 We're not live yet. No, we are back Senate Judiciary Committee April 9th 2021 We're dealing with H128 Bill dealing with the defense based on victim identity Criminal defense is based on This morning we're going to hear from representative small but before we do that Senator white would like to make a statement and And then we'll begin to mark up we're here for mother No senator white the floor is yours Thank You senator Sears Over the past few days. I've received Numerous emails and phone messages some of them pretty vitriolic Accusing me of being racist homophobic and in general not a good person First let me apologize to anyone I offended for anything I said my comments and questions were not meant to be hurtful nor offensive as Legislators we need to examine all aspects of proposed laws for consequences. We may not anticipate That might mean asking questions that when taken out of context seem inappropriate As an example is this one single sentence that was pulled out of a question that I asked that has been used in form letters sent to me It's proving that I am racist With that going into the weeds. I believe what I was trying to wrap my head around was Whether we should whether we should why Should prohibition on the panic defense should it be broadened to include more than just gender. That's what I was trying to wrap my head around by that example. As we grapple with important and complex issues, we must be able to ask questions that might seem inappropriate or hurtful when taken out of context. If we can't We will not continue to learn and grow and our legislation will not be the best it can be So again, my sincere apologies to those who were hurt by anything I said they were not in any way meant to be To convey any racial or gender slurs. Thank you, Senator Sears for giving me time to make this statement. And as we proceed through this bill, I have a couple of specific questions For Bryn about how this prohibited use of this defense relates to our enhanced penalties for hate crimes. Again, I apologize to anyone I might have heard Thank you, Senator White and just having worked with you for many years. Your heart is always in the right place. And I don't think there's any one of us who haven't said things that can be misconstrued. And it's unfortunate in this kind of setting where we're on YouTube where something can be taken and really questions and motivation, etc. So I speak for the entire committee and part support for you and Your efforts at making this a better state Thank you very much. We're going to hear from Representative Small who was Either the lead sponsor or a co-sponsor of the bill in the house. And I don't think we've ever met because she got elected this year and we're meeting remotely. So Representative Small welcomed the Senate Judiciary on the six years on Bennington County way down south. Leave your from Manuski, which is I don't know that you can get here or get there from here. We do try once in a while. I think we have to go to New York to get Welcome to Senate Judiciary. I think you probably know Senator Baruth or Vice Chair And go ahead. If you didn't produce yourselves MIDI Senator Nick Senator Nick you're muted. I wasn't asking. I'm sorry. I wasn't asking question. No, I was asking you to introduce yourself. I don't think representative Small has met us because she's new to the legislature and we've been meeting remotely. So I'm sorry. Someone just can being a little off here at five years. Okay, no problem. I'm Alice Nidka from Windsor County and a few other surrounding towns. Nice to meet you, Taylor. Senator White. I'm Jeanette White from Wyndham County. And I am Joe Benning from the real Vermont, otherwise known as the Northeast Kingdom. Welcome to Judiciary. Taylor, thank you for joining us this morning to help us with this bill. And we're anxious to hear from you. Absolutely. And thank you so much for having me and talking about this bill. It is truly been a privilege and watching the deliberations and honestly I want to offer gratitude and the work that has already been done in the edits to the bill. And what I would say is making it stronger and more clear as to how it would be used within our judicial system. I want to start today just by giving a little context as to why the bill was introduced initially and then get into where I think a lot of the discussion left off last week around sentencing and my views on that piece of the bill. And so first really understanding that this defense is focused on on the bias that already exists within our communities towards LGBTQ. And so I a couple pieces that I highlighted in House Judiciary was recognizing the level of violence that we are experiencing on a national level as well as within the state of Vermont. And so a couple pieces that I hold is that for the past two years the Human Rights Campaign has actually declared it the deadliest year for transgender people in the United States as we continue to see an increase in and transgender deaths and murders. And reflecting on previous testimony from the Pride Center of Vermont I think something that's challenging for our state and being able to grasp and fully understand these issues is that a lot of this data and information is kept within our nonprofit sector. And the reason for that are two. One is that we don't have the systems in place to fully collect this data and be able to review it. In an initial version of this bill we had a report attached to