Understanding Florida’s Hate Crime Law

User Rating: 0 / 5

Star inactiveStar inactiveStar inactiveStar inactiveStar inactive
 

A few months ago, I had the opportunity to address a rally commemorating the life of Craig Cohen, beaten senselessly to death last April outside the Peter Pan Diner in Oakland Park, Florida.

Not too long after Craig was attacked, so too was another young man, David Villanova, assaulted at a nearby location.

There was no rhyme or reason to either assault or beating; just another one of those shocking things we come home to at night and see on our television sets. A gang of teenagers were suspected of the crime.

Because both victims were gay, there was reasonable speculation that this gang was targeting gay men. If that could be established, the attack would be a ‘hate crime.’

What exactly is a hate crime and how is it different from any other crime?

Surprisingly, lots of people still do not fully understand the law.

Hate crimes, or bias-motivated crimes, are defined as offenses motivated by hatred against a victim- based on his or her race, religion, sexual orientation, handicap, ethnicity, or national origin.

In Florida, for a long time, African Americans have been primary targets. Since 9-11, nationally, Muslims have been increasingly victimized. However, for the gay community, when it comes to hate crimes, we have always been the ‘chosen people.’

The most important thing to understand about a crime based on hate is that, if proven, it enhances or increases the penalties for the assailant. That is no small thing, because it can take a simple assault, which is a misdemeanor, and raise it to the level of a third degree felony.

Craig Cohen suffered many months in the hospital after his attack, but now he has died from the injuries.

The suspects, eventually apprehended, could be charged with premeditated murder. As such, they may face the death penalty for their crimes.

Since the suspects would already be facing the maximum penalty for their acts, that it may have been a hate crime would only be an aggravating factor in their sentencing.

Since both David and Craig were attacked suddenly from behind, and could not offer detectives any evidence of what the assailants said prior to striking them, there was insufficient evidence to prove up a hate crime by their words.

Neither could the victims identify the attackers. Thus, establishing the predicates for a hate crime became insurmountable, even if it were one.

The first step for detectives to determine if a hate crime occurred is to interview the assailants and see if they confess to their intentions. If it was proven that a group of attackers were sitting around in a room and had conspired to go out “and get them some fags,” law enforcement would have the necessary elements to charge a hate cime.

If they did so, that would raise the offense from an aggravated battery where the guys would be facing up to 15 years to a first degree felony where they would be facing life.

Before interviewing the assailants, detectives may have suspected it was a hate based attack on both victims. But preliminary information released to the lawyers of the accused has now suggested that the sexual preference of the victims didn’t factor in when their attackers were planning or committing the crimes.

They were just vicious human beings looking to rob someone, anyone, they found defenseless. To charge the defendants with a hate crime then would subject the count to a motion to dismiss by a seasoned and skilled defense attorney.

The next possible way of prosecuting the case as a hate crime would be if independent witnesses heard something during the event that proved up the intent and bias of the assailants. That has not happened here.

One last alternative to prosecute this case as a hate crime might have been if one of the accused turned on the others and said, “yeah, we planned it for the Peter Pan Diner because we knew we would get an easy gay target.” Neither of those circumstances has panned out in this case thus far.

Consequently, even if BSO had the best of intentions, the information they turned over to the State Attorney’s office was insufficient as a matter of law to charge a hate crime penalty enhancement.

As to Craig Cohen, it will not matter anymore. Murder is murder and you face the harshest penalty. Where it would matter is if one of the other assailants, who simply watched or witnessed the attack, and did nothing, were charged. Under that circumstance, then a hate crime would boost that criminal’s potential sentence.

Accordingly, if you are ever unfortunate enough to be exposed to such a tragic circumstance, do your best to keep your wits about you, consciously recording those words or deeds an attacker accosted you with, so that your claim you were the victim of a hate crime will be sustained as a matter of law.

Sadly, both as to David and Craig, the swift and sudden assaults, and the grave injuries to each party, prevented the State of Florida from establishing a hate crime from the outset. So far, nothing any of the culprits have said has formed the basis for changing that determination.

It’s too bad, because the possibility exists the actions were hate-based, but it just cannot be proven up.

We need not blame the sheriff or the state attorney. Instead, let us blame the culprits for their inexcusable hate.

Let us light a candle and remind ourselves that though Craig may not have been targeted because he was gay, many of your brothers and sisters are still, from South Florida’s shores to California’s coasts.

 


BLOG COMMENTS POWERED BY DISQUS