FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2896650245> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2896650245 abstract "In ‘Our Programme for Government’ published in May 2010, the current UKCoalition Government outlined, amongst other things, its commitment to‘promote better recording of hate crimes against disabled, homosexual andtransgender people, which are frequently not centrally recorded’ (CabinetOffice, 2010: 14). The woeful lack of systematic recording and centralisedcollation of disablist hate crime statistics has been a recurrent lament bythose working in the field (Quarmby, 2008). One of the consequences ofunder-recording is that it can perpetuate the misperception of low levels ofharassment, abuse and violence against disabled people (Sin et al., 2009).Certainly, there is confusion over whether there really is such a thing as ‘disablisthate crime’ and, if so, what it looks like (Adams-Spink, 2008). Similarly, thereis confusion over how we interpret the rise in recorded hate crime (Cox,2009). This lack of clarity is extremely unhelpful. As Anne Novis, who leadson hate crime issues for the UK Disabled People’s Council, puts it, the lack ofnational statistics means no strategic high-level work to deal with the issue, noappropriate funding, no local initiatives ensured (Pring, 2010).While the government’s declared commitment to improving recording ofdisablist and other hate crimes is laudable (Cabinet Office, 2010), it is importantto recognise that recording comes after reporting. Simply because a disabledperson may have reported to relevant authorities does not mean that theincident will be recorded appropriately or at all. The authorities have to take thereport seriously and to recognise that the reported incident is a hate crime,before it is actually recorded as such. Even though police forces across England,Wales and Northern Ireland have, since April 2008, been required to collect‘hate crime’ data consistently, there are doubts as to whether the data aremeaningful. For example, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO)published hate crime statistics for the period January to December 2009showing a high of 117 disablist hate crimes recorded by Gwent Police to a low ofzero for City of London Police, Cleveland Police and Durham Constabulary(ACPO, 2010). Does this mean that there is a higher level of targeted violenceand hostility against disabled people in Gwent, and hence is an indicator ofis at recording them as such? For recording to be meaningful as an indication ofthe prevalence of disablist hate crime, there needs to be better reporting.In terms of how it is being discussed, the recording of disablist hate crime isrepresented as a criminal justice issue. Principally, the police have a responsibilityfor recording. Two issues arise from this representation of, and orientationtowards, recording. First, disabled victims are known to under-report to criminaljustice agencies (Sin et al., 2009). Recorded incidents are therefore not indicativeof the wider sets of experience and the true prevalence of disablist hate crime.Recorded hate crime statistics therefore need to be interpreted with caution.Second, to simply view the police as having the sole responsibility forrecording disablist hate crime is to misunderstand the nature of disablist hatecrime (See the chapter by Roulstone and Sadique in this volume) and thewider sets of reporting practices. While disabled people under-report tocriminal justice agencies, it does not mean that they do not report at all. Yetvery little is known about who else they report to, and what happens to thisinformation.At the same time, however, there are a plethora of national and localinitiatives to encourage better reporting of disablist hate crime (Sheikh et al.,2011). While acknowledging the good intentions behind these initiatives, it isimportant to pause and appraise critically the extent to which models of hatecrime reporting are indeed appropriate. After all, the tragic case of FionaPilkington and her daughter Francecca Hardwick attests to the fact thatreporting, in and of itself, may not necessarily lead to actions being taken(Leicestershire and Rutland Safeguarding Adults Board, 2008). More recently,David Askew, who collapsed and died in his garden, was found to have reportedincidents to the police 88 times in 6 years, to no avail (Williams, 2011).The willingness of the criminal justice system to replicate initiatives, perhapsdrawn from the experience of other forms of hate crime, can be based uponunproven assumptions as to the cause of under-reporting of disablist hatecrime. For example, the reasons for under-reporting homophobic hate crimesare quite different from those for disablist hate crimes. Dick (2009) hastherefore argued against the uncritical expansion of different initiatives toencourage reporting, such as third-party reporting services, in the absence ofany critical assessment of their efficacy for different types of hate crime. Thischapter provides a timely appraisal of how we may encourage and improvereporting of disablist hate crime. In order to surmount the challenges aroundunder-reporting, there is a need to understand specific barriers to, andexperiences of, reporting. These have to be contextualised against the differenttypes of reporting behaviours and motivations. Currently, the evidence base isskewed towards documenting and explaining under-reporting to the police.This rich seam of evidence certainly points to a range of barriers and potentialsolutions (see Sin et al., 2009 for a review). Yet addressing this set of policingrelated barriers will only solve part of the problem. There is a compelling casetothe formal procedural aspects that we have come to understand reporting by.Without this understanding, strategies that rely solely on the criminal justicesystem and on third-party reporting centres to encourage reporting will flounder.There is already quite a substantial body of evidence on under-reporting ofdisablist hate crime to the police, and reasons for this. At the risk of oversimplification, these can be grouped under two main categories. The firstrelates to perceptions and experiences of the police. These may involve specific experiences of reporting to the police, but can also involve impressionsformed of the police as a result of other encounters. The second involves moregeneral issues relating to the structural position of disabled people in societyand the implications this has for relationships, attitudes and awareness." @default.
