Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is believed to have emerged in Wuhan, China in late December 2019 and began rapidly spreading around the globe throughout the spring months of 2020. As COVID-19 proliferated across the United States, Asian Americans reported a surge in racially motivated hate crimes involving physical violence and harassment. Throughout history, pandemic-related health crises have been associated with the stigmatization and "othering" of people of Asian descent. Asian Americans have experienced verbal and physical violence motivated by individuallevel racism and xenophobia from the time they arrived in America in the late 1700s up until the present day. At the institutional level, the state has often implicitly reinforced, encouraged, and perpetuated this violence through bigoted rhetoric and exclusionary policies. COVID-19 has enabled the spread of racism and created national insecurity, fear of foreigners, and general xenophobia, which may be related to the increase in anti-Asian hate crimes during the pandemic. We examine how these crimessituated in historically entrenched and intersecting individual-level and institutional-level racism and xenophobiahave operated to "other" Asian Americans and reproduce inequality.

No abstract

Self-reported survey data on the extent and nature of rape and sexual assault experienced by a population represent an important source of information because these crimes often go unreported, and are thus undercounted in law enforcement or other official statistics. This article compares Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS) data to Clery Act data in an effort to (1) assess the validity of the CCSVS data and the Clery Act data based on the extent to which they corroborate one another, and (2) estimate the extent to which Clery Act data potentially underestimate the true incidence of rape. The results help to establish the extent to which self-report surveys on sexual victimization are needed to understand the magnitude of the problem among a given population.

Criminologists have long recognized that whether one perceives a sanction as fair or unfair influences the deterrent success of sanctions and the legitimacy afforded to legal authority. Unfortunately, although several scholars have claimed that individual characteristics influence how sanctions are interpreted, very little research has explored the individual factors that influence how one perceives sanctions to be fair/unfair. In this study, we take Gottfredson and Hirschi's notion of self‐control and use it to explain, in part, whether an individual perceives a sanction as fair/unfair. We also examine how sanction perceptions and low self‐control influence the perceived anger that may result from being singled out for sanctioning and whether self‐control conditions the relationship between perceptions and anger. Our results suggest that individuals with low self‐control are more likely to perceive sanctions as unfair, that unfair sanctions and low self‐control lead to perceived anger for being singled out for punishment and that self‐control conditions the effect of unfair sanction perceptions on perceived anger. Future directions are outlined.