May You Finally be at Peace [UPDATED, Sadly]

« Indian Superman - The Sequel? · Main · Kumar Wants You to REGISTER »

July 03, 2007

A little over a month ago, I wrote a post about a Muslim youth who had cut the hair of a Sikh peer, during a fight in their high school bathroom. You may recall it— I asked you if this was a hate crime and many of you responded, some by saying “yes”, others “no”. The utility of hate crimes legislation was also debated; weren’t all violations worthy of condemnation? What if penalizing hate crimes really meant prosecuting thought crimes?

I thought of all of this, today. I was moderating a link on our news tab by clicking it, to make sure it worked. This takes less than a second, but sometimes, I linger for an extra moment on whatever news site you’ve submitted, especially if there’s another story which captures my attention (I’m powerless against the “most emailed” list).

“Survivor of Hate Crime Takes Own Life”, it said. Or something similar. I realized that David Ritcheson, 18, was dead, a year after he probably should have been. A comment from the post I referenced above came back to me:

I wouldn’t classify this as a crime… a little hair cut doesn’t hurt. He wasn’t sodomized for crying out loud. Plus, these were kids. Kids can be more sadistic than adults at times. Its actually somewhat normal for a pre-teen to be sadistic… part of the maturation process. This was peer pressure, not a hate crime. Whoever cut the Sikh fellow’s hair did to retain his status among the peer group. [Link]

Well, David was sodomized, for crying out loud. He wasn’t just sexually assaulted, he was brutalized. Stomped. Burned. Kicked. And as he lay on the ground, naked and dying, his attackers poured bleach on him. Why? He tried to kiss a 12-year old white girl, who was not related to either of his murderers.

Who was David?

David Ritcheson had been a running back on the Klein Collins High School football team. He was homecoming prince as a freshman and had a girlfriend. He “hung out with the good crowd,” he says, and had every reason to look forward to returning last fall.

But once classes resumed, Ritcheson was overwhelmed by the looks he got everywhere he went — in the halls, in the cafeteria, in classrooms.

The looks all said the same thing: You’re a victim, how do you deal with it? Everybody knew what had happened to him, and the attack, he says, “was just so degrading.”

In a case that drew national attention, Ritcheson, a Mexican-American, was severely assaulted last April 23 by two youths while partying in Spring. One of the attackers, a skinhead named David Tuck, yelled ethnic slurs and kicked a pipe up his rectum, severely damaging his internal organs and leaving Ritcheson in the hospital for three months and eight days — almost all of it in critical care. [Houston Chronicle]

Here are his own words, which were uttered at a hearing on H.R. 1592, The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007; he testified, in an effort to wrest some good from his pain.

I appear before you as a survivor of one of the most despicable, shocking, and heinous acts of hate violence this country has seen in decades. Nearly one year ago on April 22, 2006, I was viciously attacked by two individuals because of my heritage as a Mexican-American…a minor disagreement between me and the attackers turned into the pretext for what I believe was a premeditated hate crime. This was a moment that would change my life forever. After I was surprisingly sucker punched and knocked out, I was dragged into the back yard for an attack that would last for over an hour. Two individuals, one an admitted racist skinhead, attempted to carve a swastika on my chest. Today I still bear that scar on my chest like a scarlet letter. After they stripped me naked, I was burned with cigarettes and savagely kicked by this skinhead’s steel toed army boots. After burning me in the center of the forehead, the skinhead attacker was heard saying that now I looked like an Indian with the red dot on my forehead.

Moreover, the witnesses to the attack recalled the two attackers calling me a “wetback” and a ‘spic” as they continued to beat me as I lay unconscious.

Weeks later I recall waking up in the hospital with a myriad of emotions, including fear and uncertainty. Most of all, I felt inexplicable humiliation. Not only did I have to face my peers and my family, I had to face the fact that I had been targeted for violence in a brutal crime because of my ethnicity. This crime took place in middle-class America in the year 2006. The reality that hate is alive, strong, and thriving in the cities, towns, and cul-de-sacs of Suburbia, America was a surprise to me. America is the country I love and call home. However, the hate crime committed against me illustrates that we are still, in some aspects, a house divided. I know now that there are young people in this country who are suffering and confused, thirsting for guidance and in need of a moral compass. These are some of the many reasons I am here before you today asking that our government take the lead in deterring individuals like those who attacked me from committing unthinkable and violent crimes against others because of where they are from, the color of their skin, the God they worship, the person they love, or the way they look, talk or act.

I believe that education can have an important impact by teaching against hate and bigotry. In fact, I have encouraged my school and others to adopt the Anti-Defamation League’s No Place for Hate® program. If these crimes cannot be prevented, the federal government must have the authority to support state and local bias crime prosecutions. [Hearing on H.R. 1592]

Whither hate crimes legislation? Two of you discussed it, on the “Rape of the Lock” thread.

Affirmative:

why are “hate crimes” punished harsher than other crimes? I owuld think the punishment should be the same thing for the same crime regardless? Any lawyers here that can explain that better?

There are different justifications for hate crimes. It terrorizes the group to which the victim belongs because the perpetrator targeted the victim because of his membership in that particular group. It has the component of additional malice beyond the ones already codified in law. It also comes handy in cases of religious discrimination, for example, in the absence of this law, yanking off a cap from a persons head would be punishable at the same level as yanking off a hijab from a Muslim womans head or a turban from a Sikh mans head. [link]

Negative:

…more fundamentally, hate crimes are thought crimes…ie, they give extra punishment due to a person’s ideas and beliefs. now the particular beliefs in question are repulisive so few complain, but if the govt is allowed to give extra punishment to racists, could they do the same for communists? how about feminists? first they came for the racists…slippery slope.

there are first ammedment issues here and while such laws may pass constitutional muster they certainly go against her spirit. this is not the american way. it’s orwells. [link]

Is it?

More than anything, he didn’t want to stand out, to be identified as “that kid”, the one who was sodomized and attacked so brutally. He required 30 surgeries, all of which couldn’t put David back together again. He was an imperfect teenager, a football player, a former homecoming prince, a model in the school fashion show. The last thing he wanted to be was a spokesperson. But he stepped up, to address Congress:

despite the obvious bias motivation of the crime, it is very frustrating to me that neither the state of Texas nor the federal government was able to utilize hate crime laws on the books today in the prosecution of my attackers. I am upset that neither the Justice Department nor the FBI was able to assist or get involved in the investigation of my case because “the crime did not fit the existing hate crime laws.” Today I urge you to take the lead in this time of needed change and approve the “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007”. I was fortunate to live in a town where local law enforcement authorities had the resources, the ability — and the will – to effectively investigate and prosecute the hate violence directed against me. But other bias crime victims may not live in such places. I ask you to provide authority for local law enforcement to work together with federal agencies when someone is senselessly attacked because of where they are from or because of who they are. Local prosecutors should be able to look to the federal government for support when these types of crimes are committed. Most importantly, these crimes should be called what they are and prosecuted for what they are, “hate crimes”! [Hearing on H.R. 1592]

David was straight, but he worked for justice, for all:

The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, for which Ritcheson testified, would include protection for gay individuals in the statutes that now apply to acts of violence against individuals on the basis of race, religion color or national origin. The new act would augment local law enforcement with federal resources. The bill passed in the House in May and is being considered in the Senate.

This and other hate crime measures affirm the value of the lives of individuals who have been the targets of hate-filled crimes and affirm that the psychological dimensions of these crimes have a different impact on society as well as on the victims.

U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Houston, hopes to name the hate crimes bill “David’s Law.” An equally fitting legacy would be a brighter glimmer of recognition throughout the culture that the aftereffects can be as devastating as the trauma itself. [Houston Chronicle]

Many rape survivors don’t dare come forward, because of their shame. That shame is magnified if you are a man who was assaulted. David was practically a child.

“it was just really hard to hold your head up, even to walk outside with everyone almost in the world knowing what happened.” That anguish may have contributed to his decision to leap Sunday from a cruise ship to his death in the Gulf of Mexico.

“I shouldn’t care what people think or say. It’s just the fact that everyone knows I’m the kid. It was bigger than Houston. It was bigger than Texas. It was bigger than America. Everybody in the world knew what had happened and everybody knew the details of it.”

In the end, it was bigger than he was; in the end, it meant his end, by suicide.

On Sunday, he was pronounced dead after being pulled aboard the Ecstasy, a cruise ship en route from Galveston to Cozumel, Mexico.

A spokesman for Carnival Cruise Lines said several witnesses saw Ritcheson jump from an upper deck of the ship Sunday morning. Officials aboard the Ecstasy notified the Coast Guard before recovering Ritcheson’s body. [ABC News]

What motivates the perpetrators of such vile, naked hatred?

It was a level of rage and fury that could prompt his attackers to drag the victim, a 16-year-old Hispanic youth, out of a party for the trivial offense of trying to kiss a 12-year-old girl, to strip him and beat him into submission, using steel-toed boots. They made deep slashes into his chest, investigators said. Then they drove a sharpened plastic PVC pipe into his anus so deep that his internal organs were damaged. And as the heartless attackers carried out this savagery, they spewed racial slurs.

The suspects are both Anglo. Neighbors told the Houston Chronicle one of them, David Henry Tuck, 18, has swastikas painted on the fence at his home. On Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Tuck flew a swastika flag. Also under arrest is Keith Robert Turner, 17. Kids described both as “skinheads.”

The 16-year-old victim, David Ritcheson, is popular at his high school, played football and was once featured in a fashion layout in the school yearbook. But the intent of the attack, as has been seen in other such assaults, was to strip him of his personal identity and degrade him to an object that could be insulted and sodomized…history tells us it is far easier to target those who are different in appearance, in background and in language. And we know that racial slurs that stereotype people and deny individuality are but the first step to giving license for barbarity against a whole people, something that would never be countenanced against a person with a face. [Corpus Christi Caller]

Thank you for the opportunity to tell my story. It has been a blessing to know that the most terrible day of my life may help put another human face on the campaign to enact a much needed law such as the “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007”. I can assure you, from this day forward I will do what ever I can to help make our great county, the United States of America, a hate free place to live. [Hearing on H.R. 1592]

Oh, David. In your desire to emancipate yourself from your nightmare, you may have done just that, by inpsiring compassion and creating awareness. I just wish we hadn’t lost you, that you hadn’t lost you, in the process. May your memory be eternal, may you finally know peace.

An UPDATE I wish I had never come across:

I didn’t think this story could get any worse, but it turns out that despite the three hours I spent researching/writing this post, what I gleaned was not the whole, sickening truth. Not even close. I am grateful to XicanoPwr at !Para Justicia y Libertad!, for publishing the rest of the vomit-inducing, soul-crushing story (via the 2007 Jan/Feb edition of Journal of the Texas District & County Attorneys Association, which changed David’s name because he was a minor— that’s why it is in parentheses below). WARNING- THIS IS EXTREMELY GRAPHIC:

Tuck and Turner began kicking, beating, and stomping (David), Tuck wearing black, steel-toe boots, one of which was emblazoned with a swastika. Yelling “Beaner!” and other racial epithets, Tuck inflicted most of the damage. After one especially vicious kick, Tuck shouted “White power!” and gave a Nazi salute. Unable to fight back or defend himself in any way, (David) just lay there and took it, mumbling and groaning occasionally. Undeterred, or more accurately encouraged by the lack of resistance, Tuck and Turner began stripping off (David)’s clothing.

