Judiciary Committee - Senate

Okay. Close to the pastel. Yes. Yes Mister I got amendment to allow you under an hour after presentation I'm sorry I said I have an amendment I'd like to propose also I don't know if you want an hour after the presentation of the bill let's let's Center hickory okay Hickey president has amendment. Okay members what this does is just a delete section five and puts this in the entirety all in all it does is clarify that the The delayed release on this show but shall be an amendment a minimum of a eighty percent that's basically what what we've been saying but it just provides that clarity within that. Within that section. Motion to adopt from senator Russ. Circumcenter Hendren all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed motion carried congradulations Senator Hickey your bill is amended Senator Hendren to your question I think the proper thing would be for of such is not Senator Hickey as a moment would be for him to present the bill and then at that time one million of. Will of. look to make a motion for a presenter Amendment Senator Hickey thank you Sir okay members I'll be quick with this this bill provides for delayed release or certain violent felony offenders is listed on page two line seven to nineteen. This action is effectuated at the victim is targeted targeted and specifically associated with the recognizable an identifiable group or class to share mental physical biological cultural political or religious beliefs or characteristics it is also important to note that this action to try for delayed release is only applicable after defendant is found guilty of the aforementioned crimes. Also on page two lines two through six the bill is specific that a mere default or expression is not a sufficient reason for this penalty or delayed release it must be proved that a defendant defendant specifically targeted another individual with a violent crime. Based on the items listed on page one lines thirty one through thirty four skews me thirty three thirty three thirty four. This bill also reiterates on page three lines thirteen through twenty four that the bill is not meant to interfere with the US Arkansas constitution it is not meant to serve as a basis for an action under the. Intrastate improvement act it is also not intended to expand or contract. Protections under the Arkansas civil rights law and it also says the bill cannot be amended three any executive action this bill also creates a registry through the Arkansas crime information center of persons who are sentenced under the offense of delayed release under this bill. The penalty upon conviction under this bill requires a defendant shall serve a minimum of eighty percent of the original applicable sentence for the violent crime which they are convicted of I'll try to answer any questions. Senator Hendren. Thank you Mr chairman Senator I appreciate your work on this and I think we I'm I'm glad we've gotten to a point where we've all realized the necessity to take Arkansas into the other forty seven states so I want to start because we're getting conflicting reports we've heard to the. The chairman of the chamber say this is a hate crimes bill and referred to called something else I think it's important is this is this going to be considered a hate crimes bill when we when businesses and industry starts looking at Arkansas with rather not we have one. I thank you for is the terminology of hate crime that's going to be for those for those individuals are those businesses to decide I believe this for the Arkansas businesses we've heard from so from so amended to it is satisfactory to them course the as you can tell it doesn't have hate crime in the title or in the body at any point it is what it is what it says it is it is a delayed release if you you know target to target a victim because these are that of a recognizable identifiable group share those characteristics so I don't want to dance around with you but again you know as you want to go you want to say that some people want to hear that is say crimes and others want to hear that it's not basically what I think this bill is is a. A good to go in Arkansas code and services purpose of protecting people. So I appreciate that and you know we had a bill in here last week to Senator Rice carried which was modifying the two thousand seventeen bill that I had which had enhanced penalties for law enforcement officers and I had an exchange with one of our colleagues here on Twitter about whether not that was actually a hate crimes bill itself for targeting bill or whatever because the bill very clearly said aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer and set out special penalties for that crime I would say that bill is a hate crimes bill for law enforcement officer I guess what I'm the reason I'm trying to get this is as we look at trying to recruit businesses to Arkansas. And let's say a corporation is looking to locate here with thousands of high paying jobs and they sent out a request for proposals to other states and asked on the survey of what your tax rate what's your workforce training programs what your infrastructure look like I can assure you one of the questions are going to ask is does Arkansas have hate crimes protections for same sex orientation or sexual orientation or gender identity or race or gender they're going to ask do we have hate crimes protection for those categories I guess what I would ask you is do you believe if we pass this legislation the answer would be yes. I believe that they could answer and say we have a delayed delayed release bill which those individuals that you listed would be incorporated in it because I think it's fairly a safe to say that if someone's a transgender that they're going to be listed as a recognizable identifiable group and they're going to share those characteristics may be multiples that are listed within that so as far as the premise of the bill yes Sir I would say that to those groups to be covered if you're looking again to say its hate crime and has that the title or within the body it's not. Thank you and I think it I don't care so much about what the word say is what the bill does And I think we share that and but I do know is you know I worked on this for awhile and had a lot of discussion with the groups have been traditional targets of hate crimes and in those early discussions one of the things that became clear to to me was at least that just as we did for law enforcement officers were we spell them out by specifically by name. They would prefer that there's no ambiguity and that they be listed by name and I guess what I'm asking is and this goes to the amendment the I'll be talking about shortly I've heard you say in the paper and just here today in an effort to speak or say that this bill covers all of those groups that are listed in SP three transgender sexual orientation race gender religion all of those things homeless is I believe in the home that is at all so I'm really worried that those keep those groups are covered under your bill. In addition to others and others yes Sir and I guess my question is then because when I've had these discussions with these groups. They are suspicious and I