it and encouraging that data collection. In discussion with the committee and really focusing on the lack of data present. We moved it over to that hate crime bill in a way to elongate that conversation and see how we can improve that data collection overall. And the second piece is really understanding trust within the systems which I think has come up from various folks who were testifying and understanding that with a history of LGBTQ identities being policed. And a current understanding that if an assault or murder is happening to an LGBTQ individual that there is a defense in play that has been used nationwide that would justify the death or assault of folks within our community. The opportunity or the desire to come forward is not there because you are re traumatizing and going through a proceeding that is saying you deserved what happened to because of your identity. And I think that is the hope with this bill is to remove that piece of validity and saying that one person's identity is the reason for these crimes to be committed. And with the full understanding that when we are talking about the victim or survivor in these stories that there is no crime being committed on their end. Our judicial system has many defenses available. And so if there is a question of intent or actions on the victim or survivors and those would come up in other defenses used by the defense. And not necessarily understanding or saying simply that identity is the issue. And I think I also appreciate the hypotheticals that have come up in this committee. And if I may add a few more into the mix. When we have seen this defense used it can go various ways and again is really dependent on public opinion and bias within those sectors. So there are times where that defense would be seen as an admission of guilt and simply identifying that if you are committing the act because of someone's identity that it would be construed as a hate crime. But other times because of this this lingering bias and I even focus on what the past administration has done for the past four years is put forward executive orders and actions calling for the lack of rights or the removal of rights for transgender folks, whether that is serving our country in the army, or whether that is just trying to access comprehensive health care and not having that opportunity available. And so one a few examples that come up are really thinking about the reality and the cases that don't come forward. So again when we're hearing about these these deaths and assaults that are happening. We are seeing transgender women who were, you know, at a bar and a man came up and was hitting on them and things progressed they go back to one of their places. And it is in that moment when a sexual advances made typically on on the defendant's end. That when the person outs himself when a trans woman says I am transgender, that there's a sense of panic that comes over the defendant. A piece of that is recognizing their own identity and having questions about that. But the reality is is that we are seeing trans women stabbed multiple times I think something in the research that released it out to me is that 46% of homicide cases or sorry, yes, 46% of homicide cases nationwide include a firearm. But when we're talking about specific hate crimes in relation to LGBTQ folks firearms are used about 26% of the time, and the vast majority is using a knife or other objects and what could be considered overkill. And, and that's hard because those are not the cases that are coming forward because of the inherent bias that is there. For folks who are able to come forward, we sometimes see in the sentencing area and an understanding the severity of the crime that folks will be moved from what would be considered a murder charge to manslaughter. So reducing the sentencing overall in this understanding of, I understand that you panicked, I understand what you were grappling with in this situation. And I think that gets to a piece that that Senator Benning you were bringing up around bias and understanding the ways that bias shows up. And so my dream and my hope is that we would be in a world without bias but I also recognize that all of us based on life experience and learning that we gained cannot exist in this world without bias or prejudice whether that is food or whether that is identities and how we connect with one another. So when it comes to the sentencing piece. I really just want to recognize that it's not separate from the case and deliberations, but can be another contributing factor in saying, not that you were justified, but that the crime was not as bad because of who it was committed against. And also reflecting on the defender generals testimony and thinking about that this defense is not often used in Vermont or may never have been used in Vermont. And that defendants actually choose not to use this defense because of fear of worse punishment or harsher criticism. So my question is, when would this defense come up in Vermont. It would come up when the defense sees this as a viable strategy to reduce sentencing or to a quit the defendant in question. And so that would be a recognition of potential bias or prejudice within that specific courtroom that would help in moving that forward. And I think the benefit of passing this bill is really recognizing that if someone is committing this act because of one's identity that we are updating our hate crime statute and that that