Acting as Fire Alarms With Law Enforcement?

Interest groups play an important role in public policy-making and decision-making in public sector governance. While abroad, interest groups have been extensively analysed by scholars, but the assessment of the influence of interest group activities on public policymaking in Lithuania is insufficient.The problem of the research is that this field has not been thoroughly analysed until now. There is no universally agreed and defined definition about kind of activity of interest group and its influence in Lithuania. Thus, in the context of existing research, there is a need for a deeper insight into the activities of interest groups with a focus on assessing their impact on public governance. The object of this article is interest groups and their activities in the Lithuanian renewable energy (RE) sector.The aim of the research described in this article is to investigate the interest groups acting in the RE sector and the influence of the activities on public policy-making in 2008–2018.Authors, based on the functions of interest groups, distinguish the main principles of their activities: to properly analyse the situation, to express themselves publicly and to communicate with society, to form a positive attitude, which would be accepted by both the interest group and the society. In addition, interest groups communicate directly with government officials, attend public hearings, report on current political issues, and appear in the media.Involvement of interest groups can be defined as the process by which interest groups or their representatives, together with officials, are involved in raising issues of major importance to society, formulating policy, discussing and deciding on issues relevant to the management of the RE sector.It can be argued that although the public policy is formulated and implemented by public authorities during the public governance process, there are various interest parties involved at different stages of the process. They can formally become influential interest groups according to the value of their influence and the relevance of the issue. All interested parties have an opportunity to participate in the process of developing the legal framework, but the proposals of all of them are not considered due to the aspect of renewable energy.There is no unified database in Lithuania, which contains all interest groups acting in Lithuania. Therefore, it is necessary to typologize them. The typology is based on Kaunas University of Technology scientists’ group project 2015–2017: Interaction between parties and interest groups: nature, causes, consequences, according to the specifics of the Lithuanian RE sector.In order to investigate the activities of the interest groups, the methods of document analysis and descriptive statistics were applied. Comprehensive data collection and systematisation was carried out on the basis of the Seimas committees’ meeting documents, and on the basis of the received analysis data, typology of interest groups and their impact assessment was performed.In order to find out the involvement of interest groups in the public-governance of the ER sector, the analysis of meetings of the Seimas committees and commissions in 2008–2019 was carried out. During the period 2007–2010, issues relevant to the RE sector were discussed. In the documents of meetings invited persons and those who actively made proposals have been highlighted, thus identifying interest groups.In the second stage of research, based on the typology presented in the article earlier, interest groups were categorized by adapting the table accordingly to the interest groups involved in public governance in the RE sector.The third stage identifies the most influential interest groups acting in the public sector of the RE, according to the number (activity) of proposals submitted to the draft laws and accordingly the number of submitted proposals. This is how the percentage of influence was derived.As the results of the research have shown, that interest groups have the greatest influence in the public government process of the RE sector at the stage of public policy making. However, the balancing of interests does not produce the desired results due to insufficient influence of the interest group.By researching the activities of interest groups in the RE sector policy making stage, types of interest groups can be established according to their members’ goals, activities, aspirations, and relationships.After research of the Seimas activities in 2008–2018 related to activities in RE policy-making, it can be stated that the public administration organizations and their associations are most active interest groups in submitting amendments to the law. They have submitted 867 proposals during the analysed period. Members of the Seimas have submitted 414 proposals. During the period which was under review, 250 business proposals were submitted by business interest groups and only 28 by public interest groups.

