Posted on 01/06/2017 5:11:29 AM PST by SandRat
PHOENIX — A state lawmaker wants to expand laws that allow enhanced penalties for those who attack someone based on things like race and religion to also include political beliefs.
Sen. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, said he got the idea while watching a video on TV "of these two guys beating the crap out of some Trump supporter.''
"I don't know the background,'' Kavanagh acknowledged, with the video from some other state apparently shot on someone's cell phone, but he said it was clear that the reason for the attack was that the victim was supporting Trump.
"That's worse than beating somebody up for some other reason,'' he said. "And we should send a message to judges that we think this should be punished more seriously.''
The idea drew derision from Dan Pochoda, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona.
He said it's one thing to impose an enhanced penalty on those who attack someone because of something that is "immutable'' to them, like their race, gender or sexual orientation. But Pochoda called it "very dangerous'' to expand that to transient issues like who someone is supporting for public office.
Unlike some states, Arizona does not have a specific laws which create a special category of "hate crimes.''
What it does have, though, is language in statutes that requires judges, when deciding the appropriate sentence for any offense, to consider both mitigating and aggravating factors.
A mitigating factor that might suggest a lenient sentence could be be the person's youth or even their intoxication. Aggravating factors weighing in favor of more time behind bars include things like the use of a gun.
The law also states that judges may consider whether the crime was based on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation or disability. To that list, SB 1022 proposes to add "political affiliation, beliefs or opinions.''
"I believe in the 'just desserts' school of sentencing,'' Kavanagh said. "Punishment is deserved for the harm that's done, but punishment must be proportional to the badness of the act.''
He called SB 1022 "a message from the legislature to give the judges some legislative basis, if they choose to, to stick with the existing sentencing structure but go to the harsher end.''
For example, someone who causes serious physical injury to another is guilty of the crime of aggravated assault. In general, that is classified as a Class 3 felony.
Under Arizona law, the presumptive prison term is 3.5 years, but with mitigating factors it can be as little as 2 years; a sentencing with aggravating factors can be as much as 8.75 years.
Pochoda said what Kavanagh wants runs contrary to the reasoning behind hate crimes sentencing laws.
"That's because people are members of identifiable groups,'' he said. Pochoda said while some are impossible to change, like race or gender, that also rightly includes religion.
"People don't change religions that quickly — certainly not as quickly as changing your opinion or even party affiliation,'' he said.
More to the point, Pochoda said such offenses are often not aimed strictly at the person being assaulted.
"The concept is that a crime against one person because of that person's race will put fear, understandably, into all members of that race,'' he said.
"It really does require something much more than the transitory nature of supporting one candidate in a particular presidential race,'' Pochoda said, saying there really is "an identifiable group that transcends any one four-year election cycle.''
Stupid, stupid, stupid idea.
“That’s worse than beating somebody up for some other reason,’’
No, moron, it’s not.
The concept of “hate crimes” is some kind of mutant PC horror, which punishes people for what they’re thinking while they’re committing a crime. This concept is repellent. If you beat someone up, you should be charged with beating someone up. It shouldn’t matter if you’re thinking a State-determined “hateful” thought, or puppies and buttercups while you’re doing it.
This would sweep 3/4 of the Shillary supporters into the storm drain. Not a bad idea at all.
Please, no. No hate crimes ever. We should not ever get behind going after anyone for hate crime or accuse anyone of hate speech.
The simple fix is to make all assaults, muders and other violent crimes, hate crimes. That way, no PC protected group gets any special treatment. This is part of draining the swamp rats.
Like what could go wrong? Pretty soon a post here for DJT’s third term would trigger a hate-crime accusation.
No. Get rid of the notion of hate crimes, since only the White Caucus can ever be guilty of same.
Punish violent crimes as such.
I hate ideas like this. (Whoops! Is that a hate crime?)
Stupid idea, drop it.
I say expand “Hate Crimes” to include ALL violent crimes.
all & any violent crime.
If only we didn’t already have laws on the books for these kinds of behaviors. /s
Voting Rights Act of 1965:
Excerpt:
“Several further protections for voters are contained in Section 11. Section 11(a) prohibits any person acting under color of law from refusing or failing to allow a qualified person to vote or to count a qualified voter’s ballot. Similarly, Section 11(b) prohibits any person from intimidating, harassing, or coercing another person for voting or attempting to vote.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965
Why? The attacks on Islamist theocrats have been exposed as fakes...
I truly hope this guy is making a rhetorical point. Otherwise, he needs to be primaried next time around.
"Hate" allows the State to pass judgement on an alleged perpetrator's thoughts, before any guilt has been ascertained.
If that Pandora's Box is opened, how long before the crime becomes secondary to the "hate"?
What should be made an example of is stupid law makers...you get three shots, then you’re out... he’s got two left
This is unconstitutional. It would never fly, this is what the first amendment was really about; protection of political speech. This asshat doesn’t get our country, I guess.
Stupid, stupid, stupid idea.
Beating someone up is assault, period. There is no other “crime” to it, no matter the motive. Should “hate” be able to be presented as evidence for MOTIVE? Yes. For a separate crime? No. A “hate crime” is nothing other than s slide on the path of THOUGHT crimes. It has no place in the ideals our nation was founded on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.