“If you had any white in you, you would be helping me,” Tuck told Gus. He then pulled out a silver pocketknife. When Gus started to protest, Tuck only glared at him. “Don’t bitch out on me now,” he told the frightened Gus, and began slashing at (David)’s bare chest. He was making superficial wounds, almost as if he was trying to draw something. Detectives would later come to believe Tuck was attempting to carve a swastika.

Taking the cigarette, [Tuck] began touching the tip of it to (David)’s bare skin, burning him on the arms, legs, back, and buttocks. Turner lit up another cigarette and joined in. Finally, Turner put the cigarette out right between (David)’s eyes. Tuck chuckled, “Now he looks like a f***ing Hindu!”

(David) could no longer speak because Tuck had stomped on his throat hard enough to break one of his tracheal rings. All he could manage was a weak, agonized moan. He lay there a few feet from the patio, naked and helpless. And now it was Turner who had an idea.

Walking over to the patio table where Gus was, Turner grabbed a pipe standing in the center of it. It was a white pipe made of PVC that served as the lower half of some long-forgotten umbrella. … The lower half abruptly tapered to a sinister, conical point. Turner carried it over to where (David) lay facedown on the ground.

Squatting beside him, Turner shoved the white pole between (David)’s buttocks and into his rectum, making sure that the sharp point was inside the anus. He then looked up at Tuck and, holding the pole with the blunt end angled upward, motioned with his head. Taking the invitation, Tuck viciously stomped on the blunt end of the pole with the bottom of his combat boot as hard as he could. (David) moaned sharply. Turner laughed. Tuck stomped the pole a second time even harder. Doctors later estimated that the pointed pipe went 8–10 inches inside (David)’s body, rupturing his bladder and colon in the process.

While Turner tossed (David)’s shoes over the fence and began burning his clothing in a barbecue grill, Tuck returned to a frightened Gus. “Do you have any bleach?” he demanded. “We’ve got to get rid of the evidence.” Gus shook his head no, but Tuck knew where the laundry room was and went inside to look for himself. He returned with a full bottle and a warning glare for Gus. “If you tell anyone about this, I’ll kill you,” he said, walking to the edge of the backyard where (David) lay, the pole still inside him. Turner joined him there.

Taking the cap off the bleach, Tuck poured the bottle into (David)’s face, eyes, and open mouth. He poured bleach all over (David)’s naked body, poured it down the pipe and into his traumatized abdomen as well. (Even seven months later at the trial, (David) still had visible areas of skin the bleach had burned off. The physicians who treated him did not think that bleach could account for the reaction they saw in (David)’s immune system. They believe other chemicals, perhaps something like acetone, were poured on and in him.)

I am weeping.

When I originally wrote this post, I remember thinking over and over again that I was so grateful that David had passed out and that he remembered none of this brutality. What is haunting is, some say that he was starting to recall what happened to him, and that would more than explain why he took his life, at least to me. I can’t fathom such evil, I can’t believe that it happened now, and here, and not during some other, primitive time, in some other, faraway place. But Hitler inspired these two monsters and they tried their best to emulate his despicable hatred towards “others”.

I don’t know if David was Catholic. I don’t know if it matters, it probably doesn’t. I am Christian. I’m not Catholic, I’m Orthodox, but I spent my life in Catholic schools where we were constantly told that suicide was a sin. Well, I believe two things now:

1) David lived through that hellish night so he could bear witness. Why else would he be spared the mercy of death, especially when there were so many things inflicted upon him, which might cause it?

2) Unlike what those somber nuns repeated ad infinitum, this can’t be a sin, this wholly understandable desire to escape such all-encompassing pain. Even Christ himself wasn’t tortured like this, before his crucifixion. That’s sick. It is sick when I think that some way of dying/being murdered is WORSE than being nailed to a cross.

You may disagree or scoff at what I just typed, but even if you are an atheist, an agnostic or whatever else, I know you share my horror at what this poor child was subjected to at the hands of two heartless, depraved demons.

I just can’t stop crying, or shaking. My heart hurts. What is wrong with us? How could this happen?

POSTED BY anna @ 07:00 PM

138 comments

1 · Rahul on July 3, 2007 07:30 PM · Direct link

I read this story on Yahoo or Google news yesterday. It was heartbreaking. Thanks for covering it in so much detail, A N N A.

2 · Doug on July 3, 2007 07:31 PM · Direct link

I heard about this today this is a horrible thing to happen,the worst part is nobody tried to stop this. I hope he is finally at rest and the creeps that did this to him will feel the same pain in prison day in and day out.

3 · Salil Maniktahla on July 3, 2007 07:36 PM · Direct link

God, I really hope this doesn't turn into another discussion about whether hate crimes should be prosecuted or not, or whether the hate crime laws are just/unjust.

What a waste. What a terrible waste.

4 · HMF on July 3, 2007 07:37 PM · Direct link

Of all the talk about whether neo nazism is on the rise, the only way to classify this is as paleo-nazism.

5 · Bengali Chick on July 3, 2007 07:43 PM · Direct link

This hurts my heart. Completely.Unfair.Wrong.

6 · Rahul on July 3, 2007 07:53 PM · Direct link

The tragedy is that cancers like Tom Tancredo, Pat Robertson, John Gibson, and Lou Dobbs continue to feed the anti-Mexican xenophobia by spreading vicious lies about the high volumes of disease, crime etc. that they bring into the country (I realize the kid is Mexican-American and that this particular crime probably wasn't motivated by these statements).

7 · Pravin on July 3, 2007 08:01 PM · Direct link

While 4 years age difference is not that big of a deal among teens, I think 12 is still preteen and is beyond that fine moral line we tend to view in underage sexual related issues. For him to try to kiss a 12 year old girl who was not throwing herself at him is hardly a "trivial" thing.

Then again, what the fuck was a 12 year old girl doing at a coke and alchohol fueled party with jocks and skinheads. So maybe he wasn't being that predatory.

8 · HyperTree on July 3, 2007 08:02 PM · Direct link

On a technical note; the issue of prosecuting thought crimes is not even relevant to hate crime legislation.
Thought crime would be thinking about committing a hate crime: this should not be punished.

After committing the crime however, the notion of intent is very relevant -- because the very foundations of the justice system are based on intent.

We need not feel guilty for demanding hate crime legislation at all -- the foundations of justice and law demand it.

9 · Savita Gupta on July 3, 2007 08:03 PM · Direct link

This is why capital punishment needs to be kept around in this country just a little while longer.

Their intent was to kill this boy.

And they probably will end up killing people someday.

Anyway,

It was a level of rage and fury that could prompt his attackers to drag the victim, a 16-year-old Hispanic youth, out of a party for the trivial offense of trying to kiss a 12-year-old girl

This reminds me of the other post where that Indian man killed his wife coz he came home and she was drinking and talking with 2 men, and the discussion that followed about the difference in values in different cultures and whether or not the act of drinking and talking to 2 men was acceptable in her culture.

10 · Savita Gupta on July 3, 2007 08:05 PM · Direct link

Then again, what the fuck was a 12 year old girl doing at a coke and alchohol fueled party with jocks and skinheads. So maybe he wasn't being that predatory.

hmmmmm.....
....and what was that indian woman doing drinking and talking with 2 men?

11 · Rahul on July 3, 2007 08:10 PM · Direct link

This is why capital punishment needs to be kept around in this country just a little while longer.
Their intent was to kill this boy.

And they probably will end up killing people someday.

I don't want to derail the discussion, so this will probably be my last comment on the topic of capital punishment on this thread, but how can you think that you know for sure whether these people are capable of redeeming themselves or not? Especially 17 and 18 year olds.

It also goes to the heart of what you believe is the reason for a justice system - revenge or reform. I'll stop here, unless the thread really veers in a relevant direction.

Hypertree, very well put!

12 · so sad on July 3, 2007 08:13 PM · Direct link

i saw this yesterday and was so sad..thanks for the coverage..

13 · gm on July 3, 2007 08:19 PM · Direct link

Can the two $hit$ who killed this innocent soul be tried for murder? It seems as though David Ritcheson must have suffered a severe hell and died due to the attack. Just wondering if justice can be served on this case.

14 · mani2learn on July 3, 2007 08:28 PM · Direct link

Will no one ever tell these neo nazi skinheads that swastikas only belong to dotheads, well as long as they are called swastikas. I am tired of swastikas being used to malign non-white groups when in reality it is a symbol of non-whites.

15 · gm on July 3, 2007 08:29 PM · Direct link

Are the killers serving life in prison? I hope that is the case and if so, I hope there is no chance at all for parole, etc.

16 · Karthik on July 3, 2007 08:39 PM · Direct link

This story is heartbreaking.

The law is very weird. I remember a case locally where a new recruit to the football team was hazed. Prosecutors spent a lot of time going back and forth about how critical the wounds were, because according to law, a life threating injury carries a bigger sentence as compared to a not so threatening injury.

I understand that the example is not related to a hate crime, but as far as the law dealing with crimes and injury, this example stands out in my mind.

17 · Pravin on July 3, 2007 08:53 PM · Direct link

hmmmmm..... ....and what was that indian woman doing drinking and talking with 2 men?

The Indian woman was a grown woman engaged in consensual relations. While there is no excuse for those two guys to do all that stuff, I wonder what kind of older teen would try to kiss a 12 year old girl. Was he some jock with a self entitlement thing going on?

18 · A N N A on July 3, 2007 08:57 PM · Direct link

I wonder what kind of older teen would try to kiss a 12 year old girl. Was he some jock with a self entitlement thing going on?

Actually, I found differing accounts regarding this-- the "kiss" may have been a perceived slight. He may not have tried to do anything to the girl.

Your disclaimer aside, please. Conjecture about what this "jock" was trying to do feels inappropriate, at least to me. There is no justification for what happened to him. No one deserves to be sodomized, burned, stomped with steel-toed boots and then left for dead after being doused with bleach.

Some reports stated that they poured bleach in to him via what they were sodomizing him with, further damaging his internal organs...the horrifying nature of this crime can't be dimmed by speculating about his character, so please don't.

19 · Mary on July 3, 2007 09:03 PM · Direct link

Just heartbreaking. That David accomplished more with his life than his two worthless attackers ever will, and yet could not bear to live it. I hope he is at peace now.

20 · bidi on July 3, 2007 09:10 PM · Direct link

A N N A

thanks for covering this. i read about it and i'm glad someone posted about it here. i was also amazed at the boy's ability to testify on something so intense. many times victims in cases like these who can avoid coverage and avoid pressing charges do so and for such a young boy to have the details of this case made public via news, via congressional hearing etc. took strength.

this crime never should have been up for debate as far as hate crime classification. from my work on the subject i believe utterances that were made by the defendants during the attack immediately classify this as a hate crime. their hobbies and affiliations would lessen any doubt to a degree as well. there is a lot of fine tuning needed in the legislation

RIP David

21 · Shalu on July 3, 2007 09:24 PM · Direct link

Pravin wrote:

I wonder what kind of older teen would try to kiss a 12 year old girl. Was he some jock with a self entitlement thing going on?

Wow. Conjecture much? If he did try to kiss the girl (we don't know if he did...it was hearsay) then how can you even begin to think it had to do with him being a jock? Nothing excuses what they did to him.

ANNA...thank you for this. I am absolutely devastated for this young man. He lived a tragic life, and I only hope as a nation we will grow from this. He could have been any ethnicity--he symbolizes the minority in this country.

22 · A N N A on July 3, 2007 09:30 PM · Direct link

gm-

regarding your comment:

Are the killers serving life in prison? I hope that is the case and if so, I hope there is no chance at all for parole, etc.

