Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, September 13, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 8
8.
receive briefing on activities of the Austin/Travis County hate crimes task force
>> good morning, judge and Commissioners.
>> good morning,.
>> I rosemary lehmberg, your district attorney and this is Davis and Karen will kick us off because she started this in the first place.
>> good morning.
>> shade: we are honored to be here before you today to talk about an initiative that I am excited to invite you all to efficiently participate in.
let me give you a little bit of context.
over a year ago, there was a hate incident right outside of city hall that really was the trigger for this whole initiative and it involved an assault against two members of the gay community, and the facts of that case are such that it was never prosecuted because the suspects were never apprehended, but what happened in the after math was that the victims and the victims community really felt unheard and felt that the community response was insufficient, so what we have done since then is we have worked with city and county leaders and some of -- and some state leaders to kind of launch this hate crimes initiative.
we were asked -- we being the ado -- we were asked to come up with some kind of response.
how did the community respond when a hate incident occurs, and so the background is that back in the mid '90s, there was a mandate from the department of justice to create high level hate crimes task forces that were intended to bring together key community stakeholders from law enforcement, f.b.i., state, dps, local police department, polices fors from schools and the university to bring together law enforcement with civil rights groups, the business community and the faith community, to create a space with intermittently they are meeting to discuss these issues with focus on prevention and education and focus on training for law enforcement and the community, with a focus, like what are the best practices when investigating a hate crime, how is it being prosecuted, how is the law working?
is it working well?
is the data being collected correctly?
could we be doing more to collect data and understand trends?
so, in light of that kind of -- that framework, we decided that might be a good model for the Austin Travis County community, and so we met with a lot of folks including initially david here, and david suggested that we kind of connect this to the community justice council -- I am not going to speak for you -- but from the get go, david and rosemary really understood what we were trying to coand wanted to be part of it in a leadership capacity.
so working with the community justice council under their leadership.
we also brought in the three members of the Austin city council to act as conveners of this initiative.
the first meeting of the task force occurred in December of 2010, and we had dr. Vincent from the university of Texas join us along with chief acevedo and his 5-10 key officers, joined by these two, joined by council members, joined by members of the state house, civil rights groups, the faith community, aisd has been at the table.
probably 75 various groups from all the different parts of our community, chambers of commerce, et cetera and at the meeting we decided is this something you are interested in doing.
should we launch this initiative in Austin.
and the consensus around the room is let's do this.
figure out how to be design and the structure should be and go from there.
so from that first meet to go the second meeting we had which is in April
>> we created vision pend mission statement.
our vision is respectful community free of hate which is aspirational, so those who where pragmatic goal oriented, it feels aspirational but that's what this is all about and the mission to create forum that fosters open dialogue about hate and discrimination and strengthens the bounds of our community with prevention, response, and restoration, prevention, response and restoration define three workgroups that have been convening since last April to identify our goals and objectives for this initiative.
so we have a task force, we have a steering committee and three workgroups and our third meeting is on Thursday and that's when we will be bringing together all of the key stakeholders and revealing some of the hows that we have learned over the course of this process and to share some of the goals and objectives for our workgroups as we proceed, and we -- we really would love for you all to have an official representative at the table, both as a task force level and to the extent you would like to be involved in the workgroup.
a lot of opportunities to really impact the system and the response.
we have been doing some really great trainings with apd and section and modify that training, actually, so implement some of the ah-has we have learned.
there is training on hate crimes and the bias documents and how it is fuse and codes and all of that and so I thought it would be cool for them to share some of their ah-has or whatever else they may want to --
>> I will tell you the training is quite good.
I went a couple of Fridays ago.
I missed the bias box several times.
one thing we are looking at, that I am interested in, is whether or not our statute is adequate.
our particular statute in Texas, there is a federal statute that's limited in its application, but our particular statute is an enhancement statute.
it says if you commit a second degree felony of this type and if the state can prove that the defendant intentionally selected this person because of of the defendant's bias or prejudice against a group by -- let me read it -- it is always easier -- race, color, disability, religion, national origin, ancestry, age, gender or sexual preference, if you can show the defendant's intent was to select that person because of of his bias or prejudice against that group, then it becomes a first degree felony, so it enhances.
but there has to be a founding beyond a reasonable doubt at the trial court level by the judge or the jury in its guilt innocence that it was indeed motivate bid that allegation of hate.
in david's situation, it enhances from a b to an a, and does some enhancement to a class a.
