Anomalies in the application of law related to hate crimes

Hate crime and hate speech are extreme examples of negative intergroup relations. It is thought that it would be very useful to analyze the variables that lead up to for dealing with hate speech and crimes that have many physical and psychological destructive consequences for the exposed group members. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to address some of the social psychological variables associated with hate speech and hate crimes and to suggest solutions to reduce hate speech and hate crimes in this context. For this purpose, first of all, hate speech and hate crimes were defined and various examples were presented in this direction. Later, hate crimes and hate speech were examined in terms of social identity identification, social dominance orientation, system justification, realistic and symbolic threat perception, frustration and scapegoat concepts. The relationship between hate speech and crimes of this concept has been embodied with research findings and examples from various regions in Turkey and the world. Finally, some solution suggestions have been presented by making use of this theoretical knowledge in terms of combating hate crimes and hate speeches. Keywords: Hate crime, hate speech, intergroup relations, social psychology

Prior studies document the complexity of hate crime determination by police. The likelihood of criminal justice intervention into cases of hate crime is influenced by several factors including the situational, officer, agency, and structural. While most work focuses on the hate crimes clearance via arrest and federal reporting compliance, there is limited attention on earlier points of police discretion in potential hate crime cases. To add, most scholarship has been focused on between-agency behavior while ignoring internal organizational processes that may influence hate crime police response. We employed a multilevel analysis of crime incidents from the Los Angeles Police Department to clarify the predictors of hate crime case funneling, focusing on the likelihood of official classification as well as police arrest. Our findings suggest some degree of neighborhood clustering and that police intervention into hate crime is constrained by a host of situational, organizational, and other environmental factors.

Several constructs have been identified as relevant to the juror decision-making process in hate crime cases. However, there is a lack of research on the relationships between these constructs and their variable influence across victim group. The purpose of the current study was to reexamine factors relevant to the juror decision-making process in hate crime cases within a structural model, and across victim group, to gauge the relative strength and explanatory power of various predictors. In the current study, 313 participants sentenced a perpetrator found guilty of a hate crime committed against either a Black man or a gay man; participants also responded to individual difference measures relevant to mock juror hate crime decision making, including prejudice toward the victim's social group. Using path analysis, we explored the role of juror prejudice on sentencing decisions in hate crime cases as well as similarities and differences based on the victimized group. Results indicated that, when the victim was a Black man, modern racism influenced sentencing both directly and indirectly through perpetrator blame attributions, explaining 18% of the variance in sentencing. In contrast, when the victim was a gay man, modern homophobia did not directly predict sentencing, and the overall model explained only 4% of the variance in sentencing, suggesting variables beyond juror prejudice may be better suited to explain juror decision making in sexual orientation-based hate crimes. The current study suggests that the role of juror prejudice in hate crime cases varies as a function of the victimized group and raises questions about the importance of juror prejudice in the sentencing of hate crime cases, particularly antigay prejudice. The importance of blame attributions, social dominance orientation, and juror beliefs regarding penalty enhancements for hate crime cases, as well as policy implications, are also addressed.