Beginning in the early 1970s and continuing into the post-cold war era, the U.S. foreign policy-making system has been transformed from the relatively closed and presidentially dominated system of the early cold war into a more open, contentious, and pluralistic system. The president remains the most powerful actor, but he now must contend with active Congress, oversee a complex executive bureaucracy, and respond to pressures and ideas generated by the press, think tanks, and public opinion. During this period, there also has been a sharp increase in the number of interest groups actively seeking to influence U.S. foreign policy. These interest groups have mobilized to represent a diverse array of business, labor, ethnic, human rights, environmental, and other organizations. Thus, on most issues, the contemporary foreign policy-making system has become more similar to its domestic policy-making counterpart, with multiple interest groups using multiple channels to try to influence policy choices. It is, therefore, important to understand how the foreign policy system's structure, its agenda, and the international environment have changed in ways that encourage interest group activity and access to policy makers. From this activity and access, interest groups have been able to assume new policy roles and possibly have increased policy influence. At the same time, though, it is crucial to remember a lesson learned from the study of interest groups and domestic policy; although activity and access both are necessary for interest group influence, neither alone is sufficient for, nor should either be equated with, actual influence.(1) The paths to government are extremely complicated and interest group activities are but one variable in the pathway. Additionally, although there are similarities between the domestic and foreign policy systems, important differences remain that further constrain interest group influence on foreign policy. Therefore, to get accurate assessment of interest group influence, it is necessary to look beyond high levels of activity and to view interest group efforts in the broader context of the domestic and foreign pressures shaping particular policy decisions. Before beginning such examination, it is important to define the term interest group. Although many definitions exist in the literature, this study will follow Robert H. Salisbury in defining interest group as an organized association which engages in activity relative to government decisions (italics in original).(2) Under this broad definition, interest groups therefore would include citizens' groups organized around a particular issue, such as human rights, as well as professional lobbies, businesses, and public interest law firms. Importantly, though, this definition does not extend to government divisions or organizations. This is not to deny that one can identify specific groups within the U.S. government, such as particular bureaus within the Departments of State or Treasury, that act with a shared interest in the pursuit of particular policy objectives, or to deny that foreign governments and their agents are increasingly active in Washington, but simply to say that the purpose of this study is to assess the impact of domestic, nongovernmental groups on foreign policy. One policy arena that has drawn intense interest group activity over the last decade is U.S. relations with China. In the years after the 1989 Chinese crackdown at Tiananmen Square, the central issue in question has been whether to renew China's Most Favored Nation (MFN) trade status. Two broad coalitions of interest groups joined the MFN debate. Chinese students in the United States, several human rights organizations, labor unions, and religious groups argued that MFN should either be revoked or be made conditional on future Chinese behavior. On the other side, business and farm groups strongly advocated the unconditional renewal of MFN. …

I use elements of overhead democracy and policy implementation theory to explain hate crime law enforcement in American cities. I develop hypotheses of the relationships between law enforcement, state and local policies, and the preferences of elected officials, bureaucrats, and the public. Using survey and demographic data, I find that local hate crime law enforcement is driven by the presence of state hate crime policies, the support and efforts of bureaucrats, the tractability of the hate crime problem, police funding and training, and public preferences. Law enforcement does not appear to be significantly influenced by the preferences of elected officials, local hate crime policies, or administrative procedures for hate crime cases. Thus, although political control by local elected officials is weak, state officials and citizens have some influence over local hate crime law enforcement.

This chapter begins with a discussion of the need to re-vision political mobilization and interest group activity through the lens provided by politicized urban neighborhoods. The scholarly emphasis on formal organization, resource mobilization, and policy strategies often obscures low-income residents' active political engagement with a full range of quality-of-life issues, from graffiti, vandalism, and illegal billboard advertisements to aggressive drug dealing, hate crimes, and gun violence. The chapter details the interest group environment on the crime issue in two large urban locales, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. At the urban level—unlike the state and national levels—this chapter reveals a stunning array of broadly focused citizen groups that are active and regular participants in crime control politics. These groups range from formal organizations, such as long-standing community councils, to informal and new organizations formed in the aftermath of tragic, violent crimes. They interact with lawmakers through legislative hearings but also through a wide range of informal contacts. In contrast, police and prosecutors are more limited in their interaction with legislators, which shifts problem definitions and policy frames away from punishing offenders and toward broader social problems facing high-crime communities.

Contemporary studies on interest group politics have mainly used single interest organizations as their central objects of study. This has led to a rich body of knowledge on the motivations of interest group mobilization, strategy development and even policy access and influence. The focus on single interest groups, however, has resulted in limited knowledge on aggregate patterns of interest groups’ activity. This article seeks to address this lacuna, by examining patterns of mobilization and conflict of interest groups’ activity in EU legislative policymaking. To do so, it adopts a unique policy-centred research design and an empirical assessment of policy mobilization for a sample of 125 EU legislative proposals based on extensive media coding as well as structured elite interviews. We find that levels of policy mobilization vary substantively across different legislative proposals and that political conflict between interest groups is remarkably low. This suggests that interest group conflict and mobilization contribute little to EU politicization and that in cases where interest groups voice opposing positions, conflicts do not occur between business and non-business groups. Our findings have important implications for our understanding of interest groups in EU legislative policymaking.