would be used, not as a defense, but again an admission of guilt. And I think that the other piece that comes up is thinking about the Vermont State Police and their testimony that they brought in front of this committee, which was on principle alone, if we are able to pass this bill, that we will start and moving this direction of building trust within the LGBTQ community and truly getting a clearer picture of what this violence looks like on a larger scale. And it's difficult to come forward when you feel like your identity might be used against you. But knowing that this is showing Vermont's values. It's showing that we care and that we recognize the dignity and humanity of all Vermonters in the state. And that folks may come forward more often so that we can understand the reality of these situations. But I think that hope is that, again, not blaming the victim in these situations, especially recognizing that there is no crime committed on their end. And I will, I will pause at that point and see what questions the committee has for me and happy to answer them. I'll start out and take my chances with this question. Your last comment about building trust within a community, I think is an important one. Given the national trend where many states are passing laws that restrict the rights, for example, participation in sports. I'll get the state wrong. So I'm not going to mention which state, but the governor just vetoed a bill there because it went where I think was Arkansas. Because he felt that he felt the bill that the legislature passed there, but it's a strange state in that vetoes are overridden by a majority vote. How does this stack up, if we are to pass this bill Governor Scott to sign it, how would that stack up in us as compared to those other states that are passing laws that limit rights. Thank you for that question. And what stands out most for me in this is, again, what a privilege it is to be here in the state of Vermont where we are not considering these discriminatory bills that again we recognize humanity enough that that would not be coming forward in this legislature and honoring the work that this legislature is doing and helping to protect folks instead of discriminating against. Two pieces one as we see this sweeping across the nation it reminds us of the very clear discrimination that folks within the LGBTQ community are facing, especially on a legislative level. So, by only focusing on a trans or LGBTQ protection bill. Again, we are signaling our values around that support, and we would be joining a cohort of states that are already working to pass this bill. Just last week Virginia became the 12th state and our nation to pass a gay trans panic defense bill. And there are 13 total, hoping that DC gets a statehood at some point, but they don't get counted in the state that and as it currently stands. And so we also know that there are about a dozen more states that are considering this bill this year. And Vermont has always been a leader in this realm and we can continue to be a leader by moving forward with this belt. The question, Senator white. Thank you. Thank you representative small and I, I specifically took note of your comment about why limiting this to a transgender or gender issue. Because that was a question that I had and so I appreciate you expounding on that a little bit even though it wasn't in response to a question from me so that helped me understand that a little bit better thank you. Absolutely, and if I know that wasn't a question but if I may respond. And another piece that has come up in committee as you mentioned in your introduction today is around that that intersectionality, recognizing that for people of color. We are seeing even higher rates of these assaults and murders and in particular black trans women are among the highest risk. That came out from the human rights campaign saying that the predicted life expectancy for a black trans woman in the United States is 35 years old, and not because of health disparities but because of the risk of assault and death. And so, with this bill we're recognizing that LGBTQ identities are not specific to one race are not specific to ability or socioeconomic status, but recognizing this identity, specifically LGBTQ identities in the context of the larger slew of identities that would be covered. The other questions, representative betting. Thank you. Well, I don't believe we've ever met before. Not yet. I want to back up the train a little bit because I want to start where Senator white left off when she first came on to talk about hate mail and whatnot that we receive. This is a wonderful conversation, and I think we need to have it. I want to make very clear, since you raised my name that you obviously flag something that I said, and make sure that we both have a common understanding what it is that I'm taking for position on the bill. I've been a criminal defense attorney for 37 years. And I honestly had never heard of the gay defense before. It was brought to my attention this past summer by one of my constituents who asked that I introduce a bill that would enable a jury instruction in the right circumstances for a judge to instruct the jury that a gay panic defense was not to be considered by the jury and their deliberations. And I began working on that bill, because after learning about it and frankly I spent several hours going through some of the other states legislation and briefings and