
Washington bill would broaden definition of ‘hate crime’ under existing law
(The Center Square) – A Washington bill would broaden the definition of a “hate crime” under state law so that it does not need to be the only motivating factor for a defendant in a court case in order to be convicted.
Under existing state law, hate crimes occur when a person “malicious and intentionally” commits a variety of acts, including assault and destruction of property, due to a person’s perceived identity including race, color, religion, ancestry, and “gender expression or identity.”
House Bill 1052 would expand on that so a person is considered guilty of a hate crime if they commit these acts “in whole or in part” due to a person’s perceived identity.
Sponsor Rep. Cindy Ryu, D-Shoreline, told the House Community Safety Committee at a Monday public hearing that “this bill is attempting to strengthen our state's hate crime laws by holding defendants in hate crime cases accountable,” adding that a person would now be found guilty “if a jury of your peers determined that their actions were motivated by bias, even if bias wasn't their only motivation. No one should feel unsafe because of their race, ethnicity, religion, gender, identity or any other aspects of their identity.”
However, concerns were raised by several Republican lawmakers regarding both the bill and the hate crime law as currently written.
Rep. Dan Griffey, R-Allyn, asked Ryu whether or not someone entering his property and burning his American flag constituted a hate crime, to which Ryu said “you know better than I do. You could probably tell me whether that's a hate crime or not.”
“I can tell you that's absolutely a trespass and destruction of someone's property,” she added. “As to whether that's a hate crime or not. I would guess that is more of a desecration of a flag, whether it's an American flag or any other flag. But I don't know whether it rises to hate crimes.”
Ranking minority member Rep. Jenny Graham, R-Spokane, also raised concerns regarding existing state law, noting that one provision states that it may be inferred that a person was motivated to commit a crime due to a person’s perceived identity “unless evidence exists which explains to the trier of fact's satisfaction that the person did not intend to threaten the victim or victims.”
Testifying against the bill was Sharon Damoff, who warned that such legislation could lead to similar incidents as what occurred in Rotherham, England, where at least 1,500 girls were abused by rape gangs.
“No officials or media wanted to speak up and save these girls because they didn't want to be accused of Islamophobia,” she said. “Dads who tried to rescue their daughters were threatened with arrest. People who spoke out on social media about these rape gangs have been sentenced to much longer prison sentences ... than the actual rapists who have received a few months if anything. That is where hate crime legislation takes you.”
Testifying in favor of the bill was King County Hate Crime Prosecutor Yessenia Manzo, who said the bill was necessary due to several cases where her office believed hate crimes had occurred but the jury acquitted on the basis that other motives were at play.
“This bill allows prosecutors to be able to enforce the hate crime law in practice,” she said.
When Griffey posed the same hypothetical question regarding the burning of an American flag to Manzio, she said “that would depend on the investigation and what developed with that investigation. If that person was targeting your home and doing that to your flag because they were motivated because of your race or national origin, then yes that would be considered a hate crime and would be prosecuted as such. If for example it was politically motivated, then no under the current statute it would not qualify as a felony hate crime.”
HB 1053 is scheduled for a committee vote on Thursday, Jan. 16.
More From 610 KONA