would say rightfully so because they've been victimized for these Katich being in these categories is there a problem with clarifying that and saying including but not limited to and listing those groups if there if they are covered it does not change the bill anyway except clarified to those groups. They were not playing a trick here you are in the covered it no trick being played and played yes Sir I think there is an issue because whether we like it or not I understand that certain individuals want those names to be listed we have certain individuals or groups that don't want to but those to be listed specifically all that really matters is the code protects these individuals those individuals on that side additional individuals if someone targets if someone targets I'm sitting at this table saying if someone targets a transgender The way this bill is written they are protected and if a prosecutor wants to bring that it'll be up to the prosecutor this bill will apply upon conviction the perpetrator would have to serve a minimum of eighty percent of their sentence by the same token if there's more of who will work and I'll just say you know conservative type person or any type of person that a of clergy that has been specifically targeted but calls of that reason the prosecutor wants to bring that they themselves will also. Will also be a protected you know it's just hard to as you know Senator Hendren whenever you start doing a bill like this you know. If everybody wants everything listed there's no end to it but whenever you do it the way that we have you can cover only if those accusations you know exist and the prosecutor deems that it is a something that they want to track thank you senator thank you Sir. Other questions from the committee. Senator Hickey as I understand it of. The federal hate crimes law came about after. Man named bird of was murdered in Texas black men pull behind a pickup decapitated manning Matthew Shepherd in Wyoming of who was getting. Did you know one of the things I want to a presentation by the FBI and all those involved in those received. Either life sentences or the death penalty and I asked since the. They mention specifically that the hate crime federal hate crimes bill came about as a result of that I asked what would have happened what would have happened differently had the hate crimes bill been in place of. And do not transfer was I've heard you say you said that there was no answer well there is there because there isn't one because there's nothing beyond death or life. there is no answer then has put me on that but this bill of if someone targeted Mr bird. because he was black that would be covered in this bill wouldn't yes sure that be a recognizable identifiable group and with all under biological I would think if if someone targeted Mr shepherd and they of course were in Arkansas someone targeted Mister Shepherd because he was homosexual that would be covered under this bill right. Yes Sir of course I don't know the specifics of that case but you know yes is it for just saying because of the being a homosexual then he would fall under that recognized wanted in a public group along with those characteristics yes yes it was first degree assault and murder of the congressman in Washington that the man drove down there and shot them because they were Republicans the that would be covered under this bill would not. Again I hate to specific cases but back to my same thing will the rope recognizable identifiable of course that would be the Republican will Senator Hendren recognized political yes Pacific of the church in Charleston South Carolina where the man with and always do not you know I'm on those crazy people go to church listing out of and so that was very personal to me whether he went in because they were black or because they were Christian of if that was his only motivation that would be covered under this bill would not. Yes Sir under religious belief. Okay all right thank you Senator Hickey thank you Sir. Other questions from the committee Senator so feel. Thank you Mr chairman of Senator Hickey is there any group or individual that would not be covered on this group. House Bill. Not not that I could think of may be and are I've heard some things you know of some groups that we might all not be really tasked with you know I heard someone say well as a cover of somebody like a neo **** well let's just go down that if Senator Ballinger was to target me because of that specific reason to come out and kill me then I would think that Senator Ballinger could also possibly be a charged under this again is up to the prosecutor The prosecutor has to bring it but you know that's what America is about you know just because we don't particularly like someone or agree with what they say you're with what they do on this the they do have those rights that to you know they don't need to be targeted and put into a group like that just because of those characteristics so I don't know of anyone whenever they are specifically targeted but calls that they are in that recognizable identifiable group. With those characteristics that you know prosecutor couldn't look at Woodbury farmer be covered under this. If. Again. You know if somebody was just going out and saying well I don't like it very far I don't like dairy farmers because they're you know harmful to details doing something to livestock or some things like that the prosecutor thinks that that was solely the reason But I would think so yes Sir. So someone running a greenhouse could be charged under this to. If if if the offense could be tied back that you know that was the sole reason for it we'd probably getting into the into the weeds a little bit more that things like that might be a. Little more difficult. But again. That's what we have to give that discretion to the prosecutor because you know they have to look at each case individually on some of those basis is a professional or not or is prosecutor not already have a certain degree of. Discretion whenever it comes to sentencing these individuals. And also. Our don't we always have we already have laws on the books to cover all the serious felonies and violent felon. We do and that is an important fact important fact is we we have not created any new crime with this bill we've also not increased The time that that's been allowed to be serve our skews me that the the sentencing on the on these particular crimes what we are doing is just saying that you're not able to they're not eligible for release until a minimum of that eighty percent is been service so that is good good point Senator no new crimes know what divisional links no one has been to that just that the amount of time serve will have to increase. Thank. Senator Garner did you have a question. Yes Sir. You're recognized as a major force records yes you're recognized. Thank you also not just prosecutor but the actual jury or the judge will also be a determining factor that is like a jury trial is now thanks beer found guilty of the underlying crime then there would be an additional information given by both parties see if you would fall under this delayed release in the jury would all have the same or whether this is applied