*Potentially triggering*
This story is intense. An 11 year old was brutally raped. Members of her community beat up the man they think committed the crime. The neighbors will not be charged for the beating. Here's why,
Before making his decision, Ramsey said, he monitored Carrasquillo's condition and reviewed surveillance video of the assault. As soon as officers arrived at the scene, he said, the group stopped the beating."These people saw him, he attempted to run and they caught up with him," Ramsey said. "If the injuries had been severe, maybe we'd have to rethink it."
The Philadelphia chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police had offered a $10,000 reward in the rape case.
Carrasquillo has not been charged in the rape, but Ramsey said investigators have very strong forensic evidence and witness identification placing him at the scene.
Marc Lamont Hill makes the point that because of the erasure of the experiences of women of color and specifically black women with sexual violence in the justice system and the news media, there is an understanding within the community that no one is going to do anything about this injustice. So while we may fall on the side of never resorting to violence, many people do not have this privilege.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: An 11 Year Old Girl is Violently Raped, A Community Responds with Vigilante Justice. .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14131
The Marc Lamont Hill link is not working for me, making examining his argument a little more difficult but am going to try anyway.
I certainly agree with the premise that violence and sexual assaults against women (and especially women of color) are largely ignored in our society. I think there may be a distinction in this case. The Philly PD announced this man as a person of interest. In this case the police and media were actually paying attention and seeking someone, so thinking that the police were not going to do anything and vigilante justice was the only option at the vaery least is weakened in this case.
there is a typo in the address. delete the first three letters from the url. (htt)
The link is fixed now, sorry about that!
I feel terrible for the young girl, but I am glad to see that her community and the authorities in this town are doing everything possible to bring her rapist to justice.
me too.
me too. I wish this would happen to all rapists.
(Now someone will lecture me about "dehumanizing them" or something but I really don't care. They're rapists.
Their rapeists.
The mature, law-abiding adult in me is saying "vigilante violence is never justified." The rest of me is glad they beat the crap out of that guy (although I hope they got the right guy or I may have to eat my words).
But that's the problem... what if it is the wrong guy? Then this guy got the crap beat out of him by his neighbors for nothing. The cops announce that someone's a "person of interest" and all of a sudden it's as if they're convicted? I have a real problem with this thinking.
The whole purpose for the jury trial system is to ensure that at least in principle, there's a fair and honest way of determining if someone perpetrated a crime and deserves punishment.
He was considered a person of interest based on DNA evidence.
That still isn't a criminal conviction. I doubt there was a meeting where they sat around the table, were presented with all the evidence against the suspect, gave the suspect a chance to speak in his defense or present potentially exonerating evidence, and came to a decision. We can't trust a vigilante mob in the heat of the moment to consider whether he's a "person of interest" because of compelling DNA evidence or because someone saw him near the apartment building around the time of crime - and we can't (and shouldn't) consider "person of interest," no matter how strong the evidence against him, to mean "guilty and thus deserving of a beating."
That's why we have a court system and juries who, at least in principle, can consider the evidence reasonably to determine guilt or non-guilt. Do we need to improve that system, so that there aren't disparate effects on persons of color? Absolutely, and we all should join in efforts to do just that. But the fact that the system often doesn't work is no excuse for going to a system of vigilante beatings that is even less likely to produce a just outcome or break the cycle of violence.
Even though I don't think violence is EVER okay (except in certain war-like situations), I still think that they must have the right guy. DNA evidence is DNA evidence. If the girl was at the age of consent, fine. But she was eleven. There is no reason for ANYBODY's DNA other than her own to be present in a rape kit (which is how I'm assuming they got the DNA).
That is just it, you are assuming. Assuming gets a lot of people hurt. Would you rather an innocent person be beaten or a guilty person go unbeaten. That is one the many many many reason I am against the death penalty.
Oh - DNA? Well then, it's cut and dry. No need for a trial. Seriously why not just string him up from the nearest tree. Lynch mobs > trial by jury.