violation of the equality ideal. At most, this latter conception of bias crime statutes can assert that crimes based on the protected characteristics threaten the equality ideal because these characteristics have generally been the basis of past discrimination—but they cannot locate either the harm risked by the perpetrator or his individual culpability more precisely. 2. The Potential Underinclusiveness Problem This proposed solution to the overinclusiveness problem of bias crimes does not address the potential underinclusiveness question. Why, for example, are the elderly and the disabled typically not included within bias crime statutes? Formulating the list of protected characteristics that should be included within bias crimes statutes is a complex question without a single solution whose full elaboration is beyond the scope of this article. A few points, however, follow naturally from the above analysis. Clearly, political factors influence the calculation of the proper scope of bias crime laws, as debates over the inclusion of gender and sexual orientation as protected characteristics demonstrate. In response to political pressure, the scope of bias crimes has been rapidly increasing. This phenomenon threatens to seriously weaken bias crime laws. Legislative judgment about which characteristics are likely to make their bearers targets of violent discrimination helps sharpen the focus of bias crimes, feeding more clearly into the historical experience that justifies the penalty enhancement associated with these crimes. Having too many groups including within 149. See, e.g., Julie Goldscheid, Gender-Motivated Violence: Developing A Meaningful Paradigm for Civil Rights Enforcement, 22 Harv. Women’s L.J. 123 (1999). 150. Martin S. Zwerling, Legislating Against Hate in New York: Bias Crimes and the Lesbian and Gay Community, 11 Touro L. Rev. 529 (1995); Anthony S. Winer, Hate Crimes, Homosexuals, and the Constitution, 29 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 387 (1994). 151. Historical and contemporary social contexts suggest why certain aspects of peoples’ identity provoke a strong sense of solidarity with other members of the This content downloaded from 157.55.39.177 on Tue, 15 Nov 2016 03:56:32 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms DANNERMACRO 5/5/2003 4:42 PM 2002] CULPABILITY IN CONTEXT 447 the definition of bias crimes risks reducing the higher stigma associated with this kind of crime. Generally rejecting the expansion of bias crime statutes, however, does not resolve the question of which groups should properly be included within their reach. Whether gender should be considered a protected characteristic, for example, demonstrates the difficulty of the inquiry about which characteristics should be included and which should be excluded. Women have historically been subjected to discrimination in many facets of their lives, including voting and employment. Whether women are still subject to widespread discrimination is less obvious. The model of bias crime presented here focuses on the perpetrator’s choice of the victim as a representative of a group of which he is a member. The victim’s group affiliation has more importance than any individual characteristics of the victim; indeed, this is what distinguishes bias crimes from general vulnerable victim statutes. Thus, some crimes typically committed against women, like acquaintance rape, fit uncomfortably within the bias crimes model. The question of whether gender group. For these reasons, vulnerability can and should be seen as especially salient along the dimensions of the protected characteristics currently articulated in existing bias crimes. Thus, I believe that Kenneth Simons’s response to Harel & Parchomovsky’s article is misguided. See Simons, supra note 21, at 241 (arguing that race, religion, and the other characteristics protected by bias crimes are less important predictors of victims’ vulnerability due to other factors, like “geography, wealth, class, and similar factors”). Vulnerability generally might be more dependent on the factors that Simon mentions, but these characteristics are less likely to constitute the basis of widespread harm to other members of the “group,” precisely because the relevant characteristics are less salient to their members. 152. Cf. William A. Schabas, Genocide in International Law 114 (2000) (arguing for a narrow definition of the crime of genocide: “for society to define a crime so heinous that it will occur only rarely is testimony to the value of such a precise formulation. Diluting the definition, either by formal amendment or its terms or by extravagant interpretation of the existing text, risks trivializing the horror of the real crime when it is committed”). 153. Perhaps the problem can be resolved through the statutory formulation of bias crimes. In a bias crime, the perpetrator must select the victim in at least substantial part because of his or her membership in a protected group. The acquaintance rapist might not primarily select his victim because she is a woman but instead because of some other characteristic. If that characteristic is not This content downloaded from 157.55.39.177 on Tue, 15 Nov 2016 03:56:32 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms DANNERMACRO 5/5/2003 4:42 PM 448 BUFFALO CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 6:389 should be included in bias crimes statutes should turn on the pervasiveness of discrimination against women, and how many of the crimes committed against women reflect perpetration because of their identity as women, rather than other factors less central to the purpose of bias crime statutes. The discussion of bias crimes in this article also provides legislators with other criteria they might use when evaluating the propriety of expanding the scope of characteristics protected by bias crimes. History is clearly an important factor. Has the characteristic historically been the basis for discrimination? Race, ethnicity, national origin, and religion easily qualify here, as would sexual orientation. Contemporary circumstances must also be considered. Prejudices that were vivid hundreds of years ago but have no contemporary currency clearly should not be included within these statutes. Legislators should also consider the particular characteristics of discrimination within their jurisdiction. Some groups, one could imagine, would be likely targets of discrimination across the United States and thus would be included in all bias crime statutes, while others might be particularly vulnerable only in particular regions. specifically included within the reach of the bias crime statute, the acquaintance rape should not be considered a bias crime. Even assuming, however, that the “because of” formula helps distinguish between crimes that fit within the bias crimes model and those that do not, this resolution does not identify which characteristics should be included within the statute generally. 154. Cf. United States v. McCall, 174 F.3d 47, 50 (2d Cir. 1998) (construing the federal vulnerable victim enhancement and stating “broad generalizations about victims based upon their membership in a class are disfavored where a very substantial portion of the class is not in fact particularly vulnerable to the crime in question. In such cases, courts have required that the enhancement be based on individualized findings as to the vulnerability of particular victims”). While individualized findings as to particular victims would not be appropriate for bias crimes statutes because of the relative importance of the group over the individual, considering the proportion of crimes committed against members of a group that are likely to be considered bias crimes might prove a useful way of determining whether or not the characteristic should be included within the bias crime statute. 155. Gays and lesbians, for example, might fit this description. See Herek, supra note 14, at 945 (noting that “sexual prejudice is still acceptable in many quarters of American society”). I imagine that African Americans, Latinos, and other minority racial groups would also likely be considered vulnerable groups This content downloaded from 157.55.39.177 on Tue, 15 Nov 2016 03:56:32 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms DANNERMACRO 5/5/2003 4:42 PM 2002] CULPABILITY IN CONTEXT 449 Legislators also might consider whether the characteristic is likely to make the victims subject to attack because of social discrimination against this group or because it is a proxy for some other quality, such as physical helplessness. This type of inquiry makes some characteristics, like age and disability, problematic for inclusion within the reach of bias crime statutes. While crimes against the elderly should certainly be seen as crimes targeting vulnerable victims, they should not be defined as bias crimes. Discrimination—not opportunism— is the foundation of the bias crime perpetrator’s culpability. If one believes, as I do, that the category of bias crimes should be narrow, inevitably groups that resemble those already included within the reach of bias crime statues will feel unfairly excluded. As Jacobs and Potter point out in their comprehensive critique of bias crimes, the judgment about the proper scope of these statutes is inescapably political. While the legislative crafting of bias crime statutes should be informed by clear questions and criteria, the difficulty of the inquiry is unavoidable.

