Early on Sunday morning, November 28th, Sacramento cab driver Harbhajan Singh was attacked by two of his passengers in a neighborhood in West Sacramento. According to eye witness reports, during the beating the two men repeatedly threatened to kill him, while calling Mr. Singh ‘Osama bin Laden’.
This assault left Mr. Singh with multiple facial lacerations requiring stitches, bone chips in his nose, eye injuries and bruising along his rib cage. Mr. Singh, a Sikh-American, believes that had he not gotten away, his attackers would have killed him.
“Brutalizing any innocent individual is wrong, but to do so because of someone’s actual or perceived racial, ethnic, sexual, or religious membership is particularly heinous,” said Assemblymember Mariko Yamada. “These difficult times require that all community members remain vigilant and report any suspected bias-motivated crime to area law enforcement.”
According to a Sikh News site, India-West, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund have called on Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig to prosecute the case as a hate crime.
“I was so scared for my life, I thought they would kill me,” Mr. Singh told India-West from his home.
“They kept shouting ‘f*&k you Arabian, f*^k you, Osama bin Laden, as they beat me,’” said the father of four teenagers, who immigrated to the U.S. from Jalandhar in 1987.
Mr. Singh said he initially believed it to be a robbery attempt and handed the men $40. However, the attackers then threw the money on the ground and beat Mr. Singh.
The Sacramento Bee reports this morning that West Sacramento Police have now arrested two suspects in connection with the attack. Pedro Ramirez, 41, and Johnny Morales, 33, turned themselves into the police. They are being held on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon along with a hate crime, according to the Bee.
To illustrate the depth of the problem, Mr. Singh was beaten with the mistaken impression that he was Muslim. The majority of the people who wear turbans in the US are Sikhs, not Muslims.
Unfortunately, the magnitude of the problem was illustrated on the Sacramento Bee article’s comment section, where an individual at 4:08 am this morning, identifying himself as “Rick Montomery” posted, “yeah they should have made sure he was a moslem ….plain ignorance, Sikhs are not moslem, they are honorable.”
Clearly anti-Muslim anger, hatred, and bigotry run deep, with many drawing the association between all Muslims and terrorism.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Not to minimize what happens, but people get beat up everyday, robbed and other crimes and no politician cares or does anything, but let some high profile, racial or sensitive issue crime occur and suddenly politicians see this as an opportunity to “care”.
Get ready for DA Reisig to jump on this train and get in the news everyday about his tough stance and prosecution of this awful crime. Reisig thinks all Mexicans are gang members and people seem OK with that, but watch his stance on this case.
RR: “Get ready for DA Reisig to jump on this train and get in the news everyday about his tough stance and prosecution of this awful crime. Reisig thinks all Mexicans are gang members and people seem OK with that, but watch his stance on this case.”
Would you prefer he not prosecute this case as a hate crime, which it clearly was?
ERM: I would prefer we had a trustworthy DA that we could trust and depend on to do the right thing and not play politics, lie, mislead and be dishonest with the public.
As for hate crimes, all crimes do damage and hurtful and probably have some hate involved. Almost all Domestic Violence involves hate yet they are not hate crimes?
Hate crimes on the basis of a person’s religion are not too common in the United States. Attacks against Muslims (or people perceived to be Muslims) are not very common either. In 2009, in our country of 315 million people, there were only 1,575 attacks on people or institutions on the basis of religion, almost all of them against Jews. Muslims were far more likely to be attackers than attackees.
Here are the relevant numbers (Source. ([url]http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2009/victims.html[/url])):
In 2009, the Nation’s law enforcement agencies reported that there were 8,336 victims of hate crimes.
Of the 1,575 victims of an anti-religious hate crime:
■48.8 percent of the victims were targeted because of the offender’s bias against a race.
■18.9 percent were victimized because of a bias against a religious belief.
■17.8 percent were targeted because of a bias against a particular sexual orientation.
■13.3 percent were victimized because of a bias against an ethnicity/national origin.
■1.2 percent were targeted because of a bias against a disability.
■71.9 percent were victims because of an offender’s anti-Jewish bias.
■8.4 percent were victims because of an anti-Islamic bias.
■3.7 percent were victims because of an anti-Catholic bias.
■2.7 percent were victims because of an anti-Protestant bias.
■0.7 percent were victims because of an anti-Atheist/Agnostic bias.
■8.3 percent were victims because of a bias against other religions (anti-other religion).
■4.3 percent were victims because of a bias against groups of individuals of varying religions (anti-multiple religions, group).
RR: “As for hate crimes, all crimes do damage and hurtful and probably have some hate involved. Almost all Domestic Violence involves hate yet they are not hate crimes?”