news reports and legal opinions about the subject to educate myself as to what was going on. I am certainly sympathetic to the cause. And when I began to work on that bill for a jury instruction, I learned that this bill was actually in the works. And so I backed off that believing that this was going to take care of what I was going to do anyway. And where I am very troubled by what I have in front of me is the attempt to add the sentencing phase into this bill. Let me explain why. It is one thing to be acquitted or found guilty of an offense, based on a defendant's reaction. But when it comes to sentencing for me at least that's a completely different phase. I'm going to ask you to just consider what I brought up the last time that I think you might have heard. I use the example of somebody who was in the Westboro Baptist Church. Would they be prevented from bringing up in front of a judge at sentencing, not during the consideration of guilt or innocence, but at sentencing the makeup of who they were in order to try to give the judge a complete picture on who was being sentenced. I'm going to reverse that for today's discussion. And I would ask you to picture yourself. Suddenly finding you're walking down the street and you run into 200 members of the Westboro Baptist Church. They make you extremely uncomfortable. And for whatever reason, if it falls into one of the categories that is. You react and strike out on someone. I will agree that you should not be put in the position of having determined your guilt or innocent you shouldn't be able to avoid the charge. And if you are convicted. This is where I run into trouble with this bill, and you're sitting next to me. You're my defendant. I would try to use everything I possibly could about you to tell the judge why the sentence should be mitigated to some degree while the prosecution is doing just the opposite. In my eyes, this bill would prevent you and I from presenting that defense. By bringing your mindset how you found yourself in that situation. All of that would be eliminated from the judge being able to consider something. And I use the quickly reacted to one of Phillips statements by saying we don't elect bias judges. That was a mistake on my part. Of course, everybody has biases. The trick with the judge though is that the judge is committed to setting aside their bias when imposing a sentence. I'm really troubled at this stage with the way the bill is being presented if sentencing is incorporated into that. I think my history and criminal defense tells me I should not be voting for that because a criminal defendant has been deprived of the right to make an argument at sentencing. Even if society completely disagrees with the rationale behind that argument, depriving them of the ability to do that in front of a judge, to me is just completely repugnant. This is what my struggle is right now. And I, for the benefit of those folks who are watching on YouTube, who are introduced to this conversation for the first time. I don't want to be receiving hate mail like I'm in the end or fall or I'm some idiot from off planet Mars. I may be but that's not what's going on here I'm really struggling with how far the bill has come, because I think it takes one step too far. I'm comfortable in that situation where you and I would be prevented from presenting a defense, not at the trial stage, because I agree you should not be able to avoid conviction. But at the sentencing stage where the judge has to decide what kind of programming is appropriate for you after you've already been convicted. So if we have a difference of opinion on the ultimate bill. That's where that ultimate differences. And I'm happy to hear what your response to that is and reconsider if my position is not correct. Absolutely and appreciate that the opportunity to respond. First and foremost, I want to underscore that I don't believe any of you or the legislature deserves hate mail in this situation, especially as we interrogate these bills. My apologies if my reference earlier was indicating a difference of opinion or your position on the bill that was not my intent by any means. When I think about the sentencing phase, I think there is again with your legal expertise is is far more than my own. I think when we look at this defense what what we are saying is that it is because of the person's identity not because of the actions that are happening outside of that, that the act is being committed that this this sense of panic is overwhelming the person because of who you are, or this. Again, not recognizing someone's humanity in that moment, and then committing an assault or murder on that situation. And so when it comes to sentencing. In your example with the Westboro Baptist Church. I think we would absolutely be able to talk to my upbringing we would be able to talk about my own identity in the mix since and that would not be removed from the situation. I wouldn't be able to be used as me saying that I, I attacked I assaulted this person because they were a part of the Westboro Baptist Church, had they said derogatory things that would be something that would come up in the conversation around evidence. Because there were precipitating factors or other defenses in the mix, whether I perceive that it was self defense because of their actions or or moving forward, that would be a defense that would be used and could be considered. In this situation, my, my hope and the intent