One is, one isn't.

Two men were convicted of aggravated sexual assault in the attack. David Henry Tuck, then 18, was sentenced to life in prison. Keith Robert Turner, then 17, was sentenced to 90 years in prison. Both must serve at least 30 years before being eligible for parole. [link]

23 · Savita Gupta on July 3, 2007 09:35 PM · Direct link

Two men were convicted of aggravated sexual assault in the attack. David Henry Tuck, then 18, was sentenced to life in prison. Keith Robert Turner, then 17, was sentenced to 90 years in prison. Both must serve at least 30 years before being eligible for parole. [link]

Good. Let's hope they get raped in jail, which no doubt, they probably will.

24 · coach diesel on July 3, 2007 09:45 PM · Direct link

Good. Let's hope they get raped in jail, which no doubt, they probably will

Ay, COÑO!

I wouldn't wish this on anyone.

25 · Camille on July 3, 2007 09:46 PM · Direct link

This is absolutely awful, and it broke my heart to read it yesterday. Thanks for covering it in such a sensitive manner, ANNA. It's times like this that I wonder what kind of country we live in, where we so freely abuse and discard of our innocents?

Good. Let's hope they get raped in jail, which no doubt, they probably will.

What happened to David is awful, sickening, horrifying and stands alone in its level of perversity. There is no need to continue that hatred, violence, and abuse.

26 · Rahul on July 3, 2007 09:59 PM · Direct link

It's times like this that I wonder what kind of country we live in, where we so freely abuse and discard of our innocents?

Camille, actually, despite the horrific nature of the incident and the tragic aftermath, this seems to be one of the cases where the system came through, and prosecutors managed to penalize the criminals appropriately. The reality is that pathological people are going to exist in the most honorable and decent societies.

It is cases like Katrina, the dropped charges against Amadou Diallo's police murderers, the level of support that patent racists and xenophobes enjoy among the populace, and so on which really depress me.

27 · Munira on July 3, 2007 10:06 PM · Direct link

Anna,

You are so right:
"No one deserves to be sodomized, burned, stomped with steel-toed boots and then left for dead after being doused with bleach".

While we may all be sensitive to the thought of a 15 year old boy engaging in any-but-the-most platonic of interactions with a 12 year old girl, NO ONE deserves what David went through. What is even more disturbing is that apparently there were witnesses to this event but I don't see any mention of said witnesses intervening in any manner (pick up your cell phone and call the cops maybe?).

28 · Savita Gupta on July 3, 2007 10:06 PM · Direct link

Good. Let's hope they get raped in jail, which no doubt, they probably will

Ay, COÑO!
I wouldn't wish this on anyone.

Yeah no need to wish it. The laws of cause and effect - karma cycles, will get them eventually.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Can't beat physics.

29 · Rahul on July 3, 2007 10:08 PM · Direct link

The laws of cause and effect - karma cycles, will get them eventually.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Can't beat physics.

Please don't mangle physics AND metaphysics to justify your vengeful logic.

30 · Camille on July 3, 2007 10:09 PM · Direct link

It is cases like Katrina, the dropped charges against Amadou Diallo's police murderers, the level of support that patent racists and xenophobes enjoy among the populace, and so on which really depress me.

Me too. I guess I just get down easily :(

31 · ak on July 3, 2007 10:12 PM · Direct link

It's times like this that I wonder what kind of country we live in, where we so freely abuse and discard of our innocents?

i feel you camille, though i do also agree with rahul. but either way, the issue is, what sort of a world do we live in? in my view, i think people are just fed up of being so PC, of tolerating this melding of cultures in the west. i think globalization and its 'discontents' have had not just political and economic impacts, but also social impacts such as this. some people will always just see the other, esp. when in many ways they feel it has been shoved into their faces. how they react to it, of course, varies by the individual, but these days, i feel many people are done being 'tolerant' and embracing of the other, and they make no apologies for it.

32 · Rahul on July 3, 2007 10:16 PM · Direct link

i feel many people are done being 'tolerant' and embracing of the other, and they make no apologies for it.

Your use of quotes made me want to comment - I find the word tolerant itself vaguely insulting. I mean, if I told somebody, I was willing to tolerate them, I don't think they'd find it complimentary (although maybe some should :-)

33 · Puliogre in da USA on July 3, 2007 10:17 PM · Direct link

Is there any chance that the atackers were mentally ill? Does that change anything? Not trying to flame....

34 · Puliogre in da USA on July 3, 2007 10:20 PM · Direct link

seems like the attackers get off lighter than the victim. can they nail those guys on murder?

35 · ak on July 3, 2007 10:23 PM · Direct link

rahul, i agree. i put it in quotes because many people feel that even if they don't accept others, they will at least feel 'tolerance' is required to live side by side in society, for the appearance of whatever it is they might be trying to achieve for society's 'good.' but i think these same people feel tolerance is enough, and do not find this concept insulting at all (perhaps because of some skewed perception of their 'magnanimous' gesture in not acting in another unacceptable way). perhaps i put it in quotes to express that it's not enough. or that my view of tolerance - of its acceptability - varies from this other view.

36 · Pravin on July 3, 2007 10:28 PM · Direct link

I read the entire description. Wow. I didn't catch some of the more grislier things. I was just playing devils advocate earlier. But wow. That is some inhumane stuff to the max.

37 · Salil Maniktahla on July 3, 2007 10:52 PM · Direct link

Without pointing fingers, I'd have to say that there's a fair amount of desire for "revenge" versus desire for justice being expressed on this thread alone.

Raping two kids because they sodomized another does not make things right. It results in three damaged people, and three incredibly damaged families. Hell, prison alone results in devastation to families. You don't make things right by hurting others. While that's an understandable human reaction, it's also the worst reaction in our repertoire.

I wish this kid had found a way to deal with what seems to be an incredible level of shame.

“it was just really hard to hold your head up, even to walk outside with everyone almost in the world knowing what happened.” That anguish may have contributed to his decision to leap Sunday from a cruise ship to his death in the Gulf of Mexico.

It's presumptuous and complete conjecture on my part, but I do have to wonder how much of the shame he might have felt stemmed from the sexual nature of the violation, and the subsequent widespread public knowledge of it. That is, had he ONLY been beaten to within an inch of his life and not sodomized, would he have ended his life?

Who knows, really?

38 · initforthemoney on July 3, 2007 11:09 PM · Direct link

"he symbolizes minorities in America today"... um, it's a tragic, disturbing story, but if a victim of a hate crime "symbolizes minorities" does a minority perpetrator of a hate crime "symbolize minorities?" Please, it is a tragic story, and tragedy tends to command identification--that's why it's an ancient mode of myth-making. However, we should keep perspective firmly in place. I don't want a "victim" "symbolizing" me, whatever that means.

According to FBI statistics, whites and hispanics are victims of hate crimes at a similar rate: 9 in 10,000; blacks are victims 7 in 10,000. 40% of the hate crime victims are white, urban, and young. Are they "symbols of majority in America today." Of course not. These crimes are committed by all races and colors. I do suspect mental illness in a lot of them, but we also have to accept that not all people "hate" because they are brainwashed by Pat Robertson or some other demogogue of the moment. They have perhaps had bad personal experiences with people of another "race" and just can't let it go. As for hoping someone gets raped in prison, i know of one perpetrator of a hate crime who was raped in prison and perpetrated his crime as "revenge." When you're not too bright, you have trouble sometimes drawing boundaries and differentiating among individuals and situations.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48898
I think there is a reason for the nomenclature "hate crime" because intent is important and we are at a stage where it is vital to be aware of how we are affected by prejudices; but let's face it, the assessment can be pretty subjective and depends a lot on PR and damage control by the media as to what gets out. I'm still trying to figure out why one story gets press and another doesn't.

39 · MadGuru on July 3, 2007 11:15 PM · Direct link

*Sigh*. Thanks for writing about this Anna. This is the reason that all people should find ethnic slurs and petty hatreds completely unacceptable. How many people have to be brutalized, and torn down before people as a whole stop bigotry that allows one to see another as subhuman, and thus deserving of horrors unthinkable against anyone else. Is it really that difficult to understand that all people regardless of how different they seem are really more the same than different? It's the little things that make room for this sickness. Let's talk about "those" people and how "they" are different and somehow evil and subhuman unlike "us" people. The first step is for all of us to fight as hard as we can against our own prejudices and then don't accept that bullshit from those around you. Try speaking up when some jackass singles out a group as a joke to make themselves feel better about their own shortcomings.

This isn't some pc nonsense. Be nice to "them" in front of their face, and "tolerate" diversity. It's not about tolerance. It's about actually loving people and holding them as more valuable than the weakness that lets us divide over ethnic, religious, nationalistic, political and any other nonsensical boundaries. This stuff makes me so furious, but the only solution is to actually communicate with people instead of getting pissed and telling them all to fuck off...though sometimes that's rather tempting. Start with the small stuff and maybe we can start ending the bigger stuff...this stuff really breaks my heart...just a kid.

40 · Rahul on July 3, 2007 11:19 PM · Direct link

initforthemoney, you might be right about the statistics (I don't know) and your points are well taken, but in case you are unaware, World Net Daily, the link that you cite, is a home for loony right wing demagogues. They keep plugging propaganda about how immigrants are a poison on America, and the like. An article I remember distinctly from a couple of months ago talked about how a disproportionate number of car accidents in this country was caused by illegal aliens. Apart from the laughable nature of the paranoia, the facts were just plain wrong. Just look at the current homepage to get a feel for which way they lean.

41 · Rahul on July 3, 2007 11:22 PM · Direct link

ak, I wonder when the term tolerance started getting used for the ideal of a diverse society. Why not acceptance? I do agree that the word and all it implies about the tolerant people doing the running feeds into the frazzled patience of many people and pushes them over the edge.

42 · Manju on July 3, 2007 11:50 PM · Direct link

My first thought is that homophobia killed him, figuratively speaking. I doubt if he got his face bashed in he'd feel humiliated. I don't know for certain, but probably kids were calling him "fag", etc. And this humiliation led to his suicide. strangely, it wasn't the stick and stones, but the words.

43 · Manju on July 4, 2007 12:08 AM · Direct link

Without taking sides, I find interesting the fact that, with the exception of Pravin, Mutineers see this incident as clearly as Bush sees the war on terror. it's the perfect argument for hate crime laws: white supremacist vs. POC. In contrast to the previous post regarding a Muslim supremacist, there is very little talk of nuance, of bigotry merely intersecting with normal bullying. I can see it both ways, but often nuance is the last defense for the indefensible.

44 · Aanchal on July 4, 2007 12:09 AM · Direct link

It's presumptuous and complete conjecture on my part, but I do have to wonder how much of the shame he might have felt stemmed from the sexual nature of the violation, and the subsequent widespread public knowledge of it. That is, had he ONLY been beaten to within an inch of his life and not sodomized, would he have ended his life?

I'm glad you brought this up, Salil. I too do not want to conjecture about the reasons why David committed suicide - only he knows of the demons he was battling - but it is worth pointing out that crimes like these are very much tied to issues of homophobia. Again, I don't want to make an affirmative statement, but I can guess that being a 16-year-old who was violently sodomized by an object in a society where anal penetration is still considered disgusting and "unnatural" by many could only magnify one's sense of shame. High schools are hotbeds of homophobia, and teenagers quickly learn that being a "fag" or "dyke" in many places makes you an outcast and a freak. I'm sure David heard the messages at schools ("fags are gross," "dykes are ugly," etc.) and these message get embedded into your mind. So the shame with being sodomized - essentially being viewed as less of a man, as one who has been violated - often serves to intensify one's sense of shame.

