Hate Crimes Targeting People Based on Political Speech (as in the Charlie Kirk Murder)

The charges in the Charlie Kirk case include:

VICTIM TARGETING ENHANCEMENT: In violation of Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-203.14(2), Tyler James Robinson intentionally selected Charlie Kirk because of Tyler James Robinson's belief or perception regarding Charlie Kirk's political expression.

The Utah hate crimes sentencing enhancement statute indeed includes "political expression" alongside race, religion, and the like as covered "personal attributes," and provides,

A defendant is subject to enhanced penalties under Subsection (3) if the defendant intentionally selects … the victim of the criminal offense because of the defendant's belief or perception regarding the victim's personal attribute or a personal attribute of another individual or group of individuals with whom the victim has a relationship….

Some other jurisdictions do the same, though I can't say how many; my quick search pointed to D.C., Iowa, and West Virginia. Some states also impose civil liability for violence targeting people based on, among other things, their political affiliation; consider, for instance California's Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976:

All persons within the jurisdiction of this state have the right to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their persons or property because of political affiliation, or on account of any characteristic listed or defined in subdivision (b) or (e) of Section 51 [California's public accommodations antidiscrimination statute], or position in a labor dispute, or because another person perceives them to have one or more of those characteristics. The identification in this subdivision of particular bases of discrimination is illustrative rather than restrictive.

I leave it to others to decide whether it's good to set up special hate crimes enhancements (the Court has held they are constitutional, see Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993)), and to include targeting based on political expression; I just wanted to report that these laws do exist in some jurisdictions.

Comments

[Bored Lawyer]

The Supreme Court upheld hate crime enhancements (on the basis of race) in Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993).

In the course of that opinion, they stated:

Moreover, the Wisconsin statute singles out for enhancement bias-inspired conduct because this conduct is thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm. For example, according to the State and its amici, bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest. . . . The State's desire to redress these perceived harms provides an adequate explanation for its penalty-enhancement provision over and above mere disagreement with offenders' beliefs or biases. As Blackstone said long ago, "it is but reasonable that among crimes of different natures those should be most severely punished, which are the most destructive of the public safety and happiness." 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *16.

One can easily make the same argument about politically inspired crimes. Recent and not so recent experience has shown that people who believe strongly in their political beliefs view that as a license to violate the law, even with violence. That belief has to be deterred.

[David Nieporent]

And for the record, Mitchell was black and had attacked a white victim.

[thesafesurfer]

Assassination exactly fits the definition of a political murder motivated by hate. Why not use one word instead of four when they are synonymous?

[SykesFive]

Because it's not universally understood that "assassination" means "a political murder motivated by hate" and nothing else. The word can also be used to refer to any planned and premeditated murder, often with a political, financial, or other motive beyond personal enmity. Dictionary definitions tend to focus on the planned nature of the killing and the prominence of the victim.

There are a couple provisions of federal law that use the term "assassination" in connection with special funds set up for the survivors of murdered judicial officers. In these, the definition is "killing . . . that is motivated by performance by the [victim] of his or her official duties."

[Chris Upchurch]

Oddly enough, based on this description of Utah law, it would seem that eligibility for the death penalty would be inversely correlated with a murder’s marksmanship ability. An accomplished marksman with the ability to reliably make hits on his target, even when they are among others would ineligible for the death penalty while a less skilled shooter, hazarding others with his random fire would eligible to be sentenced for death. Will we give marksmanship tests to accused murderers? (I’m reminded of Deadshot demonstrating his skills in the Suicide Squad move, though that was post-conviction and sentencing).

[Life of Brian]

I had just flagged this oddity under Paul Cassel's post. Something like a marksmanship test is at least better than just evaluating a shooter's skill level by how many shots they happened to need in that particular situation, but I still question whether a subjective measure of recklessness is really the correct approach for an enhancement that in principle is supposed to deter murderers from carrying out their killings in environments that put others at grave risk.

[Randal]

Hate crimes make sense as a sort of poor man's domestic terrorism, and political affiliation fits within the framework.

[NvEric]

Stealing copper wire is a crime.
Selling stolen copper wire is a crime.
Stripping the insulation from stolen copper wire and selling it is a further crime in Nevada. ( or was in 2008 )
States decide their laws. ( we're a Republic )