New Jersey Section 2C:16-1 – Bias intimidation.
Contents
New Jersey’s Bias Intimidation Law – Section 2C:16-1
New Jersey has had laws prohibiting bias-motivated crimes, commonly known as hate crimes, since 1981. The state’s current bias intimidation law, Section 2C:16-1 of the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice, was enacted in 2001 after the previous bias crime statute was ruled unconstitutional.
Background on Bias Crime Laws
Bias crime laws impose additional penalties on criminals who select victims based on race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, gender, or other protected characteristics. The purpose is to deter these types of crimes and recognize the additional harm they cause to victims and society.
New Jersey passed its first bias crime law in 1981, becoming one of the first states to enact hate crime legislation. The 1981 law allowed judges to increase sentences for crimes committed with the purpose of intimidating someone based on race, color, religion, or other protected statuses.
In 1990, the New Jersey legislature amended the law to require an extended term of imprisonment when a defendant is convicted of a bias crime. Defendants challenged this mandatory sentencing enhancement, arguing it violated their constitutional rights to due process and trial by jury.
The 2000 Supreme Court Ruling
In 2000, the hate crime sentencing provision was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Apprendi v. New Jersey. The Court ruled that any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This includes the defendant’s purpose or motive.
Because the previous bias crime statute allowed the sentencing judge to make findings about the defendant’s biased purpose, it was unconstitutional. The ruling invalidated New Jersey’s bias crime sentence enhancement and required the state to revise its hate crime law.
Key Provisions of the Current Bias Intimidation Statute
In response to the Apprendi decision, the New Jersey legislature passed a new bias intimidation law in 2001. Here are some key provisions of Section 2C:16-1:
- Bias intimidation is a separate criminal offense that must be charged and proven like any other crime. Prosecutors can charge a defendant with both the underlying offense (assault, criminal mischief, etc.) and the additional charge of bias intimidation.
- To prove bias intimidation, the state must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed or attempted to commit the underlying offense with the purpose to intimidate the victim because of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or other protected characteristic.
- Bias intimidation is generally a 4th degree crime if the underlying offense is a disorderly persons offense. It is one degree higher than the underlying offense if that offense is more serious.
- Defendants convicted of bias intimidation face additional penalties including diversity education programs, counseling, and payments to support victims.
- Sentences for bias intimidation cannot merge with sentences for the underlying offense. Defendants receive separate, consecutive sentences.
- There is an exception if the underlying crime is a sexual offense and the bias intimidation charge is based solely on the victim’s gender. This prevents the law from being applied in domestic violence cases between intimate partners.
The Mens Rea Requirement
A key feature of Section 2C:16-1 is that it imposes a heightened mental state requirement. For a defendant to be guilty of bias intimidation, they must have committed the underlying offense with the specific purpose of intimidating the victim because of their protected characteristic.
This contrasts with the previous law, which only required the judge to find that intimidation was a general motive. Now, the biased purpose must be proven as an element of the crime, like any other offense. This comports with the constitutional principles set forth in Apprendi.
Why Have Bias Crime Laws?
There are several rationales frequently cited in support of bias crime legislation:
- Bias crimes harm not only the individual victim, but the entire community that shares the victim’s characteristic. These laws recognize the ripple effects.
- Bias crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, escalating intergroup tensions. Special penalties aim to deter this cycle.
- Perpetrators who target victims based on unchangeable characteristics like race demonstrate heightened culpability. Extra punishment addresses this.
- These crimes warrant greater condemnation from society. Enhanced penalties affirm the particular reprehensibility of bias-motivated violence and intimidation.
Criticisms and Concerns
Bias crime laws have been controversial since their inception. Here are some of the criticisms and concerns that have been raised:
- They punish thoughts and ideas, rather than just harmful acts. Some argue this violates free speech protections.
- They create special protected classes, violating principles of equality under the law.
- Enhanced penalties based on motive are arbitrary and difficult to prove in court.
- These laws could potentially aggravate racial tensions and resentment.
- Singling out certain groups for special protection suggests they are weaker and less capable.
- There are concerns about potential misuse of these laws to prosecute minor offenses.
- Some argue all violent crime stems from bias and these laws are redundant.
Looking Ahead
The debate over bias crime legislation is sure to continue in New Jersey and nationwide. However, Section 2C:16-1 is currently the law in New Jersey, having survived legal challenges thus far.
With hate crimes on the rise in recent years, these laws are likely to remain on the books. Their effectiveness continues to be studied. Many advocacy groups actively support the statutes. But critics raise important civil liberties issues that merit ongoing discussion.
Resources
New Jersey Bias Intimidation Statute – 2C:16-1
Analysis of New Jersey’s Bias Intimidation Law from Seton Hall University
New Jersey Attorney General Bias Crime Reporting