Technology-Facilitated Sexual Violence As A Hate Crime

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Introduction

Technology-Facilitated Sexual Violence (TFSV) (Source A) and Misogyny as a Hate Crime (Source B) are two subjects widely discussed these days. The first Source A looks into Gender, Shame, and TFSV and the second Source B is a Parliamentary debate in the United Kingdom (UK) Parliament on considering Misogyny as a Hate Crime. TFSV refers to a range of practices where digital technologies are utilised to facilitate both virtual and face-to-face sexually based harms and Misogyny Hate Crime which is defined as ‘incidents against women that are inspired by the demeanour of men towards women and incorporates behaviour targeted at women by men simply because they are women. (BBC News, 2018). This essay will critically review and assess the differences in the approach which these sources have adopted and what the reasons are for these differences.

Source A is an article by Nicola Henry who is a Senior Lecturer in Lawful Examinations in the Department of Social Inquiry at La Trobe University in Melbourne (Australia). Her studies is centred around sexual violence and victimisation discourse in both international and domestic criminal justice domains and Anastasia Powell the co-writer is a Senior Lecturer in Legal Studies and a partner of the Centre for Applied Social Research (CASR) at RMIT University, Melbourne (Australia). She has interests in Policy and Prevention concerning violence against women, and in addition the job of Information Communication Technologies (ICT) in sexual violence, harassment, and hate speech. The subject of this article is to research on the impacts of Gender, Shame, and TFSV. Criminality in virtual reality has been the subject of much discussion since the 1990s, yet relatively little consideration has been paid to TFSV. This term is utilised by the authors to explain on the whole the extent of criminal and harmful sexually aggressive behaviours executed against women with the guide or use of new technologies.

Source A looks at past compositions and endeavours to build up a comprehension of Gender, Shame, and TFSV. The authors researches how Digital Communications Technologies have changed present day social orders, with significant effects both to our day to day life, and for ordinary crimes. Sexual Violence, which is an enormous human rights issue, has additionally changed in the computerised age. The aim of this article is to investigate the manners by which re-traditionalised gender hierarchies and disparities are showed in online settings, and to conceptualise the reason and impacts of TFSV as “embodied harms.’ Henry contends that tricky personality/body and on the web/disconnected dualisms result in an inability to get a handle on the one of a kind sort of typified hurts, blocking a sufficient comprehension and hypothesis of TFSV.

The authors analyse the current condition of learning on these diverse measurements, drawing on existing empirical studies while there is a developing group of research into technology-facilitated harms perpetrated against children and adolescents, there is a deficiency of subjective and quantitative research on TFSV against adults. Also, few of the current examinations give solid information on the nature, extension, and effects of TFSV. Primer investigations, however, demonstrate that a few harms, much like sexual violence all the more extensively, might be dominatingly gender, sexuality and age-based, with young women being overrepresented as victims in a few classifications. This study gathers the empirical evidence to date with respect to the commonness and sexual orientation based nature of TFSV against adults and talks about the suggestions for approach and projects, and additionally proposals for future research. Empirical research will give the establishments from which policy and legislative initiatives for prevention, penalty, and solution might be developed.

Source B reviewed in this essay is a debate in the parliament by Melanie Onn. Onn is a Member of Parliament (MP) for the Labour party and has been a MP for Great Grimsby since 2015. In March 2018, Onn recommended an adjustment in law which would see wolf-whistles and cat-calls be classified as hate crimes (Daly 2018). In light of feedback, she shielded her battle and said there was an issue in Grimsby identifying with mentalities towards women and relationships. Onn has begun battling for women’s rights and to consider Misogyny being recognised as a hate crime. Onn continues on campaign towards perceiving Misogyny as a Hate Crime, similarly as offences propelled by antagonistic vibe dependent on race, religion, Tran’s identity, sexual orientation or disability. The debate is tied in with anchoring an augmentation to the current hate crime definitions and condemning better to prevent violence against women, reinforce early intervention against lower-level events and give women more prominent trust in revealing the activities that, time and again, have turned into the backdrop of their lives. Source B puts the argument forward by explaining that there is definitely the situation as 85% of ladies aged somewhere in the range of 18 and 24 report that they have been forced to bear undesirable attention.

Onn clarifies that there is a power irregularity in the public eye that excessively influences ladies contrarily; therefore Onn has a solid contention by expressing misogyny ought to be a selective strand of hate crime. This allowed Onn to retain her control of the flow of the debate towards its expected point of supporting the Government’s proposals. Onn contends that creating a law on Misogyny a Hate Crime is a method for plainly expressing that. It is a method for defending men’s notoriety and men’s entitlement to be viewed as equivalent nationals as opposed to as predators in waiting by isolating inadmissible conduct and perceiving those men who misuse their power and strength. By categorising Sexual Harassment as a hate crime, we would change the discussion so it was not about what women need to do to evade it. But to make sure men know that it is not their given right to harass a woman. Making Misogyny a Hate Crime would enable us to change the discussion about men as much as it would enable us to guarantee that women are protected and by setting the definition in resolution, the Government would put down a marker to state that socially endemic negative demeanours towards women are not acceptable. The recording of the crime would give a clearer image of the size of the issue, help the Police in making a move and interceding, and give women more prominent certainty that their fears would be considered important.

While they both have similar subjects they have both been produced using a totally different approach. The key points are almost identical in the two pieces. Both have as their focal guideline on how women can be protected in actuality and in the digital world, as against its viability. However, there is a noteworthy distinction in the methodology adopted in each piece, as Source A draws on the exploration and discoveries of others in explaining of their contentions. Their account is discernible and accessible, yet additionally detailed and persuasive. The target audiences of the two sources are likely to be different. The readership for both sources is probably going to be scholastics, campaigners and politicians. For instance, Source A research can be utilised to put across to Ministers as evidence in favour to recognise Misogyny as a hate crime. Source B is to proclaim laws, regulations and guidelines by campaigning that Hate Crime law was intended to battle violations that deny equal respect and dignity to individuals who are viewed as other. The audience for Source B is the MPs, and where they are being persuaded to recognise Misogyny as a Hate Crime to protect women who experience the violence which is an outcome of sex inequality. In this way there isn’t much contrast between the two sources. Source A is composed in a scholastic shape and Source B is where the MP is attempting to campaign to the legislature to consider as the idea of provocation changes, so should the laws that oversee it, and such a large number of episodes don’t meet the criteria for Assault, Discrimination or Public Order offences. Therefore adopting Misogyny a Hate Crime which enables women to report any misogynistic act against her and not feel uncomfortable in reporting it.

Conclusion

The two sources have they own qualities on reporting the message on sexual violence.

Onn brings the tradition of parliamentary trades and the formal structure of the procedures and it appears in the debate and it obligation to the capacity of members to create and keep up radical casings that may be accustomed to carry new points of view into the discussion. While the passing of such a law might be a positive advance forward regarding perceiving the size of the issue, we should be reasonable about what this may mean for victims and the Criminal Justice System.

Click Here To Order Now!

Technology-Facilitated Sexual Violence As A Hate Crime

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)