HB 136-FN – AS INTRODUCED
2005 SESSION
04/01
HOUSE BILL 136-FN
AN ACT removing increased penalties for crimes substantially motivated by hostility toward the victim’s religion, race, creed, sexual orientation, national origin, or sex.
SPONSORS: Rep. Bicknell, Rock 1; Rep. Giuda, Graf 5; Rep. Itse, Rock 9; Sen. Boyce, Dist 4
COMMITTEE: Criminal Justice and Public Safety
This bill removes the extended term of imprisonment for crimes substantially motivated by hostility toward the victim’s religion, race, creed, sexual orientation, national origin, or sex.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
05-0018
04/01
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Five
AN ACT removing increased penalties for crimes substantially motivated by hostility toward the victim’s religion, race, creed, sexual orientation, national origin, or sex.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 Repeal. RSA 651:6, I(f), relative to extended term of imprisonment for crimes substantially motivated by hostility toward the victim’s religion, race, creed, sexual orientation, national origin, or sex, is repealed.
2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2006.
LBAO
05-0018
12/15/04
HB 136-FN - FISCAL NOTE
AN ACT removing increased penalties for crimes substantially motivated by hostility toward the victim’s religion, race, creed, sexual orientation, national origin, or sex.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Judicial Branch, Department of Corrections and Judicial Council stated this bill may have an indeterminable impact on state expenditures in FY 2006 and each thereafter. The Association of Counties determined this bill may increase county expenditures by an indeterminable amount in FY 2006 and each year thereafter. There will be no fiscal impact on state, county and local revenues or local expenditures.
METHODOLOGY:
The Judicial Branch stated this bill will repeal the extended term of imprisonment for hate crimes contained in RSA 651:6. I(f). Repealing an extended term of imprisonment statute should neither add nor subtract from the judicial system since there already is an underlying criminal charge present. Both the superior and district courts indicate that the statute was seldom used, therefore, its repeal would have minimal fiscal impact on the Judicial Branch.
The Judicial Council stated they are unable to determine if reducing the ability to seek extended terms of imprisonment will lead to less negotiation prior to trial on the part of either the defense or prosecution. In addition, they are unable to determine what the impact in terms of actual cost of having the ability to seek enhanced terms of incarceration has been. The Judicial Council stated they are unable to predict any actual fiscal impact on any particular case, therefore, they are unable to determine the impact on indigent defense expenditures.
The Department of Justice stated this bill will have no fiscal impact on the Department.
The Department of Corrections stated they are unable to determine the impact of this bill on sentencing, therefore, the fiscal impact on the Department cannot be determined. The average annual cost of incarcerating an individual in the general population for FY 2004 was $27,533.
The Association of Counties stated this bill eliminates enhanced penalties for certain crimes. As a result, persons who may have otherwise had criminal sentences extended in such a fashion
LBAO
05-0018
12/15/04
that they would serve at the state prison instead of the county departments of corrections, may in fact serve these sentences at the county level. In these instances it creates a new misdemeanor. The average annual cost for counties to incarcerate inmates is $21,634 per year. The total exposure to the counties would be determined by the number of individuals convicted and sentenced under the new application of the law, which can not be determined at this time.