of the bill was really to remove this idea that we can justify or reduce a sentence because of the victims or survivors identity, if, if I clarified that. No, I appreciate that description and I see the last phrase that you used. I see a clear line of demarcation between the trial phase where someone is considered guilty or not. And the sentencing stage where it's no longer a situation determining guilt, because guilt has been found, but what do you do with the individual who is now guilty. There are some element that we are depriving you and I of if you and I are sitting at defense counsel table. Are we being inhibited in some way by denying us the ability to tell a judge, all about who you are, what your psychological makeup may be. I use this with every single criminal defendant that wouldn't just be you. But the mindset of an individual who was being sentenced is something that a judge may have to literally work on trying to change. So, bringing this into the conversation about how do you sentence this person should Taylor small be thrown into jail versus is there a probationary situation that can be fashioned. And that's why I'm really nervous, because to me this language says, it's not even to be considered at all. And I struggle with that so I guess that's that but I appreciate your conversation. I want to make clear. I have a hard time with this everything is taken into consideration and sentence. The famous case of those two brothers that in Los Angeles that killed their parents and then they wanted mercy because they were organs. You know, that comes in but, you know, the sentencing judge. I don't think somebody should get a lesser sentence because they had a gen I just don't understand that Joe, I'm sorry. You know, yes, it could come in that they had grown up in the West Ward, whatever the name of that Baptist church was that can come in as something that is there but I don't know why they would get a lesser sentence than somebody else. Tell me, Dick, if I could change the subject of the crime. Let's take two people who have been charged with retail theft. One has stolen food. And another has stolen a shirt. But with two people who are charged with the same offense. But there could be radically different reasons why the one who stole the food is actually entitled to a different sentence from the one who stole the shirt. And that's where I'm seeing the discussion about sentencing interfering with the ability to make that argument when it comes to this topic. I have faith in the judges who are placed in their positions to say, Benning. I don't care what your argument is. It doesn't work for me. I'm sentencing you as I would anybody else despite what you're telling me. That's what we put judges in place for Senator White, Senator Bruce. Oh, I just had a clarification question and it's both for representative small and for Joe, Senator Benning around. What I heard you say representative small. I think was that when when in the sentencing phase that in the example that Senator Benning used where you were the defendant here. I would be able to talk about your, your background your upbringing, your, the culture in which you grew up, whatever it was, bring anything forward. The pertains to you as the defendant. And that. And so, in Joe's example about the Westboro Baptist Church, they would, the defense would be able to bring up the fact that this kid was this was the culture that he was in this is who he was this is his, his sense of morality and whatever, but not necessarily bring up the panic issue the panic defense is that did I understand both of you right there that that you could, you'd still have the right to bring up the person's background, everything about the person, but not then say, and because this was the, this person's background, they panicked. And you would, am I understanding that right because that this is where, where I get a little confused. Yes, is the short answer on that one and really thinking about the defense that is being used is that I, I did this crime I committed this crime because of your identity, and therefore it should be justified. A slight reminder for the committee that in the reality of these situations and what we're talking about. I would absolutely be the victim in these trials, and not necessarily the defendant so I do appreciate the hypothetical and flipping the switch. I'm understanding that if this bill were passed the what the Westboro Baptist Church would not be covered under this bill but really focusing on on LGBTQ folks who are experiencing this harm. Right and so you're, can I just follow up on there so your, you committed this offense. Because of your background, what you're bringing up about yourself, but not putting it on to the victim itself that that it was because of the victim's identity. Correct. Okay that that is very helpful to me. I just wanted to. Can I answer the rest of your question because you didn't both. I'm having a hard time getting in here. Yeah, Senator Bruce has a question here trying to get in for the last. Thank you. And then, and then happy to turn it over to center. Thank you representative small. I know you've, you've done a lot of research in bringing the bill forward. And I, I took a look at some of that via link. And there was one piece that I found very illuminating which was an academic researcher who had quantified the percentage of reductions in sentencing using this defense. And I'm, that was to me