The problems that are pertinent to the activities of the interest groups, their relationship with the State, etc., are obviously understudied in Lithuania. Therefore, in this article, the author embarks to ground the analysis by generalizing the empiricaldata. The focus of the study is to identify and analyze tendencies manifested during the initial institutionalization period of the interest group system. In this article, attempts are made to review and evaluate the specifics of the interest group development and to link these evaluations with the transformation of the political system. Owing to the lack of the interest groups' studies in Lithuania, the author deprives his work of ambitious goals. At the same time, he tries to discover what direction the relationships between the State and the interest groups are moving towards – Pluralism, Corporatism, or "somewhere else." The article consists of the following parts: I. Theoretical Models for Analyzing Interest Groups; II. Institutionalization of Interest Groups in Lithuania; This part is divided into: 1. Transformation of the Soviet political system and the interest groups; 2. Founding of the legal environment for interest groups and stages of their development in Lithuania; III. Organized Interests: Representation of Capital andLabor Interests in Lithuania; This part is further divided into: 1. Organized Labor interests – Labor Unions; 2. Organized Labor and Employers' interests; 3. Labor, Business, and State interests: trilateral cooperation, cooperation, and coordination of interests. Seeking to present historical insight into the literature related to the issue of the interest groups, the way they were defined and the problems that were once attached to them and their activities, their place within society, the author refers to J. Madison, A. de Tocqueville, A.F. Bentley, D. Truman, M. Olson, K. Middlemas, G. Wilson, and other scholars. In the first part of the article, the author presents and studies the theoretical models for analyzing interest groups. He states that in liberal democracies, two methodological models are used to ground the research of interest groups, namely, Pluralism and Corporatism. Characteristics, which describe the pattern of interrelationship between the interest groups and the Government, first in Pluralist, later in Corporatist States, are presented. The former is based on references to such scholars like Day and Zeigler, Žeruolis, etc., the latter – on Schmitter. By introducing and elaborating on the third pattern of interrelationship between the State and the interest groups – Clientelism – the author moves over to a comparative analysis of the three. For that sake, Zink is referred to. In the second part of the article, the author first discusses the theoretical premises of interest group functioning and activities in the Soviet systems, based on Skilling's classical 1966 work and 1993 Cox's piece, later adopts basic comparative differences between the western and the Soviet patterns of the relationship between the State and the interest groups. The author presents three stages of evolution of this pattern in the Soviet political system: 1) before 1985; 2) the period between 1985–1990; and 3) the period starting from 1990. Specifics and consequences of each of these periods are depicted. With that token, the author takes upon the load to elaborate on the process of founding the legal environment for interest groups and stages of their development in Lithuania. Scholars from Lithuania and foreign countries are oftentimes cited. The mentioned three stages are embarked as a framework. Within them, the author elucidates several phases. In the third part, the author presents the empirical data, generalizes, and classifies it in order to meet the core objective of the study – to ground the analysis of the pattern of interrelationship between the State and interest groups in Lithuania. The part is divided into three subparts, namely, Organized Labor interests – Labor Unions; Organized Labor and Employers' interests; Labor, Business, and State interests: trilateral cooperation, cooperation, and coordination of interests. The interest groups topic is wide: analysis of the methods concerning the reasons for birth, organizational structure, and methods of activity can be treated as a starting point for scientific research, whereas the ending point of the research could be reserved for studying the patterns of interest groups – state relationships. In this article, the scope of research is limited to three problems. First, the author tried to grasp the connection (and causes) between the changing communist society and the evolution of new interest groups. Second, the author tried to identify the limits of action as delineated by the State with regard to the interest groups. The third problem might be that by using the first two parameters, the author tried to evaluate the initial institutionalization specifics of the interest groups and, by that token, identify the pattern of interaction between the State and the interest groups. Author concludes that the rate of transformation and democratization of the political system in Lithuania determined that the dispersion of the interests in society has been carried very dynamically. He regrets that the volume of the work stood as an obstacle for attempts to analyze the extent the outburst and proliferation of the interest groups surpassed the differentiation of the society itself, and, besides, understand whether this process concurred the new needs of the free market economy. It is said that within the context of the mature political system the pace and dynamics of interest groups evolution were not something outstanding: some years were required to legitimize their activities, as it often happens, the interest groups have to search for the support base in the society, their material basis, human and other resources - scarce. Interestingly, abundance of the interest groups from different sectors stimulates competition, which, oftently urges them to revise the aims and methods of their activity. Gradually the interest groups free themselves from ideologized understanding of their activities, differences concerning the status of their political organizations and themselves come to the fore as well. Author concludes that the most complicated affairs is to describe the relationships between the State and the interest groups. The reason for that, the author says, is simple - still too little time has passed before the activities of the interest groups could be treated as an institutionalized phenomenon. Author expresses doubts whether the pattern of interaction of the State and the interest groups in Lithuania could be described as pluralistic. He gives following reasons for that: first, it is obvious that the political process in Lithuania is neither fragmented, nor dispersed. Besides, State institutions and interest groups are far from being equal partners. On the contrary, the Government oftentimes comes to openly ignore the interest groups. Second, there are no terms of equality and uniform competition among the interest groups themselves - decisions in public politics remind from time to time that some of the groups, due to some reasons, are more equal than others. According to the author, it is even more difficult to test whether this pattern of interrelationship corresponds to the criteria of Corporatism. On the one hand, Corporatism implies coordination of links between the State and the interest groups. On the other - it implies functional inclusion of the interest groups into the decision-making process. Besides, it is characterized by that the State treats interest groups selectively when the pragmatic outlook and specialization of the interest groups in some spheres allows them to depoliticize a number of policy sectors. Efforts of the State to coordinate (sometimes, even aggressively "interfere" in places it should not) the activities of the interest groups in Lithuania are obvious. This proposition is supported by, for example, the activities of the Trilateral Council, which gains effectiveness, influence of the State upon the Trade, Industry and Handicraft House. However, such efforts not always imply effect satisfying every side. Oftentimes, the interest groups express their dissatisfaction with the State, which, according to them, ignores their opinion and passes the decisions that are not political in sense that they ruin business, agriculture and so on. Such situation could infer that the organized interests still come to confront the syndrome of "deafness" and "blindness" on the governmental level. Number of features characteristic to patronage and Clientelism are also observed in contemporary relationships between the State and interest groups. Interest groups are not so strong or influential as to compete with the power and influence of political elite in the decision-making process. Therefore, much, will the interests groups be taken into account or not, depends on the mercy of the latter. Corruption, bribes, lack of transparency in questions like financing of the political campaigns and parties, - all these are the facts proving that the interest groups, which are not allowed to act in ways pertinent to civilized and democratic societies, are forced to act by employing totally different methods.