to the B. one more step that process before that's made turmeric general termination at Trinity yes Sir that's right on the jury trial you actually. First have to be convicted of the offence of of one of those crimes and then after that you're exactly right that's when they would go to to see if this this could be applied other evidence could be brought forth it is just the circuit judge this hearing without the jury then the circuit judge will You hear the underlying evidence and make a determination on the in on the crime itself and then determine the other other end secondary with the secondarily fashion. Follow up on that juries all time or people in the community who are reasonable understand these kind of fantastical ideas the certain extremist groups can this protection is something that I think would practically happened Arkansas I would agree with that yes Sir. Thank you. Senator Hickey of I was looking at Page three line thirty one if a frivolous charges brought. Of. For this aggravated. Circumstance which is targeting of somebody for the group that they're in of. fairly serious charging itself isn't it. Yes that would that that particular one with an official would actually Clerk would actually carry a Class C. felony. And then over on page four if you at if you look at the lines twenty one through twenty five actually even deals with the false report itself. Twenty four thank you. Other questions from the committee. Senator Sturch will. Thank you Mr chairman. The ticket was watching the next couple of weeks ago and they were interviewing some individuals are removing their businesses out of California question California's got a whole array of hate crimes on the books. And when they ask the individuals why they were leaving California they listed. Strict government burdensome regulations mostly high tax. And another environmental regulations a whole litany of things not one of them mention hate crime. California has a whole group of hate crimes. Same way with New York. Before moving to Florida because. The ordinary Vikram's. Because it had district of overburdening regulations taxes. The report and people were losing their liberties. And the freedom and some of the states with this over growing government both of the state's. But not one time did I mention I hate crimes is a reason for leaving the state. Could use. Maybe. Do you think people would leave states because they don't have a crime at least. I couldn't answer that Senator Stubblefield you know from my standpoint this bill. Again. Some people like to say it's brought out like to say it's all inclusive you know we're inclusive enough that it covers you know a wide variety of groups who may be targeted and translocated as of you know protection for citizens now as Senator Clark was saying earlier you know if unforeseen some victims been killed you know they're not going to be able to come back but our only hope with all any of this stuff is always that you know we're possibly going to provide a deterrent that maybe somebody else in their models that will. I know that if I do this that there's a enhanced penalty or possibly if we have to keep someone there that's a you know that the mentality to the Committee crime like this it's it's okay with me if they stay longer so I guess that's I can't I can speak directly as far as what to you know people leaving states and things like that but as far as Arkansas and what we have this bill written as I said earlier I think it's good for our code. Thank you Mr. The Senator Hickey yes Sir the again. The way that this reads and correct me if I'm wrong. The. This aggravating circumstance on the first phase line thirty one. that a victim **** was defended purposely selected the victim because the victim was a member of a recognizable proof. Never comes into play and let us. The defendant is first convicted of murder in the first degree or murder in the second degree or battery in the first degree or aggravated assault or terroristic threatening or terroristic act or arson or unlawful discharge of a firearm from a vehicle referred to correct. Or attempts legislation solicitation or conspiracy to commit those offenses right yes Sir so it goes all the way down. So unless somebody has committed one of the serious heinous acts then this is not considered that is correct it's just is it related to these violent crimes and convicted of such. And then it'll be determined after that yes Sir thank you. Other questions from committee. Seeing none of before we go to for against Senator Hendren I guess I'm going to come back to you of since you are yes you can pass up for the rest of the passenger Amendment forty. Give me to explain now yes what is it about got it. Let's let everybody get a copy. Senator Hendren you're recognized the the Senator Hickey Hill cupping. I do not. Jerry what we're sitting here I asked that Senate committee happened yet I have not Budget bills or give a reminder on that. Senate they're sent to Nelson for our. Senator Hendren recognized to present your men. Thank you Mr chairman and Senator Hickey I appreciate as I said that to you try to thread the needle on this and managed to do what a lot of legislation doesn't get people man on both sides but I think of what I'm trying to do with this amendment is. Make the bill clearly do what you say and the Speaker has said it does both today and in public testimony and in and to the press so what this amendment does is it's on the only thing it changes on page one where you define aggravating circumstances can you go through the list they're recognizable and identifiable group per class C. share mental physical biological all of those things please all that exactly the same doesn't change. A comma but after that it says one furries including without limitation. The victims and it includes some of these groups that were in what I would consider to be traditional victims of hate crimes. And again the reason that I think this is necessary is while we may all sit around the table and say that all they're all covered by the definition and paragraph one. This puts it in in the code in black and white what we've already said our intention is and what the law is and and gives them the assurance that in fact if you are the victim of a crime because if your national origin there's no dispute you don't have to depend on a prosecutor to decide whether or not that so that is a recognizable or identifiable group because we know there are hate crimes every week in this country against people because of their national origin or because of their race or because of their sexual orientation or because of their gender identity so again if the bill already does these things I think this makes the bill stronger it makes the bill more clear and my hope would be it would make it more bipartisan and more something that appeals to people who are actual dictum as of this of hate crimes traditionally and feel like this bill is as you said earlier dancing around. Clearly saying that Arkansas will not tolerate crimes against people in these groups and everyone of these groups is listed for a reason. It's in other states legislation and that's another state's legislation because everyone of