• W2896650245 created "2018-10-26" @default.
• W2896650245 creator A5076069465 @default.
• W2896650245 date "2012-08-21" @default.
• W2896650245 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W2896650245 title "Making disablist hate crime visible: addressing the challenges of improving reporting: Chih Hoong Sin" @default.
• W2896650245 doi "https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203104460-20" @default.
• W2896650245 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W2896650245 type Work @default.
• W2896650245 sameAs 2896650245 @default.
• W2896650245 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2896650245 crossrefType "book-chapter" @default.
• W2896650245 hasAuthorship W2896650245A5076069465 @default.
• W2896650245 hasConcept C11171543 @default.
• W2896650245 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2896650245 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2896650245 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2896650245 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2896650245 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W2896650245 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2896650245 hasConcept C2777146004 @default.
• W2896650245 hasConcept C2778137410 @default.
• W2896650245 hasConcept C2778976716 @default.
• W2896650245 hasConcept C2781140086 @default.
• W2896650245 hasConcept C2992380910 @default.
• W2896650245 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W2896650245 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2896650245 hasConcept C54745167 @default.
• W2896650245 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W2896650245 hasConcept C73484699 @default.
• W2896650245 hasConcept C78519656 @default.
• W2896650245 hasConceptScore W2896650245C11171543 @default.
• W2896650245 hasConceptScore W2896650245C127413603 @default.
• W2896650245 hasConceptScore W2896650245C138885662 @default.
• W2896650245 hasConceptScore W2896650245C15744967 @default.
• W2896650245 hasConceptScore W2896650245C17744445 @default.
• W2896650245 hasConceptScore W2896650245C185592680 @default.
• W2896650245 hasConceptScore W2896650245C199539241 @default.
• W2896650245 hasConceptScore W2896650245C2777146004 @default.
• W2896650245 hasConceptScore W2896650245C2778137410 @default.
• W2896650245 hasConceptScore W2896650245C2778976716 @default.
• W2896650245 hasConceptScore W2896650245C2781140086 @default.
• W2896650245 hasConceptScore W2896650245C2992380910 @default.
• W2896650245 hasConceptScore W2896650245C39549134 @default.
• W2896650245 hasConceptScore W2896650245C41895202 @default.
• W2896650245 hasConceptScore W2896650245C54745167 @default.
• W2896650245 hasConceptScore W2896650245C55493867 @default.
• W2896650245 hasConceptScore W2896650245C73484699 @default.
• W2896650245 hasConceptScore W2896650245C78519656 @default.
• W2896650245 hasLocation W28966502451 @default.
• W2896650245 hasOpenAccess W2896650245 @default.
• W2896650245 hasPrimaryLocation W28966502451 @default.
• W2896650245 hasRelatedWork W1537793732 @default.
• W2896650245 hasRelatedWork W1987722185 @default.
• W2896650245 hasRelatedWork W2142536948 @default.
• W2896650245 hasRelatedWork W2592433676 @default.
• W2896650245 hasRelatedWork W2595364840 @default.
• W2896650245 hasRelatedWork W2598750078 @default.
• W2896650245 hasRelatedWork W2616214969 @default.
• W2896650245 hasRelatedWork W2765529395 @default.
• W2896650245 hasRelatedWork W2894769456 @default.
• W2896650245 hasRelatedWork W2903696278 @default.
• W2896650245 hasRelatedWork W2991291755 @default.
• W2896650245 hasRelatedWork W2995762192 @default.
• W2896650245 hasRelatedWork W3003608724 @default.
• W2896650245 hasRelatedWork W3014851092 @default.
• W2896650245 hasRelatedWork W3182160965 @default.
• W2896650245 hasRelatedWork W3202811266 @default.
• W2896650245 hasRelatedWork W6247943 @default.
• W2896650245 hasRelatedWork W85100815 @default.
• W2896650245 hasRelatedWork W2595768947 @default.
• W2896650245 hasRelatedWork W645684746 @default.
• W2896650245 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2896650245 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2896650245 magId "2896650245" @default.
• W2896650245 workType "book-chapter" @default.