Two of the men accused of killing Luis Ramirez and four police officers accused of helping them get away with it are facing federal indictments for, among other things, hate crimes.
Many people have asked me what a hate crime is and how it is different from any other crime. The short answer is this: a hate crime is a crime committed against an individual because of that individual’s race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or other characteristic that the victim has no control over.
Killing a Latino is not necessarily a hate crime. However, killing a man because he is Latino is a hate crime.
In the Shenandoah case, there was a great deal of evidence to suggest that the killing of Mr. Ramirez was motivated by his race. There was testimony that the people who killed Mr. Ramirez referred to him and others in racist terms before, during, and after the assault. Had they killed Mr. Ramirez because Mr. Ramirez stole one of their girlfriends, their crime would still be heinous, but it would not be a hate crime. If they killed Mr. Ramirez to send a message to other Mexicans in the Shenandoah community, as was reported by several witnesses, they are guilty of a hate crime.
Our laws have always taken into account the motivation of a criminal in deciding what punishment is appropriate. For example, a person who kills another person in self-defense is treated very differently from a person who kills someone in a jealous rage. Both of those individuals are treated very differently from a person who kills another person in a robbery or to silence the victim from testifying about crime.
The federal laws regarding hate crimes were intended for situations like the one in Shenandoah. These laws were drafted to help prevent and address the kinds of situations that were widely seen in the South in the 1950s and 1960s. It was common at that time for white people to avoid conviction for crimes against black people. It was common knowledge that, in certain places in the Southern United States on a white man could never be convicted of a crime against the black man. Police, judges, prosecutors, and juries were simply unwilling to see a white man punished for crimes against a black man.
It is stunning that we have the same situation here, in northeastern Pennsylvania, in 2009. However, it appears clear that the jury in Shenandoah was simply unwilling to convict white men for the killing of a Latino man.
The fact that a large group of people hold racist beliefs does not make those racist beliefs legitimate. I am saddened by the knowledge of how pervasive the bias against Latinos appears to have been in Shenandoah.
I am saddened, and a little embarrassed , that the people of northeastern Pennsylvania, have once again had to rely on the intervention of federal authorities to run our own business. But I am glad that the people who committed these crimes will be brought to justice in a fair and unbiased tribunal.