I have been kind of looking at hate crimes over the years and will tell you, number one, they are extremely difficult to prove.
two, the ones that get if community's attention are usually homicides and they -- you get no enhancement for a hate crime on that because it is already a first degree felony.
use know we had a double homicide recently that is of great interest to this task force and it is a capital murder and there will be no enhancement, which is fine, except that we need to look at other state statutes and decide, do we need to tweak our statute?
do we need to go to the legislature and talk about a better way to do this?
some -- one of the things that people don't understand about the law in this area is that there is no crime in the penal code that says hate.
just blake it his burglary or robbery -- just like it has burglary, rob or criminal mischief, there is no word hate, so therefore it is category of punishment.
it is enhancement, only, so I immediately appointed a hate crimes prosecutor in my office, jackie wood, who is an experienced prosecutor in my office, took a great interest in the hate crimes task force, and so I have appointed her as the focal point for all law enforcement agencies when they have cases come up that they believe may have been motivated by hate.
you see, we and the prosecution feel they are only as good as the investigation that was done by law enforcement.
so we have a great interest in working with them on a daily basis, if necessary, to collect the evidence from if get go, because these hate crimes are not just proven by insignias and writings, they are proven by words that are spoken.
words spoken at the time of the offense and other times by people that suggest hate.
so we are pretty interested in the law enforcement aspect of it as well as the education and response aspect.
>> judge, Commissioners, thank you for allowing us to appear before you.
I think they described it well.
for me, I think the ah-ha moment is that -- I think how much education there still needs to be undertaken in this issue.
there is so -- I think it is already difficult enough with law enforcement besides having the fact that you have law enforcement in our community divided under a number of jurisdictions.
they talked about the bias box and that is at apd and they have been going through training when that is and why and when to use it but we still have many other law enforcement jurisdictions and agencies that we need to make contact with so that they can understand this issue, this crime, so they can respond well.
in my office, particularly, I deal with -- I have young prosecutors right out of law school, so there is a need to educate them, that when these offense reports -- even when it is not picked up necessarily by law enforcement, when my prosecutors are are reading that offense report, to pick up some of those signs and signals to ask questions, well, this looks like it could be based upon a bias and it may raise the specter of hate crime and it allows us to go back to law enforcement and have them investigate further and see if it is a case we can make and with rosemary, I have designated this as an issue, of crime we want to may particular attention to in this community so I have mandated in my office, any time there is a question about hate crime, that it come directly to me.
much like some of our other offenses, they go straight to the top.
so I think we are doing a good job in our office of identifying and educating and look forward to continue on -- we are excited to be working with a task force and I think very proud of the community justice council to be undertaking this as a convener and I will join in the request, I think it would be -- there is a great deal you can add to the effort and would love to see you designate a representative for the initiative.
>> let me quickly add to that.
I have been on a lot of of task forces in my life and in my career and there are a lot of people involved in this task force who are genuinely interested in making a difference.
they are meeting.
they are talking.
I have noticed the law enforcement people are just as interested as restorative pieces as they are in the training and figuring out how to investigate better.
the task force meets only three times a year.
we wanted to limit folks who are very, very busy, and the steering committee comes to us, the workgroups and steering committee come to us to report, to get guidance and to talk about the things that they have developed.
we really would love to have all of your participation because you have ideas.
you have experience, and you have the kinds of things we want to make this a really successful task force, and indeed, I really believe that we can make a difference, because our vision, lofty as it is, is to be a community that doesn't tolerate hate.
and I think we are a good community for that.
>> can I ask you a question?
is -- has everyone had a chance to --
>> sure.
>> I have just a couple of questions.
I am trying to get a handle, as far as trying to put a face on hate crime, a face meaning the federal, as I heard explained, the federal enhancement definition dealing with hate crime, and, also, maybe not enough of that face on hate crime, then laid out plain and clear the state legislature as far statute is concerned.
so I am trying to put a face on that missing link between the two governing bodies and also what we can do here to actually look at a bone fied face of hate -- the hate crime actual was.
I am thinking about 1998.
I am thinking about james byrd junior who of course was dragged and murdered and I am -- I think it came under the guides of hate crime.
this is the federal, probably application of it.
but I am trying to make sure that if we are looking at the hate crime, what -- what -- defining it and hut putting a face on it and then dealing with it for what it really is hate crime, because I am struggling with semantics to some degree because I know what hate crime is.
I have seen hate crime in my lifetime and it's very obvious and it does wear an obvious face.
now, the point is to match state statute to help proceed in identifying what hate crime is and put a real, live face on it, something that's so bone fide that you know it under the law.
it is apparently some challenge.
it appears that way, think way.
but I would like to make sure that the community I represent has an opportunity to participate at a level where they can assist in looking at the situation and dealing with those persons that actually cause harm to those in this community because of skin color, of a group of persons, or whatever.
I would like to extend that type of outreach to those folks that really are willing to participate, but, again, I am still struggling with state statute, expressive, if it's not really mirroring what the federal law has illustrated, as far as the enhancement phase of that.
I am struggling with that.
>> as I think we all are.
I think it is part of what -- Commissioner, part of what -- is one of the things undertaken by the task force is to try to understand what the law is and as rosemary said, her interest is understanding what options are out there for improvement upon our statute.
let me try to help rosemary earlier read to you a particular part of the statute with regard to the protected classes.
let me read you the actual finding that has to be made, the action to those protected classes that justifies it being -- the finding of it being a height crime.