Introduction . The large-scale transformations in the law enforcement and judicial system of the Russian Federation, which correlate with both political and socio-economic context, have resulted in the significant change of the role assigned to the certain legal and state institutions. Moreover, the reform of the law enforcement authorities has influenced the issues of the notary system organisation and its interaction with other law enforcement and regulatory authorities. This paper analyses various standpoints of authors and scientists on this issue, as well as regulatory legal acts directly affecting the notary. The purpose of this study is to identify the problematic aspects in interaction of the notarial, law enforcement and judicial authorities of the Russian Federation within performing the certain notary actions at the present stage of the legal system development. Materials and Methods. In the article the problems in organisation of the notarial, law enforcement and judicial authorities interaction in the Russian Federation within performing the notary actions are analysed. In the course of the research, general scientific as well as specific scientific methods were used, in particular the dialectical method of cognition, the method of cognitive analysis, the sociological method and others. Results . The activity of the notary, despite its private status, should be considered as the element affiliated with the state system. At the same time, the system of notarisation stands separately from the conventional civil-law procedures and has the state-legal status. A notary, when performing the certain notary actions, is guided by the rules of the special character and appropriate for the specific case notary action. The conclusion is made that in the frame of this process, a notary follows the rules generally applicable to all the notary actions performed. Discussion and Conclusions. The problems in organisation of the notarial, law enforcement and judicial authorities’ interaction in the Russian Federation within performing the certain notary actions have been detected, the solutions have been proposed. The legal policy objectives imply the need to improve the legal framework of notaries’ activity in terms of interaction with the law enforcement and judicial authorities. The author's main conclusions have theoretical and practical significance and potential for further research on the topic.

