Quite a few bills passing the House today. They are:
SB 220 – Various transportation matters (among other things, makes Sections of S.R. 3, S.R. 9, and U.S. 20 heavy duty highways with a maximum weight of 90,000 lbs.)
SB 29 – TRF credit for military service.
SB 104 – Child care matters (primarily advisory committees for child care homes and regulations).
SB 134 – External defibrillators in health clubs. Requires health clubs have defibrillators and staff that knows how to use it while providing certain immunities for their use.
SB 155 – Alcohol blended fuel underground storage tanks.
SB 180 – Warranty repair and sales audit limitation. (Having to do with relations between vehicle manufacturers and dealers.)
SB 181 – Factory owned franchise limitation. Specifies that it is not an unfair labor practice for a manufacturer or distributor to establish or acquire for less than two years a franchisor owned outlet within the exclusive territory or market area of a franchisee.
SB 191 – Coroner issues. Having to do mostly with introductory and crime scene training (withholds coroner pay if they fail to complete the training.)
SB 261 – Condominium common areas and facilities – allowing sale of condo common areas if enough of the owners agree (95% or whatever is in the by-laws).
Hate Crimes amendment failed to pass 46-50. So Indiana remains part of the bottom 5. Another piece of revenge extracted by the Right for the defeat on SJR7?
If hate is a motive for a crime why can’t hate be automatically a part of the testimony? Is the issue that the punishment is different for hate vs non-hate crimes? From my knowledge of law( which isn’t deep) motive is always an issue in court. Is it that people feel hate can’t be proven? I know that on popular TV programs such as CSI,the coroner can give expert testimony that a murder was motivated by hate. Is that just TV? Perhaps other crimes are less provable as hate-caused.
As I understand it, the hate crime aspect, as proposed, would be considered as an aggravator at sentencing. The crime itself wouldn’t be changed. (See IC 35-38-1-7.1)
The fact that 45 other states have some kind of hate crime legislation suggests that it’s a workable proposition.
The stated reason for opposing the legislation is usually that we shouldn’t give anyone “special” rights. But, I think the proposed legislation would have applied to a situation where a person is assaulted because he or she is white or straight just as much as it would apply to a situation where a person is assaulted for being black or gay. Obviously, the majority part of the population doesn’t get picked on for their status as much as the minority population. Sounds like a good trade off to me — fewer opportunities to benefit from hate crime population in exchange for being targeted less often for a crime because of my race or gender.
Motivation is a factor in determining who committed a crime – that is, it is more likely that a person committed a crime if you can show a reasonable motive, and hatred is certainly a plausible motive for a lot of criminal acts.
I’m not certain, though, why motive should be considered as an aggravating factor in determining the seriousness of the offense – I think the impact of a crime is typically very independent of the motive.
Possibly the theory is that hate-inspired crimes will be committed by people more likely to re-offend, and thus they need more ‘correctional time’ or a harsher punishment to deter them.
I don’t really expect to see hate-crime legislation provide a net social benefit – I think further complicating the legal system, and the possibility of such legislation being employed in a biased manner, will cause more problems than you would get from the theoretical benefits.
Is there any indication from the 45 states that have some form of this that it is doing any good?
I know that’s a hard question to answer, and subject to statistical manipulation by those with axes to grind – if I get a chance to do some checking and come across anything good I will post a link.
The point of the motive being considered as aggravating is that the motive is to strike fear/ apprehension into the targeted group. In other words, an individual commits a crime, and chooses that victim simply because of his/her gender, race, national origin, sexual orientation or RELIGION. The crime is punished. And the motivation to damage the greater society may be considered by the sentencing judge.
Much like the aggravating circumstances of using a gun, killing a policeman, the elderly or a pregnant woman’s fetus. Those are already on the books.
This bill was actually pretty light compared to most in other states.
But it had to become a political football for the Right against the “progressive” agenda. Just the the numerous abortion-related amendments filed this past week by the Right.
It’s all politics, not good policy.
Well, a quick Google showed a lot of interest in the topic, but I didn’t find anything trying to measure actual impact (such as comparing crime statistics before and after the legislation, and/or comparing those statistics between states with and without such legislation).
I was struck by the fact that there seemed to be much less rancor, and much more reasoned argument, on this topic than I have come to expect in the modern political arena – everything I came across was printable!
So, I still have a gut feel that such laws won’t provide a net social benefit – but I can see where it is possible to believe otherwise in good faith.