It's the same reason why the rape of women is so deeply tied to our society's sexist views...so often women will not report being raped because of the deep sense of shame which results from being violated, from being "unpure," from essentially having her "womanhood" taken away from her.

I'm not concluding that being called a "fag" will lead you to kill yourself, or that individuals cannot unlearn these deeply entrenched societal norms and fight back to reclaim their dignity...but this case is just so sad...he was 16 when this happened.

45 · LK1 on July 4, 2007 12:15 AM · Direct link

This is obviously a hate crime. The differences between this incident and the incident of the Sikh kid & his hair are glaringly obvious (thank you Anna for pointing that out, whether or not it was your intention). If you assign the same measure of punishment to every sort of misbehavior, any notion of justice becomes a farce. Luckily the legal system, at least in the West, does not work that way.

46 · LK1 on July 4, 2007 12:17 AM · Direct link

*If you assign the same measure of punishment to every sort of similar misbehavior

47 · Upbhransh on July 4, 2007 12:19 AM · Direct link

Can they try the attackers on some degree of homicide? But I guess its moot cause they wont get death penalty and are serving almost as harsh a sentence as possible. May bring some sort of closure for the family though.

48 · initforthemoney on July 4, 2007 12:56 AM · Direct link

Rahul, odear, i didn't notice the particulars of that site. creepy--the smudgey Reagan picture should have tipped me off. These conservatives certainly make themselves out to be victims, don't they?
I was just googling to bone up on the subject "hate crime" and have seen the FBI stats before, saw the headlines and grabbed the link. I already knew the general percentages from working with DOJ. Like any stats, you can interpret them any number of ways.
Still, my point is that anyone alone and vulnerable can be the victim of a hate crime, just as anybody with a certain sickness and strength can be a perp.
btw, I've been hearing that stuff about accidents being caused by illegals but never thought much about it. It sounded plausible because many had no experience driving before they came here. I know some personally. But as someone who lives in an area that is mainly Mexican with many, many illegals, I'm glad to hear it is not true.

49 · Manju on July 4, 2007 01:15 AM · Direct link

After committing the crime however, the notion of intent is very relevant -- because the very foundations of the justice system are based on intent.

what is the best example of giving extra punishment for intent that most parallels the logic of hate crimes?

50 · LK1 on July 4, 2007 01:53 AM · Direct link

[ the notion of intent is very relevant ]

Yes, intent is very important. Just as important is the degree of bodily injury. A rapist is not convicted because the rape victim may have months of flashbacks. So intent by itself is a meaningless concept. Which is why trivial incidents often get overblown and are labeled "hate crimes." Such strong emotions are evoked that many want to judge the case by intention alone. A case is the Sikh incident and the focus of this thread, David Ritcheson. The danger is that wheny you jump to conclusions without taking into account every detail of the case, a gruesome incident such as what happened to Ritcheson gets lumped in the same box as one where the victim walks away with a few tears. And, that, generally speaking, is bad for society in general. An analogy can be made to bogus lawsuits.

51 · LK1 on July 4, 2007 01:58 AM · Direct link

*A case in point

52 · Manju on July 4, 2007 02:31 AM · Direct link

This is obviously a hate crime. The differences between this incident and the incident of the Sikh kid & his hair are glaringly obvious

LK1: i agree that this incident is much more brutal, but that does not make it more obvious a hate crime. in fact, the cutting of a sikh's hair could be argued as more directly related to hate/bigotry than sodomy, since for a sikh the cutting of his hair is equivalent to someone cutting off our hand, and presumably the perpetrator knew this.

53 · Boddhisattva on July 4, 2007 02:41 AM · Direct link

Identification with one's ethnic/religious/political/geographical/whatever group is just an extension of ego. Kill ego, all the other ego identifications and subsequent "othering" will also vanish. The lack of this knowledge is what causes all suffering in this known world.

54 · LK1 on July 4, 2007 03:47 AM · Direct link

LK1: i agree that this incident is much more brutal, but that does not make it more obvious a hate crime. in fact, the cutting of a sikh's hair could be argued as more directly related to hate/bigotry than sodomy, since for a sikh the cutting of his hair is equivalent to someone cutting off our hand, and presumably the perpetrator knew this.

Justice is justice only if its based on some kind of common denominator. The common denominator should involve some kind of personal injury that has a disturbing impact on society. Keep in mind that a trial is not just about seeking reprieve for a victim; you are also asking this question of does the defendant pose a threat to society? That defendant has rights too (otherwise just hang him, why put him on trial at all?). Now, applying my logic to the real-world: can society handle a skin-head who brutally sodomizes someone's rectum? No, of course not. Can society handle a young chap who one day, on the basis of a prank, yanks off the scarf off a Muslim girl? Yes.

55 · Sourav on July 4, 2007 05:46 AM · Direct link

This is horrible! Whereas racism of all forms must be condemned, I agree with Rahul that every society has its share of knuckleheads.

56 · Al_Mujahid_for_debauchery on July 4, 2007 06:01 AM · Direct link

what is the best example of giving extra punishment for intent that most parallels the logic of hate crimes?

Murder in the first degree, second degree, involuntary manslaughter are governed by intent/state of mind to a large extent.

57 · Manju on July 4, 2007 06:32 AM · Direct link

Murder in the first degree, second degree, involuntary manslaughter are governed by intent/state of mind to a large extent.

Doesn't parallel hate crimes, AMfD. First degree murder is intentional killing with premeditation. 2nd degree w/o premed. so the fact that the criminal thought or planned the murder in advance gives him extra punishment over those who did it spontaneously. but this is different from punishing the actual content of the thought. hate crimes in this respect are unique and almost orwellian.

manslaughter is punished less because there is no intent to kill. this is very different from punishing a person less because they had no bigotry, which is more like lowering the punishment because someone is a christian.

Hypothetical...in this war on terror, if we give extra punishment for someone who commits a crime in the name of allah, would this be constitutional? would it violate the spirit of our creed?

58 · Al_Mujahid_for_debauchery on July 4, 2007 07:03 AM · Direct link

Hypothetical...in this war on terror, if we give extra punishment for someone who commits a crime in the name of allah, would this be constitutional? would it violate the spirit of our creed?

Incidentally, you have stumbled on to a perfect example of a crime where 'motive', here to terrorize, leads to additional/differential punishment and mirrors the logic of hate crime.

Terrorist attacks now carry different punishments then just pure murder, as the intent to terrorize as compared to the intent to plain ol' kill is considered an 'additional motive' warranting a different set of punishment.

My bad as I focussed on intent as per your question and failed to notice the second part of your question where you wanted a parallel for the logic of hate crime. Your question actually has no answer because there is an 'intent' element in every crime period. I am presuming what you were looking for was 'motive' which is different from 'intent'.

59 · Al_Mujahid_for_debauchery on July 4, 2007 07:05 AM · Direct link

Manju: What the hell are you doing being up so early today anyway?

Happy 4rth of July everybody!

60 · HMF on July 4, 2007 07:22 AM · Direct link

Manju: What the hell are you doing being up so early today anyway?

It's never too early for a true patriot to celebrate this countries birthday. Maybe you should stop emboldening the enemy. How about that?

61 · ak on July 4, 2007 09:01 AM · Direct link

ak, I wonder when the term tolerance started getting used for the ideal of a diverse society. Why not acceptance? I do agree that the word and all it implies about the tolerant people doing the running feeds into the frazzled patience of many people and pushes them over the edge.

rahul, for many, like you and me, acceptance, or even embracement, of the diversities of our society is the ideal. yet, for a large number of others, tolerance is an ideal. from that perspective, it is the 'civil' way of acting towards the encroachment on their society of people from diverse backgrounds. what we want from an ideal society - indeed, what constitutes an ideal society - is very subjective, particularly when you add diversity to the mix. furthermore, tolerance might be all a person like me, who believes in acceptance, can ask for in certain situations, such as civil unrest, racial riots etc. sometimes things are so bad that the ideal is replaced with the achievable.

but it is a problem when tolerance is at play - because unlike acceptance, there is no sense of equality towards others. and i could easily see how mere tolerance is far more likely to result in a hate crime vs. acceptance.

62 · HyperTree on July 4, 2007 09:21 AM · Direct link

so the fact that the criminal thought or planned the murder in advance gives him extra punishment over those who did it spontaneously. but this is different from punishing the actual content of the thought.

Manju: But you're glossing over why spontaneous murder is punished less.
Rational thought and intent go together; and spontaneous murder is supposedly caused by a lack of rational thought and intent.

The punishments in tort law (assault, invasion of privacy or property, fraud) are completely determined by degrees of intent.
Even in criminal law, the concept of Mens Rea (guilty mind) is foundational. The difficulty of establishing degrees of intent results in categorizing: first degree, second degree and so on.
An example that you were seeking would be assault with intent to rape: which is punished more than just assault.

63 · ak on July 4, 2007 09:39 AM · Direct link

Hypothetical...in this war on terror, if we give extra punishment for someone who commits a crime in the name of allah, would this be constitutional? would it violate the spirit of our creed?

manju, i assume this would be reviewed under strict scrutiny, since it is discriminatory/prejudiced on its face towards a 'discreet and insular' minority (carolene products, FN 4). honestly, though, it might stand up to even that high level of judicial review, depending on how narrowly tailored it is to a compelling government interest, since korematsu (re the japanese internment) is technically still good law. given the environment of today, it is hard to say with conviction that such a bill would not be passed, nor that the courts would not uphold it. so yes, it is very possible that such a law would be upheld as constitutional.

64 · muralimannered on July 4, 2007 09:43 AM · Direct link

well, according to those ole terrorist-abetters (I kid) at HRW, the perpetrators will be at a higher risk for being raped--they are white, presumably not adepts of BJJ, nor very large/menacing. It is ironic that the likeliest agents of this violation will be white as well.

65 · muralimannered on July 4, 2007 09:57 AM · Direct link

The tragedy is that cancers like Tom Tancredo, Pat Robertson, John Gibson, and Lou Dobbs continue to feed the anti-Mexican xenophobia by spreading vicious lies about the high volumes of disease, crime etc. that they bring into the country

oh come now, why should we tar and feather these patriots who educate us on rates of leprosy (without context), the unjust incarceration of model minorities who enforce our immigration laws or sensible directions for US foreign policy.

66 · muralimannered on July 4, 2007 10:04 AM · Direct link

and how could I leave out Dr. Savage, an eternal guardian in our eternal fight against illiberal clothing and furriners of all tribes.