Also Samhita: if "there is an understanding within the community that no one is going to do anything about this injustice", why did the neighbors trust the police's ID of the guy (an Hispanic by the sound of it) in the first place? I don't think you do justice to Hill's more balanced analysis.
It may be emotionally satisfying to see suspected rapists given a few slaps but, given the rate at which PoC in particular are subject to false accusation and mistrial it's hardly a net positive to tacitly approve vigilantism.
1. I don't think anyone who reads feministing does not support the rule of law.
2. The court system convicts the wrong person pretty frequently.
Don't you make assumptions about the readers of the website. I do not and will not support the rule of law.
Wouldn't you also be glad, if the people responsible for the beating would, for the sake of justice, be charged with assault and then sentenced, even if you remain glad over the faxt that they beat the crap out of that guy?
Why yes, I would. As I said, the mature, law-abiding adult in me does not consider vigilante violence to be justified.
Have no sympathy for the guy who got beat up, and on a visceral level find very little wrong with the community's response. Still, the police clearly weren't ignoring the case. In addition to conducting what seemed to be a pretty well-focused investigation, the Fraternal Order of Police offered up a $10,000 reward relating to the case out of what I presume is their own union's purse. Again, not denying the overall point, but the cops seemed to be on their game this time.
Ah yes, that's my Philly.
I have to say that my immediate reaction was "YES!" Because it's so frequent that attacks like this go ignored or, worse, get blamed on the victim.
After further reflection, of course, I know this is not a good response. It makes me rather embarrassed.
I guess I should clarify as to why: the amount of force used against this man was beyond excessive, even though all the local media have referred to him being 'subdued.' No, he was violently beaten, and that is never okay, regardless of the circumstances.
Eek. While I might not have been able to hold back my own fists in the face of a scumbag who would brutalize and terrorize a young girl (or any girl or woman) like that...the concept of standing behind "vigilante justice" is leaving a terrible taste in my mouth, particularly in light of the recent assassination of Dr. Tiller. I'm sure that Scott Roeder saw his actions as "vigilante justice".
This argument: "So while we may fall on the side of never resorting to violence, many people do not have this privilege" seems dangerous to me for that reason. It can be really dangerous if that theory lands on the wrong ears.
I agree.
Hill's logic is similar to the vigilantism that some anti-choicers apparently feel entitled to, such as those that participate in or encourage to murdering of doctors like George Tiller. They see the rights of fetuses (babies to them) being not protected by the state, so that they attack their "killers." They see Tiller as a murderer going unpunished by the state because the victim was a minority.
Now obviously, our perspective is different because we see black women as deserving of more protection than is currently afforded them and fetuses as deserving less (and we are right to hold those views) but the logical principle is the same, no?
I can understand why the community would respond that way while at the same time believing the members of that mob ought to have been charged with assault. I am of the belief that vigilante justice is anything but, and that people too close to the crime/victim do not usually have the sense to merit out valid punishment, nor do they have the knowledge to review the evidence and determine if the person they are targeting is guilty. Usually, they're too close and too inexperienced, and that's a dangerous combination.
No, it's not fair that historically, non-white males haven't been offered the same protection under the law that white males are. But what if the police hadn't arrived in time? A rape could have been followed by a murder.
That's some serious Watchmen shit right there. Does Rorschach live in Philly?
I think it was wrong for the mob to beat someone nearly to death when that person hadn't been accused - much less convicted - of anything. Such beatings should instead be handed out by the Philadelphia Police Department, as is traditional here.
I like this from Hill's post:
Undoubtedly! Has this guy ever been to Kensington? The people who attacked Carrasquillo were acting out of simple Philly machismo.
I'd like to second this post. Well-said.
I'm in Philly and that was my reaction, too. This reminds of the time those St. Maria Goretti schoolgirls surrounded and attacked a pedophile flasher who hung around outside their school. If I recall correctly, there had been complaints to the police and they either didn't bother arresting the guy, or he was reprimanded and kept coming back anyway.
I remember that! Now, that was just funny.
I think that situation is quite different, though. That was justified violence; these people were just beating on the man until the cops arrived.
Whoa, wait -
So a bunch of girls beating up the flasher is better than a community beating up a rapist?