I will read the whole sentence, it is not very long.
"in the trial of offense, the judge shall make affirmative finding of act and enter affirmative finding in the judgment of case, if, in the guilt or innocence phase of the trial, the judge or the jury, whichever is the trier of fact determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally selected the person against whom the offense was committed or intentionally selected the property damaged or affected as a result of the offense because of the defendant's bias or prejudice against a group identified by race, color, disability, religion, national origin or ancestry, age, gender or sexual preference." and that's what rosemary brought up, too, there is some difficulty in this because to have aing you have have to find the person beyond a reasonable doubt selected the victim because of of this so it gets into what was said, the circumstances surrounding it, it relates to, we need -- it's why it is so important that we need law enforcement to recognize it early, that it might be -- that the hate crimes lab goes up so they with interview witnesses and ask questions that you might not normally ask in an assault case but what was done, about the property having some relationship to these protected classes.
you see a swastika hand painted, that is a clear one you might find but or things among property, it may not be so clear.
>> because we have two prosecutors here, we are set up on enhancement aspects of penal code but I see the value of the hate crimes task force including that but also being so much more because in all reality, the ability to prove up beyond a reasonable doubt the -- the hate that motivated the crime is very, very difficult.
I think the real value in this group's work is a heightened sense of the fact of these strains of hatred in our community and so that we can make a response precriminal and in the social fabric of our community.
one thing in the bias box, yes, it is very helpful if we do have enough evidence to prove it up and enhance it but the bias box, etch if you don't prove it up, gives us a statistical database from which we can draw on to say, wow, we have a serious problemming the.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners] let's talk about how we reach those victims and the community of interest of those victims. To try to generate conversation because I think we all know that hatred the generated out of fear and lack of education and knowledge about the topic.
and the more we do that, the better off we are and the fewer cases we'll have.
my memory is that james byrd was prosecuted in state court.
it was a state capitol murder case.
I really believe.
>> under a different statute.
>> because the james byrd, matthew shepherd act was passed federally after those offenses, but I think I recall that the district attorney out there took on those prosecutions out in vidor.
>> uh-huh.
>> horrible offenses both of those.
the immediate problem with the federal statute as I understand it is it was intended to fill gaps and there are hate crime statutes, and it could have been amended, in about 45 states, but each one is different and each has different groups that are covered and some are and some aren't in certain states.
so the feds can come in in a state where, for instance, they don't cover disability.
they think they all cover gender and things like that, but where the state don't cover sexual orientation, the federal statute can be useful there.
that's just to finish helping you get a handle and put on face on the difference between the government entities.
>> and another important distinction and this point may have been made but I think it's worth repeating, the federal law is a charge, you are being charged with a hate crime.
there's that sudden justice that comes with we are charging you with a state crime, whereas the state law is merely enhancement.
so as rosemary explains it's cumbersome to have to prove this extra element.
and far as the federal law goes, it also -- the change that obama signed into law in October of 2009 also brought in some federal jurisdiction.
so where the crime had to have occurred during a federally protected activity like on a federal vote or during voting or something along those linings, that requirement, that nexus is no longer necessary.
and the one thing that's come out of this that I just wanted to mention because I think it's a very exciting opportunity is, as I mentioned, we have aisd part of this process and at the table, and dr. Carstarphen has just committed and her board has just endorsed the idea of integrating the no place for hate campaign which is an anti-bullying, anti-bias program that they adopt every year so they are going to be embedding that into all of their social and emotional learning on the campuses.
so over the next three years aisd will become the largest district in the state to address it.
I think having them at that table and having them see that this community is coming together to do what we can to prevent on the front end and deal with it as it arises, that has really kind of mobilized that effort.
so it's an astounding commitment and it leaves me with a great deal of hope that we're making a real imprint on our youth.
>> what, action, if any, do you request of us and when?
>> we invite to you participate.
the next meeting is Thursday.
>> you want the court to send a representative?
I guarantee you don't want all five of us to show up.
>> something less than a quorum would be good.
>> thank you.
and when.
>> this next meeting is on Thursday.
I can send you guys the information if it's helpful, but it's Thursday from 4:00 to 6:00.
>> Thursday of next month?
>> of this week.
in two days.
>> because we're not posted for action today, we're posted for discussion.
has one member of this court been active?
>> not officially.
>> unofficially I have been poking around some because I'm very intrigued by it and for its -- I poked around in it some as my capacity as c.a.n.
chair and it's promise for making this a larger conversation.
so I did plan on going --
>> I say keep poking.
we'll have this back on the court's agenda in two to three weeks for us to take formal action on one or two representatives, and it seems to me we ought to have two based on composition of the task force that I see in the backup.
Commissioner Huber.
>> and as someone who is watching this wants to get involved, would you repeat the phone numbers they can use to contact?
>> absolutely.
they can send me an email directly and my email address is k gross aol.com.
thank you for your time.
>> appreciate you visiting with us.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
