 |
| 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
In my opinion, these were hate crimes and all religious attacks should be considered hate crimes. In this particular case, I think it is preposterous to consider the attacks anything other than hate crimes. The men who were attacked were Amish, and for the Amish cutting beards/hair is a violation of their faith after marriage. The men who attacked the others were Amish as well, clearly aware of the faith and the meaning of cutting hair. It seems obvious that the attackers knew what they were doing when they cut their hair; violating their religion and faith.
ReplyDeleteI think if an attack is done on anyone for any motivation, it should be considered a hate crime. The defendants argued that they attacked out of personal disputes and disagreements—this is still a hateful attack. I think the argument that the attack was motivated by a different kind of hate (not religious hate) is completely ignorant. The men who committed the attack are Amish and committed the attack on fellow Amish men. No matter what their reasoning for the attack was, they violated the victims’ faith. This makes it a hate crime. In my opinion, if you violate someone else’s religious beliefs (theirs being to not cut their hair) you are committing a crime. Even if you were not attacking them because of religion, you still violated their faith.
The quote that was the most interesting to me in the article was when Judge Dan Aaron Polster said that these attacks were calculated to inflict distress. If an attack is done on anyone in order to knowingly distress them, I think it is a hate crime. The attackers clearly knew what the effect of their action would be, and acted out of hate. These crimes, in my opinion, are undoubtedly hate crimes.
I agree with what Abigail has stated about why this should be considered a hate crime. I am not really aware of Amish and how they live, I also didn't know the men of an Amish community cherished their beards so much but after reading this article I am astounded to see that the Bishop is the reason for all of this. For this man to lose his beard, which is something as sacred as the cross for a Christian or a Rosary for a Catholic, then I too feel this is a hate crime. Trying to change someone's views with violence, threats or any physical attacks is something I feel should be tried in court. I also believe that since the Bishop was the brains behind cutting this man's beard because he had his own opinion determining his religious views then this shows how corrupt some churches can really be. Even those who dedicate their entire lives to church and live only how they feel is "morally right" in their God's eyes.
ReplyDelete