Held at the Merseyside Maritime Museum on 13 October 2015, this conference brought together recent research, policy, and practice to discuss the latest developments in challenging hate crime. Organized by the International Criminological Research Unit (ICRU) at the University of Liverpool, in with Merseyside Police and Moving On with Life and Learning (MOWLL), the importance of partnership echoed throughout the day. The transdisciplinary nature of the conference invited speakers from a range of fields to explore the impact of hate crime for the communities too often placed at the centre of victimology. The wide range of speakers included activists, academics, and practitioners representing disability, race, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity. While recognizing the unique cases of hate crime for these different communities, the idea of collaboration was central to developing future debates that could continue to challenge all aspects of hate crime.Introducing the day's keynotes, Professor David Ormerod employed a political interpretation of hate crime. In relation to the project assigned to the Law of Commissions by the Ministry of Justice, he provided a brief outline of the Commissions response for the development of hate crime legislation. The primary concern underpinning this project was the need to extend the categories of aggravated and stirring up hatred so that they applied to all five protected characteristics. In a politically informed exploration of the conceptual tensions underpinning hate crime legislation, Professor Ormerod concluded by giving the final recommendation of the Commission not to extend the current offences. Although justified on the basis that such offences lacked relevance to the forms of hate crime most often experienced by both lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT), and disabled communities, this conclusion generated a varied response among the academics, activists, and professionals in the room. While I recognized the political complexity that legislative change entails, this conclusion left me pondering the political misinterpretation of a human rights agenda that continued a system of legislative discrepancy. Moreover, I could not help feeling pessimistic about the political developments aiming to challenge hate crime. If disabled and LGBT communities are not given equal status and protection in legislation, I wonder how they might gain this in a society that has historically nurtured a rejection of difference.Centred on a approach to the of hate crime, Professor Paul Iganski invited us to move away from the criminological focus of reporting crime toward a perspective on both the spatial and psycho-social consequences. The psycho-social approach extended my own interpretation of victimization, and led me to focus not only on the instant physical and emotional effects of hate crime but also on those of post-traumatic stress, identity, and visibility. Perhaps of greater impact, however, Professor Iganski reaffirmed the spatial impact of hate crime, such as the sense of locational imprisonment, whereby many communities feel restricted and have to avoid certain areas that threaten their identity. The unsettling severity of a global problem questions the cultural and social conditions in which hate crime is nested, probing the need for preventative measures on both individual and community levels. Professor Iganski's attempt to move toward a public health approach therefore encouraged a model of resistance and prevention predicated upon a communitive challenge to hate crime.These keynotes introduced the conference to hate crime in relation to race, religion, gender identity, and sexual orientation. However, my main reflections here are on the work of Professor Alan Roulstone regarding disablist hate crime.1Professor Roulstone introduced the conference to many of the issues faced when challenging disablist hate crime. …

The horrific stories of James Byrd Jr., Matthew Shepard and Stephen Lawrence are forever etched in criminal law. In each of these cases, activists, family members, politicians, academics, the public and media all reacted in their unique way to bring the problem of ‘hate crime’ onto the agenda. There are many other cases that have activated such a public imagination, or what we call ‘figurehead’ cases, yet the factors pertinent to figurehead recognition remain under-explored within hate crime scholarship. Using a case study analysis, three racist and heterosexist hate crime cases are examined in order to assess the individual and collective conditions that facilitated their place on the public agenda. This analysis has important implications for the category of ‘disability’, and highlights several shortcomings that forestall the recognition of ‘disablist hate crime’ publicly, legislatively and judicially. It is argued that the positioning of disability as ‘abject’ has inhibited the operationalization of disablist violence within the hate crime framework, and within criminal justice systems more generally.

Hate crimes are motivated by perpetrators' prejudice toward targets' group. To examine individuals' attitudes toward hate crime perpetrators and targets, participants responded to vignettes of court cases in which the victim's group membership was varied. Results showed that participants recommended more severe sentences for perpetrators when the targets of their crimes were not White males or White females and reported those crimes as more closely fitting the definition of "hate crime." These results show that participants consider penalty enhancements appropriate for hate crimes and that they do not consider crimes against women to be hate crimes, consistent with present hate crime legislation. These results have implications for the utility and support of hate crime legislation but may showcase the resistance to expanding the legislation to protect individuals of other groups, especially women.

