►
From YouTube: 3/15/2021 - Senate Committee on Judiciary
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
Thank
you
so
much
ms
wells.
I
will
call
this
hearing
to
or
this
committee
to
order
today
is
march.
15
2021
and
I
will
ask
the
esteemed
secretary
to
please
take
the
role.
A
Here,
thank
you,
and
we
also
have
with
us,
mr
pat
geinin
from
the
legislative
council
bureau,
as
has
been
the
case
for
a
while.
Now
we
are
missing
nick
anthony
our
committee
council,
but
he
remains
available
to
us
for
legal
questions.
While
he
continues
to
draft
bills
and
we
have
a
couple
of
items
on
our
agenda
today,
we
have
one
bill
hearing,
we
do
have
a
bdr
introduction,
so
I
want
to
make
sure
that
everybody
received
that
bdr
by
email
earlier
today.
A
If
you
could
give
me
a
nod
in
one
direction
or
the
other
okay,
it
looks
like
you
all
received
it,
so
we
will
do
that
after
the
bill
hearing
and
then
public
comment,
and
since
I
am
presenting
today,
it
is
my
pleasure
to
hand
the
metaphorical
gavel
over
to
vice
chair
canizauro.
C
Thank
you
chair
and
welcome
members
of
the
committee.
We've
got
one
bill
on
our
agenda
today.
It's
senate
bill
166,
which
revises
provisions
relating
to
crimes
motivated
by
certain
characteristics
of
the
victim,
and
we
are
welcomed
and
joined
by
our
chair,
senator
schaible,
and
we
will
turn
it
already.
You
senator
scheible
to
go
ahead
with
the
bill
presentation
and
then
we
will
take
questions
from
committee
members
whenever
you're
ready.
A
Thank
you
so
much
good
afternoon
senate
committee
on
judiciary.
My
name
is
melanie
scheibel
and
I
am
the
nevada
state
senator
for
district
9..
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
attention,
as
I
present
bill
senate
bill
166,
which
provides
technical
changes
to
statutes
regarding
crimes
motivated
by
hatred
or
bias
commonly
referred
to
as
hate
crimes.
Before
I
explain
what
the
bill
does,
I
want
to
be
very
clear
about
what
the
bill
does
not
do.
A
I'll
start
with
section
one
and
explain
what
it
does
senate
bill.
166
takes
two
existing
statutes
related
to
hate
crimes,
nrs
207.185,
which
relates
to
misdemeanors
and
nrs
193.1675,
which
relates
to
gross
misdemeanors
and
felonies,
and
aligns
the
language
between
the
two
to
illustrate
why
this
is
important,
I'm
going
to
provide
a
very
realistic
example,
and
I've
also
provided
a
sample
verdict
form
to
go
along
with
my
explanation.
I
know
that
it
can
get
we
kind
of
get
into
the
weeds
here
for
those
who
practice
in
criminal
law
on
a
regular
basis.
A
This
may
be
your
bread
and
butter
for
those
who
don't.
This
is
highly
technical,
but
I
think
it's
incredibly
important.
So
let
me
explain
first
of
all
how
we
charge
crimes
like
battery
a
simple
battery
is
a
misdemeanor
it's
punishable
only
by
one
by
zero
to
six
months
in
jail.
It
does
not
carry
all
of
the
associated
penalties
of
a
felony,
but
it
is
defined
as
the
unlawful
touching
of
another
person.
Okay,
so
common
battery
crimes
include
punching
somebody
shoving
somebody
pushing
somebody
kicking
somebody.
Those
would
be
misdemeanor
batteries.
A
A
battery
can
get
escalated
to
the
level
of
a
felony
if
there
are
other
facts
in
attendance,
so,
for
example,
if
the
battery
causes
substantial
bodily
harm,
then
the
battery
gets
elevated
from
a
misdemeanor
to
a
category
c
felony
that
carries
a
possible
sentence
of
one
to
five
years.
Substantial
bodily
harm
is
well
defined
in
law.
It
is
any
permanent
disfigurement
or
prolonged
physical
pain,
so
that
same
act,
which
was
previously
considered
a
misdemeanor
punching.
