OCR Text |
Show HINCKLEY JOURNAL OF POLITICS 2002/2003 Supreme Court invalidated those hate crimes laws where the criminality hinged on the idea expressed. No one wants to punish people for their thoughts, or expressions, but when hateful thought becomes action it is then punishable. After watching the movie Mississippi Burning, and being incensed by a scene in which a young black boy is beaten by white supremacists while praying, Todd Mitchell, a nineteen year old African- American incited his friends to beat a white fourteen year old, male passer-by. The boy was rendered unconscious and remained in a coma for four days (Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 1993). Mitchell was convicted of aggravated battery under the Wisconsin statute 939.645(1) (b) (Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 1993). The statute indicates that a penalty enhancement will be given when the defendant intentionally selected the victim based on specific class characteristics. On appeal the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the decision because of the penalty enhancement provision. The case then went to the Supreme Court where the Court reversed the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision, and unanimously upheld Wisconsin's penalty enhancement hate crimes statute (Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 1993). With the Mitchell decision the Supreme Court admitted the severity crimes motivated by bias or prejudice, and issued its support for penalty enhancement hate crimes law. In the R.A.V. case the court narrowed the definition of acceptable attributes of hate crimes law. If a hate crimes law is carefully written and strong enough, it can serve as a deterrent for potential perpetrators and a tool for prosecutors and law enforcement. Forty-three states and the District of Columbia use the penalty enhancement form of hate crimes law and specify the protected groups. Utah needs to amend it current useless statute, and come into step with the rest of the nation. Fortunately, Utah has not had a national headline drawing incident, like the Shepherd and Byrd cases, which would accentuate the inadequacy of the current statute. However it is only a matter of time before a significant incident occurs. Utahns need a clear statement to come from the Utah State Legislature that there are serious consequences to criminal actions stemming from prejudiced beliefs. It is time to look at worst case scenarios and draft a fair and equitable hate crimes law that would make it possible to prosecute effectively in cases like those of James Byrd and Matthew Shepherd. REFERENCES: American Psychological Association, "Hate Crimes Today: An Age Old Foe In Modern Dress.", n.d. http://www.apa.org/pubin-fo/hate/ (23 April 2001) Burton, Greg, 2001, "Capitol Hill Plagued by Gay Fears? Lesbian Lawmaker Discusses Homophobia in Utah Politics" Sait Lake Tribune, 9 April: Bl-2 Bureau of Justice Assistance, [1997] 1999, " A Policymaker's Guide to Hate Crimes, U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2000, "Addressing Hate Crimes: Six Initiatives that are Lnhancing the Lfforts of Criminal Justice Practitioners", U.S Department of Justice, February: Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2000, "Promising Practices Against Hate Crimes: Five State and Local Demonstration Projects", U.S. Department of Justice, May: Bureau of Criminal Identification, "Hate Crimes", 1999 http://www.bvi.ut.us/crimebook/CIO99/hate.htm (15, May 2001) Boyden, Paul, 2001,President, Statewide Association of Public Attorney's, Prosecutor, Salt Lake County, Interview by author, 20 April Cantera, Kevin, 2002, "Half of Utahns Think Crime is Rising" Sait Lake Tribune, January 29: B2 Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1999, "Hate Crimes Statistics 1999", Uniform Crime Report, U.S. Department of Justice: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2000, "Hate Crimes Statistics 2000", Uniform Crime Report, U.S. Department of Justice: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1998 "Uniform Crime Report 1998", U.S. Department of Justice: 57-62 Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1999 "Uniform Crime Report 1999", U.S. Department of Justice: 58-63 Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2000 "Uniform Crime Report 2000", U.S. Department of Justice: 59-64 Gallagher, Robert, Civil Right Specialist, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Salt Lake City, UT, Telephone interview by author, 15 May Gordon, Ronald B. Attorney, State of Utah, Commission of Criminal and Juvenile Justice, Interview by author 20 April and Telephone interview, 11 May Gott, Natalie, 2001, "Hate-Crimes Measure Advances in Texas", Associated Press, Salt Lake Tribune, 8 May: Harrie, Dan, 2001, "Texas Action Gives Pause To Utah Hate Crimes, SaJt Lake Tribune, 10 May: Jensen, Derek, 1999, "Straight Ldger Swung a Club in Halloween Slaying in ST.", Desert News, 22 December, B2 Jensen, Derek, 1999, "Stories vary on Halloween brawl that ended teen's life in 1998, Deseret News, 23 December: B6 J. W. v State of Utah, 2000, Utah Case # 20000658-CA Levin, Brian, 1999, "Hate Crimes: Worse by Definition", Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 15(1), February: 6-21 Litvack, David, 2001, Representative, Utah House of Representatives, Interview by author, 25 April Loven, Jennifer, 2001, "Hate Crimes Account for Minuscule Part of All Offenses", Associated Press, Salt Lake Tribune, 1 October: Al Mylar, Frank. 2001, Attorney, Mylar & Trost, L.L.C. , Interview by author 26 April Newby, Daniel B., 1999, "Crimes are Defined by Actions, Not a Hierarchy of Thoughts", To Tile Point, Newby, Daniel B., 2001 Sutherland Institute, Interview by author 24 April Oncaie, Joseph v Sundowner Offshore Services, 1999, 523 U.S. 75 Pignanelli, Frank, 2001, Former Utah State Representative and Attorney, Law Firm of Jones, Waldo, Holbrook and McDonough, Interview by author, 10 April 55 |