This chapter looks at the reasons the law enforcement response to hate crimes has been largely ineffective and the impact this has on the capacity for researchers to accurately measure hate crime. The chapter begins by looking at the magnitude of evidence of law enforcement underreporting. Moreover, the burgeoning number of police agencies that voluntarily participate in the UCR Hate Crime Statistics program is contrasted against the negligible increase in police reported hate crimes over the three decades of the program. The chapter reviews the sequential steps involved in reporting beginning with the victim’s decision to report and the first responding police officer’s inclination and ability to accurate classify hate crimes. Explanations for law enforcement underreporting including the inability to accurate classify hate crimes at the moment of the criminal incident are covered. Lastly, chapter 8 reviews research that found that police agencies with written hate crime enforcement and reporting policies and formal hate crime training are more likely to report hate crimes.

In the months after the 2016 Presidential election, many institutions began to focus on deepening their ability to track and report hate crimes. Accurate data on hate crimes allow these organizations — including nonprofits — to advocate both for better prevention efforts and for more support to individual victims and victimized communities. Collecting robust data on hate crimes is one of the most important steps for creating policy responses to the problem. But tracking hate crimes remains difficult for a number of reasons. This report identifies the major challenges that victims, nonprofits, and government stakeholders face in their efforts to define, track, and report on hate crimes in America. These include the difficulties of data collection and pitfalls in drawing inferences from incomplete data. Based on a careful and considered analysis of these hurdles, this report proposes six recommendations tailored to nonprofits seeking to deepen their hate crime tracking efforts: 1. Collaborate with other nonprofits to reach victims and share the burden of collection efforts. 2. Consider adopting a uniform definition of a hate crime, separate from (and broader than) that used by the Uniform Crime Reporting system, to serve as a baseline for data comparison. 3. Review victim outreach strategy. With pooled resources, consider increasing outreach to and support of victims. 4. Be upfront about the shortcomings of data and cautious when making claims about trends over time. 5. If and where resources are available, consider a mixed methods approach for hate crime data collection. 6. Whatever the scope of the study, tailor data collection and analysis to fit its goals and resources. In developing these recommendations, this report’s primary audiences are nonprofit organizations that collect data on hate crimes. At the same time, this report aims to serve as a resource for collaboration between nonprofits, law enforcement, policymakers, and funding partners interested in supporting more robust hate crime data collection efforts. At its core, this report draws attention to the centrality of victims’ experiences, which are crucial to understanding and responding to hate crimes. It does so with the hope that improved reporting efforts will yield support for victims and prevent future hate crimes.