67 · b4igo2it on July 4, 2007 11:11 AM · Direct link

David's story has shown me that there are people who feel compassion, and unfortunately, there are those that do not. There are individuals that think it is okay to torture one another. And yes, evil does exist. Drugs are bad … especially Xanax - it is taking its toll, almost like a cancer eating away at our youth. If the results of drugs and alcohol are leading to terrible acts happening, what is the thrill all about? It is probably true that DR initially did some things that he should not have done while under the influence. I am guilty too - in my younger days I did some things that I should not have done too. The perps also did things they should not have done, and for that they will have to spend their life in prison. It killed me to learn of what those perps did to David in "my" neighborhood, and justice has been served in their penalty for their actions. They have been removed from society and the ability to enjoy the pleasures we are granted. Please do not question where God is while these things happen - he gives us the knowledge and will to do the things we do, and the wisdom to know whether our actions are right or wrong. I once questioned the Lord as to why a good, decent, person would have to suffer at the hands of an evil person, and the Lord said to me, "My child, I have to leave examples for people. They don't listen to my word." We are supposed to love one another; there is no room for hate. In this story of David and his acquaintances, let them all be examples as to what happens when people make the wrong choices in life. We have to live with the consequences, some end up in prison, some end up living in their own hell, and some can not bear to live with the consequences. As far as society goes, some will learn from their mistakes, and others will think it only happens to someone else … My heartfelt sympathy goes out to all that are affected by this tragic example. We are all far from perfect, aren't we? Is it possible that the Lord saw that David could no longer cope and removed him from his pain? IMO, the way a death occurs is not as relevant as what happens after the death. I pray that he is in a better place, free from pain, embarrassment, and sadness. RIP David Ritcheson

68 · Aanchal on July 4, 2007 11:12 AM · Direct link

hate crimes in this respect are unique and almost orwellian.

Manju, don't most laws try to essentially correct various attitudes? Laws against stealing attempt to curb an attitude which does not respect personal property, laws against snooping attempt to curb an attitude which does not respect privacy, etc.

The history of punitive relief around the world demonstrates this - public floggings, beheadings, executions, etc. Laws exist to punish and deter.

I think if you want to make an argument against government interference in general, then we'll just have to disagree, but saying that hate crime laws are Orwellian and lead to a slippery slope is misleading.

For one, the law cannot cover every single group which claims disenfranchisement. It's just not possible b/c of the seemingly infinite nature of group formation and malleability. This should not, however, determine that additional penalties for crimes committed b/c of a person's ethnicity, religion, etc. are moot and unsubstantiated.

Laws do not exist in an apoliticized vacuum. Hate crime penalties exist b/c this country has a history of racism and intolerance, of legislating this racism and intolerance, of violence towards racial and ethnic minorities, etc. And racial politics has become a forefront issue - that mix of history and politics motivates certain legislation.

Ironically, many right-wingers oppose hate crime laws based on race, etc. except for laws which impose harsher penalties for commiting an act of violence against an American Christian while he/she is abroad.

I kind of find a lot of conflation and blurring happening when we talk about hate crimes. It would be Orwellian to punish someone for his/her thoughts, but not to punish someone for his/her intent and actions - which is usually held to a pretty high standard, by the way.

I mean, right now a bunch of Christian ministers are saying that the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 will have a "chilling" effect on their rights to preach about morals, when in reality it would do no such thing. You can't be prosecuted for your speech. Yet it doesn't stop these clergymen from saying (idiotic) things like:

"Lets say a congregational member has a diminished (mental) capacity, goes out and hurts somebody or threatens to hurt somebody and is arrested and says, 'Pastor Jackson told me to do this.' Under the laws of the land, I could be implicated and brought up on charges as an accessory to that crime," Jackson says. (link)

69 · Camille on July 4, 2007 11:38 AM · Direct link

Kill ego, all the other ego identifications and subsequent "othering" will also vanish.

Are you serious, or are you misinterpreting the concept of ego across at least three Indic religions for fun?

The common denominator should involve some kind of personal injury that has a disturbing impact on society.

LK1, many would argue that hate violence does have a disturbing effect on society. I actually don't want to get into this with you -- you've already made your position abundantly clear on the thread re: the Sikh youth.

Aanchal and HyperTree, thanks for breaking it down. This is what I explain to folks about hate crimes legislation, and often they forget that part of my argument because they get blinded by my martyr-complex ;) [I'm kidding, Manju].

I think the Christian ministers who are opposing the hate crimes act are mistaking it with Britain's Race Relations Act (which does, in fact, criminalize speech that incites racial violence). But also, are you they so invested in their hatred (or their "right" to their vitriol) for members of the LGBTIQ community that they would block legislation that statistically is more likely to protect white folks and Christians from hate violence?

Nevermind, I'm getting depressed again. Happy 4th, all.

70 · Gazsi on July 4, 2007 12:24 PM · Direct link

Amazing how this completely irrelevant article is posted when:

-Bombings in London were committed by an assortment of Muslims including an Indian national
-There is a showdown between extremists and police at a mosque in Pakistan

Gazsi

71 · Mary on July 4, 2007 12:34 PM · Direct link

what is the best example of giving extra punishment for intent that most parallels the logic of hate crimes?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think killing someone for financial gain is an intent-related special circumstance that can merit extra punishment.

World Net Daily, the link that you cite, is a home for loony right wing demagogues.

A friend of mine refers to it as "World Nut Daily."

72 · LK1 on July 4, 2007 12:40 PM · Direct link

Ethnic tension in any non-homogeneous society is inevitable. IMO: it has more to do with economics than hate. Those who subscribe to extremist causes are societies outcasts and rejects. However, educated people are also capable of so-called "racism." In this case, its more subtle, such as the tendency towards segregated housing and schooling, such as we find in America. So basically, this whole "hate" crime label becomes ambiguous at some point; convicting someone on the basis of sheer motivation ignores the root cause. Over-blown liberalism - this is why America has the highest incarceration rate in the world. The liberals would rather build more prisons and be PC than find constructive solutions.

73 · yeti on July 4, 2007 12:46 PM · Direct link

The liberals would rather build more prisons and be PC than find constructive solutions.

right, because we all know that the conservatives are not trying to build more prisons...

74 · LK1 on July 4, 2007 12:47 PM · Direct link

LK1, many would argue that hate violence does have a disturbing effect on society.

Every violent act involves some kind of anger/frustration. The "hate" label is superfluous, purely a product of the PC culture. If the Sikh boy had lived in India, he wouldn't even have bothered to take his case to court (he would have been laughed out of court). Another reason why I find it amusing that his parents went into hysterics.

75 · msichana on July 4, 2007 12:58 PM · Direct link

Amazing how this completely irrelevant article is posted when:

Gazsi,

Don't you think that hatred and bigotry that a child might cultivate might lead him or her to be the kind of freak who commits atrocious acts like bombing innocents etc? Would you find this article irrelevant if you were to find out that the people recently detained in the London and Glasgow terror attacks might have been fiends even as teenagers?

I suppose I am trying to understand why you feel that this article is irrelevant?

76 · A N N A on July 4, 2007 01:02 PM · Direct link

Amazing how this completely irrelevant article is posted when:

-Bombings in London were committed by an assortment of Muslims including an Indian national

-There is a showdown between extremists and police at a mosque in Pakistan

Shame on you, for dismissing this death, this tragedy as "irrelevant". The post IS relevant, perhaps even more so on a day when we celebrate freedom. The number of comments alone prove that this story deserved to be told.

If you are so concerned with what SM covers, then one would assume you are a regular reader; if you were a regular reader, you would recall this post which warned you that this is summer and we are taking a break.

You may have noticed that the number of posts on SM have decreased in frequency over the past couple of months as everyone takes a bit of time out for themselves. This slow burn will continue through the end of the summer. We might bring in some new faces and lose some old ones but the Mutiny is not dead. Our new site admins are also working on more community-based features and on ways to make the News Tab more interactive by allowing commenting and ranking of stories there.

The entire point of that post was to explain to our readers that we will write the occasional story, IF we can. We used to publish several posts a day, now there might be just one daily. How about understanding that, instead of criticizing us?

77 · Salil Maniktahla on July 4, 2007 01:39 PM · Direct link

Manju, MOST laws are about intent. "Attempted manslaughter" is still about the attempt, and thus the intent, to kill. It is punished less severely than "regular" manslaughter. And attempted manslaughter that results in no injury to the victim IS STILL PUNISHED. In this case, it's largely the intent that matters. Giving someone a bottle of water that contains arsenic is a crime, whether or not they drink it. Do you follow?

That's not Orwellian, that's justice. Crimes can be of intent, and intent is not unknowable. It might make you uncomfortable, but I think that's because you're getting kind of hung up on some weird definition of fairness.

And here we go. I knew it wouldn't last. Some numbnuts troll wades in from the shallow end and the water turns yellow around him. Next he'll wonder why everyone else is getting so worked up about it. Predictable as clockwork. Yeah, the suicide of a kid who was a victim of a horrible crime is irrelevant, because SM needs to focus on students barricading themselves in a mosque in Pakistan.

No, wait. SM needs to focus on something OTHER than Pakistan. Because SM is racist, and hates Pakistanis.

No, SM is actually biased against Indians. South Indians, especially.

No, wait, no. SM is actually against Hindus. Because Anna's Christian, see.

No, wait. Anna's a bitch. Because she wrote this piece.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

Seriously. Kill me now.

78 · Karthik on July 4, 2007 02:28 PM · Direct link

Amazing how this completely irrelevant article is posted when:

Where do these people come from? If you want news about a story go check BBC or something.

I am not speaking on behalf of SM, but as a blogger, I will not write about a story if I have nothing to add to it. I did read about both news articles and I personally did not want to cover it over at my blog because a) These are developing stories b) If you do post something that is developing, you need to have the time and the resources to update it and keep your readers informed. So buzz off.

And ANNA thanks for being so patient.

79 · Vikram on July 4, 2007 02:48 PM · Direct link

It is cases like Katrina, the dropped charges against Amadou Diallo's police murderers, the level of support that patent racists and xenophobes enjoy among the populace, and so on which really depress me.

In the UK, a Muslim member of Parliament recently resigned due to death threats from a gang linked to a racially motivated murder. He had helped bring the culprits to justice some years ago. No good deed goes unpunished.

80 · HyperTree on July 4, 2007 03:59 PM · Direct link

Manju's concerns about hate-crime laws slipping down slippery slopes to become vaguely orwellian are not off-base though.
Would hate crime legislation involve criminalizing verbal assault -- should calling a desi a dothead, or calling a homosexual a faggot be punishable by law?
Even "assaults" such as yanking a yarmulke or head scarf off -- do we want these to be criminal instead of tort?

These are very hateful and are emotionally invasive, but criminalizing these seems
(a) vaguely orwellian
(b) sweeping the social problem under the rug anyway

81 · Manju on July 4, 2007 04:03 PM · Direct link

what is the best example of giving extra punishment for intent that most parallels the logic of hate crimes?

Incidentally, you have stumbled on to a perfect example of a crime where 'motive', here to terrorize, leads to additional/differential punishment and mirrors the logic of hate crime. Terrorist attacks now carry different punishments then just pure murder, as the intent to terrorize as compared to the intent to plain ol' kill is considered an 'additional motive' warranting a different set of punishment.

An example that you were seeking would be assault with intent to rape: which is punished more than just assault.

Manju, don't most laws try to essentially correct various attitudes? Laws against stealing attempt to curb an attitude which does not respect personal property, laws against snooping attempt to curb an attitude which does not respect privacy, etc.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think killing someone for financial gain is an intent-related special circumstance that can merit extra punishment.

Manju, MOST laws are about intent. "Attempted manslaughter" is still about the attempt, and thus the intent, to kill.

In all the examples given, the extra punishment for intent are for intents that are inherently criminal: terrorism, rape, stealing, invasion of privacy (snooping), tealing again (financial gain), an manslaughter. But being a bigot is not inherently criminal. It's more like being a communist, certainly wrong, but not defacto criminal. punishing someone for acting on a criminal thought is differernt from punishing a criminal act that has a taboo thought attached.

