A cost-benefit approach and more rational policies are suggested.

The chapter will describe relevant punishment conditions, including involuntary or trickery transfer of women to the Island prison; difficulties to communicate with their families and ill-treatments, humiliation, and abuses from personnel and will hear several of their stories.

The purpose of this paper is to assess if federal judges have sentenced criminal corporations to fines that are consistent with the seriousness of the offense and the blameworthiness of the organization, which would be in line with the directives from the US Sentencing Guidelines. This paper will also use the focal concerns framework to measure organizational blameworthiness.

This paper uses secondary data from federal sentencing documents, collected by the US Sentencing Commission, for cases that were adjudicated between October 1, 2010 and September 30, 2017.

Results showed that the focal concerns framework can be used to define potential constructs for blameworthiness and that an organization’s culpability score was a significant predictor in whether the company received a higher fine.

The data are unable to examine two of the three measures of focal concerns. Cross-sectional data limits the ability to draw conclusions regarding cause and effect between blameworthiness and monetary fines.

Results imply that judges are sentencing corporations that have higher culpability scores to more severe fines, in accordance with both the federal Sentencing Guidelines and focal concerns framework.

This study is one of the first to apply the focal concerns framework, usually used to examine the sentencing of individuals, to the sentencing of corporations. It is also one of the first to attempt to empirically define blameworthiness.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the harms suffered by intersex children who are subjected to medically unnecessary genital-normalizing surgery (GNS) and the possible applicability of statutes prohibiting female genital mutilation (FGM) to certain cases of GNS to redress this harm in the USA.

Consulting publications by medical researchers and intersex activists alike, this comment reviews the procedures undertaken as part of GNS (most commonly including clitoral reduction) and the reasons behind these procedures. It also parses the language of federal and state statutes prohibiting FGM in the USA.

Surgical practices that include clitoral cutting when the procedure is not necessary to the health of the person on whom it is performed constitute FGM and are punishable under federal and certain state laws in the USA. GNS with clitoral reduction fits the definition of FGM because it is performed for cosmetic and social reasons, not medical necessity.

Acknowledging GNS with clitoral reduction as FGM is a crucial strategy to ensure that female-assigned intersex children’s rights to bodily autonomy are protected to the same extent as non-intersex children’s rights. Intersex legal activists in the USA should press for enforcement of FGM statutes as to female-assigned intersex children until the medical practitioners who continue to defend and perform GNS see the procedures as illegal genital mutilation.