these groups there's been somebody victimized by hate crime. Most of these groups multiple times so that's the purpose of the amendment not to change your structure not to injured sentencing not to change not to use the word hate crime because as I said I'm not concerned about the soak so concerned about the semantics as I am making sure that the victims of hate crimes understand that this legislation is designed to protect. And so that's an explanation of the amendment will be happy to any questions. Questions from the committee. Senator so feel. This Senator Hendren what if someone was attacked because they refused to join your group. A particular group. If somebody is attacked because they don't join your group right. I mean I I've not heard of that if that became a real problem I'm I'm I would assume if there's a you proper apps could fall under the Associated recognized modify group that happens to a lot of people who rejected for greatness thirteen is he refused to join the group they cut your head off. With the following groups. Well I mean that's the beauty of the way that Senator Hickey and Speaker Shepherd have written this is it does give you more latitude to explore options basically those really this is boils down to an enhancement apparently correct. That's basically what this whole thing does correct. Enhancement of the the amount of time you're gonna expended prison for committing a felony this one is a felony again night that. I would prefer that it also applying some misdemeanor cases particularly vandalism where there's some incredibly offensive and racist and hateful vandalism cases but again. What you mean your people that are Parsons not because they're trying to hurt someone there are sins because they like burning stuff down they don't pick out individuals right then this wouldn't apply okay. Thank you Mister senator Johnson. Senator Hendren. Does any of these. A through email. Not. Under what is defined above share a mental physical biological cultural political religious or Lieser characteristics including is is is. Is there any a through elements this not within that amount of. I don't necessarily disagree that they're not all included but it's not me that I'm trying that it has been the traditional victim of hate crimes I'm just telling you that the traditional of hate crime the traditional victims of hate crimes who I spent months trying to come to agreement on language I feel like and the reason most state legislations says this that it needs to be clearly identified and what again what I like about their definition is it does give you flexibility to cover other groups because as you see I said including everything he's already said but makes it without limitation but making sure that these groups that have been traditional victims of hate crimes know that this legislation recognizes that and is trying to address but. Is there any of those that name date through email not in the original. Hi again to me that's the that's the issue with with and why would I am proposing the amendment. and I think you'll probably hear testimony from others that you can construe that in different ways depending upon what your project you know outlook is on the world. And that's why it makes more sense and it's clear if there are groups that we know our traditional victims of hate crimes and it's been a problem just like we did for law enforcement officers we didn't try to use some hazy language to defense to define law enforcement officers in the bill I passed to enhance penalties we said law enforcement officers for correctional officers. Why we get the same consideration to these groups that have been victimized as much or more. Is. I guess I have to disagree because I see no hazy language and and doing what under the fourteenth amendment's equal protection under the law that gives everybody the same protections and and I think that's what the bill does not appreciate. The the work on the bill as it is thank you thank you. Senator garner. Thank you did you share this amendment with the Senate sponsors for you problem indicated that no I did not order. Right I mean I did I answer many questions such order the US to a question in an op order break there in center enters or to enter so let's let him answer and then you can you can follow up I said no I did not I got the amendment just a few minutes and part of the reason for that is I didn't even know we were having a meeting when we talk to the chair last week before we went home the meeting was scheduled for Wednesday so I had to work on this this morning and had the again there was a meeting called in advance of the normal Wednesday meeting which is fine insurance the property to do that so no I did not. This is a hostile you this is a hostile amendment at the eleventh hour after months of debate about hate crimes or whatever this may be correct. Well I I would I don't I don't know I think hostels in the view I I the beholder I would say this is an amendment that gives the the bill to strengthen the clarity that it needs to be viewed more legitimately. Well I think that any time with him discussion would have been appropriate to discuss with the sponsor who could've worked on the different definitions and different issues deal with that with that Mister chairman I will in my question thank you senator garner. Other questions from the committee. Seeing none. Of this section from the Committee for moving up the amendment. All. Well no action for the committee on the amendment I move we don't give them a motion from Senator Hendren to adopt the amendment. I don't see a second Senator Hendren thank you Mr. Okay so we will move to of the member fails for lack of a second we will move to against of. Jerry **** the family council. Thank you I'm okay Mister chair your departure so for the record yes. I'm Jerry **** I'm a director of family council and we are based here in Little Rock and. I'm here to speak against this bill. And let me preface my my a specific reasons for being against this bill by saying that I wish there was a law that we can pass that would fix all these terrible things that people do to one another the way they go in and do the mass shootings and all the other bad things that we all see on TV all the time I really do wish that there was a law that would do something about this as you all know most states already have a hate crimes law and whether you call this a hate crimes law or not that's really up to each individual I do understand the governor did refer to it as a hate crimes law today in his news conference. But all that said. I think all of us around this table no. That if these hate crimes laws actually worked in these other states that you wouldn't see all these terrible things going on the shootings at that Walmart down in Texas in the killings in the churches and the schools and so forth and if you know if these laws work to the you probably would see some positive effect from but there's just this is not there. And so with that said. There may be some things that we could do legislatively that might help things but I just don't believe this is it and is Senator Hickey I appreciate the work that that you all have tried on this and create