Reply #13: Georgia Hate Crime Bill

[Ian David]

Black Georgians hurt by homophobia
To the Editors:

Re “State supreme court strikes down hate crime law” (news, Oct. 29):
Here is an example of the unintended consequences of small-mindedness.

Georgia tried to introduce a hate crimes law to protect people from crimes “motivated by race, religion, gender, national origin or sexual orientation.”

Well, the forces of bigotry and homophobia didn’t like the word “orientation” being in there. Why? Apparently they wanted to be free to attack gay people, I guess.

So, they re-worded the law, and it passed, defining a hate crime as one where the where a victim is chosen because of “bias or prejudice.”

A white man and a white woman beat the daylights out of two black men, and received an additional two years on their sentence because it was a hate crime under the law, motivated by bias or prejudice.

But the sentence was overturned unanimously by the Georgia Supreme Court because the hate crimes law is “too vague.” Unintended consequences.

If the Georgia state legislature, progressive paragons of social justice that they are, had seen fit to leave the original wording intact, this would not have happened.

Sorry, black people of Georgia. It looks like you, too, are victims of homophobia.
http://www.sovo.com/2004/11-5/view/letters/index.cfm

See also:

State Supreme Court strikes down hate crimes law
Ban on crimes motivated by ‘bias and prejudice’ too vague, justices say

By LAURA DOUGLAS-BROWN
Friday, October 29, 2004

The Georgia Supreme Court on Monday struck down the state’s hate crimes law, ruling unanimously that the four-year-old statute creating enhanced penalties for crimes motivated by “bias or prejudice” is “unconstitutionally vague.”

“Because of the broad signification of these words and the absence of any specific context in which a person’s bias or prejudice may apply in order to narrow the construction of these concepts, we find fails to provide fair warning of the conduct it prohibits,” Justice Carol W. Hunstein wrote for the court.

Without a more specific definition, “any ‘bias or prejudice’ for or against the selected victim or property, no matter how obscure, whimsical or unrelated to the victim it may be … can serve to enhance a sentence,” Hunstein wrote, listing examples including a sports fan who attacks someone wearing an opposing team’s baseball hat or a sports car aficionado who stole a Ferrari.
<snip>
The version of the measure approved by the state Senate in February 2000 created enhanced penalties for crimes motivated by “actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation.”

But the measure was amended in the state House to simply ban crimes motivated by “bias and prejudice,” based on concerns that legislators would not approve a ban that specifically included sexual orientation. At the time, Georgia Equality leaders said the measure’s passage was still a victory for gay rights.
<snip>
Both defendants received six years in prison for the assault. The hate crimes law allowed the judge to increase their sentence by 50 percent or up to five years in jail, up to the maximum allowed for the underlying offense. Botts and Pisciotta received two additional years on the hate crime enhancement, but will not have to serve that extra time after the Supreme Court’s decision.

http://www.sovo.com/2004/10-29/news/localnews/supct.cfm