Suspects charged with ‘assault motivated by bias’
October 15th, 2008
From the [St. Paul, MN] Pioneer Press:
Authorities in Minnesota say they have filed a series of new felony charges against three men accused in the torture and beating of Justin Hamilton, a man with intellectual disabilities. Included among them is the charge of “assault motivated by bias.”
The two men accused of orchestrating the attack are members of the Minnesota Army National Guard, and the third passed criminal background checks to work with adults with developmental disabilities.
“We’re alleging that (the victim) was assaulted because of his disability,” said a county attorney. A lesser assault charge was dropped in the case of a fourth suspect because he also has an intellectual disability.
The crime has alarmed advocates for the disabled and renewed calls in some corners for greater state oversight of human service programs.
… In 2007, a study by the Minnesota Department of Health determined that people with disabilities are four to 10 times more likely to be victims of violence, abuse or neglect than other people …
(Photo of suspects Jonathon Michael Diepold, 21; and John Maxwell Maniglia, 19, from St. Paul Pioneer Press)
Earlier post here.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, October 15th, 2008 at 9:43 pm and is filed under criminal justice, fetal alcohol syndrome, hate crimes, intellectual/developmental disabilities, violence.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Email This Post
Our RSS Feed
October 16th, 2008 at 12:26 am
This horrific crime and many others seen across the US and the world (r.i.p. Brent Martin) are not given much publicity but they truly speak to society’s true nature, tolerance and attitudes towards individuals with disabilities.
How can a society condemn and punish these young “men” for perpetrating this crime against an individual with a disability when the exact same crime is perpetrated at an astounding rate towards individuals with disabilities in the womb? How can we promulgate and hope to encourage acceptance, inclusion and respect for adults and children living with a disability in our communities when as a global society, we invent, market and profit from early, “preventative”, “safe”, “non-invasive”, pre-natal testing with the sole purpose of destroying these same individuals living with a disability in our wombs?
We pass laws to protect the eugenic elimination of these “defects” and call it “choice”. We seem to praise and protect this “choice” when it’s at best more of a statement about peer pressure, standards of perfection and avoiding an “inconvenience”.
The biology surrounding some of these “inconveniences” for example could be an argument to strenghthen Darwinian genetics and survival of the fittest. Around 95% of those born with Down syndrome are by virtue of some unknown, accidental variation of genetic sequencing at conception and voila, an individual has 47 chromosomes, instead of 46! Why would a Darwinian “nature” allow this to happen if it was not meant to be, if these individuals were not meant to be born….
Thus, who are we as a society to preemptively judge and eliminate these individuals who are perceived to be “different” (by our skewed standards) even before they are born? It could be argued that the alleged perpetrators of this crime could be seen as doing the same…
It is the utmost hypocrisy that we advocate, elevate, encourage and embrace children and adults with disabilities in the schools, the workforce and in the neighborhood but then totally disregard those same individuals with disabilities who are in the womb. Many hard fought federal and state laws have “secured” more rights for individuals with disabilities that should be theirs automatically by virtue of the 14th Amendment. ADA, IDEA, NCLB, de-institutionalization and several others have been enacted to ensure that the rights of individuals with disabilities are further protected because we cannot as a society be entrusted to do so without these laws; which is a sad commentary.
An attitude of respect, individuality and humanity must be fostered from the moment of conception if we are to expect any sort of consistency and successful advocacy on behalf of civil treatment (and civil rights) for individuals with disabilities throughout their lives.
As a mother of a child with an intellectual disability, my prayers and thoughts go out to the family of this young man…