An Act regularizing sentencing for hate crimes

Lead Sponsor: Representative Priscila Sousa

Impetus

Although most people could likely agree on a definition, there is no one criminal charge for a “hate crime” under existing law. Two statutes cover most bigotry-driven criminal behavior: General Laws c. 265, §§ 37 and 39. Section 39 mandates a diversity awareness program as a condition of probation, but only imposes this common-sense requirement following a conviction. Section 37, which does not specifically require that a violation of a victim’s rights be motivated by a defendant’s bigotry, does not mandate any similar program.

Need

The omission of the program requirement following a continuance without a finding (CWOF) under § 39 appears to be an oversight, which this bill would correct.

In practice, the overwhelming majority of § 37 charges do involve bigotry against some group of people. Rather than a one-size-fits-all approach, however, the proposed sentencing scheme would give a judge with knowledge of the case’s facts the ability to decide whether a diversity awareness program is appropriate in each case. This discretion is paralleled in sentencing violations of abuse prevention orders, which often involve intimate partners but may involve family or roommates and require an intimate partner abuse prevention program on probation or written findings as to why it is not necessary.

Legislative fix

This Bill amends G. L. 269, §§ 37 and 39 to:

• Require all those who admit to the facts of Assault or Assault and Battery with Intent to Intimidate to undergo a diversity awareness program, not only those who receive a conviction.
• Require all those who admit to the facts of Violation of Constitutional Rights to undergo such a program, unless the facts of their specific case do not so warrant.
• Regularize sentencing across these closely related statutes.