the most illuminating of all the evidence can you just share a little of that. Absolutely. So the research that came out that looked at hate crime data that is available from the FBI, as well as a 2012 study report that examined 120 anti LGBTQ murders that occurred in the United States. What was found is that in a third of those cases when the defense was used, when it came to sentencing they received a reduced sentence again the typical move being from a murder charge down to manslaughter, less time, and in some cases only serving probation. So I think that the percentage but significant in my opinion is also the 5% acquittal rate with folks who are using this defense as well. Okay, thanks so much so this goes back to what I was saying the other day. If we were to prohibit this defense at trial, but allow it in sense and sentencing, according to those statistics, we would, we would still have a really alarming percentage of effective uses of the defense. 42% was the number I remember, in terms of reductions from what would otherwise be the case. So, I put it a little more strongly than that but I, but I think it's fair to say it undercuts the bill almost completely to allow the defense to be made at trial and sentencing. And so that's my reason for opposing that change in what the house did. So, if I can come back. Taylor one of the things you were talking about was the reduction of murder charge down to a manslaughter charge. A judge cannot do that, once a conviction has been rendered. I understand the need for this bill at the trial stage, because we're trying to prevent it from being used to avoid conviction. That's society's interest in my head. When we're talking about the sentencing stage since the judge does not have the power to drop the charge down after the conviction has been made. The concern still remains that we have judges, we expect to sentence appropriately. And if there is a judge who is somehow off the rails, using their own personal biases, we try to take care of that and judicial retention. I don't want to see you or I in a situation where you've been convicted, being prevented from arguing whatever we possibly can at sentencing, even if it's in violation of what society would normally consider appropriate. We have to trust that the judges understand there may be a different reason to give you a sentence of X than the other person who's charged with a simple assault, being sentenced with why. I'm sorry, Joe. But does that mean that because I was panicked, I should get a lesser sentence than you if we committed the same crime? That's the excuse. And I'm sorry, but I can't accept that excuse. I mean, that's why I use the Melendez twins. I don't know if they were twins, they were brothers. So their excuse after they wanted a lesser sentence because now they were orphans after they killed their parents. Well, they didn't get it, but that's right. But I'm just saying that. So, I mean, I appreciate represent small being here. I'm not sure I just have a disagreement with you over this particular point in terms of what, you know, obviously the fact that I that the person grew up in the West wards bro. And now I'm in in Wyndham County in that church. It's part of the sentencing and understanding, but I think the fact that because they're going to use as an excuse that they discovered that the person was transgender and they panicked over that's where we're saying can't use that excuse. So for me, we're, we're in a disagreement here that, you know, maybe, I mean, obviously I don't know how we're going to go. But I do know where I think we've gone as far with represent as small as we can on this issue and I appreciate her coming to the committee and talking with us. I just disagree Joe. That's that's what America is all about dick I appreciate that Taylor I do appreciate meeting you and having the conversation. Thanks. Senator white wants to have a final. So representative small. This conversation has been very enlightening for me. I, I, when we originally talked about it, and Joe used his example of the kid who grew up in the Westboro Congress or Baptist church and and when when I was thinking about the sentencing phase. I was assuming that he would not be able to bring up as his defense, the fact that he grew up there and this is his culture and this is. But what I'm hearing now and what I think I understand is that he can bring up all of that information about himself in the sentencing face to the judge, but can't then say, and because of that, I'm have I get to blame the victim. So that is very that that is very helpful for me because I, it was the sentencing phase where I was, where I was having a problem not the trial phase so I, and I know that Joe and I probably still disagree, but I, I found this very helpful thank you. If I may add one more comment chair Sears. Okay. I'm going back to one of my initial statements and testimony is really recognizing again that this defense is not used often or again at all in the state of Vermont as it currently stands as the office or the defender general's office has shared. And here in having this be able to come up and sentencing again is really focusing on legal strategy, and that strategy being playing into the potential bias or prejudice of a judge and that situation. And so, with that consideration coming forward, we hear that if someone were to say, I did this because of someone's identity, I would hope that our judicial system would