I’ll take that to mean you do not agree with hate crime statutes – enhanced penalties for crimes committed due to someone’s race, ethnicity, gender or sexual preference? That is certainly a point of view…
In 2009, in our country of 315 million people, there were only 1,575 attacks on people or institutions on the basis of religion, almost all of them against Jews. Muslims were far more likely to be attackers than attackees.
Interesting to read this in light of what I heard on NPR yesterday, see below. Among some who care about this issue, there is doubt about how reliably hate crimes are recorded.
NPR, 2 December 2010: Hate Crime Statistics Lack Key Facts
[url]http://www.npr.org/2010/12/02/131761843/Hate-Crime-Statistics-Lack-Key-Facts[/url]
wdf1: “Interesting to read this in light of what I heard on NPR yesterday, see below. Among some who care about this issue, there is doubt about how reliably hate crimes are recorded.”
I would guess that it is sometimes hard to tease out whether something is a hate crime or garden variety crime – there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt…
wdf, My supposition about the FBI statistics is this: They tell you the trend, if not the exact numbers. That is, since they collect the statistics the same way every year, if there is a 20% increase or decrease in “hate crimes” year over year, that gives you a very good idea of the direction, even if the absolute number is only half or a third of what really occurred.
I would still maintain, in our large country, that if the total number is double or triple what the FBI says, it’s still relatively small compared to total crimes. And its small size, I think, is very important for a reason: because “hate crimes” are singled out under the theory that those crimes cause direct pain to the victims and they cause indirect pain to the community which was attacked. In other words, if someone spraypaints “KKK” on the house of a black family, not only is that family wounded but also the other blacks (and perhaps some others) feel intimidated by that crime.
Yet I don’t think the theory holds up, because there are so few hate crimes* compared with all other crimes of violence where the victims are minorities who might be targets of hate. That is, if a black person is a victim of a violent crime, it’s more than 95% likely that his attacker was also black. (It’s an even higher percentage for black females acording to the FBI.) This intra-group type violence is true for virtually all groups, save small minorities who live apart from others in their own group. Because of these other crimes, it would be irrational for a minority person to be especially intimidated by a “hate crime,” because he knows he is in most cases many times more likely to be a victim of far worse crimes by people from his own community.
*Notably, by the way, one of the most infamous** of these hate crimes in the Davis area was a ruse, where a young girl (who, if I recall correctly was black or Hispanic) spray-painted hate language all over Holmes Junior High School for some cockamamie reason unrelated to hatred of the groups she targetted.
**Perhaps the most infamous single hate crime was the attack on the Baptist Church west of Davis, where the stained glass was destroyed and anti-Jewish and anti-black language was spray-painted on another church.
[quote]I’ll take that to mean you do not agree with hate crime statutes – enhanced penalties for crimes committed due to someone’s race, ethnicity, gender or sexual preference? That is certainly a point of view… [/quote]
ERM: Not true. I dislike when good law is enacted and then is morphed into a political attention tools. Hate crimes like gang crimes were designed for extreme cases and a tool to be used against the violators as a tool to get compliance and deter the crime.
Now this DA has totally misused the gang statute and has used it as it was not intended to be used, so now it is his hammer to demand crooked plea deals and harm the community. So a good tool that was given to DA’s to use appropriately has now been turned into a political money maker and is being used against the community it was designed to protect.
Hate crimes are being used in similar ways. If two white guys get in a fight over money or a girl and one white guy beats up a white guy and calls him white trash or honky, no hate crime, but in the same fight if one calls the other a fag or a Jew now the exact same fight is a hate crime. Too easy to abuse and too easy for others (DAs, politicians, media, protected groups) to use for their own benefit. So it is not used or applied fairly and creates more victims. [quote]Justice should be fair and equal, not arbitrary or selective. [/quote]
Considering the mayhem described, I’d like to think that the perpetrators, if guilty, would get no less the potential sentence if they hadn’t said anything and did that to a WASP… but, as Orwell wrote, ” some are more equal than others”
RR: “ERM: Not true. I dislike when good law is enacted and then is morphed into a political attention tools. Hate crimes like gang crimes were designed for extreme cases and a tool to be used against the violators as a tool to get compliance and deter the crime.”
Do you agree that the crime in question should be treated as a hate crime?
ERM: Not sure, don’t know enough about the case only what media put out and what politicians want people to believe for headlines.
This could very easy be a case of a couple of drunk jerks who would have done the same thing to any cab driver that night and just happen to throw out some racial slurs since they were being stupid and drunk, if that is the case then I say no. If there is proof that they have done this before, or planned this attack, or made statements that they were out looking to do this on this particular person, then yes.
A problem with hate crime allegations is the premature overreaction to the incidents. Case in point – ERM states “Would you prefer he not prosecute this case as a hate crime, which it clearly was? “. How does ERM know this is a hate crime when all she has heard is one side of the story? I agree hate crimes should be prosecuted as hate crimes, but there has to be more substatiation of the facts.