COVID-19, originally reported in China, has brought an increase in anti-Asian and Asian American hate incidents and crimes in the United States. However, research on hate incidents and crimes are relatively new in the field of geography. To provide better ways to investigate hate crime incidents against Asians and Asian Americans during COVID-19, this article draws on various research methods from existing studies on hate crimes. Geographers have focused attention on minority groups linked to different geographic scales, and non-geographic studies have focused mainly on psychological symptoms and impacts on health. Even though existing studies have helped broaden the knowledge of the subject, the geographic aspects of the issue require further examination. This article suggests that geographers should pay more attention to four aspects of research in hate crimes and incidents for future research: avoiding oversimplified concepts, reconsidering relational aspects within the local community, identifying intersectionality and everydayness of people, and engaging more with the practice of the law enforcement and the local communities.

Teaching and Learning Guide for: Isn’t Every Crime a Hate Crime? The Case for Hate Crime Laws

The Hate Crimes Project in the United States, the expanded use of criminal legislation creating enhanced punishment for bias-motivated crimes, is now over twenty-five years old. Today, virtually every state expressly criminalizes bias crimes. Over this quarter century, states have employed different forms of bias crime laws, some focusing on the animus exhibited by the perpetrator of a crime against a member (actual or perceived) of a racial, ethnic, religious, or other included Group, others focusing on the perpetrator's discriminatory selection of his or her victim. Now is therefore a propitious time to begin to evaluate the societal gains and risks associated with bias crime, law enforcement. This paper sets out a framework from which to understand bias crime law, and then considers and addresses many of the issues raised by opponents of the bias crime program. The paper considers four issues in particular. First, opponents have argued that the enhanced punishment of bias crime calls greater attention to racial and ethnic differences in society, therefore exacerbating, not helping, social divisions. Second, those opposed to expanded prosecution for bias-motivated crimes have argued that the bias crime enforcement unconstitutionally, or in any event unwisely, punishes thought and expression, not criminal acts. Third, bias crimes opponents have argued that the potential for selective enforcement of bias crime statutes exists, harming the most disadvantaged members of society and ironically those whom bias crime laws are intended to help. Fourth, opponents question one of the prime justifications for the enhanced punishment of bias crimes - that these crimes cause a greater harm than similar crime without bias motivation - claiming that the bias motivation of the perpetrator per se is not the cause of the harm. Bias crimes per se, the argument goes, should not receive enhanced punishment, rather only crimes, any crimes, that cause these great harms. Finally, the paper offers some observations as to the most general challenge that may be asserted against bias crimes laws: the argument that these laws don't work, that is, that these laws do not prevent or even appreciably reduce levels of bias in society, or even levels of bias crimes. The paper argues that in some ways there is no real answer to this question of whether bias crime laws work but I further argue, in the classic words of the late Alexander Bickel, that no answer is what the wrong question begets. Instead of asking questions about reduction of certain types of crime or ever more so, certain types of social attitudes, we do better to ask whether bias crime laws punish that which society rightly condemns. Taking that path, we are led toward the implications of using bias crime law as a window into a society's self-perception as a multi-cultural society. The extent to which this will end bigotry in society will inevitably be an inquiry that is more aspirational than empirical.

The majority of the research being conducted on hate crime laws deals with civil liberties issues; however, there has been little research conducted on the creation of these laws. In 1986, Ohio joined a growing number of states in enacting hate crime legislation. This article involves a historical analysis of the creation of Ohio’s ethnic intimidation law. Through the use of interviews and archival data, it was found that interest group activity, media campaigns, and a specific triggering event were all influential in the process of enacting this legislation in Ohio. While these findings cannot be generalized to the creation of laws in general, or hate crime laws in other states, this study does fill a gap in the knowledge about the process of enacting laws.

