An in-depth analysis and detailed information into the second-year Crime, Power, and Justice module, including topics such as Racist Victimisation, Violence, intersectionality, Critical Criminology, Race, Victimisation, Perception vs Reality, Hate Crime, Integration, Anti-racism, Oldham Riots, Mult...
The interconnected nature of social categorizations which create overlapping and interdependent
systems of discrimination. (A theoretical approach).
Elements of identity within the CJS.
Coined by Crenshaw (1989). For example, different women experience different levels of
discrimination depending on their race, class, treatment of the CJS etc.
Mainstream Criminology:
‘White maleness’ is overrepresented = “norm” (takes for granted the white male experience).
Fails to incorporate demographic characteristics.
BUT WE KNOW data and research shows:
Racial disparities
Partner/sexual violence disproportionally affects women
Young men more likely to perpetrate and be victims of street violence
So their experiences which cause them to be in the CJS (deviant behaviour) as well as their
experiences once they’re in the CJS. WHY do these experiences differ?
HIGHLIGHTING THE DIFFERENCES RATHER THAN TAKING THEM FOR GRANTED.
It looks at these all as intersecting socio-structural variables/constructs.
This is so prominent as the way the CJS is designed affects people differently so it reflects and
reinforces structures which may underpin offending and victimisation. This analytical framework,
accounts for this diversity of positionality/ “multiple positionality”.
Critical Criminology
Explores power relations at macro-structural level (race, gender, class) and the micro-structural level
(what happens on a day-to-day basis). What is the connection?
,What about the intersection between variables? What is so key about how different aspects of our
identity interact? How do they interact to create unique experiences within the CJS. It takes a very
much layered perspective.
Intersectionality and Victimisation – the intersectionality theory explores categories from the
offender to the victim. Victimisation and structural inequalities.
Reflects reinforcing structural inequality. Who and the Circumstance of the victim is not random.
Why was the individual at risk or vulnerable to either offending or victimisation (mutually
exclusive)? E.g. marginalisation and pre-existing disadvantage.
Exploring the history of RACE and victimisation
Surge in post WWII migration
Driven by right wing politicians (Enoch Powell ‘Rivers of Blood Speech’) fuelled racist tension
Commonwealth Immigration Act 1962, Immigration Act 1971 etc
Increased racial diversity due to breakdown in community cohesion, integration, native populations
feel threatened by diversity? = racist hate crime.
After April 1993 – 105 racist deaths in the UK.
Disconnect between the perception of becoming a victim and the reality of becoming a victim.
Quantitative perspective – criticised for being essentialist?
Black people are more likely to say crime is “racially motivated”.
Hall et al (1978)
Policing the Crisis – Highlighted demonisation of black people
Fear in BME communities
Bowling “racist incidents are gendered; 21% black women, 18% Asian women”.
INTERCONNECTION - Racially motivated crimes are more likely in metropolitan areas SO
ethnic minorities demonised were more likely to be offenders too
Chakraborti & Garland (2015)
Rise in 1970s & 80s of racial tensions with police and black communities
Macpherson report = definition of racist victimization
Defining Racial Hate Crime – A racist incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any
other person. (Macpherson, 1999) (a more witness centred approach).
The previous definition put a lot of power into the officer to interpret the incident.
Victim and Witness Based Approach in the UK = Gives them a duty to respond to perceptions of
racism.
This means it will be recorded as a hate crime – then needs to be investigated.
Extended sentence if proved to be motivated by race.
, Bowling (1999) Conceptual Ambiguities
Racist hate crime is an ongoing process; not a series of isolated incidents
Hierarchy of police is prominent in racist hate crime
Distinction between good and bad crimes – judgement depends on characteristics of
offender and victims – ambiguity??
Lecture 2 – 05/10
Integration and Anti-racism
Teresa May 2015 speech on immigration suggesting it disrupts social cohesion
Enoch Powell ‘Rivers of Blood’ 1968 “the black man will have the whip hand over the white
man”.
Trevor Phillips – we have integration and a lack of segregation = racial tensions.
Clashes between white, Asian communities and the police – reports were published into the causes
of these disturbances – challenged multiculturalism and community cohesion issues; *something
needs to be done*.
Immigrants vs ex-patriates.
We need to create community cohesion.
Aftermath of Oldham riots:
Commission by Blunkett (Home Secretary), we should avoid living together as differences
(language, religion etc) leads to segregation in housing, schools etc
We need to promote integration – so the minority groups must be prepared to embrace and
lead change.
Who’s the problem though?
Without segregation – there will be no tension.
Integration – a desirable outcome of harmonious diversity without discrimination.
A salad, you are aware of the differences; they complement each other.
Multiculturalism – respects group identities based on cultures etc, but it doesn’t see this as opposing
integration. But to what extent should they join the norm, learn to speak the language, change their
practices etc Does multiculturalism dilute shared cultures and value systems?
A melting pot, takes away people’s identity. Difference in culture, moulded into one.
The Failure of Anti-racism?
Anti-racism = diversity, recognition of justice etc
Implicit racism vs explicit racism
Does this mean equal opportunities/different outcomes? – this may mean differential
treatment.
Are we targeting extremists? Or the diffused racism in media and politics?
We need to correctly recognise who is actually in NEED (‘competing groups’)
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller aegk2011. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $10.32. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
