Earlier this month, Gov. Eric Holcomb signed legislation that is widely considered a “hate crimes law.” The bill allows judges to add additional time to a sentence if a crime is motivated by bias, specifically listing color, creed, disability, national origin, race, religion, and sexual orientation, but not age, sex or gender identity.
However, the law does state that bias can be considered due to the “victim’s or the group’s real or perceived characteristic, trait, belief, practice, association, or other attribute.”
The proposal of a state hate crimes law has generated much discussion in Indiana. Many are opposed to this type of law since it seems to unfairly create special classes of protected people. Other opponents say Indiana judges can already consider bias when they determine sentences.
Some of those in favor of a hate crimes law want Indiana to be seen as welcoming to everyone, which would attract more businesses to locate here. Many supporters were hoping the list of biases would include age, sex and gender identity.
As I have thought about this issue, I have tried to understand the differing points of view. Imposing the same punishment on a criminal regardless of who they harm seems fair. On the other hand, what if the criminal was only motivated by their hate for the victim’s race, religious beliefs or sexual orientation? Shouldn’t we want to discourage biased actions by making the punishment more severe?
Unfortunately, according to a 2016 article by Briana Alongi in Pace Law Review, “Data to support the theory that hate crime legislation deters violence is considered to be inconclusive,” mainly because of inconsistent reporting of hate crimes throughout the country. Nevertheless, hate crime legislation lets victims know we find such biased motivation reprehensible.
An opposing argument some voice is that they do not fit into one of the protected classes, and thus a crime committed against them would not be punished as severely as one committed against those on the protected list, an unfair result from their perspective. However, the bill specifically protects minority groups who have historically been oppressed; therefore, this bill is a step towards rectifying past unfairness. Listing these groups acknowledges that their poor treatment is not acceptable.
I can also understand why many people believe a strong hate crimes bill would encourage businesses to locate in Indiana. I want to live in a place where I feel safe. A state with a hate crimes bill could reassure me that I will not be targeted unfairly because of my race, sex, religion or other characteristic.
While I am glad that the Indiana bill includes a general bias statement that can apply to everyone, I am among those disappointed that age, sex and gender identity are not specifically listed.
As an educator, I recently had to complete harassment training that focused mainly on Title IX regulations. Title IX prohibits discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance. Other federal laws protect employees from discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age and religion. Additionally, our federal hate crimes law covers crimes motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.
If we have federal laws that prohibit discrimination based on sex, age, and gender identity why should we not specifically include those in our state law? We need to be respectful of everyone and we can reinforce that message by encouraging our legislators to strengthen the bias crimes bill by adding sex, age and gender identity to the list.
Whatever your views on hate crimes legislation, we can all focus on our own actions and treat everyone with respect. We can also speak up whenever we see someone being discriminated against and help each other recognize when our behavior is disrespectful.
Prejudice is learned, and the best way to combat hate crimes is to encourage empathy to prevent these crimes from happening.
Susan Cox is one of The Republic’s community columnists, and all opinions expressed are those of the writer. She is a mother, an adjunct instructor of English at Ivy Tech Community College-Columbus and a substitute teacher for Bartholomew Consolidated School Corp. She can be reached at [email protected].