Approaches To Interest Groups * The Rediscovery of Interest Group Politics Mark P. Petracca. * A Deliberative Theory of Interest Representation Jane J. Mansbridge. * Interest Groups and the Policymaking Process: Sources of Countervailing Power in America Andrew S. McFarland. * American Interest Groups in Comparative Perspective Graham K. Wilson. The Organization Of Interests * Interest Group Membership and Organizations: Multiple Theories Paul A. Sabatier. * Triangles, Networks, and Hollow Cores: The Complex Geometry of Washington Interest Representation Robert H. Salisbury, John P. Heinz, Robert L. Nelson, and Edward O. Laumann. * Changing Patterns of Interest Group Activity: A Regional Perspective Clive S. Thomas and Ronald J. Hrebenar. * The Political Mobilization of Business David Plotke. Political Institutions And Interest Groups * Organized Interests and the Nations Capitol John T. Tierney. * Interest Group Mobilization and the Presidency Mark A. Peterson. * Representing the Public Interest: Consumer Groups and the Presidency Joan Lucco. * Conservative Interest Group Litigation in the Reagan Era and Beyond Karen OConnor and Bryant Scott McFall. Interest Group Activity And Influence * Social Movements as Interest Groups: The Case of the Womens Movement Anne N. Costain. * Money, Technology, and Political Interests: The Direct Marketing of Politics R. Kenneth Godwin. * The Rise and Fall of Special Interest Politics Paul E. Peterson. Looking Ahead * The Future of an Interest Group Society M. P. Petracca. *

An important yet poorly understood function of law enforcement organizations is the role they play in distilling and transmitting the meaning of legal rules to frontline law enforcement officers and their local communities. In this study, we examine how police and sheriff's agencies in California collectively make sense of state hate crime laws. To do so, we gathered formal policy documents called “hate crime general orders” from all 397 police and sheriff's departments in the state and conducted interviews with law enforcement officials to determine the aggregate patterns of local agencies' responses to higher law. We also construct a “genealogy of law” to locate the sources of the definitions of hate crime used in agency policies. Despite a common set of state criminal laws, we find significant variation in how hate crime is defined in these documents, which we attribute to the discretion local law enforcement agencies possess, the ambiguity of law, and the surplus of legal definitions of hate crime available in the larger environment to which law enforcement must respond. Some law enforcement agencies take their cue from other agencies, some follow statewide guidelines, and others are oriented toward gaining legitimacy from national professional bodies or groups within their own community. The social mechanisms that produce the observed clustering patterns in terms of approach to hate crime law are mimetic (copying another department), normative (driven by professional standards about training and community social movement pressure), and actuarial (affected by the demands of the crime data collection system). Together these findings paint a picture of policing organizations as mediators between law-on-the-books and law-in-action that are embedded in interorganizational networks with other departments, state and federal agencies, professional bodies, national social movement organizations, and local community groups. The implications of an interorganizational field perspective on law enforcement and implementation are discussed in relation to existing sociolegal research on policing, regulation, and recent neo-institutional scholarship on law.

Future developments for hate crime thinking: who, what and why?, Neil Chakraborti Part One: Developing More Nuanced Understandings of Hate Crime 1. The more things change - post 9/11 trends in hate crime scholarship, Barbara Perry 2. The victimisation of Goths and the boundaries of hate crime, Jon Garland 3. Future challenges for hate crime policy: lessons from the past, Hannah Mason-Bish 4. Homophobic hate crime in Northern Ireland, Marian Duggan 5. Verbal and textual hostility in context, Nicole Asquith 6. Hate crime offenders, Jack McDevitt, Jack Levin, Jim Nolan and Susan Bennett Part Two: Developing More Nuanced Responses to Hate Crime 7. Law enforcement and hate crime: theoretical perspectives on the complexities of policing 'hatred', Nathan Hall 8. From hate to prevent: community safety and counter-terrorism, Derek McGhee 9. Hate crime victims and hate crime reporting: some impertinent questions, Kris Christmann and Kevin Wong 10. Racial aggravation or aggravating racism: overcoming the disjunction between legal and subjective realities, David Gadd 11. Healing harms and engendering tolerance: the promise of restorative justice for hate crime, Mark Walters and Carolyn Hoyle