OCR Text |
Show HINCKLEY JOURNAL OF POLITICS 2002/2003 tion in other states encouraged him to pursue hate crimes legislation in Utah (Pignanelli, 2001). In 1991, Pignanelli presented to the Utah State Legislature HB 323, Hate Crimes Statistics Act, which would establish a statewide crime reporting system including statistics concerning crimes that exhibit evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity (Utah State Legislature, 1991). The bill passed the House but was killed in the Senate (Utah Office of Legislative Research, 2000. 2). The following year Pignanelli presented another version of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act as HB 111. This bill amended the duties of the BCI and the CPS to investigate, record and report statistics concerning crimes that exhibit evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, ancestry, national origin or ethnicity. Subject to certain restrictions, the bill also required an annual report to be published concerning the extent, fluctuation, distribution and nature of crime in Utah (Utah State Legislature, H.B. 111, 1992). This bill passed the House and the Senate (Utah Office of Legislative Research, 2000 2). That law helped Utah participate in the hate crimes data collection program for the FBI's annual UCR. When Pignanelli introduced HB 112 Hate Crime Penaities, in 1992, he followed the majority of states by using the Anti-Defamation League's (ADL) legal model for his legislation, which provides for enhancement of penalties and a specific listing of protected groups (ADL 1999 § 2). The one difference between H.B. 112 and the Adel's model was that sexual orientation was defined as "consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality" (Utah State Legislature, H.B. 112, 1992). House Bill 112 died in the House Judiciary committee primarily because of the inclusion of sexual orientation in the protected group listing (Pignanelli, 2001). However, the bill was resurrected with the help of some moderate Republicans that felt Utah needed to have some sort of hate crimes law (Pignanelli, 2001). After much amending, HB112 passed through the committee as a mere shadow of the original bill. Pignanelli was concerned that the bill would not be workable, and wanted to start fresh the next year. After consulting with minority groups as well as prosecutors though, all parties indicated they could work with the bill as it stood (Pignanelli, 2001). At this time conservatives and the American Civil Liberties Union opposed the bill. Pignanelli felt compelled to play what may be termed the "religion card." He reminded House members who belonged to the state's predominant religion that their pioneer ancestors were persecuted, raped, killed and driven by mobs from their homes on several occasions because of religious prejudice. "I felt that they of all people should be sensitive to the needs of all vulnerable groups in our community because of their own historical experience..." (Pignanelli, 2001). H.B. 112 passed with its name changed to Hate Crimes Penaities-CM Plights Vioiation, and the Substitute bill did not include a specified group list- ing, nor did it mention bias or prejudice in the selection of a victim. The bill passed in the House and the Senate (Utah Office of Legislative Research, 2000). It is Utah's current hate crimes statute. ENFORCEMENT AND JUDICIAL CHALLENGES Over time Pignanelli's initial concerns with the bill having no specified listing of protected groups have become fully justified. Despite prosecutor Paul Boyden's assurances that the amended version would be workable, Boyden contends that prosecutors do not like to use the existing statute for several reasons. "1.) It is too vague. 2.) The language is too tedious and time consuming to relate to a jury, and 3.) It is more of a civil rights statute than a hate crimes law" (Boyden, 2001). In an interview he pointed out the two sections he feels are the biggest problems with the statute. Section 2- A person who commits any primary offense with the intent to intimidate or terrorize another person or with reason to believe that his action would intimidate or terrorize that person is guilty of a third degree felony. SectionS- "Intimidate or terrorize" means an act, which cause the person to fear for his physical safety, or damages the property of that person or another. The act must be accompanied with the intent to cause a person to fear to freely exercise or enjoy any right secured by the Constitution or laws of the State or by the Constitution or laws of the United States. (Utah Code 76-3-203.3) Boyden stated that, "As a prosecutor I have to prove to a judge or jury that the defendant intended to 'intimidate and terrorize' the victim so much that s/he could not participate and enjoy their constitutional rights. That is very difficult to do" (Boyden, 2001). In addition, a Third District Court Judge expressed some of his concerns in a memorandum during the 1999 case State of Utah v. Jason Miiiard and Brian Hitt. Judge William W Barratt lauded the state's attempt to protect people against hate-motivated conduct based upon sexual orientation. However, Barratt believed the State had not identified sexual orientation as a protected class, and therefore had not identified any rights that would protect an individual on the basis of sexual orientation. The judge agreed that the statute is incomplete, because it does not clearly identify the class of persons protected (Barratt, 1999). An actual court ruling on the issue came on June 28, 2001, in a case brought before the Utah Court of Appeals. In the case of J. W v. the State of Utah, defense attorneys raised some of the same issues: Utah's hate crimes statute should be void for vagueness and, they contend the Utah hate crime statute does not pass constitutional scrutiny due to its failure to enumerate protected classes of victims (/. W v State of Utah, Court of Appeals-Brief of Appellate, 2001). J.W, a minor, was convicted of assault-hate crimes under the Utah statute. The Court found sufficient evidence to support J.W.'s assault conviction, but concluded that there was insufficient 51 |