Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Hate Crime Prague 2014

No description
by

Petra Bard

on 9 October 2014

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Hate Crime Prague 2014

The Social Conditions of the Effective Fight against Hate Crimes
Definition
Codification techniques
Symbolic message
Selection of protected groups
The Hungarian case
2008 Budapest Pride Parade
Reasons behind the Hungarian codification technique
Dr. Petra Bard LLM PhD, National Institute of Criminology, Hungary

14th ESC Annual Conference: “Criminology of Europe: Inspiration by Diversity“
Criminal Law-Making Policy ESC Working Group
“Achieving Better Understanding of Criminal Law-Making Processes”
Prague, September 11, 2014
"Hate crimes are criminal acts committed with a bias motive.
A hate crime is not one particular offence. It could be an act of intimidation, threats, property damage, assault, murder or any other criminal offence.
(...)
A protected characteristic is a characteristic shared by a group, such as “race”, language, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or any other similar common factor."
(OSCE ODIHR)
- aggravating circumstance
- general qualifying circumstance
- specific qualifying circumstance
-
sui generis provision
= Output =
1. Aufklaerung
2. Solidarity with the victims
3. The state symbolically acknowledges that it has been unable to resolve the existing social tensions and anyone - including members of the majority group - can fall victim to such acts
Preliminary issue: open or closed list
1. past injustices
2. past injustices + current discriminatory practices
3. past injustices + current discriminatory practices + unresolved social tensions
"race"
ethnic origin
nationality
religion
family status
gender identity
disability
sexual orientation
homelessness
poverty
political opinion
trade union membership
motherhood
age
employment
genetics
Article 174/B of the 1978 Criminal Code
on "violence against the member of a community":
"assaulting another person for being part, whether in fact or under presumption, of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, or compels him or her by force or by threat of force to do, not to do, or to endure something”
- sanction: up to five years imprisonment
2009 modification to the riminal Code: anyone physically abused or harassed “for having a real or assumed connection with a certain group within society” could qualify as a victim of a hate crime.
1. majority principle of democracies
2. (unjustified) fear of the HCC
3. both
The responsibility of the judiciary
The Sajobabony case
Wider set of problems
- gap between hate crime statistics and victim survey reports
- institutionalised discrimination against minorities meant to be protected
- e.g. in reverse situations milder sentences, overrepresentation of "majority protection" cases

Conclusion
Hate crime laws do not reach their original targets,
do not comply with the legislative intent,
while absurdly hate crime provisions in some cases lead to the further victimization of the groups meant to be protected.
Act C of 2012
- role of Hungarian human rights NGOs
- general aggravating circumstance
- sui generis provision extented
- base motive
- preparation
- protected grounds
- closed or open list
- terminology
Act C of 2012, Article 216
Full transcript