Legislature(2011 - 2012)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/25/2011 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB17 | |
| SB11 | |
| SB39 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 11 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 17 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 39 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 11-HATE CRIMES
2:35:15 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 11. He noted that
public testimony was taken during the last hearing and it would
remain closed.
2:35:51 PM
SENATOR COGHILL moved Amendment 27-LS0087\A.2. He stated that it
effectively removes Section 1 from the bill.
AMENDMENT
27-LS0087\A.2
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR COGHILL
TO: SB 11
Page 1, line 5, through page 2, line 7:
Delete all material.
Page 2, line 8:
Delete "Sec. 2"
Insert "Section 1"
2:36:23 PM
CHAIR FRENCH objected.
SENATOR COGHILL said he imagines that the bill would move along
but he wanted to register his concern about adding the primary
crime motivation by prejudice, bias, or hatred to what is
already a primary crime. He expressed the view that this more
appropriately belongs in the aggravator section.
CHAIR FRENCH maintained his objection.
2:37:51 PM
SENATOR PASKVAN said he doesn't believe that it's a crime added
to a crime; it's the same as the various treatments for the
different categories or classifications of homicide.
SENATOR COGHILL said he understands that motivation has
different levels, but bias, hatred, and prejudice fall upon
knowingly and that has a whole different sidebar discussion as
to the culpable mental state. It takes the whole Title 11 into
account on the issue. "I don't know that I'm ready to go down
that road yet," he stated.
CHAIR FRENCH said his view is that the amendment removes the
significant portion of half the bill. He cited Article 1,
Section 3, of the Alaska Constitution and observed that it
sounds like a command to the legislature to pass this very bill.
No person is to be denied the enjoyment of any civil
or political right because of race, color, creed, sex,
or national origin. The legislature shall implement
this section.
Clearly, the constitution holds these specific rights very high,
he stated.
Point two is that this bill is absolutely not directed against
speech. As long as there's a First Amendment, hate crimes
legislation will never be used against people even when they say
things that others find very offensive. The best example of this
is the West Borough Baptist Church, which frequently holds
demonstrations at funerals of soldiers. Despite the fact that
many people find those demonstrations deeply offensive, they
nevertheless go on under the protection of the First Amendment.
No preacher in this nation will ever be charged with a hate
crime for anything he or she says from a pulpit based on the
passage of this bill, Senator French stated.
2:42:27 PM
CHAIR FRENCH pointed out that the Roman persecution of
Christians is the paradigmatic hate crime; other examples of
hate crimes include the Ottoman genocide of the Armenians and
the various Nazi pogroms. As a former prosecutor he knows that
it's very difficult to prove what's in someone's mind and he
realizes that the vast majority of these crimes will be
prosecuted as simple assaults, not as hate crimes. This bill
puts every person in a special class so that if they are
attacked because of what they represent, it's more offensive
than simply being attacked. It became a federal offense to
commit a hate crime in 1994 and several years ago that
legislation was amended to include gender and gender identity.
It's been used sparingly, however, because these crimes are
difficult to prosecute.
2:43:55 PM
SENATOR COGHILL said his amendment was intended to focus on the
crime issue. The Alaska Constitution says the legislature has a
duty to implement law, but it also has a duty to uphold the
constitution. He said he continues to believe that bias and
hatred can be very subjective so these prosecutions will become
exceedingly difficult and probably will fall out to the
aggravator. That's where they belong. Every person should have
equal protection under the law regardless of bias, but under
this bill there will be a hunt for a new crime of bias or
prejudice every time there's an assault. Whatever the mental
culpable state or motivation, this adds a new element to every
crime already in Title 11. This creates an unwise dynamic in the
law, regardless of the federal law. The aggravator is the best
route because you get to determine if there was something in a
particular crime that aggravated it so egregiously that
sentencing becomes the issue. The punishment for the crime then
gets to look at either a mitigater or an aggravator.
SENATOR COGHILL said he understands the debate and agrees with
some of it, but this double-time precedent is something he needs
to understand further or at least he is not willing to agree to
it at this point.
2:47:19 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked the clerk to call the roll on the motion to
adopt amendment 27-LS0087\A.2.
A roll call vote was taken. Senator Coghill voted in favor of
Amendment 1 and Senators Wielechowski, Paskvan, and French voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 1-3.
2:47:52 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved to report SB 11 from committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s).
2:48:11 PM
SENATOR COGHILL objected. He stated that he believes in equality
and the hate crimes discussion adds specialties to that, which
is unwise. At this point he particularly objects to it as a
primary crime.
2:48:33 PM
CHAIR FRENCH said that when crimes are directed at a person
because of their status it is more wrong than the underlying,
sometimes horrific event. Hate crimes in the U.S. include
lynching of African Americans; cross burnings to drive Black
families from predominately White neighborhoods; assaults on
White people traveling in predominately Black neighborhoods;
assaults on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people;
painting of swastikas on Jewish synagogues; and xenophobic
responses to a variety of minority ethnic groups.
Painting a swastika on a Jewish synagogue could be seen as
simple criminal mischief or it could be seen as representing
something far more powerful and evil and worthy of condemnation
and punishment. In the cases that a person's intent can be
measured and if that intent is more evil or wrong than the
underlying crime, it will be punished more severely, Senator
French stated.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said his eyes were opened on this issue
when he lived in Japan. He was regularly stopped by the police
and asked for identification, he was regularly turned away from
restaurants, and he was prohibited from going to certain public
places, all because he didn't look Japanese. He said he's glad
to live in a country and state that doesn't tolerate that.
Passing this legislation says this society doesn't tolerate
discrimination against people for the way they look or act or
where they come from.
SENATOR PASKVAN said that both the U.S. and Alaska are civilly
diverse societies and the constitution says that no segment of
these societies should be intimidated by the conduct of others.
2:51:37 PM
SENATOR COGHILL said he agrees with the constitutional mandate
but he fears that a more refined definition will provide more
tools for intimidation of others. He said he also agrees that
the things that are the most egregious in U.S. history have been
dealt with very well, particularly in Alaska. He restated his
intention to vote against the bill.
2:53:01 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked the clerk to call the roll on the motion to
move SB 11 from committee.
A roll call vote was taken. Senators Wielechowski, Paskvan, and
French voted in favor of moving SB 11 and Senator Coghill voted
against it. Therefore, SB 11 was reported out of the Senate
Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 3-1.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|