Introduction
Bias crimes are generally understood to be offenses that show signs of hostility that stem from various characteristics, ranging from sexual orientation to racial or ethnic background. In the criminal justice system, the question concerning bias crime legislation is currently present and has been persistent for decades. Given these concerns, the 2009 research “The prosecution of hate crimes” by Phillips uses the hate crime typology and shows features of all instances tried as prejudice crimes in a New Jersey county in the early 2000s. Thus, with purposive sampling and retrieval of the necessary cases, it was determined that the hate crime typology is largely ineffective and can apply only to cases with a strong illustration of bias.
Main Body
Before delving deeper into the study, the author outlines the aim of the work. According to Phillips (2009), the research aims to give an empirical evaluation of the applicability of typology in situations being investigated as prejudice crimes. The qualitative research design is considered the first systematic application of the typology to all instances adjudicated as prejudice offenses during a four-year period in New Jersey.
Regarding data collection methods, case file data and investigators’ accounts were analyzed and coded using the bias crime typology developed by McDevitt and colleagues in 2002 (Phillips, 2009). To learn more about the triggering incident, aim, peer influence, targeted victims, and usual setting, case narratives and transcripts of interviews of perpetrators, victims, and witnesses were reviewed (Phillips, 2009). As a result, an independent variable is prejudice crime, while a dependent variable is hate crime typology.
As for sample and sampling techniques, the sample mainly consisted of prejudiced crime cases. The files for every instance recommended for prosecution as a biased offense between 2001 and 2004 were examined as part of this study (Phillips, 2009). From the total of 643 incidents that were initially studied, 30 cases were the only ones that investigators thought were appropriate for bias offense prosecution (Phillips, 2009). The chosen sample was considered to have the legal indicators of a prejudiced crime by law enforcement and prosecutors specializing in such crimes (Phillips, 2009). Therefore, purposive sampling was used for the study since the sample was retrieved based on experts’ knowledge.
Finally, the author discusses the findings toward the end of the study. One important finding is that the typology could only help locate the most extreme forms of bias-motivated offenses (Phillips, 2009). The legal meaning of a biased event regarded as appropriate for prosecution in this area is fairly broad (Phillips, 2009). As a result, prejudice offenses lose almost all of their distinctive characteristics. In this case, the importance of the given finding is that the hate crime typology retrieved by the author is complex and cannot be viewed as applicable to each case. In other words, the typology is only practical when the case’s bias is strong and evident.
Conclusion
Hence, it was discovered that the hate crime typology is generally ineffectual and can only be applied to instances with a strong depiction of prejudice through deliberate sampling and retrieval of the appropriate cases. The study’s objective is to provide an empirical assessment of the typology’s applicability in cases being looked at as bias crimes. The sample mainly included biased criminal instances in terms of sample and sampling methods. Since the sample was gathered based on experts’ expertise, purposive sampling was employed for the study. The typology could only help identify the most severe types of bias-motivated offenses, which is an important discovery.
Reference
Phillips, N. D. (2009). The prosecution of hate crimes: The limitations of the hate crime typology. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(5), 883-905. Web.