see that as it is which is a hate crime, and not a defense or justification for one's actions so my worry about this defense come up in the sentencing arena is again really focused on that piece of justifying these, these crimes that are happening and playing to potential prejudice or biases that we know exist within our communities. Thank you very much for joining us. There's a whole lot of other folks here who may want to comment on parts of this, but got about five minutes left of committee time because we have to go to the floor to 1130 and it takes time to walk down the hallway and do whatever we need to do to get ready for the floor so I realized we need to come back to this but I, is there anyone who would like to comment about five minutes on this you may not be able to come back. More, you may not be able to come back. Not that everybody else isn't busy. Maybe you can comment. Yeah, so thank you for inviting me back to testify and I thank you for these last five minutes because I think I really didn't have very much to add, except to that this has been a very enlightening conversation and I just have my two cents. So I, you may remember the last time we talked about implicit bias as an entire body that there have been some studies that have shown that are implicit and our explicit biases are more closely aligned. When it comes to two specific groups, immigrants and lgbtq. And that is because researchers have found that there's just more social acceptability around disliking and hating immigrants and hating people who are who identify as lgbtq. It's not surprising to me that we're having a lot of these conversations because often what happens is, if I told you today that I don't think that people of different races should be able to get married. I think we would all be equally appalled. But if I said that people of different genders should not be able to get married, or that someone who is transgender should not be able to marry someone who is cisgender. We're now having conversations about religious beliefs, and we're having conversations about principles and the way that people were brought up and grown up. And so there, there's just more social acceptability around that and I think what we're trying to do here is shift that and change that change that culture and change that climate. And so sometimes it can be helpful to have to look at this in the context of a different protected category, because in 2021, I think we would all agree that there's no room left for racism. There is no space left for racism. And so, if I imagine at sentencing, we're sentencing an older gentleman who is white, and who grew up in a town that is predominantly white, and was taught at a very early age to hate people who are black and brown. He is from, he commits a violent act against someone who's black or brown. He is now sentenced, and he wants to bring up the fact that he was brought up at a different time at a different age, learned racism early on, and that's why he committed the crime that he did. I think we would all be really comfortable in saying, no way. You don't get to use the fact that you were brought up a certain way to justify your violent actions against your victim because of the color of their skin. That's just not okay. There's no excuse, by the way, even if you're 90 versus if you're 20 and you're, you've committed the violent offense. And so what we're saying is there should be zero tolerance. When, yes, our judges have made a promise to be impartial and to be neutral and to be bias free. But yes, of course they are, they do have bias, like all of us do. But this bill, this statue is guiding judges and not accepting those arguments, instead of leaving it to judges to do that themselves. This is the legislature construct like instructing the jury instructing judges instructing judges that we're changing the way that we think about LGBTQ communities, and we're not going to accept excuses for both the guilt phase and the sentencing phase that you are not like Senator Sears says, entitled to a lesser sentence, because you grew up in a different time, or that you were taught to be a racist or a sexist or you were taught to be homophobic. And we're not going to tolerate that. So, I think the, I looked at the new draft, certainly the Human Rights Commission would support it, and I would encourage you to move forward and to sort of think about this in the context of, as if it was a race, and whether that would be whether there would be a difference and how you would feel differently about if you would feel differently about it. Whether it's guilt, the guilt phase or the sentencing phase. And I would say that I don't think we would. So, thank you. Thank you. I appreciate it. I think you left, and maybe it's covered in immigrant but the recent violence towards person who's an Asian. Thank you for telling me that means a lot. Okay. Anybody else we've got. Peggy why don't we try to schedule this. We do have it on the schedule for 1115 on Wednesday. Yeah, hopefully we can, we can do it. Thank you. I look forward to seeing our schedule for the next week. The next two weeks you're going to be really busy trying to get bills out and hopeful. And I think that the news is would be done in about a month. Bad news is a lot of bills won't make it this year. And out of this committee and that's not because we're trying to be a whole. They're not important. And I think it's more important to get it right.