OCR Text |
Show THE HATE CRIMES DEBATE IN UTAH Jennifer Lee Jones evidence to support penalty enhancement of the assault under 76-3-203.3. They reversed the sentence and remanded for re-sentencing for the assault conviction (/. W. v. State of Utah, 2002). The Court referred to section 76-3-203.3 as an "Exercise of Rights Statute" instead of a "Hate Crimes Statute" because it provides for enhancement of penalties whenever one commits a primary offense with the intent to cause fear enough to prohibit someone from freely exercising their Constitutional rights. They noted that the Utah statute refers to hate crimes in the title but there are no enumerated protected classes, and under the current law the penalty for a primary offense may be enhanced regardless of whether or not the defendant was motivated by hatred, bias or prejudice (J.W. v State of Utah, 2001). THE NEW HATE CRIMES BATTLE Prior to his death in August 2001, Senator Pete Suazo, the only Latino legislator in the Utah Legislature had vowed to pass a more comprehensive hate crimes bill. Two forces had motivated Suazo: the total lack of prosecution of hate crimes under the state's statute, and the death of Bernardo Repreza. The vagueness of the law, according to Suazo had led to zero prosecutions at the state level. Additionally, at the funeral for Bernardo Repreza Suazo had promised the boy's mother that he would fight for a stricter law (Suazo, 2001). Suazo started his crusade during the 1999 Utah Legislative session with SB 34 Hate Crimes Amendments SB34 would have provided enhanced criminal penalties for some crimes that targeted certain categories of people (e.g. by color, gender, sexual orientation, and physical and mental disabilities) and institutions (e.g. churches, and medical facilities like abortion clinics) (Utah State Legislature, S.B. 34 1999). The bill died in the Senate Judiciary Committee (Utah Office of Legislative Research, 2000). Starting in 1999, Suazo received several death threats from hate groups, such as the National Alliance, the same anti-black, anti-Jew and anti-government group which Oklahoma bomber, Timothy McVeigh, belonged to (Suazo, 2001). At least one member of the group specifically targeted Suazo and his family. Because of this intimidation Suazo was persuaded to obtain a concealed weapon permit and carry a gun to protect himself and his family against these political terrorists groups (Suazo, 2001). Even during the 2001 legislative session he wore a bulletproof vest for the four days he debated the bill (Suazo, 2001). During the 2000 and 2001 Legislatures, Suazo took a different approach by copying language used in an eight-year-old Texas statute. That statute contained provisions that a defendant "intentionally selected a victim primarily because of the defendant's bias of prejudice against the victim's affiliation or perceived affiliation with a "group". The punishment for the offense is "increased punishment prescribed for the next highest category of offense" (Texas Penal Code Ann., §12.47). By using the word "group" as the key phrase of the Utah bill, instead of naming the protected groups, Suazo and President of the Statewide Association of Public Attorney's (SWAP), Paul Boyden, felt they had a piece of legislation that could pass the conservative legislature and would also be a more useful tool than the current statute (Suazo, 2001). In the 2001 session however, Texas determined that the generic referral to "groups" in the law was not effective. The law was rewritten to protect from prejudice groups identified by "race, color, disability, religion, national origin, ancestry, age, gender or sexual preference" (Harrie, 2001). Texas also included age as an additional category in their listing of protected classes. The proponents of the bill in the Texas Legislature made one concession to the conservatives when they allowed an amendment replacing the original wording of "sexual orientation" to "sexual preference" (Harrie, 2001). Patrick Johnson, counsel to Texas Representative Sefronia Thompson, D-Houston, and sponsor of the new hate crimes legislation, said Utah would be making a big mistake to follow Texas' eight-year-old lead to the same dead end. Lonestar State lawmakers "voted to repeal an existing statute that critics say is ineffective, vague and legally shaky" (Harrie, 2001). This creates a whole new problem in the fight for a new hate crimes law in Utah because the charges of vagueness in the law are the same arguments that Utah officials use against the current statute. During the 2002 Utah Legislative session, Senator Alicia Suazo, having been sworn into office in September 2001 to sit in her deceased husband stead, had the option to choose between the two legislative models: The ADL model and the Texas model. She chose to use the ADL model instead of the former Texas model for this year's bill and submitted SB 64, Hate Crimes Amendment. This bill would have enhanced penalties for crimes that target anyone belonging to the specified protected group listing. However, the bill was killed in the Senate Judiciary Committee (Utah Office of Legislative Research, 2002). Now that the 2002 session is over, and Alicia Suazo has decided not to run for re-election, a new problem arises in who will lead the effort for a new and more effective hate crimes law in Utah? THE POLICY ARGUMENT: Do HATE CRIMES DESERVE STRONGER PENALTIES? Proponents believe that the difference between hate crimes and other crimes is that the victims are not just the individuals, but also the entire community to which they belong. "A crime motivated by bias and prejudice toward groups extends beyond individual victimization and involves injury, threat, and victimization against community and pluralistic society," said Paul Boyden from SWAP. "It is divisive to the whole community because it alienates that group from the rest of society. The groups are more vulnerable to attack than others" (Boyden, 2001). Ron Gordon of the Commission of Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ) added, "Someone who 52 |