Hate crimes (or bias crimes) are crimes motivated by an offenders’ personal bias against a particular social group. Modern hate crimes legislation developed out of civil rights protections based on race, religion, and national origin; however, the acts that constitute a hate crime have expanded over time, as have the groups protected by hate crimes legislation. Anti-LGBT hate crimes, in which victims are targeted based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. LGBT people are highly overrepresented as victims of hate crimes given the number of LGBT people in the population, and this is especially true of hate crimes against transgender women. Despite the frequency of these crimes, the legal framework for addressing them varies widely across the United States. Many states do not have specific legislation that addresses anti-LGBT hate crimes, while others have legislation that mandates data collection on those crimes but does not enhance civil or criminal penalties for them, and some offer enhanced civil and/or criminal penalties. Even in states that do have legislation to address these types of hate crimes, some states only address hate crimes based on sexual orientation but not those based on gender identity. The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act gives the federal government the authority to prosecute those crimes regardless of jurisdiction; however, this power has been used in a limited capacity. Hate crimes are distinct from other crimes that are not motivated by bias. For example, thrill seeking, retaliation, or the desire to harm or punish members of a particular social group often motivates perpetrators of hate crimes; these motivations often result in hate crimes being more violent than other similar crimes. The difference in the motivation of offenders also has significant consequences for victims, both physically and mentally. Victims of hate crimes are more likely to require medical attention than victims of non-bias crimes. Likewise, victims of hate crimes, and especially anti-LGBT hate crimes, often experience negative psychological outcomes, such as PTSD, depression, or anxiety as a result of being victimized for being a member of an already marginalized social group.

By early 2024, 85% of criminal investigations involved digital data in the European Union (EU or the Union). Despite the progressive development of the EU’s toolbox in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters, there is little emphasis on establishing European minimum standards for the reliability of digital evidence. Furthermore, the Court of Justice of the EU (cjeu) has reiterated that, as EU law currently stands, it is for the domestic law to determine the rules relating to the admissibility and assessment of evidence obtained and to implement rules governing the assessment and weighting of such material. In this regard, most legal systems assume that evidence is authentic unless proven otherwise. Nonetheless, a mechanism governing this area is particularly important, as digital evidence introduces additional concerns, such as potential technological biases and the increasing prevalence of manipulated content, like deepfakes, compared to traditional evidence. Furthermore, the lack of reliability assessments at time of the proceedings significantly impacts on the fairness of the criminal proceedings in respect to the right to equality of arms. In this regard, the Union legislator, through Recital 59 of Regulation 2024/1689, which establishes harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (ai Act), acknowledges the vulnerabilities linked to the deployment of ai systems by law enforcement authorities. These systems can create a significant power imbalance, potentially leading to surveillance, arrest, or deprivation of a person’s liberty, along with other adverse impacts on fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (Charter). Consequently, certain ai systems used by the police are classified as high-risk due to their impact on ‘the exercise of important procedural fundamental rights, such as the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial as well as the right of defence and the presumption of innocence, could be hampered, in particular, where such ai systems are not sufficiently transparent, explainable and documented’. Furthermore, the Union recognises the importance of accuracy, reliability, and transparency in these ai systems to prevent adverse impacts, maintain public trust, and ensure accountability and effective redress. However, it is unclear how the ai Act will contribute to the establishment of reliability standards in cases where digital evidence is gathered or generated by ai systems. In addition to that, the Union has the competence to set minimum standards for the mutual admissibility of evidence between Member States, in accordance with Article 82(2) of Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (tfeu). However, for the time being, it appears reluctant to shed light on the matter despite its implications on the fairness of the criminal proceedings. Although the new Regulation 2023/1543 on e-Evidence (e-Evidence Regulation) acknowledges the challenges faced by law enforcement and judicial authorities in exchanging electronic evidence, it fails to address this specific aspect. The paper seeks to determine whether these laws, as they stand, can safeguard the requirements for reliability standards in connection with the right to a fair trial, or/and if there is a clear need for a legislative proposal. To this end, after providing some insights about the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (afsj) (Section ii), the paper will address the concepts of digital evidence and reliability and their relevance in relation to the right of fair trial (Section iii). Furthermore, it will provide an analysis of the relevant provisions within the e-Evidence Regulation (Section iv).