Somebody
kicking
somebody
shoving
somebody.
If
the
result
is
that
they
break
their
nose,
they
break
their
jaw.
A
They
have
a
permanent
scar
on
their
arm.
Those
would
be
that
action
would
then
be
considered
a
battery
causing
substantial
bodily
harm.
The
person
who
determines
the
difference
between
a
battery
and
a
battery
substantial
bodily
harm
is
a
jury
or
a
fact.
Finder.
The
same
thing
is
true:
if
we're
talking
about
a
deadly
weapon,
the
same
act
that
is
committed
with
just
somebody's
hands
if
they
commit
it
with
a
baseball
bat,
a
knife,
a
gun,
becomes
a
battery
with
a
deadly
weapon,
and
so
coming
from
that
one
nucleus
of
operative
facts.
A
The
one
battery
that
occurred
that
same
crime
can
have
those
other
attendant
circumstances
of
causing
substantial
bodily
harm
or
being
done
with
a
deadly
weapon
and
both
of
those
elevate.
The
level
of
the
crime.
A
battery
with
a
deadly
weapon
is
a
category
b
felony
carrying
a
sentence
of
one
to
ten
years.
It's
also
possible
and
in
fact
it
is
common
that
a
battery
is
committed
with
a
deadly
weapon
and
causes
substantial
bodily
harm.
A
Whether
or
not
substantial
bodily
harm
occurred
and
whether
or
not
the
crime
was
committed
with
a
deadly
weapon,
and
then
they
have
the
option
of
any
of
four
verdicts.
Well,
five.
They
can
find
the
person
completely
not
guilty.
They
could
find
them
guilty
of
battery
with
a
deadly
weapon
battery,
causing
substantial
bodily
harm
battery,
with
both
a
deadly
weapon
and
causing
substantial
bodily
harm,
or
just
a
battery.
A
All
that
goes
on
one
verdict
form,
and
we
know
that
the
lowest
level
is
only
a
misdemeanor
and
the
highest
level
is
a
felony,
but
we
don't
convey
that
to
a
jury,
because
we
don't
want
jurors
to
make
their
decisions
based
on
the
level
of
punishment.
We
want
jurors
to
match
the
law
with
the
facts
and
tell
the
judge
what
they
believe
happened,
which
elements
of
the
crime
were
met,
so
it
all
works
as
long
as
we're
not
talking
about
adding
an
enhancement
for
bias
or
hatred.
A
When
you
add
the
enhancement
for
bias
or
hatred,
there
becomes
a
problem
in
that
nrs,
193.1675
and
nrs
207.185
have
different
wording
in
order
to
prove
that
that
misdemeanor
battery
was
motivated
by
hatred
or
bias.
It
is
only
necessary
to
show
that
it
was
mo
that
the
motivation
behind
the
crime
was
the
victim's
perceived
or
actual
race,
color,
religion,
national
origin,
physical
or
mental
disability,
sexual
orientation
or
gender
identity
or
expression
of
that
person
or
a
group
of
persons.
A
That's
what
elevates
a
misdemeanor
to
a
gross
misdemeanor.
The
problem
is
that,
on
the
felony
side,
to
to
substantiate
a
claim
that
a
battery
with
substantial
bodily
harm
or
a
battery
with
a
deadly
weapon
or
a
battery
with
both
was
motivated
by
hatred
or
bias.
The
definition
is
different.
That
definition
reads
because
of
actual
or
perceived
race,
color,
religion,
national
origin,
physical
or
mental
disability,
sexual
orientation
or
gender
identity
or
expression
of
the
victim
was
different
from
that
characteristic
of
the
perpetrator,
because
those
definitions
are
different.
A
It
doesn't
allow
a
jury
to
pick
between
all
of
the
available
options
to
them
a
misdemeanor
enhanced
by
hate
a
felony
enhanced
by
hate.
It
means
that
you
have
to
either
divide
the
verdict
form
into
two
separate
crimes,
or
you
have
to
simply
choose
one
definition
or
the
other
and
ask
the
jury
to
determine
whether
or
not
whether
or
not
hatred
or
bias
was
the
motivation
of
the
crime
at
one
level.