I'm lost.
Plus, the community wasnt out of control violent as they stopped as soon as the police arrived. In my opinion if they were really out for blood they would have continued to beat the man until the cops took action against them.
The difference is that the man isn't a rapist. Solely because he's innocent until proven guilty, and him being a person of interest doesn't make him guilty, and therefore deserving of punishment.
hey samhita, im having a bit of an issue with your "So while we may fall on the side of never resorting to violence, many people do not have this privilege"
i feel like you are making assumptions about who "we" are...
im sure you didnt mean this but i just want to alert you to this "us" and "them" thing that i felt when i read that.
anyways, i think that the criminal legal system definitely does not work for most people who have experienced violence, especially people of color, queer people, and other marginalized folks.
i suggest that everyone check out creative interventions, an amazing org in oakland, that does innovative community interventions that do not rely on the state (police, legal system, prison industrial complex etc) to respond to violence.
http://creative-interventions.org/
I also feel that the statement you take issue with didn't do justice to the full humanity of oppressed people. Not using violence is a choice, it is not a "privilege." Plenty of extrememly oppressed people have remained consistently nonviolent. Whether you agree with pacifist views or not, being oppressed does not REQUIRE someone to become violent.
That's a nice theory for you to have. and maybe in this case, you're right, violence is not technically required. But that's not every circumstances. How many women have had to become violent against abusive partners/ex-partners, then they were punished by a legals system that their partners were not? Nonviolence is a desireable first response, and sufficent in most cases. Not all.
Just to clarify, I support proportionate violence in self defense, like in the case of domestic violence. But even violence in self defense is still a choice. Many victims of violence remain completely pacifistic and I don't think their choices should be whited out, although you're free to think their choices are disguided.
But that is not "falling on the side of never resorting to violence", that is "some resort to violence and some do not, and both types of experience are legitimate." Which I agree with, but was not Samhita's point. Her point was that we have the luxury of "falling on the side of never resorting to violence."; in other words that we can say that violence (vigilante justice in this case) is categorically wrong. I don't think Samhita was saying that certain oppressed people are never nonviolent; rather she was saying that certain oppressed people don't have the luxury of categorically stating that violence is wrong.
Also, I don't think that refraining from violence if you are oppressed necessarily makes you 'more human', if that was what you meant by the 'do justice to the full humanity of oppressed people' comment. That's like saying women who are being raped and don't fight back are somehow more human or have another dimension to their humanity that those who do have not.
Thank you. saying never, and not making the choice to is not the same thing. I also am having trouble with the idea that it's more moral to call someone else(the police) in to do your violence.
I really don't think any choice, whether regarding action or philosophy, is mandatory for anyone. Categorically stating violence is wrong is not a "luxury," it is a philosophical position, and it could be held by anyone, providing the person thinks that this is the right philosophical position.
That's what my full humanity comment was getting at. People are free to make choices about their own beliefs and actions, even extremely oppressed people. In fact, the ability to control one's one inner thoughts and feelings is often the ONLY thing that some oppressed people have left. To claim that the ability to form any philosophy one wishes is a "luxury" risks being dehumanizing, I think.
I think what Samhita was getting at is that we have the *privilege* of remaining nonviolent and still have a working, if imperfect justice system to fall back on.
I will not make a judgement on the veracity of the claim that "there is an understanding within the community that no one is going to do anything about this injustice", but in any case where there is a systematic understanding that the state will not alleviate serious injustices, then appealing to the state's systematic arbitration lacks legitimacy, and this is a privilege, a huge and highly significant privilege, that some people have that others do not. The counterexample of Scott Roeder is a legitimate objection to this line of argument, but it is not a solution.