82 · Manju on July 4, 2007 04:07 PM · Direct link

Manju: What the hell are you doing being up so early today anyway?

you mean: "...up so late tonight anyway"

83 · HyperTree on July 4, 2007 04:26 PM · Direct link

Manju: that's circular logic. You're saying the other intents are "inherently criminal" but bigotry is not.
This begs the question of why the other intents are inherently criminal: it is because they have criminal laws criminalizing actions based on those intents innit?

84 · Bodhisattva on July 4, 2007 04:39 PM · Direct link

Manju's concerns about hate-crime laws slipping down slippery slopes to become vaguely orwellian are not off-base though. Would hate crime legislation involve criminalizing verbal assault -- should calling a desi a dothead, or calling a homosexual a faggot be punishable by law?

NO!

However, these things do need to be addressed from the root.

Just like the War on Drugs is a failure, similarly, enforcing these laws could also be a failure and what is called for is education and awareness starting from an early age - a shift in the consciousness of cultures.

Now you get prisons in America overflowing with drug dealers when if there was no demand to begin with, there would be no supply. So we need to address the buyers of drugs first. After knowing what damage they can do to their own body and minds if they use certain drugs and they still go out and buy them, well, survival of the fittest, no loss to society. That's why I feel all drugs should be legalized. Let the info be available on them all and if after knowing coke can kill you, you still go out and buy it, well, your loss, not mine.

Similarly, from early childhood people need to be taught how to act respectful and loving to all sentient beings. This stems from detachment from ego and the recognition that we all come from the same source. People who have imbibed this wisdom from early on will be less likely to use disrespectful language with each other or to get involved in hate crimes.

85 · Salil Maniktahla on July 4, 2007 05:07 PM · Direct link

Well, amen to that, although I don't know that it'll ever happen, Bodhisattva. Humans are just too ornery. And I mean...how hard would it be to kick everyone's ass in a society like that, anyway? Pretty easy. And also pretty fun, too.

Until such a day as humanity turns into the total wusses you describe, we'll probably continue on with having criminal justice codes and such.

So Manju, is it the notion of the intent not being criminal, although it's expressed or instantiated somehow in conjunction with a crime, that's bugging you about the whole hate crime thing?

86 · Manju on July 4, 2007 05:24 PM · Direct link

Manju: that's circular logic. You're saying the other intents are "inherently criminal" but bigotry is not. This begs the question of why the other intents are inherently criminal: it is because they have criminal laws criminalizing actions based on those intents innit?

intent to rape, for example, is about thinking of doing something that is inhernetly violent, ie criminal...an initiation of force against another.

87 · Salil Maniktahla on July 4, 2007 05:30 PM · Direct link

Hypertree (#80):

Manju's concerns about hate-crime laws slipping down slippery slopes to become vaguely orwellian are not off-base though.

Would hate crime legislation involve criminalizing verbal assault -- should calling a desi a dothead, or calling a homosexual a faggot be punishable by law?
Even "assaults" such as yanking a yarmulke or head scarf off -- do we want these to be criminal instead of tort?

These are very hateful and are emotionally invasive, but criminalizing these seems
(a) vaguely orwellian
(b) sweeping the social problem under the rug anyway

Actually (y'all lawyerly types correct me if'n I'm wrong), in the American system of jurisprudence, yanking a yarmulke or scarf off someone's head would be construed as assault, and therefore a criminal offense. Similarly, verbal assault can be a criminal offense, too. "Assault" implies lack of consent on behalf of the victim, and therefore is very broadly defined.

These measures are hardly Orwellian. I'd strongly disagree with that statement.

But being a bigot is not inherently criminal. It's more like being a communist, certainly wrong, but not defacto criminal.

I'd also like to point out that being a Communist is not wrong, Manju. Just different from what you believe. Archaic, to be sure, and probably irrelevant, but hardly criminal, no matter what J. Edgar Hoover might have told you.

88 · Manju on July 4, 2007 05:30 PM · Direct link

So Manju, is it the notion of the intent not being criminal, although it's expressed or instantiated somehow in conjunction with a crime, that's bugging you about the whole hate crime thing?

hate crime laws strike me as a legislation of morality, as oppossed to a legislation against the initiation of force.

I'm also worried about the often used ACLUish (i wrote that to make AMfD squirm) slipery slope, as is the case in europe with holocaust denial and the trial of Oriana Fallaci.

89 · Salil Maniktahla on July 4, 2007 05:42 PM · Direct link

Hate crime laws are legislating morality. They're also about the initiation of force, too.

Again, pretty much every system of jurisprudence the world over is rife with morality enforcement. This is why you shouldn't:

-Chew gum in Singapore
-Have sex in Saudi Arabia with anyone who's not your spouse
-Get a BJ in North Dakota
-Go to a swimming pool if you're a woman in Afghanistan.
-Attempt to fondle a minor pretty much anywhere in the U.S.
-Or shoot someone.

The law rarely seeks to redress societal systemic shortcomings, and frequently overextends itself in really intrusive ways. I find it bizarre that people object so vehemently when legislation passes that attempts to make amends or prevent those systemic societal wrongs, yet the thousand other slights and injuries to individual rights that still remain enshrined in legal codes the world over pass by unremarked.

90 · Boddhisattva on July 4, 2007 05:43 PM · Direct link

Until such a day as humanity turns into the total wusses you describe, we'll probably continue on with having criminal justice codes and such.

It's not a matter of being wusses, it's a matter of culture. Are we cultured to be respectful or disresptectful. Those kids who beat up this young man probably did not have good family/community influence, or if they did, consciously cultivated a mood of rebellion within themselves. Rebellion, aggression, etc can be channelled though art, martial arts, music, dance so many creative outlets.

Generally speaking, parents who are grounded and well-balanced tend to culture their kids the same way.

Unfortunately TV and other media tends towards the violent and less refined characteristic in all of us -- the lowest common denominator of human existence. Then that's the responsiblity of parents also to monitor all that or to encourage their kids in other activities OUTDOORS.

91 · HyperTree on July 4, 2007 05:49 PM · Direct link

intent to rape, for example, is about thinking of doing something that is inhernetly violent, ie criminal...an initiation of force against another.

Manju: there are two components to a crime: one is the action and the other is the state of mind during that action. Mens Rea (guilty mind) doctrine of justice demands that after an action, the state of the guilty mind during that action be used to determine punishment.

In your example above you reduce this pre-action state of mind to "about to do action" -- this reduces Mens Rea to a tautology! But it is much more.
The state of mind could be drug-doped, or sane and sober.
It could also be bigoted malice.
These have to be taken into consideration while determining the punishment.

It is not that bigoted malice is illegal per se. By Mens Rea, it is not irrelevant to punishment post-action either.

By hate-crime legislation, we are not criminalizing the thought of bigoted malice.
We are merely encoding what Mens Rea under bigoted malice should entail.

92 · Salil Maniktahla on July 4, 2007 05:54 PM · Direct link

Now who's sounding Orwellian? Your idea of culture sounds like a total pain in the butt to me.

93 · HyperTree on July 4, 2007 05:56 PM · Direct link

btw, the intent to rape example is more complicated -- i.e. it is not criminalizing the intent to rape per se.
It is actually criminalizing imminent rape. Intent and Mens Rea can only kick in post action.

94 · HyperTree on July 4, 2007 06:02 PM · Direct link

I find it bizarre that people object so vehemently when legislation passes that attempts to make amends or prevent those systemic societal wrongs, yet the thousand other slights and injuries to individual rights that still remain enshrined in legal codes the world over pass by unremarked.

two wrong do not make a right[1] etcetera.

[1] no pun intend[2]ed
[2] no pun intend[2]ed

95 · Al_Mujahid_for_debauchery on July 4, 2007 06:51 PM · Direct link

Squirming....

Hate crime is an add on punishment for actions which are already codified as criminal. So there has to be an underlying crime and then the punishment will be enhanced because of the hate crime component.

96 · QuietOne on July 4, 2007 06:59 PM · Direct link

To clear up some misconceptions about LLECHPA (which has yet to pass the Senate) and how it actually affects hate crimes enforcement please visit the website set up by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights at http://www.unitedagainsthate.net.

For example, the ministers noted in Aanchal's comment ( #68) are just using what amounts to scare tactics about a bill that is supported by the overwhelming majority of law enforcement, civil rights groups, religious groups, and others.

The site also has discussions on what is and is not a hat crime and why they are particularly damaging.

97 · cc on July 4, 2007 07:17 PM · Direct link

Yet one more reason why I can't tolerate hicks.

98 · SM Intern on July 4, 2007 07:57 PM · Direct link

Yet one more reason why I can't tolerate hicks.

Didn't this happen in a part of Houston? Let's not exchange one type of intolerance for another, please.

99 · cc on July 4, 2007 08:09 PM · Direct link

Yet one more reason why I can't tolerate hicks.
Didn't this happen in a part of Houston? Let's not exchange one type of intolerance for another, please.

?????

You are not seriously going to tell me that one form of intolerance is equivalent to the other?

My remark was aimed at people who deliberately avoid venturing outside of their small towns and learn about the world around them. In other words, it's intolerance of chosen, deliberate attitudes. Way, way different from bigotry or homophobia.

The entire point of fighting racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, ableism, and all the rest, is that hating people on the basis of something they are born with and can not change is wrong.

But taking issue to people for things they choose to think and do ON PURPOSE? When those things cause them to harm others? How is that wrong?

Answer: not only isn't it wrong, it's completely in the right.

Once upon a time, we were taught to let people alone and let them be individuals. Perfectly fine. But now it's been distorted into allowing people to be assholes. Guess what. Last time I checked, assholes don't have legal protections. Or ethical protections. So, insulting them is fair game.

100 · Salil Maniktahla on July 4, 2007 08:45 PM · Direct link

Actually, assholes do have the same legal protections as non-assholes. The law doesn't distinguish, insofar as assholishness is concerned. But you can always write your Congressman and demand that he sponsor some legislation.

101 · ak on July 4, 2007 10:52 PM · Direct link

In your example above you reduce this pre-action state of mind to "about to do action" -- this reduces Mens Rea to a tautology! But it is much more. The state of mind could be drug-doped, or sane and sober.

hypertree, are you saying that intent can only exist if the action was completed? legally speaking, that is not true. attempt to commit a crime (and the intent to commit the crime) can be inferred from several actions by the perpretator, without the crimne actually having been committed. add to this mistake of fact, mistake of law etc and these factors comprise how far the perpetrator did, and was willing to, go towards completion of the crime. furthermore, drugs, sanity etc go towards negating intent/state of mind.

102 · Rahul on July 4, 2007 11:29 PM · Direct link

What have all you unpatriots (what, you prefer Benedict Arnolds?) been doing all day commenting on Uncle Sam's birthday? Me, I did what you do at any party for somebody's 231st, get drunk, and help the birthday old boy hitch up his pants (or his border fence, as he likes to call it) up to his chest (that's where Jesusland ends, apparently).

103 · Rahul on July 4, 2007 11:57 PM · Direct link

oh come now, why should we tar and feather these patriots who educate us on rates of leprosy (without context), the unjust incarceration of model minorities who enforce our immigration laws or sensible directions for US foreign policy.

muralimannered, thanks for that compendium of conservative clowns. The fact is the Dobbs was 10x off on leprosy (it was 7000 cases in 30 years). I also love Olbermann - very funny, and always willing to go for the low blow - the only way to deal with some of these morons. The existence of these idiots on national TV and radio makes the hypocrisy and mock self-righteousness about Imus and the odd shock jock so obvious.

104 · GujuDude on July 5, 2007 12:03 AM · Direct link

So, insulting them is fair game.