But
you
can't
show
it
at
both
levels
at
the
same
time,
because
the
definition
is
different.
So
what
this.
C
Bill
does
senator.
I
do
I
hate
to
interrupt
you,
chair
scheible.
However,
it
looks
like
we
may
be
having
a
few
technical
difficulties
with
the
video
feed,
so
we've
been
able
to
hear
you
audio
via,
I
think
everyone
in
the
committee
room,
but
then
also
publicly,
but
I
think
we're
having
just
a
little
bit
of
a
technical
difficulty
with
video.
C
So
I'm
gonna
ask
you
just
to
take
a
very
brief
pause
so
that
we
can
hopefully
get
that
up
and
running
before
you
continue
with
what
senate
bill
166
does
and
then
we'll
move
on
with
the
rest
of
the
bit
of
indulgence
for
a
couple
of
moments.
B
C
Thank
you
so
much
to
all
of
our
wonderful
people
over
at
bps
who
help
keep
us
going
and
let
us
know
when
we
are
having
some
technical
difficulties
and
get
us
back
up
and
running,
I'm
sure
schreiber
we're
going
to
turn
it
back
over
to
you.
I
believe
you
were
going
to
get
into
what
senate
bill.
166
does
and
so
we'll
leave
it
to
you
and
then
go
to
committee
members.
A
Thanks
so
much
and
I'm
sorry
for
the
technical
difficulties,
appreciate
everybody's
help
getting
us
back
on
track,
and
I
think
I
had
just
explained
the
issue
using
the
example
of
a
battery
with
substantial
bodily
harm
with
a
deadly
weapon,
motivated
motivated
by
hatred
or
bias,
and
how
having
different
definitions
of
that
hatred
or
bias
for
a
felony
level.
Crime
versus
a
misdemeanor
level.
A
Crime
is
problematic
and
it
makes
it
difficult,
if
not
impossible,
to
craft
a
sample
or
to
craft
a
verdict
form
and
that's
why
you
have
the
sample
verdict
form
in
the
nellis
exhibits.
I
do
want
so
now
we'll
go
through
the
sections
of
the
bill.
What
section
one
does
is
it
takes
the
language
that
was
previously
in
the
misdemeanor
statute
207.185
and
puts
it
in
the
felony
statute
193.1675
so
that
they
match.
And
of
course
I
could
have
done
this-
the
other
direction.
A
But
there
is
a
reason
for
changing
the
language
of
both
statutes
to
reflect
that
the
characteristics
of
the
defendant
do
not
have
to
differ
from
the
characteristics
of
the
victim,
and
this
is,
for
example,
in
cases
where
someone
commits
a
crime
against
someone
of
the
same
racial
group,
but
a
different
religious
group.
Because
of
that
intersectional
identity.
The
crime
is
clearly
motivated
by
hatred
or
bias.
A
A
There
are
not
simply
black
people
and
not
black
people
and
latinx
people,
and
not
next
people
and
gay
people,
and
not
gay
people
and
mormon
people,
not
mormon
people,
to
require
that
the
state
prove
that
the
defendant
and
the
victim
have
actual
or
perceived.
Differences
in
protective
characteristics
can
be
deeply
upsetting
for
the
victim
who
sees
themselves
as
part
of
the
same
group.
And
so
that's
why
I've
chosen
to
take
the
language
from
207.185
and
add
it
to
193.1675
and
bring
them
into
alignment
with
each
other.
The
bill
does
two
additional
things
that
are
cleanup.
A
Section
two
adds
two
different
crimes
into
the
enumerated
list
of
crimes
that
can
be
enhanced,
based
on
the
motivation
of
hatred
or
bias.
The
first
one
is
found
in
nrs
202.448
that
is
making
false
threats
of
terrorism.
