American Behavioral Scientist

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Free Access - Register Here

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by IGANSKI, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 45, No. 4, 626-638 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/0002764201045004006

Hate Crimes Hurt More

PAUL IGANSKI

University of Essex, United Kingdom

Constitutional questions about hate crime laws in the United States were settled in the early 1990s. Yet, critics persist in arguing that the laws punish "improper thinking." In this context, this article addresses the question of the justification of punishing motivation—or bias—behind hate crimes when the type of expression and the thought behind it used to indicate motivation are largely protected. There has been considerable legal scholarship on this question but little empirical investigation of how supporters of legislation respond to the question. The article draws from in-depth interviews carried out with a purposive sample of "elite" informants in Boston, Massachusetts, in 1999. A key theme that emerged was that alleged greater harms inflicted by hate crimes—over and above the harms inflicted by the same underlying but otherwise motivated crimes—justify greater punishment. A conceptualization is provided of alleged harms involved.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Interpers ViolenceHome page
D. A. Saucier, J. M. Hockett, and A. S. Wallenberg
The Impact of Racial Slurs and Racism on the Perceptions and Punishment of Violent Crime
J Interpers Violence, May 1, 2008; 23(5): 685 - 701.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 J Interpers ViolenceHome page
D. A. Saucier, T. L. Brown, R. C. Mitchell, and A. J. Cawman
Effects of Victims' Characteristics on Attitudes Toward Hate Crimes.
J Interpers Violence, July 1, 2006; 21(7): 890 - 909.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Am Law Econ RevHome page
D. Dharmapala and N. Garoupa
Penalty Enhancement for Hate Crimes: An Economic Analysis
Am. Law Econ. Rev., March 1, 2004; 6(1): 185 - 207.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]