I keep seeing links to this site and similar stuff, and when I click, I can't find examples of what they've done. I'd seriously like to know effective community intervention strategies for people engaging in violence right now.
to clairfy, I'm not trying to disparage this group, more like "if you're a member of a group like this, brag and say what you've done"
they are actually trying to address that exact issue right now. they are doing a nationwide story telling project, asking people to share their experiences with community interventions that they have been a part of when violence happened in their communities. i dont know when that will be up on their website but i think it will be in the next few months.
i think they will be amongst the first to be documenting these stories and strategies and putting them in one place to be used as a resource for survivors, communities, and anti-violence workers.
in the meantime, im having a hard time finding anything online. i think a good resource is generation five, which works against child sexual abuse. they come from a transformative justice framework, which includes prevention, intervention, and healing all in one. its amazing.
their website seems to have a good explanation of what TJ is all about and what community-based interventions can look like. i think the key is that there is never ONE way that community intervention should happen (unlike the very linear model that a lot of anti-violence orgs operate on now)...it is very situational and based on a survivor and community's particular needs.
anyways, enough of my blabbing. here's the website:
http://www.generationfive.org
i hope you find that to be informative!
(and ps i WISH i worked for creative interventions or gen5. for now, im just a huge fan that is trying to implement their strategies in the midwest)
their website kind of does the same thing though-they talk about strengthening community, and dealing with social inequality-which I agree are the long term (and only truly effective) ways to deal with most crime. But that takes time. And it seems to be leaving people currently being abused under the bus. They have as a priciple "offender accountability" and that's it.
Yeah, I reread that and didn't like the sound. I blog so much, I don't always get every word right, but I think something along the lines of how it is easy to stand on one side and say you wouldn't use violence until you are in a position where you need to...if that makes anymore sense.
no, it makes perfect sense. I can see the argrument about "we" and "them" but yeah, I do think that more people need to recognize that calling the police/calling the authorities, which is what people here seem to be advocating, and assuming it'll be helpful is a luxury. I also feel like that's mostly just passing the buck-making someone else do your violence is better? I understand arguments about procedure, but I still can't completely get rid of that impression.
This story is interesting and my first reaction is pain for that girl. But I also have to disagree with that "we" would never consider violence comment. It comes across the same way that, say, Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh talk about us egg-headed, starry eyed liberals with no idea of the real world, who don't understand pragmatic justice or the way the world works. This violence is understandable, but that doesn't make it commendable, and the fact that the police haven't investigated all of the crimes in Philadelphia doesn't mean that citizen vigilantes should take over.
What if they beat the wrong man? Sure, it seems like he's probably the rapist from the story, but what if it turns out he's not? Does he get to kick the sh** out of them? or does he also have the privilege of not considering violence, because he's all self-righteous, like us, here?
Vigilantism is rarely a positive, progressive force in society. The racist KKK and the sort of violent anti-abortion extremists the blow up clinics and kill doctors are the two most famous examples of "vigilantes" in our society. I think people who care about women's rights should stand for nonviolence, not the sort of coercion that is more effective in the hands of racists and patriarchs. In a truly just society there would be no need for violence, but the sort of society that the white male elite wants can only be sustained through violence.
Can I understand why these people in Philadelphia were angry? Yes. Does that make it right to beat a man who should be innocent until proven guilty? No. It's not right when the police do it, it's not right when racist white vigilantes do it, why should it be right when oppressed people do it? It's not. Due process and the proportionate use of force should always be respected.
exactly. a wrong is a wrong, no matter who commits it, no matter how emotionally satisfying or "logical" or whatever it may seem.
if these people want to deny someone due process, i'm sure there's a totalitarian state somewhere they could move to.
hear hear.
Sorry, but vigilante justice is not ever right. Not even if you are oppressed. It is one thing to act in self-defense or to prevent a crime; it is another to assault someone who may or may not be guilty of a crime. Innocent until proven guilty thing is a cornerstone of our legal system. The US court system is not perfect and can be very unfair to persons of color, but I cannot support vigilante justice, no matter how unfair the courts may be. If the courts are unfair, people should act within the system and with non-violent protests. Vigilantism is never OK. It wasn't OK in the south pre-civil rights movement and it isn't OK today either.
Are people on here seriously saying that bringing the rapist of an 11 year old girl to justice is the same as violence by the KKK and the murder of Dr. Tiller because they hold the description of vigilante in common?! Where are your beliefs? You all act like a stance against rape is just another arguable point that you have no right to defend. You are giving the violence of the rapist more legitimacy than violence by those who sought to fight the rapist.
