Extending Hate Crime Legislation to Include Gender: Explicating an Analogical Method of Advocacy

Tim J. Berard

doi:10.18778/1733-8077.1.2.04

Authors

Tim J. Berard Kent State University, USA

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8077.1.2.04

Keywords:

hate crime, bias crime, gender, testimony, advocacy, analogy, ethnomethodology, membership categorization analysis, social problems, language in law

Abstract

This paper examines expert testimony advocating the inclusion, in proposed hate-crime legislation, of crimes motivated by gender bias. The design and rhetoric of such testimony evidences formal properties. Precisely because these properties are formal properties, not limited to specific cases or issues, their explication will contribute not only to the understanding of hate crimes discourse, but to social problems research and theory more broadly. Arguments for the expansion of rights to previously unprotected categories (1) can be designed with an emphasis on generic or formal principles, which allow for the inclusion of previously unprotected groups whose victimization constitutes additional social problems not yet institutionally recognized. Such arguments (2) can emphasize parallelism between protected categories and unprotected categories, and between recognized social problems and as-yet-unrecognized social problems, making similar institutional treatment seem rational, and making disparate treatment seem unjustifiable or insensitive. And such arguments (3) can propose limits to the desired expansion of rights, as a means of pre-empting “floodgate” arguments against expanding the scope of existing protections. More generally, membership categorization analysis is employed to study social identity and inter-group relations as these are constituted in social problems discourse. Special reference is made in this case to “hate crimes” and how they might be addressed by membership categorization analysis in the context of constructionist social problems analysis and qualitative sociolegal studies.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Tim J. Berard, Kent State University, USA

Tim J. Berard (PhD) is an Assistant Professor of Justice Studies at Kent State University, Ohio, USA. He has published on issues and figures in social theory with journals including Theory, Culture & Society, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Human Studies, and Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. His current work involves a critical reconsideration of 'labeling' practices and labeling theory in the sociology of deviance and the philosophy of the social sciences, and he is continuing a study of the relations between social practices and social structures with reference to discrimination disputes as socio-linguistic, socio-legal, and social-structural phenomena.

References

Benson, Douglas and John A Hughes (1991) “Method: evidence and inference – evidence and inference for ethnomethodology.” Pp. 109-136 in Ethnomethodology and the Human Sciences, edited by G. Button. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611827.007

Brewer, Scott (1996) "Exemplary Reasoning: Semantics, Pragmatics, and the Rational Force of Legal Argument by Analogy." Harvard Law Review 109: 923.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1342258

Botts v. The State / Pisciotta v. The State. Supreme Court of Georgia. SO4A0798 and SO4A0799, respectively. October 25, 2004.
Google Scholar

Coulter, Jeff (1991) “Logic: ethnomethodology and the logic of language.” Pp. 20-50 in Ethnomethodology and the Human Sciences, edited by G. Button. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611827.004

Coulter, Jeff (1990) “Elementary Properties of Argument Sequences.” Pp. 181-203 in Interaction Competence, edited by G. Psathas. Washington, D.C.: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis and University Press of America.
Google Scholar

Coulter, Jeff (1983) “Contingent and A Priori Structures in Sequential Analysis.” Human Studies 6(4): 361-76.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02127769

Diggs, Terry (1999) “A World Without Prejudice.” The Recorder, p. 4.
Google Scholar

Dunn, Andrew R. (2000) “Fighting for equal rights on all fronts.” The National Law Journal, p. B1.
Google Scholar

Eglin, Peter and Stephen Hester (2003) The Montreal Massacre: A Story of Membership Categorization Analysis. Waterloo, Canada: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
Google Scholar

Garfinkel, Harold and Harvey Sacks (1990) “On Formal Structures of Practical Actions.” Pp. 55-90 in Ethnomethodological Sociology, edited by Jeff Coulter. Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar.
Google Scholar

Green, Bryan S (1983) Knowing the Poor: A Case-study in Textual Reality Construction. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Google Scholar

Jacobs, James B and Kimberly Potter (1998) Hate Crimes: Criminal Law and Identity Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar

Jayyusi, Lena (1984) Categorization and the Moral Order. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Google Scholar

Jenness, Valerie (2002/2003) “Engendering Hate Crime Policy: Gender, the ‘Dilemma of Difference,’ and the Creation of Legal Subjects.” Journal of Hate Studies 2(1): 73.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.33972/jhs.12

