Analysis of Wisconsin v Mitchell (1993) Case - Essay Example

Case Brief: Wisconsin v Mitchell (1993) 113 S Ct 2194 Facts A white youth was made the target of an attack by black youths, on October 7, 1989. This attack was instigated by Todd Mitchell, a black youth. On the evening of this particular day, several black youth, including Mitchell, had gathered at an apartment in Wisconsin. These individuals discussed a scene from the motion picture ‘Mississippi Burning’, wherein a white man had beaten a black youth, while the latter was engaged in prayer[Wis93]. After their discussion, these black individuals emerged from the apartment and espied a white youth, walking on the opposite side of the street. Mitchell reminded the group about their discussion and instigated them to attack the white boy. Thereafter, the group accosted the white youth, beat him unconscious and stole his footwear. Issue Mitchell’s sentence was enhanced, as he had intentionally selected the victim on the basis of the latter’s race. It was to be decided, whether such enhancement of punishment was in breach of Mitchell’s First Amendment rights. Decision The US Supreme Court concluded that the First Amendment rights of Mitchell had not been violated, by the enhancement provision of the Wisconsin penalty. As the Supreme Court of Wisconsin had ruled that such breach had transpired, the US Supreme Court reversed that decision and remanded the case for further proceedings that would not be inconsistent with its opinion. In addition, the US Supreme Court held that there was no tangible disparity between the federal and state antidiscrimination laws and the Wisconsin statute. To this end, the Court made a comparison between the Wisconsin statute and Title VII, which renders it illegal for an employer to subject an employee to discrimination on ground of color, religion, gender, race, or national origin[Res94]. It was surmised by the US Supreme Court that the Wisconsin statute accords punishment of greater severity for bias motivated crimes, as these crimes had a much greater potential to engender harm to the individual and society. This reason was deemed to be adequate to justify the penalty enhancement facility available in the Wisconsin statute, and which transcended mere disagreement with the prejudices of proclivities of the offender[Res94]. Legal Rationalé Mitchell had been sentenced for aggravated battery. This sentence was enhanced, in accordance with a Wisconsin statute, as he had intentionally selected the victim on the basis of the latter’s race. His appeal regarding the constitutionality of the Wisconsin statute was turned down by the State Court of Appeals. However, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin reversed the enhancement of punishment. While doing so it relied upon the rationale in RAV v St Paul, and ruled that the Wisconsin statute breached the First Amendment by inflicting punishment for offensive thought. It also rejected the contention of the State of Wisconsin that this law was applied only in instances involving intentional victim selection conduct[Mic95]. Moreover, the Wisconsin Supreme Court was of the opinion that a chilling effect was produced by the evidentiary use of a defendant’s previous speech on individuals who were apprehensive that they could be prosecuted for offenses, in which the penalty could be enhanced. For this reason the Court held that the Wisconsin statute was unconstitutional. Furthermore, the Court held that antidiscrimination laws prohibited objective acts of discrimination, whereas the Wisconsin statute punished the subjective mental process. Government action under the First Amendment should be evaluated on the basis of the nature of regulation in the concerned state, and not on the basis of the nature of the regulated activity. Such scrutiny makes it difficult for a government to conceal its motives[Gel95]. Such analysis would require a strict scrutiny of hate crime legislation; and this would perforce apply to the Wisconsin statute that had been applied in the Mitchell case. This is on account of the fact that these laws aim to punish the bigoted ideas, which are associated with a crime[Gel95]. Opinion The unanimous opinion of the US Supreme Court was authored by Rehnquist. This declared that the Wisconsin statute matched the antidiscrimination laws that had been seen to be in compliance with the First Amendment. This Court was also of the opinion that the community and the victim had to undergo much worse consequences, when the crime was selected due to the race of the victim[Rof98]. Therefore, the enhancement of the punishment, by the Wisconsin statute, was to be construed as punishment for the predicted outcomes of the crime and not for the bigoted beliefs held by the offender. Lastly, the Court held that this statute did not breach the right to free speech of the offender[Mic95]. In the state of Wisconsin, cases such as the present one are deemed to be capable of causing substantial difficulty to individuals and society. It has been contended that such instances can lead to retaliatory crimes and other undesirable behavior. On the basis of the evidence placed before it, the US Supreme Court concluded that speech could be employed to ascertain the motive of the defendant and that there had been no breach of First Amendment rights (Hall, 2011, p. 300). Whilst ruling against Mitchell, the US Supreme Court held that the extremely circumspect manner, in which the Wisconsin statute was employed, ensured that free speech was not curtailed. The decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court was reversed by the US Supreme Court and remanded for further proceedings (Hall, 2011, p. 300). Comment The First Amendment presents a vast area that is subject to conflicting interpretation. Moreover, the task of determining the issues that come under its purview is onerous. The Wisconsin v Mitchell offered an excellent opportunity to the US Supreme Court to provide clarification in some of these areas of contention, and its erudite and well thought out decision made full use of the same. List of References Wis93: , (Wisconsin v Mitchell, 1993), Res94: , (Resler, 1994, p. 422), Res94: , (Resler, 1994, p. 423), Mic95: , (Micacci, 1995), Gel95: , (Gellman, 1995, p. 869), Rof98: , (Rofes, 1998, p. 867), Read More