Proof Evidence And Hate Crime
Download Proof Evidence And Hate Crime PDF/ePub or read online books in Mobi eBooks. Click Download or Read Online button to get Proof Evidence And Hate Crime book now. This website allows unlimited access to, at the time of writing, more than 1.5 million titles, including hundreds of thousands of titles in various foreign languages.
Proof, Evidence and Hate Crime
Author: Tshepo Bogosi Mosaka
language: en
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Release Date: 2025-07-18
Proof is the property of a disputed fact being established inferentially from an extant fact. This book explicates the structural components of this phenomenon in the context of hate crimes across various jurisdictions around the world. It departs from the orthodox conception of evidence and proof as being a general, value-neutral (or non-normative) and epistemic subject, and offers a relativistic conception of this area of law. The core argument is that proof is both semantically and methodologically determined by three conditions of materiality, process and probativity. This argument is then justified by the context-specific application of this relativistic theory of proof to hate crimes. This theoretical application of proof is sustained throughout the book using multiple examples and illustrations of hate crimes around the world. The discussion, both at the level of proof and hate crimes, while focusing on the grounds of race, religion and ethnicity specifically, is framed in jurisprudential, cross-jurisdictional and interdisciplinary terms. The book will be of interest to academics and researchers working in the areas of criminal law, legal philosophy and procedural law.
Manual on hate speech
The right to freedom of expression entails duties and responsibilities and is subject to certain limits, provided for in Article 10.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which are concerned, among other things, with protecting the rights of others. Identifying what constitutes "hate speech" is especially difficult because this type of speech does not necessarily involve the expression of hatred or feelings.On the basis of all the applicable texts on freedom of expression and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and other bodies, the author identifies certain parameters that make it possible to distinguish expressions which, although sometimes insulting, are fully protected by the right to freedom of expression from those which do not enjoy that protection.
Hate Crimes
Author: James B. Jacobs
language: en
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Release Date: 2000-12-28
In the early 1980s, a new category of crime appeared in the criminal law lexicon. In response to concerted advocacy-group lobbying, Congress and many state legislatures passed a wave of "hate crime" laws requiring the collection of statistics on, and enhancing the punishment for, crimes motivated by certain prejudices. This book places the evolution of the hate crime concept in socio-legal perspective. James B. Jacobs and Kimberly Potter adopt a skeptical if not critical stance, maintaining that legal definitions of hate crime are riddled with ambiguity and subjectivity. No matter how hate crime is defined, and despite an apparent media consensus to the contrary, the authors find no evidence to support the claim that the United States is experiencing a hate crime epidemic--instead, they cast doubt on whether the number of hate crimes is even increasing. The authors further assert that, while the federal effort to establish a reliable hate crime accounting system has failed, data collected for this purpose have led to widespread misinterpretation of the state of intergroup relations in this country. The book contends that hate crime as a socio-legal category represents the elaboration of an identity politics now manifesting itself in many areas of the law. But the attempt to apply the anti-discrimination paradigm to criminal law generates problems and anomalies. For one thing, members of minority groups are frequently hate crime perpetrators. Moreover, the underlying conduct prohibited by hate crime law is already subject to criminal punishment. Jacobs and Potter question whether hate crimes are worse or more serious than similar crimes attributable to other anti-social motivations. They also argue that the effort to single out hate crime for greater punishment is, in effect, an effort to punish some offenders more seriously simply because of their beliefs, opinions, or values, thus implicating the First Amendment. Advancing a provocative argument in clear and persuasive terms, Jacobs and Potter show how the recriminalization of hate crime has little (if any) value with respect to law enforcement or criminal justice. Indeed, enforcement of such laws may exacerbate intergroup tensions rather than eradicate prejudice.