Bias Crime: A Call for Alternative Responses

The argument for enacting laws to punish and deter bias crime does not always benefit from clear and unambiguous examples of bias driven murder. A frustrating factor in some of the widely publicized reports of bias-related assault is the element of ambiguity: where a member of one race or religion injures a member of another race or religion, even perhaps articulating the difference between attacker and victim by means of an expletive or other statement, the question inevitably arises whether the attack was the product of bias alone, or did other factors, such as an intent to rob or rape, predominate. This article advocates a renewed legislative effort in the fight against bias crime. The difficulty that attaches to defining a crime of bias, and to identifying the categories to be included in the statute, is far outweighed by the urgency of the escalating problem. In addition to the present remedial scheme, varied approaches need to be fostered and accentuated including non-penal sanctions. Proposed statutes in New York take a stronger stance on identifying and punishing bias crime incidents. Even more important than a successful conviction rate is the development of effective education and community responses to intolerance and prejudice

Bias Crime: A Call for Alternative Responses

The argument for enacting laws to punish and deter bias crime does not always benefit from clear and unambiguous examples of bias driven murder. A frustrating factor in some of the widely publicized reports of bias-related assault is the element of ambiguity: where a member of one race or religion injures a member of another race or religion, even perhaps articulating the difference between attacker and victim by means of an expletive or other statement, the question inevitably arises whether the attack was the product of bias alone, or did other factors, such as an intent to rob or rape, predominate. This article advocates a renewed legislative effort in the fight against bias crime. The difficulty that attaches to defining a crime of bias, and to identifying the categories to be included in the statute, is far outweighed by the urgency of the escalating problem. In addition to the present remedial scheme, varied approaches need to be fostered and accentuated including non-penal sanctions. Proposed statutes in New York take a stronger stance on identifying and punishing bias crime incidents. Even more important than a successful conviction rate is the development of effective education and community responses to intolerance and prejudice

Criminal Law—Stop and Frisk—\u3cem\u3eTerry v. Ohio\u3c/em\u3e Rationale Applied to Stop and Frisk in New York

People v. Arthurs, 24 N.Y.2d 688, 249 N.E.2d 462, 301 N.Y.S.2d 614 (1969)

Transfer of Penal Sanctions Treaties: An Endangered Species?

This Article discusses the viability of United States Transfer of Penal Sanctions Treaties, focusing primarily on the Mexican-United States Treaty. The author argues that these treaties are effective and enforceable, but have been undermined by resort to unilateral abductions by the United States. Part I of the Article examines the history and rationales leading to the promulgation of various penal sanctions treaties. The United States has entered these treaties largely because of the rising number of United States citizens incarcerated abroad, because of the substandard treatment afforded such prisoners, and because of the idea that offenders\u27 rehabilitation will be eased if they are in their home states during incarceration. Part II examines the actual treaties and their effects. The author discusses several relevant provisions of the treaties, including those concerning the offender, the crime committed, and the required procedures to complete a transfer. Specific procedural requirements must be met regarding consent, notification, initiation, and location. The author also reviews guidelines for post-transfer procedures and treatment of the transferee. Part III addresses the continued use of abductions abroad by the United States. The author suggests that the reason for the increased use of extraterritorial apprehensions is the failure of the extradition process amid pervasive concern over problems such as drug trafficking and terrorism. While reviewing United States judicial decisions concerning these abductions, the author emphasizes that the focus should not be on these decisions, but on the tendency that these abductions will have towards undermining cooperative international relations. Part IV addresses various concerns arising under Transfer of Penal Sanctions Treaties and suggests practical ways to refine these treaties to improve their effectiveness. The problems the author addresses include the potential for use of the treaties to evade constitutional requirements, the effect of the federal sentencing guidelines on parole under the treaties, and the increased use of passive personality jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against nationals. The author concludes by stating that the Transfer of Penal Sanctions Treaties can and do work. Continued unilateral abductions by the United States, however, will harm both the general level of international cooperation and the individual United States citizens imprisoned abroad

The Development, Objectives and Planned Activities of the International Criminal Law Center of Fordham University School of Law

In the spring of 1990, Fordham University established the International Criminal Law Center to commence in the 1990-91 academic year