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.