AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 11 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO THE VICTIMS COMPENSATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
Summary
HB293 amends Delaware’s Victims Compensation Assistance Program by expanding the definition of “crime” in Title 11 to include any act that has the characteristics of a hate crime under Delaware law. In practical terms, this means victims of qualifying hate-motivated acts would be eligible to seek compensation assistance under the program, even if the conduct is specifically identified through the state’s hate-crime definition rather than through a separate offense label in the compensation statute.
The bill is a targeted statutory change to the definitions section of the victims compensation chapter. It does not create a new criminal offense or alter the underlying hate-crime statute itself; instead, it links the compensation program to existing hate-crime criteria in § 1304 so that those incidents are treated as compensable crimes for program purposes.
Impact
HB293 changes Title 11, § 9002 by broadening the class of incidents that qualify as a “crime” for purposes of the Victims Compensation Assistance Program. This affects victims who experience hate-motivated conduct, potentially allowing them to access compensation for expenses and losses associated with those incidents. The amendment also aligns the compensation statute with Delaware’s hate-crime framework, ensuring that the program can respond to acts characterized as hate crimes without requiring a separate statutory category.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests strong support for the bill: it passed House Third Reading unanimously, 39-0. No committee transcript was provided, but the lack of recorded opposition and the unanimous floor vote indicate broad bipartisan agreement on extending compensation eligibility to victims of hate crimes. The bill’s sponsors and co-sponsors also reflect cross-party support.
Contention
No specific points of contention are evident in the provided materials. Because the bill is narrowly focused on eligibility for victim compensation, any debate would likely center on whether the program should explicitly cover hate-crime-related incidents and whether the definition is sufficiently clear by referencing the existing hate-crime statute. However, the unanimous House vote suggests those concerns did not generate meaningful opposition in the chamber.