Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hate Crimes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Legal experts urge clearer hate‑crime statutes, new tools for judges and communities
Summary
At a Special Commission hearing in Concord, Suffolk University law professor Christina Miller and others recommended clarifying Massachusetts statutes on hate‑motivated crimes, expanding remedies such as community impact statements, and giving judges clearer sentencing options including restorative programs and funded diversity curricula.
Christina Miller, an associate clinical professor of law at Suffolk University and former chief of community prosecutions in Suffolk County, told the Special Commission that prosecutors face recurring problems identifying, charging and winning convictions on hate‑motivated offenses.
Miller recommended statutory clarifications and new procedural tools to make prosecutions clearer and juries more able to evaluate motive. She called out two statutory formulations discussed in court practice: a statute described in testimony as the state—s section 39 (assault or destruction with intimidation purpose) and another referenced as a separate provision that criminalizes the deprivation of constitutional rights. "There are clarity problems," Miller said. "Section 39 is a much clearer statute; the other provision is difficult for juries to understand." She urged study and potential statutory edits so that clerk magistrates, police and juries have common terms and consistent instructions.
Miller also urged courts and lawmakers to expand sentencing and post‑conviction options: better funded diversity‑awareness and education programs, validated curricula, and restorative justice for cases where it is appropriate. She said restorative programming and community impact statements help courts understand the broader harm to targeted communities and recommended creating a formal mechanism for "community impact statements" so judges can hear how a hate crime reverberates beyond an individual victim.
Miller described "mixed motive" cases—where, for example, an underlying offense such as robbery is coupled with discriminatory targeting—and said prosecutors need clearer standards and jury instructions for those situations. Miller noted that smaller police departments and magistrates may lack resources and training and recommended continuing law enforcement training and clearer clerk‑magistrate guidance.
Ending: Miller offered to submit written statutory suggestions and asked the commission to consider funding and statutory change to reduce uncertainty in charging and sentencing hate‑motivated conduct.
