The Law-In-Between: The Effects of Organizational Perviousness on the Policing of Hate Crime

Recent Developments and New Directions in Sentencing Research

“…Since, for interactionists, social order is produced through social interaction, it follows that sentencing policies depend on their implementation by local individuals and participants (see, e.g. Jenness & Grattet, 2005). My point in reviewing this interactionist perspective is that when we study sentencing, we are analyzing joint acts produced by the discretion and interactions of judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and sometimes probation officers.…”

Hate Crimes: Perspectives on Offending and the Law

“…Indeed, King finds that compliance with the Hate Crimes Statistics Act is inversely associated with black population size, although the association is largely isolated to policing agencies in the south. In addition, and building on Jenness and Grattet's (2005) notion that hate crimes receive greater attention by law enforcement agencies that are more susceptible to community pressures ("organizational perviousness"), King (2007) also finds that compliance with federal hate crime law is generally higher among agencies engaged in community policing.…”

The Prosecution of Hate Crimes

“…For example, Jenness and Grattet (2005) examined the various factors influencing the extent to which hate crime policies developed at the local level across the state of California. The researchers found that organizational perviousness, as measured by the presence of community group meetings, community policing practices, and workplace heterogeneity, was the strongest predictor of having a policy (Jenness & Grattet, 2005). Although having a department policy indicated some effort to formally address bias crimes, it did not necessarily translate into actual enforcement.…”