Speaker Shepherd and Senator Clark and represent Dalby. Everybody this let's try to deal with this issue this legislature has been debating this issue ladies and gentleman for over twenty years as I've been here for of all of it and I've sat right here the into this table time and time again with all kinds of people that talked about this issue and so it's not an issue that's going to go away even if you pass this law. Because with most of these laws it's really the beginning not the end of the discussion. And so I would maintain that that's what this is this is the beginning of a discussion about it and if it does pass people will be out here two years from now wanting to change it wanting to add to it wanting to put more things in it even down in Georgia just recently they passed a hate crimes law and they still had a bad. murders down there of the of the Asian ladies and one of the first things people did was say well we need a stronger body more penalties we need the strength of the law and that seems to be the way things go but let me call your attention to some specifics in the bill. You know on page Page two line and two through six. it talks about purposely selected and it tells what it does not mean. But not in the bill does it tell what it does me. So I would ask what does it mean to purposely select and you know I think I probably know you thank you probably know but I have no idea if you know how the court is going to interpret that so it can it seems rather odd to me that it tells what it's not but it doesn't say what it is. And so that's one thing that I looked at this found something else and in there it on page three lines thirteen through seventeen. It says that it. It protects or today that will not apply to a clean energy. During a religious ceremony. What about a collegiate. Not in a religious ceremony. What was that but that just seemed a little bit out of left field to say well we're going to protect the rights of clergy if they're doing a religious ceremony but if they're not then we're not going to mention that and then it goes on and I would say the protections for religious freedom and religious speech are are just not there I mean they're very thin it refers to the first amendment kind of that blanket sort of thing but then if you look at any specific protections it protects clergy it's in a religious ceremony but it doesn't protect any other per persons of faith it doesn't say anything about them and so if I may. Christian business person or Jewish business person or whatever and or if I'm just out here as a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim and I'm trying to make make some kind of a statement or I'm at a rally or something like this how much how much is my faith protected in here and that one that protections just don't seem to be there. The The other the other thing about this this bill is. I would ask the question. How will it investigators. Figure out if you purposely selected somebody how will they figure that out. And I think we all know they're going to look at things you wrote. Things you said. People you associated with. That's what they're gonna look at. And so how far does all that investigating go if you have a very very zealous prosecutor who decides they really want to hammer down on a particular kind of person out here how far does all that go and what's more about third party investigations many of you around this table are aware of the subpoenas of the pastor's sermons Danny Huston back a few years ago when they were having a debate over a so G. ordinance. And so they were accusing the pastors down there of inciting and stirring things up and so forth. If the person preaches a sermon. On a particular topic and then it just so happens that a person goes out and does some terrible thing. how much is that bill back on the person that was preaching the sermon or teaching the class or. Holding the rally or whatever it is that they were doing and so there's not a lot there to prevent these third party over reaches I think. The other thing is the about the intrastate commerce law that had the privilege of working on with some people. There's something about this issue that is emboldened other places around the state life event Little Rock to pass their own hate crimes ordinances that go far beyond what this does. And I I just wonder once this is passed how much more emboldened some city councillors are going to be to try to go way beyond what what this law does and then dare the state to challenge their right to do it in light of the fact that the state claims have already passed a hate crimes law. So Mister chair those are. Mostly my comments on that. There are other things that that I certainly could talk about with this but I think I've mostly made by point. I've. It bad that we're having to deal with this issue I wish there was a better way I commend those that worked on it and tried and with that Mister chair I conclude by testimony. Questions from the committee. Senator Hendren. Thank you Mr. Mr **** we for per these arguments for an United been through and I I have to say some I just I'm completely puzzled at the logic and for instance the idea that we should not have a crime. A law against a particular type of crime because it doesn't eliminated clearly sex crime laws No limit a sex crimes in other states are here but we still have on right sure yes Sir yes yes you're correct him so would you not agree that the point that they're still hate crimes in other states does not mean there should not be hate crime legislation at all I disagree with that and let me tell you why. Because these kind of crimes are. They're not the same as sure we all know this fuel emanated the crime of murder there be a lot of Killen's no and no doubt about that we all know that if you eliminated all these other laws out here you know for these terrible things that are here. A lot of crimes and we all know that. But with this particular law there's just not any evidence that people wake up one morning and say well I was gonna go kill a bunch of people at Walmart but because we have a hate crimes law I just kiss it won't do it there's just doesn't seem to be any evidence to that effect out there okay and so with the on the flip side of that you do get some of the unintended consequences that we've talked about over the years. Okay one more question is at the other argument that I've heard is we can't consider somebody state of mind or thoughts or what they've written or what they said so would you under that using that same logic. Think that we should do away with any difference between premeditated murder where we take into account somebody's state of mine whether not the plan with no Sir phase in poster tax or whatever to go intentionally kill somebody. And not consider that at all compared to say manslaughter or murder a second degree by Senator Hendren I've thought about that you know that in fact that questions been asked before and. Here's my answer to that. That's. When you talk about motive that's something that the investigators are able to figure out based on whatever evidence it is provided. These hate crimes laws and I will say is. It seems to me. That the council culture that