Jenness, Valerie and Ryken Grattet (2001) Making Hate a Crime: From Social Movement to Law Enforcement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Google Scholar

Lawrence, Frederick (1999a) “Prepared testimony on hate-crime legislation before the House Committee on the Judiciary.” August 4. Reported by the Federal News Service of the Federal Information Systems Corp., retrieved by Lexis-Nexis, 29 September.
Google Scholar

Lawrence, Frederick (1999b) Punishing Hate: Bias Crimes under American Law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674040014

Levi, Edward H. (1949) An Introduction to Legal Reasoning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1597535

Maynard, Douglas (1988) “Language, Interaction and Social Problems.” Social Problems 35(4): 311-334.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.1988.35.4.03a00020

MacCormick, Neil (1978) “The Requirement of ‘Coherence’: Principles and Analogies.” In Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Google Scholar

McHoul, A. W. (1982) Telling How Texts Talk: Essays on reading and ethnomethodology. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Google Scholar

McPhail, Beverly (2002) “Gender-Bias Hate Crimes.” Trauma, Violence and Abuse 3(2): 125-143.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380020032003

Nekvapil, Jiri and Ivan Leudar (2002) “On Dialogical Networks: Arguments about the Migration Law in Czech Mass Media in 1993.” Pp. 60-101 in Language, Interaction and National Identity, edited by S. Hester and W. Housley. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315250885-4

Pendo, Elizabeth (1994) “Recognizing Violence Against Women: Gender and the Hate Crimes Statistics Act.” Harvard Women’s Law Journal 17: 157-183.
Google Scholar

Phillips, Scott and Ryken Grattet (2000) “Judicial Rhetoric, Meaning-Making, and the Institutionalization of Hate Crime Law.” Law & Society Review 34(3): 567-606.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3115138

Psathas, George (1995) Conversation Analysis: The Study of Talk-in-Interaction. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412983792

Sacks, Harvey (1984) “On doing ‘being ordinary.’” Pp. 413-429 in Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, edited by J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665868.024

Sacks, Harvey (1972) “An Initial Investigation of the Usability of Conversational Data for Doing Sociology.” Pp. 31-74 in Studies in Social Interaction, edited by D. Sudnow. New York: Free Press.
Google Scholar

Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson (1978) “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation.” Pp. 7-55 in Studies in the organization of conversational interaction, edited by J.N. Schenkein. New York: Academic Press.
Google Scholar

Schauer, Frederick (1993) Playing by the Rules: A Philosophical Examination of Rule-Based Decision-Making in Law and Life. Clarendon.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198258315.001.0001

Shaw, Millicent (2001) “Hate Crime Legislation and the Inclusion of Gender: A Possible Option for Battered Women.” Domestic Violence Report 6(5): 79-80.
Google Scholar

Sherwin, Emily (1999) “A Defense of Analogical Reasoning in Law.” University of Chicago Law Review 66(4): 1179.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1600365

Silverman, David (1998) Harvey Sacks: Social Science and Conversation Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar

Smith, Dorothy (1990) Texts, Facts, and Femininity: Exploring the Relations of Ruling. New York: Routledge.
Google Scholar

Streissguth, Tom. (2003) Hate Crimes. New York: Facts on File.
Google Scholar

Sunstein, Cass R. (1993) “On Analogical Reasoning.” Harvard Law Review 106(3): 741.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1341662

ten Have, Paul (1999) Doing Conversation Analysis: A Practical Guide. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Google Scholar

U.S. Congress (2004) Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2004. H.R. 4204, 108th Congress, 2nd Session.
Google Scholar

Watson, D.R. (1983) “The Presentation of Victim and Motive in Discourse: The Case of Police Interrogations and Interviews.” Victimology 8(1/2): 31-52.
Google Scholar

Watson, D.R. (1976) “Some Conceptual Issues in the Social Identification of Victims and Offenders.” Pp. 60-71 in Victims and Society, edited by E. Viano. Washington D.C.:Visage.
Google Scholar

Wolfe, Leslie and Lois Copeland (1994) “Violence Against Women as Bias-motivated Hate Crime: Defining the Issues in the USA.” In Women and Violence, edited by M. Davies. New Jersey: Zed Books.
Google Scholar