Introduction. In June 2025, Russia hosted a high-level premiere Seminar on depoliticized cooperation in criminal matters for BRICS member states and partner countries. The article is based on the author’s report and its discussion and other key deliverables of the seminar as well as takes stock of available solutions to overcome the current unacceptable state of affairs in this field. Materials and methods. The article explores relevant international treaties, domestic laws and regulations, and draft legislation. It is also sourced from case law of international courts, national and foreign jurisprudence, legal practices of interstate, domestic and foreign law enforcement and judicial authorities, as well as scholarly literature. The applied methodology includes the formal legal and comparative methods, methods of systemic and structural analysis, and synthesis of social and legal phenomena. Results of the study. The impact of global politics on international cooperation between judicial, police and other law enforcement authorities and financial intelligence units is a matter of fact. However, the domestic legislation on “unfriendly states” per se does not concern the area of interstate cooperation in criminal matters. The question is whether that impact is reasonable and/or lawful under international law. Currently, on the subject’s major points we have to answer in the negative, since the refusals of mutual assistance mostly run counter to the refusing countries’ binding international legal obligations, violating the pacta sunt servanda principle, and in many cases are against common sense. The article breaks down these political denials into categories and then analyzes each of them. They are (infrequent) direct political refusals of assistance, those camouflaged under the human rights cover blaming Russia for not being party to the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights anymore, as well as the phenomenon of “ghosting”. Switzerland’s destructive approach of a “judicial smoke screen” and the selective one by the United States and Canada stand out from the pack. The total damaging effect for various areas of life, assessed in the publication, is hard to overestimate. Discussion and conclusion. The paper takes stock of the prospects and all available solutions, such as exercising reciprocity, various peaceful means of settlement of disputes, submission of the dispute to the International Court of Justice, discusses its case law on the subject of judicial assistance, as well as evaluates the feasibility of each option. It offers insights into relevant domestic legislative initiatives worked out by the Prosecutor General’s Office and aimed at enhancing the application of the principle “aut dedere aut judicare”, blocking foreign and international extraterritorial operations to gather evidence and intelligence on Russian soil, including electronic evidence in cyberspace, and in parallel strengthening Russia’s own use of extraterritorial mechanisms within what is permissible under international law, among others, within the framework of the new UN Convention against Cybercrime and improving the use of consular legal assistance by videoconferencing. At the same time, the Russian principal central authority for legal assistance in criminal matters opposes any dismantling of the existing treaty base, termination or suspension of the operation of bilateral and multilateral anti-crime and counter-terrorism treaties, including the Council of Europe conventions.

Accurate and detailed information on the nature of hate crimes in the United States has been hindered by limitations in the compiling of hate crime statistics. The National Hate Crime Investigation Study (NHCIS) collected data from a nationally representative sample of law enforcement agencies across the U.S. about the numbers of hate crimes investigated during 2018. Results show differences in a variety of case characteristics across four major categories of bias motivation (race/ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation/gender identity, and disability). Results suggest that police may miss hate crimes with bias motivations that are not clearly connected to common culturally recognized indicators. Training around non-stereotypical hate crime cases may help to identify and strengthen hate crime evidence.

Supporters of hate crime legislation suggest that the primary reason for the codification of hate crime laws is “to send a strong message of tolerance and equality, signaling to all members of society that hatred and prejudice on the basis of identity will be punished with extra severity.” However, hate crime laws may actually be accomplishing the opposite effect of tolerance and equality because they encourage U.S. citizens to view themselves, not as members of our society, but as members of a protected group. The enactment of hate crime legislation at the federal and state levels has led to unintended consequences and unfair practices. Today, the controversy regarding the effectiveness of hate crime laws is debated, and people question whether this type of legislation is beneficial to society. This article will candidly reevaluate hate crime legislation. Part II will provide the definition of the term “hate crime” and the theoretical justification for enhanced sentencing involving discrimination-based conduct. Focus will be placed on data that disproves the theory that hate crime laws reduce or deter future hate crimes. It will also explain the underlying reasons for the enactment of hate crime laws, such as the media’s role and political influences, and it will present several of the misconceptions associated with hate crime legislation. Part III will present the unintended consequences associated with the enactment of hate crime statutes, including constitutional violations. It will also explain why hate crimes are rarely prosecuted, and will focus on the inconsistency, redundancy, and arbitrary usage/application of hate crime legislation. Part III will also present an individual’s response to the negative, unintended effects of hate crime legislation. Part IV will determine that hate crime legislation is not cost-effective. Part V sets forth a recommendation on improving community efforts to educate or reeducate citizens on respecting diversity. Finally, the article analyzes hate crime laws from supporting and opposing viewpoints and concludes that there is no need to separate hate crimes from other types of crimes as a means to promote a more tolerant, equal, and stable society.

