tence was increased and he received four years in prison. This case is a landmark case because it is the first time the Supreme Court affirmed the discriminatory selection model. (Jacobs, 125; Lawrence, 30; Wisconsin v. Mitchell).Even with the ruling of Wisconsin v. Mitchell, there is no overarching federal law stipulating the enforcement of enhanced sentences for hate crime offenders. Therefore, many states have different laws and interpretations on how hate crimes should be punished. Florida, for example holds a Hate Crime Statute Law that was enacted in 1991. This law states that the penalty for a felony or misdemeanor shall be re-classified if the crime shows prejudice based on race, color, ancestry, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, mental or physical disability, or advanced age of the victim. The penalty for committing a crime motivated by one of these stipulations increases the penalty by one degree. (App. 2 775.085). The state of Florida also has a Hate Crimes Reporting Act that resembles the federal Hate Crime Statistics Act, complete with an annual summary by the Attorney General required. In the state of Kansas, there is a grid block system in place that gives the presumptive time length of jail or probation time to match with the crime committed. In the event of a hate crime, the offender’s sentence shall be presumed imprisonment and the sentences can be as much as double the maximum time period for the original felony (2 K.S.A. 1998). In the state of California, their existing law “provides for an enhanced sentence for a person who commits a felony or attempts to commit a felony because of the victim’s race, color, religion, ancestry, nationality, country of origin, sexual orientation, or disability.” In 1995, the state attempted to add gender, immigration status, homelessness to the class of persons, but the bill dies in committee. In 1999, however, California&#...
