In light of the newly proposed “biased crimes” and “hate crimes” legislation at the Indiana State House, Governor Eric Holcomb has made a claim about Indiana that was worth checking into. His claim was that Indiana is one of only 5 remaining states in the nation that does not have biased crime protections on the books.
He said, “Indiana is one of five states that does not yet have a bias crimes law,” Holcomb said. “It’s time for us to move off that list.”
According to theindianalawyer.com, “An overwhelming majority of states have hate crime laws, which vary to some degree but generally allow for stiffer sentences to be given to people who are convicted of crimes motivated by hatred or bias. Only Indiana, Georgia, South Carolina, Wyoming and Arkansas do not.”
According to the NAACP and shown in the images below, Indiana appears to be among four states without laws which would enhance sentencing for such bias/hate-motivated crimes. The other three states listed are Georgia, Utah, and Wyoming.
In each of the states listed below, varying laws are in place which criminalize acts a religious worship, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, disability, political affiliation, and age.
Governor Holcomb insists that Indiana does not have bias-motivated sentence enhancement on the books, but according to Justia U.S. Law: In Witmer v. Indiana 2003, the Indiana Supreme Court set a legal precedent in the books by ruling that the “characteristics of the victims can support an enhanced sentence”.
Justia reveals the details of the case:
“Alex Witmer committed robbery and murder in one two-year period. On March 25, 1998, sixteen-year-old Witmer pointed a gun at Preston Hall in Elkhart County during a “drug deal gone bad.” Initially, Hall thought that Witmer was playing around, but Witmer pointed the rifle at Hall’s throat and stated, “Give me your damn wallet.” (App. at 53.) Hall complied, and Witmer took the wallet, which contained money. The State thereafter charged Witmer with robbery on September 30, 1998, though it did not serve the warrant until November 1999.
Almost one and a half years after the robbery, Witmer, who had turned eighteen picked up Jason Powell and drove to the Pierre Moran Mall. Witmer had a .22 caliber rifle in his car. As they rode about town, Witmer and Powell discussed shooting an African American to earn a tattoo of a spider web. Witmer told Powell that one earns the tattoo by killing a black person. Powell expressed an interest in “earning” the tattoo, and Witmer “called him on it,” meaning “put up or shut up.” (GPR at 24.)
As they drove around the mall, Witmer and Powell noticed seventeen-year-old Sasezley Richardson walking through the Sears parking lot. (GPR at 25.) Neither of them knew Richardson. Powell told Witmer to drive towards Richardson. Witmer drove close to the victim as Powell picked up the rifle and began to shoot. Powell fired ten to twelve shots at Richardson. As they abandoned the scene, Witmer looked into the mirror and saw the victim fall to the ground. Witmer and Powell drove away, without rendering any aid. Richardson died from a gunshot wound to the head.”
“The State requested the death penalty against Witmer but later agreed to drop the request in return for a plea of guilty. (GPR at 29.) The trial court sentenced Witmer to twenty years for robbery and sixty-five years for murder, to be served consecutively.”
In the sentencing appeal of Witmer v. Indiana, Witmer challenged his sentence, stating that the extent of it was “unreasonable,” but the judge ruled against the appeal, stating, “Although we have never explicitly held that choosing a victim based on race could be an aggravating circumstance, we have affirmed the notion that characteristics of the victims can support an enhanced sentence.”
This legal precedent places enhanced sentencing based on bias-motivated crimes specifically within the power and discretion of the presiding judge over each individual case in the state of Indiana.
Therefore, the Indiana Supreme Court has already ruled that sentence enhancement is available to the courts throughout the State. Any added bills or laws would only be redundant to the Supreme Court ruling, and would be specifically designed to appease the opinions of one group of people over another.
With that said, it should also be noted that what Governor Holcomb is pushing is specific to each (and every one) of the eight categories detailed in the NAACP images above… to which Washington D.C. and California are the only places in the U.S. that have biased/hate crimes sentence-enhancements in every category across the board.
That’s right, not only does Indiana already leave sentence enhancements up to the judges presiding over each case… but there are only two places in the country that have the extent of biased-crimes sentence enhancements Gov. Holcomb is pushing for.
Is it possible that Gov. Holcomb is being misinformed or misdirected by passionate lobbyists with a singular agenda? Perhaps someone should inform him of the Indiana Supreme Court record.
