Verdicts left up to juries
By Ralph Siegel/AP
Without debate, the New Jersey state Senate on Feb. 15 approved a new hate crimes law designed to comply with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said juries — not judges — must decide whether offenders have racist motives.
The bill now goes to the Assembly.
New Jersey’s hate crimes law allowed judges to add heavier prison terms for convicted criminals when racism, sexism or ethnic bigotry were factors in the crime.
In 1981, New Jersey became one of the first states to adopt a hate crime law specifically outlawing acts of racial or ethnic intimidation, such as burning crosses or painting swastikas.
The law was expanded in 1990 to include stiffer sentences in cases in which common crimes had an added “purpose to intimidate” because of factors such as race, sex, ethnicity or religion.
For instance, vandals under the law faced heavier penalties if they defaced an institution such as a church or religious cemetery, or if their acts included the use of racist phrases or symbols.
But the U.S. Supreme Court last June struck down the law in its ruling in the case of Charles C. Apprendi of Vineland, who was sentenced to 12 years in prison for firing bullets at the home of a black family in 1994.
“The New Jersey procedure challenged in this case is an unacceptable departure from the jury tradition that is an indispensable part of our criminal justice system,” wrote Justice John Paul Stevens in a 5-4 ruling. Apprendi was released from a Corrections Department halfway house in July.
The high court said augmenting sentences was improper, and that Apprendi had been entitled to a jury trial to determine if his offenses were motivated by racism. The court said this should have been added as a separate offense from the firearms crime so juries could judge each charge separately.
Sponsors said the new bill, S-1897, accommodates these requirements.
Apprendi was arrested after eight shots were fired into the home of a black family living in his otherwise all-white neighborhood in Vineland. No one was injured.
Apprendi admitted to the shooting, and in his initial statements to police said he had done so to intimidate the black family. By the time of his trial, however, Apprendi said his first statement had been made under pressure, and that the shooting had been at random.
Prosecutors in the case claimed Apprendi told the truth in his initial statements, and changed his story once he became aware of the state’s tougher penalties for race crimes. |
