Objections to a hate-crimes bill don't fly
Jay Evensen
David Litvack is a persistent sort. But then, most people with causes are.
Litvack is the Democratic Utah lawmaker who keeps trying to get a hate-crimes bill through the Legislature. Lots of lawmakers have championed causes through the years with all the zeal of a kamikaze squadron. They knew they couldn't win without compromise, but they just kept ramming away.
Litvack is different. This year he is preparing a compromise version of his bill. It is, as he said last week, "an olive branch" to his opponents. "I'm hoping they'll accept that and we can all walk away being proud of what we've done."
Maybe, but more likely he'll just get closer to outing the real objections of his opponents, whatever those may be.
Last year, the opposition came from people who didn't like the list of potential hate crimes included in his bill. That list included attacks against anyone on account of sexual orientation, which was interpreted as code for putting the state's stamp of approval on a gay lifestyle.
This time, the version he gave the Deseret Morning News editorial board includes no list at all. It simply requires a judge, or the Board of Pardons and Parole, to take into account whether a convicted offender chose his or her victim based on that person's membership in a group. This would apply even to those who are attacked because they are perceived to be a member of a group. It also applies to property owners or renters who become victims for a similar reason.
Even if you're not a "joiner," you belong to some sort of group. You're in a family or you have an ethnic background. You may be bald or overweight or have disgusting nose hairs. If someone attacks you and you can prove in court that the attackers were trying to send a message of intimidation to everyone else like you, you qualify.
It's about as watered-down as a day-old cup of soda pop left in the car, but it's still a hate-crimes bill. And, not surprisingly, it still has its detractors.
Gayle Ruzicka, the powerful president of the Utah Eagle Forum, was quick to pounce. "It's still a hate-crimes bill that doesn't treat all people equally under the law," she said. The crime should be the thing, she said, not the person against whom the crime is committed.
Let's look at that. Generally speaking, two objections keep coming up again and again in the hate-crimes debate. Ruzicka identified one. It is that such a law would treat some people differently than others.
Last year, my colleague Marjorie Cortez came up with the best response to that one. Lots of laws on Utah's books already do just such a thing, she wrote. If you assault a pregnant woman, you will serve more time than if you assaulted an un-pregnant one, regardless of her age. If you hit a school employee or a police officer or a doctor, you'll serve more time than if you hit a newspaper writer, even though we all might feel the same pain.
You can be the first to comment on this story.