Authors: Gadd D.; Perry B.

Source: Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, Volume 37, Number 1, 1 April 2004 , pp. 144-154(11)

Publisher: Australian Academic Press

Abstract:

The last decade of the 20th century has seen a flurry of hate crime legislation and other state activities, none of which have had an appreciable effect on the frequency or certainly the severity of hate crime. Such initiatives are insufficient responses to bias-motivated violence, in that they do not touch the underlying structures that support hate crime. Abdicating responsibility for countering such violence to the state, then, will not be a sufficiently effective long-term strategy. Rather, the responsibility must be shared and distributed across institutional and interactional levels. Moreover, the ultimate goal is not only to attack hate crime, but to disrupt the institutional and cultural assumptions about difference that condition hate crime. To the extent that difference is socially constructed, it can also be reconstructed (Perry, 2003, p. 387)

Document Type: Research article

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1375/000486504323020328

Affiliations: 1: Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, England ST5 SBG, UK

Publication date: 2004-04-01

More about this publication?

• Information for Authors
• Subscribe to this Title
• Terms & Conditions
• Library Recommendation Form
• ingentaconnect is not responsible for the content or availability of external websites

Related content

• In this: publication
• By this: publisher
• In this Subject: Social & Public Welfare
• By this author: Gadd D. ;  Perry B.

Website © Publishing Technology. Article copyright remains with the publisher, society or author(s) as specified within the article.

• Terms and conditions
• Privacy policy
• Information for advertisers