Let me ask you all something: If the cops, rather than people close to this girl had used violence, would you support it? (maybe if she was white they would). What if their violence came in the form of a prison sentence (make no mistake that that is violence)? Why is violence by the state okay where violence by people isn't? Do you honestly think they know better? And I would have to say that violence by communities is more effective in deterring rape.
And for those who want him proven guilty: Do you really think a trial would have "proven" anything more than these people could prove themselves? It's not as if the state is always right and it's not as if they would have done anything.
So yeah, it's less an issue of whether you have the privilege to always go through the state for your justice and more an issue of whether you have been so isolated as to believe that the state is in any way effective.
And for those who want him proven guilty: Do you really think a trial would have "proven" anything more than these people could prove themselves?
Quite simply: Yes.
Did these people give him a chance to present potentially exonerating evidence or mount a defense against their charge, and then come to a judgment based on the evidence presented determining beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty of the charge? When the mob confronted him, was he considered innocent until proven guilty?
If the answer to those questions is no - and I'm pretty sure it is - then a trial would have "proven" a great deal more than those people could prove themselves.
A system in which those accused of crimes are punished without a legal and systematic finding of fact, in which the accused is presumed innocent and allowed to defend him/herself against the charges, is no less oppressive than a system in which crimes go unpunished.
Yeah. I don't think violence by the state is ever legitimate as it is almost always focused not on justice but on upholding state power. I think people, especially the oppressed, have to find ways of protecting themselves and upholding justice in a way that doesn't rely on state or elite power. The elite and the state have no interest in preserving the safety of the oppressed.
However, I have a problem with vigilante justice because it is a matter of what peole base their criteria of criminal on. The people who go after abortion providers think they are doing justice, and a lot of people would have no problem beating and killing LGBTQ individuals or women they feel are out of place. I do not think beating a rapist falls into those categories by any means. However,it is hard for me to believe beating someone without trial is any better than state violence. Though, on the other hand, I know that sometimes the criminal system lets off people that are quite obviously guilty.It's never okay when police do it but that doesn't mean it's always okay when people do it.
With that said, I have a complicated view of vigilante justice. I am not a pacifist but neither do I believe killing people or even beating them up is usually a positive, constructive, helpful thing to do. Especially when it is okay for people to randomly decide based on their own beliefs who is and is not worthy of punishment. Sure, I support when people who hold leftist views use violence against structures, and sometimes people, to advance their causeand realize that in a lot of instances it is necessary. However, for me to say I support vigilantism across the board would be a death sentence. There are a lot of people who would believe my death was necessary for various reasons.
I think it is great and necessary when community vigilantenance is done out of a belief in principles that everyone should be free to make decisions that don't harm others, treated with equality, have equality of oppurtunity and resources, be free from oppression, an allowed to live their lives however they see fit so long as it is not an intrusion on the lives of others. However, many people who undertake vigilante actions do not have those as their guiding ideals. Many people would even argue that single motherhood, homosexuality, and uppity women violate those principles (destroying the community of course and hurting children).
What if vigilane justice had been carried out against the boys that were acused of the rape of a NYC jogger (I forgot the case name but they were acquited)? Why was vigilante justice enacted against this guy as oppose to cops, correctional officers, rich people, etc? I'm sure of the guy's race but I'm sure that plays a part in how this is being portrayed to. Also, what if a bunch of white people beat the living daylights out of a black man that had been listed as a "person of interest" in the rape of a white girl? WOuld it have been the same, or then would it have been okay to compare it to the KKK?
Like I said, I have a complicated view of violence and vigilantism, but I don't think it can be applied in all circumstances, sometimes it's no better than state violence. If it's not meant to liberate people from a system of domination and hierachy, then I don't trust it. Period.
With that said, I feel this was an expression of frustration with an alleged rapist and a system that doesn't give a shit about the lives of WOC and consider our bodies to be social property and our experiances to be worth less than dirt. Consesual sex by a black male of 18 with a white girl of 15 warrants prison time, but when black women and girls are raped and brutalized it rarely even gets the attention of the media (Megan Williams anyone?).