I would like to read what the other people in the car have to say. The cab had four passengers and two passengers allegedly decided to fight the cabbie. One of the other passengers intervened and that apparently helped the cabbie escape. One account claimed the individual who intervened (a woman) was also punched. They need to find that woman and ask her what happened.
Of course, people should offer support to the victim, but allow the investigation to be completed before demanding hate crime prosecution.
The Duke “rape case” started as a hate crime also, but once reasonbly honest people looked at the evidence it became clear that the original story was a fabrication. I am not suggesting the cab driver is being dishonest in the West Sac case but we would all benefit from a more complete investigation.
I disagree with the recent creation of distinct ‘hate crime’ laws; since in my view it is leading down the slippery slope of the politicization of crime. What’s next to be classified as a hate crime? Which categories will these crimes protect; and which categories will not have such protection?
The suspects should be tryed for assault and battery with great bodily injury; if convicted on these charges alone they will likely be sentenced to many years in prison. I see ‘hate’ crime charges or enhancements as unnecessary; and leading to further social divisions between racial, ethnic, and religious groups (much of this having to do with resentment over perceived injustices in application of the hate crimes laws; as well as perception that these laws are often abused or ‘played’ by victims and defense lawyers; for reasons of institutional sanctioned politics and personal gain by being a player in these politics). The entire identity politics encourages people to identify themselves by race, ethnicity, and religion; and has a large downside effect of creating wedges between citizens, including our neighbors, by defining them into different groups (inflating the significance of such grouping categories); helping lead in a direction toward balkanization of the US population (the old ‘melting pot’ policies, on the contrary, strengthened and unified the country).
The reason why an extra charge is needed is that this is not simply an act of violence, but it has become an act of terror committed not just against the individual, but an entire class or people, in this case two classes of people.
I understand those who believe that hate crimes could be charged in cases that they do not necessarily imply, but this case, depending on the facts that would be determined by a jury, at least on the surface clearly screams for such a prosecution.
Re: “The reason why an extra charge is needed is that this is not simply an act of violence, but it has become an act of terror committed not just against the individual, but an entire class or people, in this case two classes of people.”
Yes, there are fundamentally different viewpoints on ‘hate’ crimes, interesting to explore.
In my view, the crime itself was an action committed against an individual.
The individual may belong to a group; but the crime itself was perpetrated on a single individual.
There may be intent behind the crime to intimidate a group–if this is found to be the case; then a different ‘terrorism’ or mayhem or disturbing the peace -related charge can be applied; no need for a ‘hate-crime’ category to address this.
I think by giving notoriety to such crimes by creating an entire new category of crime;
an action-reaction cycle is created that actually increases the number of such incidences.
No matter what you or I think of such crimes; there is a small but significant % of the population that will remain reactionary to the notion of ‘hate’ crimes, and perceive them as unfair; acting to increase mutual mistrust between groups; and strengthening the identity of people with specific races, ethnic groups, religions.
Let me ask you this, two different scenarios.
First, you have a lynching of a black man in the south – is that a simple killing or is it an act of as you suggest terrorism directed against an entire class of people based on race? It seems like you object to the label of “hate crime” more than the concept?
Second, a swastika painted on a synagogue is that merely vandalism equivalent to painting “School Sucks” on a on school? Or it is more?
I understand that there is a significant class of people who objects to the notion of hate crimes, but I don’t think that should direct policy.
From Wikipedia: “During the past two centuries, some of the more typical examples of hate crimes in the U.S. include lynchings of African Americans, cross burnings to drive black families from predominantly white neighborhoods, assaults on white people traveling in predominantly black neighborhoods, assaults on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, the painting of swastikas on Jewish synagogues and xenophobic responses to a variety of minority ethnic groups.”
Hate crimes are often used to devalue certain citizens in an effort to literally “drive them out” of the area. I lived in a neighborhood outside Baltimore MD, where a swastika was burned into the front yard of an African American family that had just moved in. It was clearly meant to coerce them into moving elsewhere.
From newser.com on a recent incident: “Three off-duty McDonald’s workers accused of burning a swastika into the skin of a mentally disabled customer with a hot coat hanger will be charged under new hate crimes legislation, the AP reports. Under the 2009 Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the defendants could face 10 years in prison, or up to a life sentence, if prosecutors are able to prove kidnapping as well.
The victim, a 22-year-old Navajo man, also had a swastika shaved into the back of his head and markers were used to draw symbols including a pentagram and a penis onto his body. Race relations remain tense in predominantly white Farmington, NM, which sits close to a Navajo reservation. “There will always be people who just don’t get it,” says the town’s mayor. “They’re not going to change their attitudes and at some point they’ll carry out their beliefs in a way we all find real troubling.””
