The Broad Adoption Of A Legislative Framework - 1936 Words

Analysis Within EW there is no specific mention of hate crime legislation; however there is the broad adoption of a legislative framework, focusing on a human rights perspective; inclusive of both minority and majority groups (Giannasi, 2008). EW’s legislative approach allows for the following: 1. Enhanced sentencing – courts are obligated to enhance sentences, if proven a crime was motivated by hostility based on race/religious grounds. 2. Incitement legislation – the criminalisation of acts where an offender insinuates hatred on the grounds of race or religion. 3. Specific offences – introduction of specific offences which are hate crimes. (ibid) Social recognition of hate crime has seen rapid movement within law making within the†¦show more content†¦Saucier et al’s (2006) research into the victimisation of hate crime, did however find that victims felt penalty enhancements offered more appropriate punishment. The key legislation against racial hate crime in EW is the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (Iganski, 2008). The legislation requires courts to enhance sentence penalties of racially aggravated offences, beyond sentences required for non-racial equivalents (ibid). This act for enhanced sentencing requires two tests to be applied in order to prove ‘hostility’ (Mason, 2014, cited in Hall et al, 2014). The first test assesses motivation, whilst the second requires evidence that an offender ‘demonstrated’ racial or religious hostility before, during or after an offence (ibid). This evidence is usually provided within manifestation of verbal or written communication being submitted before a court (ibid). Burney and Rose’s (2002) research for the Home Office raised concerns surrounding what did or didn’t amount to racial motivation, particularly in cases when the racially aggravation was added to the substantive offence, rather than the cause. The research identified the vast majority of prosecutions rely upon proof that the offender demonstrated such hostility rather than proof that the offender was actually motivated by hostility to commit the offence (ibid). Over 10 years