Neil Chakraborti & Stevie-Jade Hardy On Barriers To Justice For Hate Crime Victims
In Bloods, Threats and Fears, Stevie-Jade Hardy and Neil Chakraborti have identified ‘barriers to justice’ as one of the significant reasons for the inadequate impact of hate crime responses. While arguing that there is no ‘one-size fits all’ approach to delivering support to hate crime victims, they submit that the failure of the policymakers and practitioners to respond effectively can reinforce the damage caused by the hate crime.
The study begins by reporting data collected through a series of empirical projects, collating the narratives of multiple and a diverse set of hate crime victims. One of the themes was focused on exploring how the victims felt about the outcomes of the conventional criminal justice system, gauging the efficacy of punishment and rehabilitation delivery mechanisms. The observations from the data paint a bleak picture for the cause of securing justice for such victims. A majority of victims did not have adequate knowledge about the hate crime laws and also lacked any prior experience of seeing offenders brought to justice through the judicial system:
‘These figures indicate that a surprisingly high proportion of those participants whose cases went to court did not know the outcome. When this issue was probed, further it was evident that this was the result of victims not being kept up to date with developments within their case and/or victims finding the whole procedure of going to court too confusing.’
The study then highlights the responses of the victims on the issue of what should be prioritised to tackle hate crime and rehabilitate offenders. An overwhelming majority of responders (85%) were in favour of having well-designed training initiatives to educate young people about diversity and hate crime.
Similarly, a significant majority of responders also preferred to see more hate crime cases going to courts, displaying an undeterred willingness to pursue a conviction in the right context:
‘Although restorative practices have become relatively familiar within the criminal justice system, its use for hate crime cases continues to face resistance. The limited application of restorative justice in the context of hate crime has resulted in a paucity of data on its effectiveness in rehabilitating offenders, but research does indicate that it can empower victims by providing a platform for their voices to be heard.’
However, the study also indicates, that when given an option of restorative justice where instead of the victim, some other person who would belong to the same community or possess the same identity trait as the victim, is asked to face the offender — the response was overwhelmingly positive:
‘Rather than wishing to see perpetrators punished more severely through the higher sentencing tariffs available under hate crime legislation, hate crime victims appear to be overwhelmingly in favour of educational approaches which offered perpetrators — and specifically young people who had or who were at risk of committing hate crimes — an opportunity to learn about the positive elements of diversity and the harms associated with hate crime through a programme of tailored intervention.’
After highlighting the themes emerging from the responses, the study shifts its focus on suggesting ways to improve justice outcomes for hate crime victims. It submits that in order to create a much more accessible, logical, and consistent legal framework, the range of existing aggravating offences — which currently only focuses on hostility motivated by race or religion — shall be extended to offences motivated by hostility towards a person’s disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity:
‘Equally valuable would be an extension to existing stirring up offences in order to protect disabled and trans people from threatening words or behaviour, as would a legal framework which enables the courts to impose enhanced sentences in cases of targeted hostility which sit outside of the monitored strands.’
While highlighting that effective response to hate crime shall involve investment in smarter and not harsher forms of punishment, the study argues that there’s a need to conduct evidence-based studies on understanding why do people commit hate crimes. This would immensely benefit in designing educational and rehabilitative programmes, both for government and partner agencies, to address underlying prejudices and prevent future offending. The study further suggests:
‘This should be followed by a large-scale, independent evaluation of existing educational and rehabilitative programmes in order to identify ‘what works’ in addressing offending behaviour and to share good practice which will improve responses within the context of education, youth work, probation and prison.’
Complement this with Mark Walters, Rupert Brown & Susan Wiedlitzka on Preventing Hate Crime.
