![]() |
| Sam Mullet |
They were found guilty of committing a hate crime. On appeal, the hate crime conviction was overturned. There were two key issues in the case.
First, was the attack motivated by religion (the victim didn't accept Bishop Mullet's interpretations of religious rules) or by personal animosity (the victim didn't obey Mullet because he thought Mullet was a bully, and Mullet wanted to put him down)? The opinion says:
They said it was unfair to conclude that "because faith permeates most, if not all, aspects of life in the Amish community, it necessarily permeates the motives for the assaults in this case." Church leaders, "whether Samuel Mullet or Henry VIII, may do things, including committing crimes or even creating a new religion, for irreligious reasons," they wrote.
Second, and perhaps better fodder for comments, should all religiously motivated harm be considered hate crimes? The defendants' lawyers argued:
The impetus behind the hate-crime statute, the Matthew Shepard tragedy and James Bird - those are heinous, egregious, tragic crimes, and I think in responding to those crimes, (the statute) is a little overbroad, and I think it can have an effect that perhaps Congress didn't intend. This is a really good case that exemplifies where that line can be drawn of what is a hate crime and what is not a hate crime.
What do you think? The full article is here
