LANSING, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – Michigan Attorney General Democratic Dana Nessel is adamant: the state’s current hate crime laws fall significantly short. In a recent interview with Bridge Michigan, she emphasized the urgent need for enhanced protections and more severe penalties, driven by both professional concern and personal experience.

422 hate crimes reported in Michigan in 2022.

Nessel has encountered anti-Semitic attacks firsthand during her tenure as Michigan’s AG, yet despite her advocacy for policy changes, efforts to bolster hate crime legislation have stalled in the Democratic-led Legislature due to disagreements over the appropriate level of penalties.

MORE NEWS: Give a Pet a Home for the Holidays at Michigan’s Reduced-Fee Adoption Event

Statistics cited by Bridge Michigan show that in 2022, Michigan had 422 reported hate crime incidents according to FBI data. Those incidents were predominantly racially motivated (76%). Additionally, crimes related to sexual orientation and gender identity experienced a slight increase with 68 incidents reported in 2022, up from 60 in 2021.

Michigan AG has personal experience with threats.

Nessel’s own encounter with hate speech underscores her urgency for the change. In 2022, she received threatening messages on her cell phone, including anti-Semitic remarks, leading to a legal case with minimal consequences for the perpetrator.

According to the Ann Arbor News, the perpetrator only receiving two days in jail, eight days of community service and probation for a year. Subsequently, after violating the terms of his probation by having guns in his home, he was released from jail and is back on probation.

Partisan differences stall bills from moving forward.

The political landscape complicates matters further. Republicans have largely opposed efforts to strengthen hate crime laws mostly citing first amendment issues, while within the Democratic camp, there are divisions over the severity of penalties. Nessel acknowledges this delicate balance, citing the challenges posed by far-right and far-left ideologies.

She said in the interview, “You have this confluence of forces on the far right…this insistence that the First Amendment protects this language, or that the Second Amendment protects the ability to possess firearms under almost any and all circumstances.”

She added, “But then you also have the far left that argues basically no one should go to jail or prison for any offense ever and also, for anyone who has mental health issues…we don’t want to incarcerate people, unless or until they’ve actually committed a murder.”

Bill package includes hate crimes for gender identity.

MORE NEWS: Michigan’s Plan for Free Preschool Could Send Private Childcare to Timeout – Permanently

Both the Michigan House and Senate have introduced legislation aiming to expand hate crime laws to include protections for gender identity, disability, sexual orientation, and age. However, disparities exist regarding the severity of punishments.

The House’s proposal suggests harsher penalties, including felony charges and increased fines for hate crimes, while the Senate has opted for smaller fees and distinctions between threats and actual acts of violence.

AG not happy with any of the bills, thinks more should be done.

Nessel finds fault with both proposals, expressing skepticism over their effectiveness in deterring hate crimes. She humorously remarked on the inadequacy of proposed penalties, suggesting they are akin to receiving a mere parking ticket.

With the Michigan House possibly falling back into the hands of the Democrats after the April 16th specials election, it’s possible that some kind of hate crimes legislation can be moved forward to the governor’s desk for her signature if the Democrats can reach an agreement. The House is currently split 54-54 among Republicans and Democrats.

Michigan News Source has written about the hate crimes legislation several times in the past and has outlined how Republicans and other opponents of the legislation feel about the bills that have been proposed by Michigan Democratic legislators.

What the opposition says.

Rep. Gina Johnsen (R-Lake Odessa) has said about the bill packages, “This legislation allows police or prosecutors to decide what is a crime after the fact, or after the speech is spoken. Content-based speech regulation violates the U.S. Constitution, which everyone in this chamber swore to uphold.”

Opponents of the bills also include attorney David Kallman with Kallman Legal Group and the Great Lakes Justice Center who issued a statement saying, “Under the proposed law, a person will be ‘guilty of a hate crime’ if they merely intimidate another individual.’ This is vastly broader than the current Ethnic Intimidation statute and encompasses an enormous amount of speech protected by the First Amendment.”

Kallman goes on to say that the legislation is unconstitutional and he says, “You cannot prosecute someone based upon the alleged victim’s hurt feelings.”