A
We
currently
include
actual
threats
of
terrorism,
but
not
false
threats
of
terrorism
and
the
other
one
is
found
in
nrs
392.915,
which
is
the
threatening
to
cause
bodily
harm
or
death
to
a
pupil
or
school
employee
by
means
of
oral
written
or
electronic
communication,
and
this
was
simply
excluded
before
for
no
discernible
reason,
and
if
I
didn't
say
it
before,
I
do
want
the
committee
to
know
that
I
did
some
historical
research
on
these
statutes.
A
Reading
minutes,
watching
meetings
all
the
way
back
to
1989
and
cannot
find
any
reasoning
for
the
difference
between
the
felony
and
the
misdemeanor
statute,
nor
for
excluding
these
crimes.
I
think
it
has
to
do
with
timing.
Different
people
in
the
legislature
writing
things
at
different
times,
and
certainly
if
there
is
a
reason
for
those
discrepancies,
I
I'm
open
to
learning
about
them
and
coming
to
a
resolution,
but
I
couldn't
find
any
section.
A
Three
makes
conforming
changes
to
the
civil
statutes,
because
anybody
who
is
the
victim
of
a
crime
motivated
by
hatred
or
bias
can
sue
on
the
civil
side.
So
now,
all
of
the
crimes
that
are
included
on
the
criminal
side
will
be
included
on
the
civil
side,
and
I
do
know
that
there
are
some
groups
who
are
still
concerned
about
some
of
the
language
in
the
bill.
I
assure
you
that
I
am
working
with
them,
I'm
open
to
a
resolution.
A
I
do
not
think
that
this
bill
makes
very
sweeping
changes
to
our
our
legal
structure.
I
think
that
it
is
a
technical
cleanup,
but
I
am
always
happy
to
work
with
stakeholders
members,
anybody
who
might
have
some
ideas
for
a
better
way
to
tighten
this
up
and
just
ensure
that
our
statutes
that
govern
crimes
motivated
by
hatred
or
bias
are
tight
and
explicable
and
user-friendly,
and
with
that
I
will
gladly
answer
questions
from
members
of
the
committee.
A
C
E
Thank
you,
madam
by
sir
okay.
Well,
let
me
walk
me
through
this.
Then
I
walk
out
of
this
building
and
some
guy
does
a
battery
on
me
with
a
deadly
weapon,
and
his
motive
is
to
steal
my
wallet,
in
other
words,
greed
or
robbery.
E
The
exact
same
crime
is
committed,
but
he
does
it
because
he
finds
out
I'm
a
mormon
and
he
hates
mormons.
You
really
believe
one
penalty
should
have
an
enhanced
enhance.
Why
am
I
less
of
a
victim?
If
the
motive
is
greed
or
lust
or
domination
or
power?
Why
are
we
singling
out
and
making
special
classes
a
victim
when
there's
actually
the
conduct
that
we
have
traditionally
punished?
E
I
don't
see
why,
if
I'm
attacked
because
I'm
a
mormon,
it
should
have
any
additional
weight
than
if
I
got
attacked,
because
the
motive
was
to
steal
my
wallet.
The
end
result
is,
I
get
the
hell
beat
out
of
me
by
somebody
for
one
reason
or
the
other.
I
don't
get
the
the
reason.
The
reasoning
behind
this
whole
whole
thing.
It
seems
to
me
we're
breaking
down
classes
and
groups
of
people
and
making
some
victims
greater
in
value
basically
than
others.
E
A
The
same,
I
will
also
point
out
that
there
are
other
motivations
that
are
particularly
protected
in
law.
Battery
with
the
intent
to
commit
sexual
assault
is
a
category
a
felony.
It
is
punishable
by
1
to
20
years
in
prison
if
the
state
can
prove
that
the
purpose
of
the
battery
was
because
the
defendant
intended
to
sexually
assault
the
victim,
even
if
that
sexual
assault
is
never
completed,
we
also
have
enhancements
for
crimes
that
are
committed
against
children.
Crimes
are
committed
against
elderly
people
and
other
vulnerable
people.
So
this
is
not
a
novelty
in
our
law.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
follow
up
vice
chair,
excuse
me,
and
I
can
understand
in
some
cases,
but
I
think
we're
getting
dangerously
close
to
violating
people's
first
amendment
rights.