Actually, insulting anyone is fair game with free speech protections in all, doesn't mean it's civil nor misguided. Lot of those people you talk about don't have the opportunity to venture beyond their little world either - it happens all over the world. Folks in rural communities live and die in their little village. And most 'hicks' I've come into contact with are quite tolerable. Many times quite warm and curious.

The dudes who assaulted this kid were quite deliberate racists, if you believe the reports of them being skinheads and parading nazi swastikas around. So, how about calling a duck a duck, which in this case would be calling the douchebags racist neo-nazi skinheads. Not hicks.

105 · Rahul on July 5, 2007 12:12 AM · Direct link

why I can't tolerate hicks.

The word reminds me of a William Safire op-ed in the lead-up to the Iraq war. Of course, Safire, the nominal conservative opinion writer on the NYT payroll for the longest time, was once again on the right side of history, like his speechwriting for Nixon and then Agnew ("nattering nabobs of negativism", anyone?), his unproven expose on Carter's head of the OMB (maybe he was indeed right on that one, don't know details), and then his support for the Iraq war. Some people should just stick to commenting on the English language.

106 · Rahul on July 5, 2007 02:04 AM · Direct link

The law doesn't distinguish, insofar as assholishness is concerned.

But people do. I tried to carve out a new niche as his assholiness Sri Sri Rahul, but nobody gave me a fair shake. Except for one devotee.

107 · Mary on July 5, 2007 08:01 AM · Direct link

In all the examples given, the extra punishment for intent are for intents that are inherently criminal: terrorism, rape, stealing, invasion of privacy (snooping), tealing again (financial gain)...

No, "financial gain" is not equivalent to stealing. It's completely legal to get life insurance benefits when your spouse dies - it is not legal to kill them in order to get that money faster. It is perfectly legal to pay somebody to do a job, it is not legal to pay them to kill another person.

108 · HyperTree on July 5, 2007 09:10 AM · Direct link

are you saying that intent can only exist if the action was completed? legally speaking, that is not true.

intent can exist pre-action, but you're criminally liable only on action (actus reus) in combination with guilty mind (mens rea). How do we prosecute imminent crimes then?
That has to do with how this action is defined.
If a burglar enters your home with a bag and some tools, but you catch him while he's entering, his literal action is just trespassing, but his actus reus is robbery, and he is punished as such.

So in this case, the criminal liability comes from deducing the actus reus from existing partial actions, not just by the doctrine of Mens Rea and intent in the mind.

To summarize:
You cannot prosecute on intent alone, unless you can prove and deduce he would also have acted upon that intent.
Otherwise we would have all minority report and 1984 on our hands.

109 · duh on July 5, 2007 12:03 PM · Direct link

"the perpetrators will be at a higher risk for being raped--they are white, presumably not adepts of BJJ, nor very large/menacing. It is ironic that the likeliest agents of this violation will be white as well."
actually, the article says "likeliest agents" are more likely to be African American (or black).

110 · sarah on July 5, 2007 12:15 PM · Direct link

What a heartbreaking post.

On the question of hate crimes laws: I have no problem in principle with hate crimes legislation, but it seems like it's really only going to do much good after the crime has already been committed. I'm not sure how much of a deterrent they really are, just as the death penalty has been shown to have very little power to deter crime. I'm all for punishing these assholes, but I think this has to happen in conjunction with real steps toward stopping these crimes from happening in the first place.

This will probably draw some ire, but... I'm not for vigilante justice, but I can't say I'd mourn if a few swastika-waving neo-nazis were bodily kicked out of their community. In Pennsylvania, there have been a few proud instances where anti-Klan protestors have literally run the racists out of town-- and despite the lack of violence, they haven't shown their faces in those towns again. It seems like community organization might be a better option in some instances than trying to change the law in ways that can be twisted and misused.

Finally-- this is another reason why we need more resources for male victims of sexual assault! There are so many out there, and so few ways to get help to them, or even safe spaces for them to talk about what's happened to them.

111 · lifelong on July 5, 2007 01:23 PM · Direct link

Since reading this post this morning, I am afraid and sad. Afraid for what awaits my 2 sons. Sad for what this poor boy endured.I have been busying myself with work, revved up the elliptical trainer during lunch to a dizzying cadence, and still I am not able to fight back the tears.

112 · Manju on July 5, 2007 03:00 PM · Direct link

The state of mind could be drug-doped, or sane and sober. It could also be bigoted malice.

Hypertree. Interesting. But is bigotry a state of mind or a belief system? Pre-meditation and the other examples of intent that have been given strike me as particular states of mind that are present in every individual, criminal or not. Whereas bigotry and raciam is a belief system, a perverted one no doubt, but has more in common with other philosophies or systems of thought than it does with all the other examples of criminal intent.

113 · sarah on July 5, 2007 03:51 PM · Direct link

Pre-meditation and the other examples of intent that have been given strike me as particular states of mind that are present in every individual, criminal or not. Whereas bigotry and raciam is a belief system, a perverted one no doubt, but has more in common with other philosophies or systems of thought than it does with all the other examples of criminal intent.

This is an interesting question... does the question of organization play into it? I mean, was there a conspiracy to commit the crime? And would it matter, legally, if the conspirators were part of an organized racist/hate group-- or for that matter an informal one? I'm not sure if these particular racist assholes were waving nazi flags on their own or not... Would membership in a group that explicitly promotes/encourages hate crimes makes one more or less liable in this sort of case?

114 · Salil Maniktahla on July 5, 2007 04:43 PM · Direct link

Manju,

The law also doesn't discriminate between a "state of mind" and a "belief system," and I'm not sure I see how it matters. While it's an interesting point to ponder, it's kind of irrelevant. We don't make laws so that they're all even and parallel and feel nice and tidy in your head. We make laws based on what society considers criminal.

The point is that hate crimes attack a person's sense of self. They're literally dehumanizing. That is why the hate crime laws exist. It's not enough to just punish the beating, the crime, the rape, the murder. In this case the idea is that mens rea and attendant circumstances go beyond the literal action. Actus reus, in this case, is greater than in the case of a "normal" rape or burglary or homicide. Society, and the individual in question, suffer greater.

Therefore the punishment should be commensurately greater.

So goes the argument.

115 · raja chaudury on July 5, 2007 05:12 PM · Direct link

the ADL is a hell of a hypocritical group to be endorsing this kind of thing. at the same time they promote tolerance and hate crime laws they also feed profiles of prominent (read: not radical, just prominent)local muslims all over the country to local law enforcement agencies for the sake of "vigilant" law enforcement; on one hand promoting the rights of all and on the other working to curb those of others. if you lived in the detroit area you would know this to be quite the mainstream. even attending an interfaith forum is enough to be "remembered", so to speak.

116 · Salil Maniktahla on July 5, 2007 05:24 PM · Direct link

And if the idea of knowing intent--and using that interpretation of intent, however clumsy it may be--to prosecute and sentence crimes disturbs you, consider how easy defending crimes would be without it. Every defense would be automatism: I was drunk, I was sleepwalking, I had no idea what I was doing. Mens rea no longer applies.

Only the literal action would apply, and it would be easy to argue that it should carry no weight. Actus reus would be based on the literal action itself.

That we prosecute and sentence crimes differently based in part on intent is hardly a big shocker, or unfair, or a slippery slope leading to some draconian Orwellian / Spielbergian future where we prosecute and sentence based ONLY on intent. As hypertree pointed out above, it is the combination of the criminal act plus mens rea that determines actus reus.

And Sarah, I don't think that hate crime laws were enacted to serve as a deterrent to hate crimes. Again, y'all lawyerly types correct me if I'm wrong...but in places like Bosnia, for instance, the idea behind hate crimes laws becomes much clearer.

My questions is (in the U.S.) are hate crimes laws only used for sentencing? Do you prosecute the crime, and then sentence as a hate crime? Or is it considered a hate crime, and prosecuted differently?

And here's the other side of the malevolent slippery slope, already slip-slidin' away.

117 · Camille on July 5, 2007 05:29 PM · Direct link

My questions is (in the U.S.) are hate crimes laws only used for sentencing? Do you prosecute the crime, and then sentence as a hate crime? Or is it considered a hate crime, and prosecuted differently?

My understanding is yes. First you prosecute for the crime itself, then you have to provide additional evidence to prosecute said crime as a hate crime (is this a joinder? laywerly-types, please correct me) so that it is eligible for harsher sentencing.

My understanding is that it is really hard to prosecute (successfully) a hate crime. In some states the regular crime sentence is more severe than a hate crime addition, though, and given the additional work and difficulty in charging a hate crime, many just opt to push for the former.

118 · Shehan on July 5, 2007 06:08 PM · Direct link

Hey-- I was really touched by this commentary Anna. I'm sort of a lurker on SM don't really post but I think it's an important issue and, man, I can't imagine what kind of dark valley David had to cross but he's got an important story and hopefully some sort of legacy grows from this. I submitted this story onto Digg.com so any people that frequent that website should def. digg it to the top and get some exposure for what was a pretty somber post-4th of July article.

http://digg.com/offbeat_news/The_importance_of_Hate_Crime_legislation

119 · Manju on July 5, 2007 06:20 PM · Direct link

The law also doesn't discriminate between a "state of mind" and a "belief system," and I'm not sure I see how it matters. While it's an interesting point to ponder, it's kind of irrelevant. We don't make laws so that they're all even and parallel and feel nice and tidy in your head. We make laws based on what society considers criminal.

In the american/classic liberal framework, we don't base laws simply on what society considers criminal. There are limits, most notably the bill of rights. society and government is severely restricted in order to preserve the inalienable rights of man, including freedom of thought. in this worldview, "belief systems" are protected equally, with the church of the flying spaghetti monster getting equal protection to the catholic church.

but now a particular belief system is legally inferior. while i believe hate crime laws are still constitutional, this is what james madison warned about when he said we should not rely just on the bill of rights to protect our freedoms.

120 · A N N A on July 5, 2007 09:18 PM · Direct link

Updated. With very graphic details about what actually happened to David that night. Oh, my God.

121 · Sad on July 5, 2007 09:51 PM · Direct link

Nothing short of death penalty can rid the Earth of this type of scum.

Even if there is a small chance that they could be reformed (unlikely), who cares? Who needs them?
Let them be reborn and reformed in the next life.

They should be used to set an example to society what will happen to you if you do something this sick and crazy.

122 · Mary on July 5, 2007 10:15 PM · Direct link

God help his family, knowing that such evil was done to their child.

123 · jesus. h. christ. on July 5, 2007 10:30 PM · Direct link

This is horrific.
What was the fate of the 2 people who attacked this poor boy?

124 · XP on July 5, 2007 11:08 PM · Direct link

This is such a heart breaking story that I am at the point where I feel emotionally numb, the whole thing is so surreal and just hoping that when I wake up from this never ending nightmare that the past 7 months was just that, a nightmare. I only came across that Journal because I was trying to find more information about Gus and his sister. There are so many unanswered question about those two and I just wanted to figure out why they waited until the next day. As you can tell the DA used another name for David, so it would be hard to come across this piece just by doing a simple internet search using David's real name.

ANNA, I too wish I never came across this piece. I debated long and hard about writing the whole gory detail, but the simple truth is, we as a people can no longer live with blinders on thinking we all live in harmony. As David said, "hate is alive, strong, and thriving in the cities, towns, and cul-de-sacs of Suburbia" and we cannot live under the illusion that all neo-Nazis are living in some rural part of the country. They are living right next door to us, in fact they can even be our neighbor.

