My meeting with Sen. J.D. Ford on bias crimes

[BrettonJudy7]

Senate Bill 12
I was present at a legislative breakfast in Greenfield, that featured Sen. Mike Crider, Rep. Bob Cherry and Speaker Bosma. Sen. Senator Crider explained that the original list of character attributes in SB12 were not enough to call it a "fair" bias crimes law (these are my words, I am paraphrasing). The original list did not include law enforcement, military veterans or even gender. Speaker Bosma explained that the House is considering if they need to put a list back in or not. He sounded hopeful that the House could come to the creation of a working bill that would be beneficial to the state of Indiana.

After this, I decided to reach out to my districts senator, senate district 29, Sen. JD Ford. We met for coffee on Friday evening. Sen. Ford was disappointed that the list was taken out of the original bill and wanted to see it put back in by the House. He explained that the list included bias against "public safety official" which he thought was enough to include law enforcement. He also explained that it did include gender, but the words used instead were "gender identity". He went on to say that he thought the reason for Sen. Freeman filing his amendment to take the list off, was because of "gender identity". Sen. Ford thinks that the Republican caucus is afraid of that term.

I know that there must already be a post on SB12, but thought I would share my experiences.

 

[jamil]

I want a sane justification for making “bias” a crime. “So that we can say we’re uber moral” isn’t a sane justification. It’s a virtue signal.

Btw, there is a thead on this somewhere.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Indiana judges can already use racial/gender/religious/ethnic/interalia motive as a non-statutory factor in sentencing. SB12 accomplishes nothing and acts as an indulgence for the Media.

If they want to bring the categories back, then include a sunset provision and tracking/reporting requirements so we can see if prosecutors are using "hate crimes" sentencing enhancements as cudgels against racial minorities a la Wisconsin v. Mitchell.

 

[ATOMonkey]

It is my limited understanding that prosecutors don't really use bias crime as a charge very often, because it requires additional burden of proof.

 

[BrettonJudy7]

It is my limited understanding that prosecutors don't really use bias crime as a charge very often, because it requires additional burden of proof.

According to Sen. Ford, the Indiana Supreme Court judges had requested a list of characteristics. They had said that if the state wants them to judge based on a bias, then they needed a list to know what bias looked like.

 

[HoughMade]

How about we judge based upon, y'know, what the person did?

Just askin'.

 

[ATOMonkey]

How about we judge based upon, y'know, what the person did?

Just askin'.

Well...that's just nonsense! What kind of virtue does that signal??!!!!

 

[BrettonJudy7]

How about we judge based upon, y'know, what the person did?

Just askin'.

The bill would allow for a harsher sentence for individuals who have committed a "hate" crime, or a crime that has biased intentions. The example that Sen. Ford brought to me, was the Jewish synagogue in Carmel that had been vandalized with swastikas. The spray painting was a sign of malicious intent against a certain people group. In states that do have a "bias crimes" law on the books, they could use more resources to find the individual and prosecute, and hopefully preemptively prevent an attack or something of that nature. However, since Indiana does not have a hate crimes bill, the action was seen as just vandalism in the eyes of the law, and there was little effort made to find the individual responsible for the swastikas.

Sen. Ford had also said that the Indianapolis branch of the FBI were called in to investigate since the state police couldn't investigate it as a bias crime. Then the bill was created because the FBI basically told the state that they had other things to worry about and couldn't use their resources trying to find someone accused of vandalism, so create a hate crimes law so that the state police can handle that.

 

[IndyDave1776]

How about we judge based upon, y'know, what the person did?

Just askin'.

You're being reasonable. Knock it off!

 

[HoughMade]

The bill would allow for a harsher sentence for individuals who have committed a "hate" crime, or a crime that has biased intentions. The example that Sen. Ford brought to me, was the Jewish synagogue in Carmel that had been vandalized with swastikas. The spray painting was a sign of malicious intent against a certain people group. In states that do have a "bias crimes" law on the books, they could use more resources to find the individual and prosecute, and hopefully preemptively prevent an attack or something of that nature. However, since Indiana does not have a hate crimes bill, the action was seen as just vandalism in the eyes of the law, and there was little effort made to find the individual responsible for the swastikas.

Sen. Ford had also said that the Indianapolis branch of the FBI were called in to investigate since the state police couldn't investigate it as a bias crime. Then the bill was created because the FBI basically told the state that they had other things to worry about and couldn't use their resources trying to find someone accused of vandalism, so create a hate crimes law so that the state police can handle that.

Why is it important to investigate it as a hate crime rather than as a crime crime?

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Why is it important to investigate it as a hate crime rather than as a crime crime?

100% agreement. Vandalism is vandalism. Why should it matter what the motivation for it was? Why should some people be more special and protected than others? Bias crime laws are antithetical to the idea that people are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law.

 

[4sarge]

100% agreement. Vandalism is vandalism. Why should it matter what the motivation for it was? Why should some people be more special and protected than others? Bias crime laws are antithetical to the idea that people are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law.

EXACTLY, EQUAL JUSTICE for ALL, NOT 'SPECIAL JUSTICE' for Certain PC Groups NOT LEGISLATED PROTECTED GROUPS

 

[BrettonJudy7]

Why is it important to investigate it as a hate crime rather than as a crime crime?

Well what I think the idea behind it is, the act of this type of vandalism could be a sign of something to come in the future. The vandalism could be a sign of a more heinous that is being planned by that person. If the culprit is caught and punished more harshly, then it could deter them from committing that crime against that Jewish synagogue in the future.

 

[BrettonJudy7]

Just to be clear, I am not in favor of the hate crimes bill. Only explaining what my conversation with Sen. Ford was.

 

[HoughMade]

I get it.

Is there any evidence to back up the claims that hate crimes legislation actually prevents more serious crimes?

 

[jamil]

I get it.

Is there any evidence to back up the claims that hate crimes legislation actually prevents more serious crimes?

The only purpose for hate crime laws is for whatever benefit the victim may feel because of it. From what I’ve read there does not seem to be much of a deterrent effect. But, there may be an increase in “hate crimes” reported when the victim feels like the perpetrator might be punished sufficiently.

 

[MarkC]

Add to all this the wealth of research that finds increasing penalties has questionable or no effect on crime rates (I have it at the office). A criminal doesn't think, "ohhhh, they just raised the penalty for this from a Level 5 to Level 4 felony, I guess I better not do it.

I think the same would apply to a sentence aggravator, which is what this bill does, justifying sentencing above the advisory sentence for the crime for which the defendant was convicted. For example, the penalty for a Level 4 felony is 2 to 12 years, with with the advisory sentence being 6 years. If any of the aggravating circumstances in IC 35-38-1-7.1 are present, such as "a history of criminal or delinquent behavior," the judge can increase the sentence up toward the maximum in the range.

The sentencing statute also states that the listed aggravators and mitigators in the law do not limit "the matters the court may consider" when imposing the sentence. As a practical effect, Indiana courts have had the authority to raise the sentence up to, but not beyond, the maximum in the range because of a bias or hate motivation.

Or, in other words, these bills being considered don't practically allow a sentencing court to do anything beyond what the court can do right now.

But, back to my original point: criminals don't engage in a specific, thought out risk-benefit analysis when deciding to commit a crime. In most cases. In fact, in my experience, often times they are not even thinking at all.

 

[HoughMade]

Makes sense to me.

....which leads me to what I initially thought, but did not say.

Seems like the real primary purpose of any hate crimes legislation is to let politicians claim that they are against hate crimes...