We
start
punishing
people
for
thoughts
that
we
find
repugnant.
I
just
don't
I
I
don't
see
why
that
category
in
particular
gets
so
much
so
much
play.
It
is
interesting.
You
brought
up
my
other
question
that
is
under
now.
E
A
Well,
because
the
statute
includes
gender,
gender
identity
and
gender
expression.
I
struggle
to
imagine
a
factual
scenario
where
the
crime
is
committed
against
somebody,
because
they
are
a
woman,
and
that
has
nothing
to
do
with
their
gender.
It
either
has
to
do
with
them
being
a
female
by
sex
and
identifying
as
such,
or
it
has
to
do
with
them
being
a
female
by
sex
assigned
at
birth
and
not
identifying
as
such,
either
way.
A
Their
gender
identity
is
part
of
the
reason
for
the
crime,
whether
that
gender
identity
matches
what
we
think
is
normal
or
whether
that
person
is
cisgender
or
whether
that
gender
is
non-conforming
with
what
we
think
a
woman
should
do.
Look
talk.
Act
like
gender
covers
every
conceivable
crime.
I
can
think
of
against
somebody
because
they
are
a
man
or
because
they
are
a
woman
or
because
they
are
neither.
E
Well,
I
guess
the
follow-up
question
of
that
would
be
you
guys.
I
have
two
da's
here:
do
you
guys
routinely
charge
rape,
people
who
commit
rape
with
an
additional
category
of
hate.
E
C
I'm
not
seeing
any,
I
do
have
a.
I
do,
have
a
couple
share
tribal.
So
as
I
as
I'm
understanding-
and
I
just
wanted
to
clarify,
as
I'm
understanding
senate
bill
166,
there
is
currently
statutes
that
allow
for
an
enhancement
to
be
charged
yet
a
misdemeanor
enhanced
to
a
gross
misdemeanor
or
a
felony,
with
an
additional
penalty
enhancement
or
what
we
are
sort
of
anecdotally
grouping
into
what
hate
crimes
is
that
correct?
C
Yes,
that's
correct,
and
so
this
bill
does
not
create
that
enhancement
organically.
That
already
exists
in
our
in
our
criminal
laws.
Correct
and,
as
I
understand
the
language
here,
we
are
conforming,
those
two,
whether
you're
enhancing
a
misdemeanor
to
a
gross
misdemeanor
or
a
felony,
with
an
additional
penalty,
enhancement
or
term
of
years
that
that
language
would
match
between
those
two
categories
of
enhancements.
C
Exactly
I
know
to
me,
I
think
the
bigger
question
is,
I
think,
what
you
highlighted
originally,
which
is
the
additional
showing
that
somehow
the
two,
the
vic,
both
the
victim
and
the
perpetrator,
must
be
completely
different
from
one
another
in
order
to
prove
that
the
motive
or
or
in
other
words,
the
reason
for
which
a
person
acts.
What
motivates
them
that
prompts
them
to
act
is
not
has
to
be
completely
different
from
the
perpetrator
in
order
to
prove
that
it
was
in
fact
motivated
by
a
person's
religion,
color,
race,
national
origin,
etc.
C
Yes-
and
this
would
change
it
so
that
if
it,
if
you
can
prove
that
a
crime
was
motivated
by
those
things,
irrespective
of
whether
there
may
be
some
similar
characteristics
between
the
victim
and
the
perpetrator,
the
penalty
enhancement
still
applies
correct
and
I,
I
guess
more
as
a
as
a
generic
question,
because
I
think
senator
hansen
is
brings
up
some
interesting
points.
It's
not
as
though
every
crime
that
is
committed
against
somebody,
because
they
may
be
different,
is
necessarily
based
upon
a
motive
for
or
a
motive
of
hatred.
C
That's
correct
and
have
you
had
instances
where
individuals
may
be
of
different
religions,
and
it
is
a
robbery,
but
it
wasn't
necessarily
because
of
that.
It
was
just
in
order
to
steal
money
or
something
like
that.
Absolutely.
A
C
And
I
guess
that
was
what
I
was
trying
to
highlight.
