Published: March 25, 2008 11:04 pm         

Indiana without ‘hate crime’ laws

Issue discussed during town hall meeting at ISU

TERRE HAUTE — Why is Indiana just one of five states without “hate crime” laws on the books, and if it has them, will they actually deter those who commit them?

These two questions bounced back and forth amongst 250 students and area residents Tuesday night in the Heritage Ballroom at Indiana State University during a Town Hall Meeting on Hate Crimes.

The event was organized by honors students enrolled in a general honors seminar “Citizenship and Civility.”

State Representatives Greg Porter, D-Indianapolis, and Clyde Kersey, D-Terre Haute, told the story of their attempts to pass legislation that accelerates punishments for crimes committed with a bias base in them, and offered some explanation of why they have failed since 1999.

Porter, who authored the first proposed hate crime bill for Indiana in 1999, explained that “killer amendments” have been placed on that bill, making it unpassable.

The amendments, which Porter called inappropriate,” were related to abortion and made legislators choose between voting the hate crime bill down and passing a bill involving an off-topic, heated issue such as abortion, he said.

“We will bring it back next year,” he promised to applause, describing it as crucial legislation.

The legislation involved in House Bill 1076 is not aimed at punishing thought, Porter said, rather punishing action.

Kersey said, “in my opinion, freedom of speech ends when it induces a group to action or violence against another person.”

Throughout the evening, both representatives and members of the audience explained that the bill does not necessarily ban speech, rather it offers judges and prosecutors an “enhancer” when sentencing offenders of crimes such as battery and vandalism.

Two women who spoke in favor of the legislation pointed out that enhanced penalties already exist for some people based on occupation, as battery on a police officer is a more significant crime than battery against a civilian.

Likewise, domestic battery and spousal battery are considered differently than assault on a stranger, they said.

Sylvestor Edwards, a member of the Terre Haute NAACP, likened it to the difference between “friendly fouls” and “flagrant fouls” in a basketball game, noting that the intention of the violator is taken into consideration when assessing the penalty.

Some students weren’t so sure.

Patrick Schrader, a criminal justice major, asked if such enhanced penalties would actually deter criminals.

“Most of the statistics that I’ve studied show criminals think they’re going to get away with it,” he said.

Porter responded that a fine for not wearing a seat belt might not stop people from driving without them, but it does provide a deterrent, whether people like wearing them or not.

“It’s not going to stop the thoughts, but hopefully it will stop the action,” he said.

Maurice Walker, a senior at ISU, questioned whether adding these motive-based penalties would in fact be provable in court.

“Doesn’t that put more burden of proof on the prosecution?” he asked, noting the difficulty in proving motive and intentions in court.

He also asked if he, as an African-American, battered another African-American while using racial epithets, would be charged with a hate crime, and if not, why would a Caucasian?

“How will that law be equally applied?” he asked.

Porter said the “equal application” of the law has been a racial problem for some time, noting the differences in sentencing for crack cocaine as opposed to powder cocaine and suggesting those are based on the race of the convict.

But both Porter and Kersey said the question of application would still rest with the judge, prosecutor and jurors involved in each case, who would have to assess whether the intent of the crime was to target a specific group or not.

Kersey said some crimes might be fuzzy, but most in fact are clear.

Burning a cross in someone’s yard is not simply an act of vandalism and trespassing because the action communicates a loaded message and can incite people to violence, which was one of the markers he used to determine the difference.

Porter recounted finding a card on his lawn last August that stated “while you were sleeping, the Ku Klux Klan was watching over your family.”

Porter said the cards were spread throughout his “extremely diverse neighborhood” near 38th and Meridian streets in Indianapolis, and said that when one home is touched, it affects the safety of the entire neighborhood.

“It was an act of intimidation,” he said, emphasizing that when the KKK puts a note on his lawn, it’s more than just trespassing.

But in the end, the question Porter and others asked was “if 45 other states feel like this is good, why does Indiana say that it isn’t good?”

Edwards suggested that there’s little incentive for many to pass it.

“If I am a typical American,” he said, noting that he was playing “devil’s advocate,” why would he want to pass legislation against hate when America was founded on hate? And if hate is an American legacy, why would one want to increase the sentence for it? he asked.

Porter responded that the legislation will not “legislate morality” and will not punish thought or even speech, but that “it gives the judge more latitude” when punishing action.

One woman from the audience said the legislation might in fact reverse the “brain drain” facing Indiana, in which college graduates leave the state and don’t return.

“This is an economic and quality-of-life issue,” she said, noting that some people might not feel safe when they learn that Indiana actively chooses not to pass hate crimes legislation.

“What’s that say about us?” she asked.

Porter recounted one phone call from a constituent who argued that passing this legislation could “allow teachers to promote homosexuality,” which is one of the groups who would be protected under this bill.

In the end, Porter said “you will only change what you will not tolerate.”



Brian Boyce can be reached at (812) 231-4253 or brian.boyce@tribstar.com.