A second strategy is to use ordinary laws of murder, assault, and so on, but to treat bigotry as a sentencing enhancer justifying more severe punishment because the bigotry in effect compounds the crime and makes it more reprehensible. A third strategy is to enact laws specifying bigotry as a specific offense element that must be charged in the indictment and proved beyond reasonable doubt to the jury. This question implicates federalism one obvious way to try to answer this question would be to analyze the actual practices of different states that have pursued different strategies. I believe that state data have been collected pursuant to the Hate Crime Statistics Act . I have not yet seen any detailed analysis, and, in keeping with Chairman Hatch s remarks, I think careful analysis would be useful.
Data collection is desirable for a second reason.
Analyzing state data will not only help each individual state figure out how best to combat hate crimes, it will also help illuminate whether and to what extent there is a need to add a new federal crime to the books. In this case, the best solution might be increased federal assistance rather than enhanced federal jurisdiction that might reduce the sense of accountability of local authorities. In addition, many Senators and citizens of good faith ordinarily start with a presumption in favor of state as opposed to federal solutions. Such Americans could well be brought to support new federal crimes if the data actually shows that states are not doing their job. Data here could thus help forge a broader consensus than might currently exist.