Is
there
may
be
differences
between
perpetrators
and
victims,
but
unless
there
is
some
kind
of
proof
in
the
form
of,
for
example,
a
statement
that
is
made
or
a
text
that
is
sent
or
a
letter
that
is,
is
provided
or
some
other
overt
act
by
which
you
can
prove
this
specific
motive.
It's
not
simply
because
there's
a
different
characteristic
that
would
necessarily
entitle
someone
to
charge
a
an
enhancement
or
under
this
under
these
statutes.
A
That's
correct
and-
and
I
think
that
at
least
in
my
experience
it
has
been
very
victim
focused
the
question.
Isn't
I
mean
it
is
ultimately
whether
or
not
the
defendant
did
this
because
of
the
victim's
characteristic?
But
you
look
at
it
from
the
perspective
of
the
victim
and
say:
was
this?
Did
this
victim
experience
more
harm,
or
did
they
experience
harm
that
was
more
intense?
Do
they
experience
harm
sooner?
Do
they
experience
some
greater
risk
of
harm
because
of
that
characteristic
because
of
the
behavior
of
the
defendant?
C
Now
you
should
additionally,
under
this
statute,
you
would
still
be
required
that
that
is
what
in
particular
motivated
a
particular
crime
and
not
some
other
reason.
Absolutely
any
other
questions
from
committee
members
at
this
point
in
time
and
you
can
go
ahead
and
raise
your
hand,
because
I
don't
think
I've
got
a
cat
open
where
I
can
see
everyone
chiming
in
okay.
I
am
not
seeing
any
so
thank
you.
Church
ribo.
F
F
F
G
I
thank
senator
scheibel
for
adding
the
two
new
enumer
enumerated
offenses
to
the
list
of
offenses
that
can
be
enhanced
as
hate
crimes
in
juvenile
court.
Unfortunately,
children
are
routinely
making
threats
to
schools
and
to
class
into
certain
people
within
schools,
and
I
believe
there
was
an
oversight
in
statute
because
nrs,
202
and
nrs
392
were
created
after
the
hate
crime,
enhancement,
sections
of
our
statutes,
and
so
when
we
have
a
terroristic
threat
to
a
school
that
is
motivated
by
a
person's
person,
certain
race,
ethnic
background
religion.
G
We
are
unable
to
notate
that
it
is
actually
an
enhanceable
hate
crime
and
even
though
in
juvenile
court
we
do
not
have
flat
sentences.
So
we're
never
going
to
enhance
it
to
the
point
where
somebody
is
going
to
do
quote
more
time,
because
it's
juvenile
and
we're
focused
on
rehabilitation
and
making
children
successful
in
their
future.
It
does
allow
us
to
create
case
plans
on
probation
for
those
children
and
ensure
that
they
they
receive
the
education
around
cultural
competencies
and
biases,
as
well
as
acknowledging
the
vic
to
the
victims.
G
What
has
actually
had
occurred
to
them,
because
I've
had
cases
that
were
clearly
motivated
by
racial
bias,
and
it
was
very
difficult
to
let
the
victims
know
that
I
could
not
file
it
as
a
hate
crime,
because
no
hate
crime
enhancement
existed
for
either
of
those
statutes.
So
thank
you
very
much
senator
scheibel,
chair
scheible,
for
listening
to
the
concerns
of
the
juvenile
system
and
for
adding
those
two
enumerated
offenses
and
I
support
sb
166.
F
F
E
Thank
you,
chair
schaible,
vice
chair
canadaro
and
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee.
My
name
is
jon
jones,
j,
o
h,
n
j,
o
n
e
s
here
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
district
attorney's
association,
the
nevada
district
attorney's
association
is
in
support
of
sb
166
and
we
are
in
support
of
this
bill
because
it
provides
clarity
and
conformity
between
our
hate
crime,
enhancement
statutes
and
we
are
supportive
of
the
bill
and
the
proposed
amendments.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
C
Thank
you.
We
will
then
move
to
testimony
in
opposition
to
senate
bill
166.
again.