Remember the cases of Mathew Shepherd (nailed to a fence until he died bc of being homosexual) and James Bryd (dragged to his death behind a truck bc he was African-American)? These types of cases are the reason hate crimes statutes are necessary…
From sfgate.com:
The cabdriver identified himself as 56-year-old Harbhajan Singh in an interview with KTXL-TV. He told police that he drove four people early Sunday morning from Sacramento to West Sacramento. Once there, two of the passengers allegedly assaulted him and demanded money, shouting anti-Islamic slurs as they beat him. Singh wears a turban. Two other suspects in the attack remain at large.”
Sounds like a hate crime to me…
David–
Thanks for the response.
Yes in part it may be a matter of semantics–the emotional freight attached to the word “hate” gives the types of crimes labeled this way undue notoriety. Putting yourself into the headspace of the people who do these sorts of perverse crimes; some of them do it in part because of the additional perceived notoriety of such acts (“bad boys”).
Your example of a swastika on a synagogue could be prosecuted under existing laws relating to severe defacement and public obscenity (with the judge given plenty of leeway for harsh sentencing for such crimes); as contrasted with a lighter charge of vandalism for the “school sucks” type grafitti.
There are some more fundamental philosophic and political issues as well, which I will attempt to articulate in this forum at some point.
E Musser,
Thanks for the response.
You’ve framed the argument that certain acts define hate crimes = hate crimes are defined by certain acts.
All of the examples you gave of truly heinous crimes could be prosecuted, severely, under existing laws (with certain existing enhancements), without the need of a separate ‘hate’ classification.
The swastika example is a good one, and as I responded to David above, swastika on a lawn could be prosecuted under existing laws relating to severe defacement of private property and public obscenity (more severe than vandalism); and possibly additional charges of intimidation/ threats to personal safety (with the judge given plenty of leeway for harsh sentencing for such crimes). If the suspects have a history of such crimes or performed such crimes systemically, some class of terrorism charge could be applied.
I’m really trying to take a step backward and look at the big picture, the long-term social impacts (positive and negative) of the ongoing creation of new classes of ‘hate’ crimes. I genuinely see it as leading to politicization of crime (with a concomitant corrosive effect on the court system); and leading to further polarization between racial, ethnic, and religious groups. I’m not saying that we should ignore these crimes or ignore the fact that racial, ethnic, and religious bigotry and hatred exists; but the ‘hate’ crimes statutes are not the appropriate tools to deal with these realities.
To jimt: Your response is very thoughtful, and I can see where you are coming from. I suspect hate crimes statutes evolved bc the regular statutes resulted in sentences that were far too lenient for the public’s taste. And of course the idea was to offer more of a deterrent to such crime if possible. My guess is the jury is still out (pardon the pun) on whether hate crime statutes actually deter hate crime activity more than using already existing statutes. It goes back to the question of whether capital punishment really deters murder? Many would say it does not, including the very people that are four square in favor of hate crime statutes, which is rather ironic.
When I read the recent article about the disabled Navaho Indian that was assaulted at a McDonald’s, it was interesting to note the following, indicating hate crime statutes are used for deterrance and longer sentences than would be achieved under existing criminal statutes:
“Hatch, of Fruitland, Beebe and Sanford, both of Farmington, are accused of violating the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act and could face ten years in prison if convicted.
The sentences could be extended to life if the government proves kidnapping occurred.
All three defendants, who have also been charged with state crimes, have pleaded not guilty. Their court-appointed lawyers have declined to comment.
Federal prosecutors say they were able to bring the case because the 2009 law eliminated a requirement that a victim must be engaged in a federally protected activity, such as voting or attending school, for hate crime charges to be levelled.
The law also expanded civil rights protections to include violence that is based on gender, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity.
The case also marked the latest troubling race-related attack in the improving relations between Navajos and whites.
The swastika branding has also put the spotlight back on Farmington [New Mexico], a predominantly white community of about 45,000 residents near the Navajo Nation.
Farmington leaders signed a historic agreement earlier this month with the Navajo Nation in which both sides pledged to work towards improving race relations.”
From a personal perspective, I find hate crime statutes helpful in that it sends a clear message to all citizens that society will not tolerate such senseless crimes. I concede that it may not deter those that engage in this type of behavior, but if it gets them off the street for longer periods of time, that has to be a good thing. One other thing – in the Rodney King case, it should be noted some semblance of justice was achieved bc of special civil rights statutes: “Four LAPD officers were later tried in a state court for the beating but were acquitted. The announcement of the acquittals sparked the 1992 Los Angeles riots. A later federal trial for civil rights violations ended with two of the officers found guilty and sent to prison and the other two officers acquitted.” (Wikipedia)