Shaima Alawadi
Some of us have not forgotten
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2013/07/so-much-for-hoodies-and-jihabs.html
The Hijab and Hoodies candlelight vigils have all been canceled and those folks have moved on ever since we learned that the El Cajon Iraqi mother Shaima Alawadi was not a victim of a hate crime. Her husband has been charged in her murder. A friend sent me this update today, which I am passing along (Hat tip Chris).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"Dear Ones,Remember the young mother of four who was beaten to death in El Cajon back in March, 2012. When it happened, the media was up in arms about an anti-Muslim hate crime. It seems that there was a Xeroxed threatening note. (Yes, Islamophobes always Xerox their notes.) Well, her husband, Kassim Alhimidi, who has lived on disability in the U.S. something like 10 years and still can’t speak English, is finally facing charges. The trial was supposed begin August 8. Somehow, his lawyers have postponed that until October 18. Probably more delays to come . . . Here is the entry from the San Diego court register:"Suspect: Kassim Alhimidi
Charge: Murder
DOB: 06/02/1964
Court No.: CE325289
Prosecutor: Kurt Mechals
Defense: Richard Berkon, Jr.
Synopsis: The defendant is charged with homicide in the beating death of his wife.
Custody Status: In custody
Next Court Date: Further Proceedings, Oct 18 2013 8:15AM, Department 9, San Diego Superior Court, East County Division, East County Regional Center
Some of us still care.
Darakshan Raja also cares. She is a young Muslim woman from New York who works with abused women and children. She has authored this piece on Shaima.
http://muslimstreet.net/articles/104
6 comments:
Are you saying beating your wife to death is NOT a hate crime?
C'mon! You know the difference. He didn't beat her to death because she was a Muslim.
But Gary, this is why the entire notion of "hate crimes" is so stupid. Murder in the first degree is committed with malice aforethought. To call it a hate crime under any circumstances is redundant. The specific motive is irrelevant.
Most people who commit what are commonly termed "hate crimes" consider their hate to be a mitigating factor (for my honor, because she was apostate, he was only a n*****), while advocates of hate crime laws want it to be an aggravating factor. A balanced approach would be, no, you committed murder, your excuse is of no consideration.
Siarlys
I absolutely agree. Motive is an element of proof not a crime itself.
I must disagree with Siarlys that the entire notion of hate crimes is totally stupid. It usually is, in that hate-crime legislation is frequently, if not normally, passed to activate the "three P's" of partisan politics (pandering, pimping, and prostitution).
It is necessary to first prove the underlying offense (homicide, whatever) prior to being able to prove the hate crime. In instances where a hate crime is proved and the sentence for that offense runs concurrently with whatever sentence comes from the original primary crime, it is largely and essentially stupid monkey motion in furtherance of the aforementioned P's and is a waste of time and resources.
In those instances, however, where proving a hate crime provides an penalty enhancement such as a consecutive sentence (and I admittedly do not know how often that is the case), it is most certainly a valuable and appropriate tool.
For instance, if proving a hate crime increases the penalty from life without parole for 25 years (which, incidentally, is the equivalent of life WITH the possibility in 25 years) to life without parole for, say, 40 years, or even life without parole period, or if such proof brings in possibility of the death penalty which would not otherwise ordinarily apply, I would support such measures 100 per cent.
elwood, hate crime legislation is ALWAYS about extending the maximum (and sometimes the minimum) sentence, not about a mere concurrent conviction. That is why Justice Antonin Scalia, who is quite good on 4th Amendment issues sometimes, wrote a brilliant concurrence in the Apprendi v. New Jersey decision, arguing that if a finding of fact increases the maximum sentence, that fact must be found by a jury, not a judge. This was also the occasion he neatly put the bureaucratic Justice Breyer in his place, with the memorable line that Breyer and others have made the mistake of believing the constitution "means what we would like it to mean, it does not, it means what it says."
There are of course grounds for considering some homicides more serious than others, and providing for a longer sentence. This is pretty standard law, and has been for decades if not centuries. It has nothing to do with finding that the crime was "motivated by hate" of someone's religion, nationality, skin color, etc.
Generally the perps are PROUD of such motives. I would not wish to give them the sense that skin color, or family honor, or anything else is even relevant. That someone was killed, that there was no legal justification such as self-defense, that the killing was done in a particularly cruel or torturous manner, is all that matters.
When you have learned the meaning of basic words in the English language, and have studied some basic legal principles and statutes, you might venture to offer an opinion again, and see if perhaps it is worthy of serious consideration. The childish babble above doesn't cut it.
Post a Comment