Anyone
who
is
in
opposition
to
senate
bill
166,
please
listen
carefully
to
the
instructions
from
broadcast.
F
F
F
D
Good
afternoon
vice
chair
canadaro
and
members
of
the
committee,
this
is
holly
welborn,
h,
o
l,
l
y
w
e
l
b,
o
r
n
policy
director
for
the
aclu
of
nevada,
testifying
in
opposition
to
sb
166.
We
appreciate
senator
scheibel
for
taking
time
to
discuss
her
bill
with
us,
but
our
concerns
concerns
remain
hate.
Crime
statutes
have
a
significant
potential
for
abu
abuse,
which
is
why
it
is
imperative
that
hate
crime
laws
balance
the
sometimes
competing
interests
of
freedom
of
expression
and
thought,
curving,
mass
incarceration
and,
of
course,
protecting
against
invidious
discrimination.
D
We
must
ensure
that
hate
crime
statutes
do
not
extend
beyond
their
original
intent
to
decur,
deter
crimes
based
on
discriminatory
intent.
The
requirement
that
the
perpetrator
have
different
characteristics
is
necessary
to
that
end.
Otherwise
we
perpetuate
the
dangerous
black
on
black
crime
myth
and
create
unnecessary
sentence
enhancements
that
harm
the
people.
The
hate
crime
law
is
meant
to
protect.
D
Like
senator
scheible,
we
looked
at
the
legislative
history
and
it's
also
unclear
to
us
why
the
misdemeanor
statute
failed
to
include
the
differentiating
characteristics
requirement.
But
what
we
do
know
is
that
the
statutory
construction
of
the
felony
hate
crime
law
is
in
alignment
with
the
aclu's
nationwide
standards
for
hate
crime
statutes.
D
F
F
H
Good
afternoon
madam
majority,
leader
and
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee,
this
is
john
pirro
j-o-h-n-p-I-r-o
from
the
clark
county,
public
defender's
office,
and,
right
now
we
are
in
opposition.
We
too,
like
the
aclu,
would
like
to
thank
madam
chair
for
speaking
with
us
prior
to
this,
but
we
do
have
a
problem.
The
main
problem
is
that
elimination
of
the
word,
because
and
taking
that
misdemeanor
definition
and
moving
it
to
the
felony,
it
should
actually
go
in
the
opposite
way
as
a
basics
of
legal
writing.
H
The
the
way
this
misdemeanor
by
reason
of
instead
of
because
weakens
the
intent
element
of
this
statute
and
waters
it
down
that
can
be
problematic,
improving
things.
I
am
also
disheartened
to
hear
miss
duffy
speak
about
wanting
to
ki,
punish
kids
further,
when
even
the
doj
explains
that
education
is
the
cure
for
these
problems,
because
hate
crimes
are
a
problem.
We
cannot
deny
that,
but
education
is
secure,
not
more
criminal
penalties,
that's
an
old
way
of
solving
problem,
so
we
disagree
with
taking
the
misdemeanor
definition
and
moving
it
up
to
the
felony
level.
H
Definition
very
few
laws
in
our
criminal
system
recognize
negligence
or
watering
down
intent,
and
that's
because
we
all
realize
that
the
loss
of
liberty
is
way
more
troublesome
than
the
loss
of
money,
so
to
weaken.
Intent
in
this
way
is
part
of
the
reason
why
our
nation
has
become
a
nation
of
mass
incarceration
and
it
will
over
criminalize
things
that
it
should
not
do,
especially
when
we
already
have
the
penalties
on
the
books.
Thank
you.
That
concludes
my
testimony.
F
D
C
F
C
Okay,
thank
you
here,
schreiber,
any
last
comments
that
you
wanted
to
share
before
we
close
out
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
166.
C
Thank
you
so
much
for
being
here
and
presenting
senate
bill
166.
Today,
with
that
we
will
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
166
and
chair
schreibel.
I
will
turn
the
gamble
back
over
to
you.
A
A
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
just
I
noticed
that
we're
exempting
in
the
bill
townhomes
and
duplexes.
