Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993)
Sunday, December 27, 2009 at 7:50PM Read the opinion here.
Issue. Does a hate crimes statute (penalty enhancement) violate the First Amendment right of freedom of speech?
Background. A group of young black men were discussing a scene from the movie "Mississippi Burning" where a white man beat a praying black child. This so angered the group that they decided to go out and beat up a white person. The group saw a white boy on the street. They beat the boy severely and stole his tennis shoes.
Mitchell, one of the assailants, was convicted of aggravated battery which carried a maximum sentence of two years. However, since the jury found that Mitchell selected his victim on the basis of race, Mitchell's maximum sentence was increased to seven years. Mitchell was sentenced to four years.
Mitchell challenged the constitutionality of the penalty enhancement provision. The Wisconsin Supreme Court found the provision unconstitutional because it would have a chilling effect on speech since evidence of the Defendant's prior speech would have to be admitted. For the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the statute punished bigoted thought and not conduct. The United States Supreme Court, on appeal, disagreed.
Court's Analysis. Even though the purpose of the penalty enhancement is to punish one more harshly as a result of the discriminatory motive in selecting a victim, it is constitutional. Traditionally, sentencing judges have considered numerous factors when imposing a sentence on a defendant, including motive.
Bias crimes are punished more harshly because the conduct is believed to inflict greater individual and societal harm. Thus, an increased sentence is appropriate.
Additionally, the Court rejected Mitchell's "chilling effect" argument. The Court found the argument more attenuated than contemplated. The Court could not "conjure up a vision of a Wisconsin citizen suppressing his unpopular bigoted opinions for fear that if he later commits an offense. . .those opinions will be offered at trial to establish that he selected his victim on account of the victim's protected status." The fear is nothing more than mere speculation. Besides, the First Amendment does not prohibit evidentiary use of speech to establish the element of other crimes. (Solicitation, for example) Why should it be different in this case?
It is not. So, Wisconsin's penalty enhancement statute is constitutional.