125 · Amitabh on July 6, 2007 12:12 AM · Direct link

After reading the update, do any people here (Salil?) think that the desire some of us may have to see those two demons punished (not reformed) in prison for the rest of their lives is out of order? I for one am glad that these evil men got caught and sentenced so justly despite apparently trying hard to cover up the evidence and get away with it. I was curious to see if I could find a pic of these perpetrators on the internet...the guy Tuck is pretty skinny, I don't think prison is going to be fun for him. And I'm happy about that. I wonder if they know that their victim committed suicide? My guess is they wouldn't care, after all they tried to kill him.

126 · coach diesel on July 6, 2007 12:20 AM · Direct link

I still stand by what I originally said.

127 · Rahul on July 6, 2007 12:26 AM · Direct link

Amitabh, maybe it is easy for me to say as someone who hasn't had a loved one in this kind of scenario, and hopefully that will never be put to the test, but I maintain: This kind of notion of primal revenge is not a healthy basis for a society.

128 · Aanchal on July 6, 2007 03:07 AM · Direct link

but now a particular belief system is legally inferior.

Manju, I see what you're getting at, but again, legislation is based on principle as well as history. I think I understand what you are saying - let's say someone's belief system is comprised of ideas that personal property is nonsense. He goes out and murders someone with the intent of robbing them of their possessions; he will not necessarily gain a harsher sentence because of his belief system. Whereas someone whose belief system is based on hate and bigotry towards a certain group who kills someone belonging to that group may get harsher penalties b/c of his belief system. Correct me if I'm wrong.

But a major reasoning behind hate crimes laws is that the government is taking an affirmative stance against racial and other forms of bigotry. Considering that this country was founded and bloomed based on systems of racial violence and dominance, considering the multiple acts of Congress which were blatantly racist and bigoted, considering the history of lynching and other forms of racial violence undertaken by individual citizens in this country...is it really that dangerous to set a legal precedent years later which criminalizes such modes of thinking if they motivate acts of violence? The slippery slope which is constantly brought up shoulda woulda coulda happened by now, but are all sorts of belief systems truly and substantively being criminalized in this country? (And let's be sincere - for every hyper-PC example of banning red ink in classrooms you may bring up, I can trot out 10 virulently racist right-wing radio hosts :)

You are right - to an extent, a bigoted and racist belief system is legally inferior, but only when it is affixed to an act of violence in order for it to warrant the harsher penalties, and as Camille brought up above, even THEN it faces intense scrutiny. Manju, you keep parceling off the bigoted belief system unto its own island, but it doesn't play out like that.

Look, if bigoted and racist beliefs and speech were being criminalized in this country, I would say you have a strong point. But like I brought up earlier, there are several radio hosts in this country who are outright racist on the air - and I'm not talking about anti-immigrant policy stances or real opinions. I mean, radio hosts who straight up say, "Yeah, I don't really like Mexicans, and if I'm a racist, so be it - I'm a racist! They smell, etc. etc." The FCC really isn't coming down hard on them. Ann Coulter hasn't been litigated into oblivion.

Yeah, you can bring up other examples in US history where the government was involved in other forms of oppression, but like it or not, this is a country where issues of race and racism (and sexism, homophobia, etc. to a lesser extent) are at the forefront. Whether it's more of a media creation rather than a real national discussion is up for debate, but the primacy of the race issue is going to affect legislation in one way or another.

129 · initforthemoney on July 6, 2007 11:32 AM · Direct link

Above I brought out the fact that any race (or gender) can be a victim of a hate crime, and that some get publicized and some don't. I did bring up stats, but as an alert SMneer noted, they happened to link to a tainted page. But I think if we are going to fulminate over something, we have a duty to educate ourselves about it and that may lead down dark but sometimes informative allies.

I make a point of visiting different race/ethnic oriented web sites, whose viewpoints might be inimical to mine, partly through morbid curiosity, partly because of a sense of duty, getting a perspective from black, white, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, wiccan, atheist, homo, hetero-only, brown, yellow, red, tan (did I miss any?), and in each case the scenario as the commenters see it is entirely different, like blind men examining the elephant. POC, of course, have certain povs in common as compared to white. But ugly stories of crimes committed against persons of their "Kind" turn up on every web site, expressing concern similar to the desi concern about this case (the perps did tell him he looked like an Indian,after all), and on every site, lamentations about "this is what it is like for our people" (the whites too; they aren't the majority everywhere; never were in some places). A story of a crime committed against one of our number haunts us, provided we identify, as the case of David. Crimes against another color or type with whom we do not identify, do not move us, indeed, we will probably never hear of them. Evidently the media does know what it is doing after all. The dead may rest in peace, but the living never do and crimes go on and on.
One thing about hate crimes that is special, no matter what type of people they victimize, they leave behind intensely unpeaceful, unreconciled vibes. We do live in a country where the justice system can be made to take action against such evils. "Liberty and justice for all" is written into the constitution--the very body, the very system of the nation. The evils of lower human nature conspire against such high flown intentions and concepts, yet we keep on trying and I for one, believe progress has been and is being made. But you can never rest.

130 · Denise on July 6, 2007 07:26 PM · Direct link

I am in tears. This is so disgusting. I cannot believe that there are still people out there who would do this kind of thing. Thank you for covering it. Denise

131 · brown person on July 7, 2007 07:20 AM · Direct link

Although the content of the story was horrifying, the fact that something like this has occured does not shock me. I would not be surprised if these kids get out on bail in two years for "good behaviour," while at the same time an African American male who was involved in an unarmed robbery would get 10 years without parole despite no priors and good behaviour. From Navroze Modi in NJ (who was beaten to death while Dot Busters chanted "Hindu" "Hindu") to Reena Virk (who before murdered had a cig put out in between her eyes to symbolize the bindi by white girls and a white boy who later on blamed gangster rap music for his behaviour) to systemic racism in KKKanada and Amerikkka, to symbolic racism via western media, to me seeing the words "DIE PACKIES" and Swastikas spray painted in 2007 in a city where over 20% of the population is South Asian, to my friend who was beaten up and Turban ripped off for "white" amusement, to a white police officer telling my sister to use her brown skin hand to wipe the shit off of her ass because there is no difference between brown skin and shit, to the over 100,000 Chinese and Indian immigrants who the Canadian gov't already happily collecetd $800 non-refundable fee and are still awaiting entrance into this country while waiting back home for a response etcetera. etcetera and so fourth... Racism knows no bounds... And as to how can this happen? It has, always has and will continue to happen... though it will appear that this has not been happening and that incidents like this are extremely rare... thanks to good ol' discourse of denial and also to the possible somnambulistic life some of us live coupled with pollyannaism that some of us subscribe to....

David Ritcheson was very courageous to testify and share his story... Rest in peace brave soul and God encircle you with love...

132 · Rahul on July 7, 2007 07:47 AM · Direct link

I would not be surprised if these kids get out on bail in two years for "good behaviour,"

Per A N N A's earlier comment, they are both eligible for parole only after 30 years.

brown person, the town you describe seems horrific. Where do you live?

133 · Amitabh on July 7, 2007 06:24 PM · Direct link

Sounds like a nightmare version of Vancouver.

134 · initforthemoney on July 7, 2007 10:48 PM · Direct link

forcryingoutloud brown person. You sound like a cry from hell--I hope things get better for you. I can't assess much though, out of context.
There was a rather depressing study that came out recently which stated that trust in societies goes down as the number of disparate races and ethnicities living in close proximity goes up. Even trust among members of your own "group."
It's a bitter pill to swallow, but diversity is no gift for anybody. It is a necessity and we have no choice because the world is getting smaller. It is something that MUST be LEARNED.

I've just come off of two days of visiting a variety of web sites, all with people like brown person reeling off a similar list of gruesome grievances--every example he cites has an analogy in another color or gender. Except they would be called "white person", "black person" "feminist person", "angry male person", etc. So my point is proven. You see, brown person, it's like this: your enemies don't see it as you do, because they have their own experiences. That's why ranting at a particular group for their perfidious treatment of your group, is a dead end. The ones who listen and feel guilty are not the ones who are involved or ever likely to be involved. And the ones who don't care what you say have their own experiences to worry about.

I comment on all kinds of other web sites, sometimes identifying as desi, sometimes not, and I make much the same case as I do here, speaking as one who has been victimized by crimes of both sexism and racism. I also know white friends, and black friends who have been insulted, assaulted, etc., for reasons of race. They too could rant, but they have better things to do.
Racism, sexism, etc., are stubborn realities of life, and a psycho is born every minute. We have laws because there will always be crimes.
I think I'll go and say a prayer for David, and a rainbow coalition of several dozen other hate-crime victims on various web sites, that I have come to know over the past few days.

135 · Abeer on July 8, 2007 07:43 AM · Direct link

Initforthemoney...It is predominantly people of colour (in the past, present and future) that experience racism at all levels though, individual, systemic, institutional and global. And when class, sex, religion, sexual orientation also play a role to the race of a person of colour, then the "isms" become interlocking systems of oppression for people of colour. From racist, Eurocentric school curriculums in America and in Canada, white hegemonic cultural mediums, the underrepresentation of people of colour in the professional labour market sectors in Canada, the overrepresentation of aboriginals and black people in Canadian as well as American prison systems, the colour of poverty not just locally but also globally etcetera... to generalize people of colour are still more disadvantaged in comparison to their "White" counterparts. I recall a piece of slam poetry I heard once, it went something like "Surrender with prayers always fails, God only loves the rich, the white people and the males..." When one thinks about this, historically and in present context, these three social locations (upper-class, white, male) have been the three most priveleged, most powerful, most dominant and most oppressive groups, and when combined they become almost invincibile. Race, class, sex, sexual orientation etcetera is expereinced differenetly when experienced by people of colour than by white people...and in many cases its more harsher for people of colour. Just read the countless studies of the disenfranchisement of black youths in America and Canada and then read articles by Peggy McIntosh and listen to an Avril Lavigne song...who has it worse? Its not just individual hate crimes that people of colour are subjected to, but rather a whole fiasco of elements which target their race, their culture, their religion etcetera, from an individual, systemic, etcetera, etcetera level...

136 · anizam on July 8, 2007 11:14 PM · Direct link

good points

137 · HMF on October 8, 2007 10:19 AM · Direct link

"but nobody here accepted those stereotypes. you are the only one who offered a justification for accepting stereotypes, albeit only for whites. "

Complete misrepresentation, I'd expect nothing less. The issue isn't acceptance or non-acceptance. What I'm saying, is GIVEN their existence (I'm not offering justification for stereotypes, because those "against whites" I won't fully agree they are stereotypes - at least in the same sense they are against minorities, but for arguments sake, lets say they are.), we seem (in a general sense) to be more accepting of those against minorities, yet step all over each other to make sure we don't turn hate crime threads into "anti white riots"

I think you might be discounting the power dynamic of xenophobia. There is a lot of black on foreigners hating going on in the US these days

I'm sure there is. but i'd argue they do it to earn points with the white powerstructure. you play ball, you get a piece of the pie. The same way the blacks and south asians are at odds in the Caribbean, to earn favor with the super structure there.

138 · HMF on October 8, 2007 10:48 AM · Direct link

And... sorry for continuing it on this thread, but I did feel those misrepresentations of what I was saying deserved clarification

Add a comment

Comments:

If you don't see your comment yet: Wait 15 seconds and refresh your browser, don't post a duplicate. Posting, please wait ·····