There
are
a
number
of
developments
in
my
area
that
are
made
up
of
multiple
town,
homes
and
duplexes,
and
I
don't
know
that
we
want
to
exclude
them
is.
Is
there
some
discussion
about
maybe
making
those
based
on
size
or
or
the
number
of
total
units
within
that
that
hoa.
A
That's
certainly
something
we
could
discuss
when
we
get
to
that
policy
discussion
on
the
bill.
I
think
at
this
juncture
we're
just
asking
whether
or
not
we
want
to
draft
this
bill
in
order
to
consider
it.
B
Here,
if
the
chair
is
ready,
I
make
a
motion
for
introduction.
A
J
I
A
F
F
K
Marie
grant
a-n-n-e-m-a-r-I-e
good
afternoon,
I
would
like
my
brother,
thomas
pardee,
was
38
years
old
when
he
was
hog
tied
by
reno
police
officers,
david
tallman,
robert
maxwell,
christopher
good
and
jorge
aparicio
during
a
mental
health
crisis,
when
he
was
a
guest
at
the
peppermill
casino
and
simply
asked
security
for
help.
My
brother
was
hogtied
for
40
minutes
when
he
was
non-combative,
non-assaultive
and
again
simply
asked
for
help.
During
his
mental
health
crisis
40
plus
minutes
later,
he
was
dumped
at
washoe
county
jail,
still
hog
tied
begging
for
his
life.
K
They
thought
my
brother
was
acting
so
strange.
I
got
a
handheld
camera,
yet
they
didn't
get
him
an
ambulance
like
he
asked
for
told
him.
He
couldn't
breathe,
told
him
he
was
going
to
die,
told
them
that
he
had
had
previous
major
lung
surgery,
which
he
had
had
a
collapse
lung.
This
happened
on
october
4
2015..
K
My
brother
died
on
october
8
2015,
when
we
had
to
remove
him
from
life
support
because
he
was
brain
dead,
washout
county
sheriff's
office
never
tried
to
notify
my
family
that
my
brother
was
at
the
hospital
on
life
support.
My
brother
lay
there
alone
brain
dead
for
two
days
until
the
hospital
was
able
to
locate
my
family
when
my
brother
was
asphyxiated
to
death
by
reno
police
washer
county
district
attorney.
Chris
hicks
did
not
even
review
his
case,
nor
does
he
review
any
deaths
at
the
hands
of
law
enforcement
in
washington
county.
K
If
the
method
of
killing
is
asphyxiation
by
officers
per
the
washer
county,
medical
examiner,
my
brother
would
not
have
died.
Were
it
not
for
the
physical
force
used
on
him
by
police
officers.
My
brother
weighed
140
pounds
soaking
wet.
He
died
on
combative,
having
assaulted
nobody
simply
asking
for
help.
Please
do
not
support
bills
that
provide
further
protections
to
law
enforcement.
K
F
F
J
J
J
You
know
just
a
lot:
a
lot
of
tension,
a
lot,
a
lot
of
division,
let's
just
break
up
and
let's
just
go
on
our
own,
merry
ways:
let's
have
our
own
responsibility
and
as
for
myself
concerned,
I
don't
know
man,
I'm
probably
consider
moving
to
another
country,
and
this
this
country
has
really
gone
downhill
and
it's
not
just
a
matter
of
the
division.
It's
just
a
corporate
fascist
state
nevada
is
a
state
that
is
controlled
by
casino,
labor
union
and
real
estate
elites.
It
doesn't
represent
the
people.
The
urban
planning
is
a
sham.
J
You
go
to
all
these
other
states
around
the
world.
It's
so
much
better
and
look
at
the
family
structure.
We
have
destroyed
our
family
structure.
So
do
us
a
favor?
Let's
just
break
up
the
country,
it's
just
too
large
to
manage.
There's
just
so
much
division
and
I
think
we
will
see
how
things
will
go.
F
A
Thank
you
so
much.
That
brings
us
to
the
end
of
our
meeting.
We
will
be
back
tomorrow
at
1pm.
We
have
two
bills
to
hear
tomorrow
and
with
that
we
are.