Well documented in the lives of people with intellectual disability are greatly increased occurrences of adverse life events, exposure to abuse (emotional, physical, sexual), neglect, exploitation, victimisation, and hate crimes, in contrast to the general population. Shockingly, abuse has been reported in developmental service systems at even higher rates and in specialist treatment units such as Winterbourne View and Whorlton Hall. People with intellectual disability also experience trauma associated with physical restraint to manage behaviours that challenge services, negative consequences of psychotropic medication, greater exposure to painful medical procedures consequent to health issues, particularly in early and late stages of life and greater than typical discontinuities in care related to hospital admissions, respite, and staff turnover in group and institutional living. The evidence to support medication treatment in post-traumatic stress disorder is reviewed.

Chapter 6 explores the distinction between the legal concepts of hate speech and hate crime. Our purpose is not only to shed light on but also to resolve the ambiguity, as well as to further illustrate and stress test our analyses. Sections 6.2 and 6.3 propose that the legal concept hate speech, formally speaking, only refers to laws which create bespoke crimes or other sorts of offences that do not have corresponding or parallel basic or base versions, whereas the legal concept hate crime only refers to laws which identify aggravated crimes that do have corresponding or parallel basic or base versions. Section 6.4 makes several key comparisons and contrasts between the concepts, beyond the merely formal analysis, while Section 6.5 develops an account of why the distinction between hate speech and hate crime matters legally speaking, both for victims and defendants. Finally, Section 6.6 discusses four potential grey areas of hate speech law, namely using threatening words or behaviour to stir up hatred; incitement to commit genocide; incitement to discrimination or violence; and torts and delicts involving racist abuse.

Violence is a global problem. Although popular perception may regard people with mental disorders as perpetrators of violence, the reality is that people with mental disorders are far more likely to be victims of violence when compared to people without disabilities. Safeguarding and protecting adults and children from violence is a core clinical and professional responsibility. This chapter describes types of violence to which people with mental disorders may be subjected, including institutional abuse, disability hate crime, domestic violence and abuse, stalking, harassment, sexual violence, physical violence, gang-related violence, radicalisation and child abuse. Preventative approaches to reducing violence towards adults and children at risk are discussed, including approaches to reducing use of force against people with mental disorders. Barriers to disclosure and approaches to facilitate disclosure are described, along with risk factors and warning flags for violence among victims, perpetrators and institutions. Guidance is given on responding to disclosure and an example is given of multi-agency working via multi-agency risk assessment conference arrangements.

There are racial differences in treatment by police. As the percent minority increases within a jurisdiction, racial threat effects cause more intense policing against Blacks and Latinx. In response, racial and ethnic minorities use the political process to increase own-group representation and better treatment by police. Police respond to Black protests against abuse of authority with more aggressive policing. There are backlash (more shootings) and diversity (fewer shootings) effects by police in response to affirmative action lawsuits forcing the agency to hire more ethnic and racial minority police. Abuse of force increases when: an officer’s peer has been injured on the job, officers know the race of a civilian prior to interaction, White officers interact with Black citizens, and White officers are dispatched to a Black neighborhood. Police abuse of force has negative academic and behavioral effects on Black and Latinx youth. Mass incarceration has deleterious effects on Black families: reducing the probabilities of marriage and attending college and increasing racial inequality and the probability a child is born to an unmarried mother. Hate crimes are instrumental actions, increasing with racial economic competition. Increases in hate crimes increase racialization among the targeted social group.

Justice GULASEKARAM delivered the opinion of the Court.1

This case requires us to decide whether there will be justice for the more than seventy colored men who were slaughtered on April 13, 1873 by an army of white supremacists. More broadly, it asks whether the forces of white supremacy who were recently defeated on the battlefield may nevertheless succeed in this legal civil war, currently being waged in our federal courts. Indeed, in this case, the fate of our national project to build a “more perfect union” through emancipation, reconstruction, and equality hangs in the balance.

Argued December 11, 2002.Decided April 7, 2003.

Justice M. MATSUDA delivered the opinion of the Court.1

A central question this case presents is whether words have power and consequences. See Mari J. Matsuda et al., Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment (1993). We answer that question in the affirmative and hold that racist speech in the form of a burning cross is properly constrained by the Commonwealth of Virginia.

This chapter sets out the field of terrorism studies and reviews the main issues and research directions that characterise the field today. The history of the discipline is summarised and terrorism and its ‘near neighbour’ hate crime are defined and compared before turning to the developments that have dominated the research agenda over the last ten years.

This book argues that the problems of genocide are as much conceptual as empirical: that the crowning of genocide as “crime of crimes” depoliticizes the language of transgression; and that depoliticization means screening out how genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the wanton infliction of collateral damage are driven by the permanent security imperatives of states and political movements seeking to found states. As a consequence, the connections between the postwar order of nation-states, the violence with which they were founded, and the international legal order are largely hidden from view. However, the appeal of making the world “safe for democracy” and “saving strangers” in the name of humanity has waned with the election of populist nationalists who express disdain for “globalism” and emphasize national security. Even so, whether in the name of an “international rules-based order” or making one’s country “great again,” US geopolitical domination is the enduring imperative that drives the permanent securitization of subaltern actors that challenge liberal empire.