The article is devoted to defining the concept and methods of interaction of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine with other law enforcement a. The meaning of the concept of "methods" is revealed. It is proposed to understand the methods of interaction of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine with other law enforcement agencies as a set of tools used by these entities within the current legislation to organize and maintain relations between them to ensure border security, prevent smuggling, illegal migration and transnational crime. Features of such administrative methods of management as regulatory, administrative and normative are considered. It is noted that regulatory methods take place in the interaction of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine with other law enforcement authorities. It is determined that persuasion as a universal method of management in the interaction of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine with other law enforcement authorities is absent, and an example of the method of coercion is liability for non-compliance with acts of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine. Such organizational methods in interaction of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine with other law enforcement authorities as planning, forecasting, method of information support, method of decision making, methods of organizing the implementation of decisions and monitoring their implementation, methods of instructing and work with personnel are singled out. Emphasis is placed on economic methods in the interaction of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine with other law enforcement authorities. The results of the survey show the problems in the use of methods of legal regulation, prohibitions, coercion, coordination, control in the management of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine, which affect the effectiveness of its interaction with other law enforcement authorities and should be studied separately.

In order to protect the life and safety of hostages in hostage-taking crimes, Criminal Law stipulates provisions for reducing the sentence in Articles 295-2 and 324-6. The purpose of the regulation is to deter secondary crime against hostages as an incentive for actors to safely release hostages. However, it is somewhat questionable whether the preferential treatment of criminal policy at the level of arbitrary mitigation is an effective motive for the hostage offenders to safely release the hostage. Accordingly, using the sequential game model of game theory, this study analyzes what selective strategies are carried out under the interdependence between hostage criminals and law enforcement authorities.
 In the game model, the compensation vector of each participant used Becker's equation of criminal utility theory. First, the strategic choices of hostage offenders, law enforcement authorities, the general public, and law enforcement authorities were examined separately to derive the limit and general deterrence effects of the hostage release reduction regulations respectively. In addition, in the strategic choice analysis between hostage offenders and law enforcement authorities, the tendency of hostage offenders was divided into risk avoidance, risk neutrality, and risk preference type, and in each case, the hostage offender made a choice between necessary reduction or arbitrary reduction. In order to promote the safety of hostages, necessary reduction or exemption was found to be the most effective incentive. However, it should be noted that this result may give the wrong signal as an incentive for hostage crimes to the general public, who are potential criminals.
 Furthermore, this study also examines the possible improvements of the current liberation reduction regulations by reflecting the golden time in relation to the age of hostages. Given that the purpose of the liberation and mitigation regulations is to protect the lives and security of hostages, it is highly likely that the law enforcement authorities' attempts to negotiate after the golden time will be meaningless. It was confirmed that the golden time, which can guarantee the safety of the hostages, has a large time difference depending on the age of the hostages. As a result, in order to ensure the safety of hostages and to ensure the fair exercise of national punishment rights, the temporal application of the liberation and mitigation regulations should be more precisely defined by reflecting the golden time. In order to safely release hostages within the period by applying the golden time, the average time after victims are robbed and attracted, the need to define greater incentives for compensation than the current arbitrary reduction should be considered.
 Finally, this study suggests that the method of statistics collection and crime analysis on hostage crimes needs to be completely reorganized as a premise to reflect the difference in golden time in legislation.