Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article 1: Davis, M. S. (2006). Crimes mala in se: An equity-based definition. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17, 270–289.

Abstract: Legal scholars have used the terms mala prohibita and mala in se to draw the distinction between legally proscribed and morally proscribed offenses. The former are those offenses that are wrong simply because there exist formal, codified rules prohibiting them. Efforts to define mala in se, on the other hand, have resulted in vague, often conflicting meanings that leave the analyst with little but examples to serve as definitions. As a result, some have argued that the distinctions mala in se and mala prohibita be abandoned altogether. If one examines mala in se from an equity theoretical viewpoint, incorporating the concepts of intent and harm, it may be possible to arrive at a more understandable and useful concept.

Journal Article 2: Koenig, T. H., & Rustad, M. L. (2007). “Hate torts” to fight hate crimes: Punishing the organizational roots of evil. American Behavioral Scientist, 51, 302–318.

Abstract: This article coins the term hate torts to illustrate the growing role of tort law in defending vulnerable Americans against violence and intimidation by hate groups and hateful individuals. Hate torts give juries the muscle to impose a financial death penalty against organizations that recklessly and intentionally enable racial and gender oppression. In the absence of effective criminal sanctions, tort victims and their lawyers can play the role of private attorneys general by filing civil lawsuits that expose and financially punish organizations that incite the commission of hate crimes.