we live in now and we all know what it's like will look at anything that somebody wrote one thing they wrote five years ago or something they said eight years ago and they will certainly try to hang all around the person's neck and somehow use that to make a case for that surely must have been a hate crime if they did that and so it it seems that. These kinds of laws there's a potential at least to go way beyond what we would normally consider normal evidence for motive and and all of those things and so that's that seems to be the problem with these thank you. Senator Johnson. You said. Something about using evidence from years ago. I don't think you can get murder in the first degree. On something that you said. Five years ago that would be like. I'm gonna kill you. Correct not not I'm going to kill. This group five years ago correct the. You know the nuclear family in the future and possibly now. Could be a a class that is a minority. And and I think that's what you're your organization is here to help protect and I think that nuclear family is protected under this under this law. If if somebody in a different group. Targets that nuclear family and that that that's more than that irks me. To be in your position. Well and if I may have. Already have lots and lots of laws to protect nuclear families and all kinds of other folks out there if if if the situation where we felt like we didn't have enough laws didn't have enough penalties didn't have enough jails or whatever it is we need to do to evil doers then that would be a very appropriate discussion for us to have around this table. And you know I think many of us know that it's a matter of enforcing the current laws that we have in publishing the evil doers with the current laws that we have I mean the judge obviously has the ability to enhance the penalty based on the sentencing range that already is available and so that's. That that would see but seem to be that everybody is protected already. And follow up care sure. And these are the current laws that we have correct and and this is you're going to serve eighty percent. If you. That's what baffles. Is is you could be under the issue could be protecting the nuclear family and that your objective. And your speak against it into baffles me Jerry I apologize but okay but I appreciate your testimony thank you thank you. Mr **** The. There is another bill. Of. That. Delays the release of. Those who committed violent crime. we pass it through here with Senator Dismang is bill I think it's in the house now if you have a If you've been previously convicted of a violent crime. And you commit another violent crime with a handgun of that is not currently law. And I'm going back to your statement that with that we need to attack. Crime with the laws that we have of. So and but this is that we would keep. That person in jail for a hot in prison for a hundred percent of their sentence of so from your statement would you be against that bill of. Mister chair I I am not familiar with that bill so at this point I'd I'd his state will commit yes the principal would you be against the principle that somebody's already committed a crime of violent crime and been in prison they come back out they commit another violent crime with a handgun And we propose that we keep on the president one hundred percent of their sentence that would be a new law right of versus what we already have right would in principle would you be against that in principle I'm good with publishing repeat offenders more stringently than you do somebody who's not a first time offender that's my answer okay so you're not opposed to new law. The in what case if we were as I was listening if you were Christian or Jewish or Muslim and what case if you committed murder in the first degree. Would we be concerned about. What use the. Of being. Not looking at what you had said. Previous one. I'm glad you asked that Mister chair because. We are also who in this bill on page two lines eighteen nineteen and twenty. There is this section I a or there this is an attempt to solicitation or conspiracy to commit an offence listed in this subset division and that's of course all those terrible things up there. Now. We all know that what all went on it the I US capital back in January and I don't want to go too far to equate these things but you know how people said that the president was responsible for certain things and so forth because he incited it or set it or whatever and there's been debate about whether he did whether he didn't some people think he's responsible something he wasn't. So imagine that you have a a member of the clergy. That brought out here on the steps holds a social justice rally has occurred right out there all summer long I was out there. And they hold a rally out there and they make a speech and they say some things and then some people go downtown and they set fire to a building or some people go and they hurt somebody. Who is there a possibility then that that person gets. The end of this law and into the investigation and even if he's found innocent he gets jerked around and drove around and so does it create this kind of chilling environment we're. For example if I'm a radio talk show person talking on the radio and some regular listener goes out here and does some dastardly deed is this ability as with me being a third party to be pulled into that so that's that's the question that I would ask based on eighteen nineteen and twenty on page two. Good question. Mr Clark would you come to the table place. Mister would you like for me to yield or stay right there okay. Would be due. Would you identify yourself for the record please. Bob McMahon prosecute coordinator. Of mistreatment I'm gonna die then five U. as prosecutor somewhat of an expert on this subject since we ask you these questions all the time. looking at page two lines eighteen through twenty or any other for that matter but the specifically that. Of. In what case if I'm out here speaking I will use me after speaking on the capitol steps could are and then somebody leaves hearing go and goes and commits arson could I be charged in an attempt to solicitation or come conspiracy to commit arson. Senator understand your question correctly I'm not sure that that would fit I mean again we have to look back at the elements of the particular crime that we're talking about so we have to talk about purposely selecting a victim things like that so basically as as I understood the fact that you described I would not of. Suspected prosecute would file charges under this section of those lines unless the if I said we without somewhere without C. Fite said you only to go bar buildings down that could being what that that takes me closer to making that decision yes Sir Senator Ballinger. Thank you Mr and you don't even get to this analysis and tell the they're already been convicted of the underlying crime correct that's correct yes we understand this you you have to get a conviction first in like the second phase of the trial you would be trying to show that that were the presence of aggravated circumstances you have to prove those beyond a reasonable doubt thank you but based on Mr Cox's example. We can take this if we took this bill put the trash can. If there was if there was any nexus for. Convicted me of the solicitation attempt they would already be there would not already in the law yes Sir that that provision is already in the law okay all right thank you any other questions for Mr McMahon. Thank you Sir so feel. Thanks for sharing. Richmond man how many how many criminals. In the commission of committing a crime of violence felony. How many of them you may not be able to think about the amount of time by going to spend in prison when they're committing that crime. Senator I could I couldn't answer that question. So in a moment of rage. Where they've lost it and they they are intent on hurting someone do you really thank. They're thinking about the amount of whether it's forty years or fifty years no Sir I would I would expect that amount will be very low if there were individuals to do thank you Mr McMahon. Any other questions for Mr McMahon. Thank you. Other questions for Mr ****. Thank you Mister chair I appreciate the opportunity thank you. Of speak for we have Randi's a. Great music Arkansas state chamber of commerce. You're recognized as a thank you Mr chairman thank you members of the committee I know it's late in the day and you know a minute some of you since freed on getting to town so I'll try to be brief but the whole point. I would just remind us all that we right now or one of three states that has not taken a step forward to ensure that everybody within their states understands that the full force of the law will be brought to bear on someone whose singles me out because of some characteristic in my life for some belief for some affiliation. The other two states South Carolina and Wyoming are both engaged in this conversation much like we are today I'm not sure how we're either one of them will come out I know that they're having the same difficulty in dealing with that issue and we are. But nevertheless if those to move ahead we would then become the only state that would have this dubious distinction. But I want to focus my time and if any if there's any conversation as a result of it focus on. The talent issue because this is what motivates my members this is what motivated this is what is concerning to my members who have expressed more interest in this bill literally than any other bill I've dealt with in the now thirteen years I've been involved in this effort. More than taxes more than unemployment more than workers comp this issue is hot. Much of it because of national press much of it because of the whole social media. Effort or or all that we live in where as someone said while ago we're gonna cancel culture like it or not but could count me as one who's in the not group we are in a cancel culture and the concern of our members are business members. Is number one for being it centers on the fact that they have trouble recruiting talent and in some cases literally offers are made I was in a conversation and then people turn down a job because of what they learned about the legal climate in Arkansas specifically regarding this issue. For lack of better term class protection or hate crimes whatever we want to label that people turn down jobs because of what they learned that it is not in our league our criminal justice system. I was in a conversation with a major business in north Arkansas last week this was the primary concern of the CEO of that company who's contemplating either adding or making an additional investment or moving that business to some other location this was his major concern he's unable to attract to that community people he needs to operate his business of effectively so this talent issue is a very you refuel day by day issue that major companies around the state are contending with because this weakness in our justice system. At the same time companies that have regional brands or national brands are deeply concerned about the implications of the potential for boycotts for for Cust losing customers because of some sort of virtue signaling that that would take place as a result of failing to act on this bill so I urge you to bear that in mind our regional and national brand companies are deeply concerned about this issue. And may in many cases our largest capital investors our largest employers they're the people who will provide more opportunity given the opportunity to continue to grow and build their businesses. So those of the key issues that I want to emphasize mainly talent. What do to attract talent literally whether it's a football team or a of a manufacturing company or some sort of consumer product business. The first thing is that we have always had a reputation of being a really good place to do business to invest to grow a business to employed people to create opportunities. We need to preserve that reputation passing this bill will give us a key step forward in making sure that we are the place that we want to be in want to make just a quick point about some statistics that we got from the F. B. recently regarding hate crimes in the prosecution of on the Oct the occurrence of on there now at ten year highs all over the country. Three key points number one twenty two percent of race based crimes are actually committed against white people thirteen percent religious based crimes are committed against Christians and up for a format up for gender based crimes are committed against my heels so this issue does involve all of those Committee and it's something that we need to be very specific and intentional about sending a signal that Arkansas is the kind of place you want to bring your money your capital you will bring your job opportunities and you want to bring and raise your families here. With that I'd conclude happy to take any questions or. Incoming Senator Hendren. Thank you Mr chairman of that. Sir any other two states they're working on this do they define the classes in their bills I'm not sure about that but but like to make a key point about that This list quote the list we are we're all concerned or focused on come from the justice department it includes a state of Indiana which is nearly identical language very similar language and in terms of defining the groups that are that are to be protected under this very similar to the other state the other two states that are looking at this and to the other laws say hate crimes or to the use this other type of language I'm not sure I haven't seen the senator and saying look at the two Bills aren't I've talked to the my counterparts in both states in Wyoming and South Carolina and they're having the same difficulties we are and so you heard the question I asked Senator Hickey at the beginning of this because I share your concern that failure to have a crimes legislation is going to set Arkansas back tremendously particularly the other states do it. but I I want to know from your perspective are you comfortable sitting across the table negotiating a contract with General Motors or IBM he's want to bring thousands of jobs to Arkansas and telling them or feeling out there survey the Arkansas if we pass this legislation qualifies and has a crimes legislation protecting the groups of people that we've talked about I'd be completely comfortable with this language is in the bill okay thank. Senator Stubblefield. Thank you Mr chairman. Randy said the. This bill or the passcode you you believe that the full force of law should be brought down against anyone who commits one crime. Correct. Given the way the the yes the sequence in the process it's and that's about it in the actor or the the bill yes sure would you want the full force of the law brought down some want to harm your why for your child a man yes Sir certainly would you also said the this bill would help. Companies fill job vacancies. I remember you giving this speech couple years ago when you stood from the crowd you said there's two reasons. And every cop you know every company in Arkansas experiences these two reasons why they cannot fill vacancies and have trouble hiring people you remember what those were. I've learned a lot in the last couple the rugs. One one that's a that's a major issue we have to interview twenty five people are one is what you said the county was not be able to show up on time thank didn't feel like they have to show up at eight o'clock. You don't think those two reasons play a bigger part in these companies filling job positions that hate crimes bill you know I that's a that's an interesting perspective and here's how I would respond to that. The people that did this bill this this kind of legislation most impacts or the talented people for those two issues are not at stake are not in contention this is about people who are who are. Talented skilled competent. Desirable being recruited to come here from somewhere else in the the Google Arkansas and they start looking into what's going on in in this subject ball balls up and literally the the CEO I'm referring to from last week. Senate look but I'll make an offer in two days later they say Hey I really want to go to come to work with your group but I'm sure not going to blank Arkansas you said. Talented and desirable. You thank you thank some of these people that may be addicted to drugs it some of the huge pharmaceutical companies got addicted to all. And we allowed pharmacies and doctors prescribe you think some of those people might be talented in desirable had not been hooked on drugs pole it be absolutely so maybe maybe is working more on drugs in mental illnesses might help us to feel some of these fields on the job vacancies. That's exactly what we're working on a effort called together Arkansas to to deal with the opioid addiction issue okay thank you Mr. Senator Garner. Thank you Mr and so follow up on the kind of point you made earlier. Whatever they say there's forty seven states with hate crime is kind of a mis statement because if you look at the actual laws of these hate crimes states they're vastly different some don't cover denied any some of no coat six were tasty since the very very few actually do political affiliation so. It's by passing this not put specifics of this now we're actually doing the smart way to conservatism will to make sure any future kind of changes but will people be covered and we will actually be in a more competitive position by not single handedly defining each individual category by doing it this way would you agree with that the more expensive ways point better parts of business I agree totally up I would echo the the speaker's remark when he said our our approach is more comprehensive and the consequences for violations or or convictions are more severe. Thank you. Any other questions from the committee. Thank you I appreciate your time thank you Mr. Seeing no one else Senator Hickey would you like to close for your bill yes Sir I'll be quick members of a lot of hard work is when in this bill and to maybe it's not a shiny as some people would like it to be let me tell you this this is a war course bill gets the job done to protect people to protect classes of people with that Mr I just like to have a good vote thank you. Action from the Committee. Do pass as amended where was person portion. Ballinger center build your motion second from Senator Rice. With of. As a motion do pass as amended second of any discussion Senator Ballinger. Thank you Mr I just want to say that I appreciate you Senator Hickey and actually the vote on this committee who put the work into this early on in anybody's ever talk to me about hate crimes I've I've always made a point of saying that. That any legislation that creates protections for some people not for others that the illustration of faith creed star Billy speeches and speeches without stars it's divisive splits up a and and I always knew there was a way method to to accomplish this and and hope that we could do something that was absolutely inclusive so whether it's a Christian organization want to happen and I think in Georgia where the we're the question Research Councils attacked because of the fact they were Christian organization or whether it's the the you know the church is that that was attacked or whether it was even in a gay nightclub because they're targeting homosexuals any time that somebody is is out there especially in this society where where all the sudden we're really divided and people are not just angry at each other but that now they're physically lashing out at each other where there were physically attacking each other to me I think a good policy would be say okay you know if you have this mental state that means your targeting someone else because they remember that group we want to try to sway that action so I appreciate the the work that was put into this that where where we have something that truly doesn't provide protection special protection for some groups and not others that it truly is inclusive and if anybody's attacking another group in Arkansas we're going to see that it's a crime that's where the at least seventy percent your time so thank you for your work on the Senator Hickey and drag us kicking and screaming and sometimes we weren't happy about it but all to the table to work on something I think is is frankly from the very beginning I thought was possible in you got it done thank you Sir appreciate you Senator Hendren. Thank you Mr chairman I also want to. Thank you for your work at I I still don't think it's the bill that to I wish that it would be and I think the problem with the bill is demonstrated by the fact to sitting around the table deciding what's the best policy and nothing and there's nothing wrong with any of us sitting around the table but let's face it we're not the traditional victims of hate crimes your yeah we're the one sitting here defining what a hate crimes legislation should look like so I still think it's there's more work to do but I do think again it's a it's important for Arkansas that we continue this fight. because again I think I'm disappointed that we don't have more buy in and more support. From the people who this really impacts but nevertheless I appreciate that were least move the ball down the field. Other discussion. none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed. Motion carried congratulations center Hickey of pastor bill thank you Sir that is the only business on the agenda so we returned we will meet again Wednesday night at nine thirty.