Hell, I'm betting had this not happened the larger MSM wouldn't have even made that big a deal about the rape of an eleven year old POC. I hold no grudge against them and think their actions were coming from a good place. DNA evidence isn't always a definate sign of guilt and I don't know what the nature of the DNA evidence was. Either way, I think in this instance their actions were justifiable.
Really amazing analysis. . .I'm not sure if I quite have the intellectual heft to address this point by point but I will say some general observations I have.
It seems like you are an anarchist. I'm not sure if I consider myself one, personally, mainly because I'm not sure how a transition to an anarchist society would be accomplished. So I don't oppose all state power although I am critical of state sexism, racism, classism, and other abuses.
But the reason I'm opposed to what happened in Philadelphia here more has to do with the idea of proportionate force. In my opinion, beating someone beyond what's needed for restraint is never justified. So maybe I was wrong to highlight the vigilante nature of this action. The excessive force (which the state abuses more than anyone else) was the chief problem here, not the fact that the actors were non-state.
Also, the vigilantes didn't use any sort of due process, which is also inappropriate. Granted, due process is often not the case in the official justice system either, but the idea of fairness for those accused of crimes is something we should always work towards, regardless of whether we believe in the state or not.
"You are giving the violence of the rapist more legitimacy than violence by those who sought to fight the rapist."
Wrong. wrong. wrong. Objecting to the treatment of an alleged rapist doesn't diminish the rape.
"If the cops, rather than people close to this girl had used violence, would you support it?"
No, that would be police brutality.
"What if their violence came in the form of a prison sentence (make no mistake that that is violence)? Why is violence by the state okay where violence by people isn't?"
Because state sentenced punishment is based in rule of law. And prison isn't a violent punishment.
"Do you honestly think they know better?"
A thousand times yes. Due process, sadly, isn't perfect. But it is what keeps the justice system working as much as it can. Street vigilante justice has no checks and balances, no appeal system, etc.
"And I would have to say that violence by communities is more effective in deterring rape."
On what is this based? A hunch?
And prison isn't a violent punishment.
Prison gangs will happy to hear this.
Indeed.
And commenters have been overlooking something: there are basically two crimes that are considered unforgivable by the prison population: matricide and child abuse/assault.
The commenters who, shall we say, had a more vicarious experience while reading this story will be happy to know that if (and when, I think) this guy is convicted, he will be have to be kept in solitary or he won't last a month before he ends up as a bloody stain. Prison would either be endless isolation or a death sentence. Hard to imagine a harsher punishment short of throwing in physical torture on top.
It's laughable that you think the court system is a fair one. There's no checks and no balances. There's what those in power want to do and that is exactly what they will do. I'll take the point that they didn't know this guy was the rapist for sure. But they had good reason to believe he was and I'm willing to bet they had reasons that weren't mentioned in the article (don't trust what you read).
Besides, plenty of people seen to think that even if they had known beyond a doubt that it was the rapist their violence would not be okay.
It's no hunch to say that violence by communities will deter rape. Abusers do not stop abusing until they have to. They do not respond to anything but violence.
In England there have been huge problems with fascist skinheads beating up people of color. Chanting and holding signs did nothing; the cops were on the side of the fascists. The only thing that actually dissolved the large fascist communities was when people put on their boots and starting fighting them. Violence responds to violence. It's what you have to do.
There are plenty of other stories in a similar vein. Some in the civil rights movement armed themselves (although I would call that self defense instead of violence), there's the battle of Blair Mountain, The Occupation of Ford Hall, etc.
So yeah, don't tell me it's a hunch. Any hope that the judicial system can stop rape is based purely in superstition.
You bring up a lot of good points. I can see how you think our arguments are overly abstract. Of course, no, rape is not okay. Ever. Also, this vigilantism obviously wasn't as bad as that which killed Dr. Tiller, since no one died here.
As to your point about cops, it's also oppressive and wrong when cops beat people. If the people in Philadelphia had only used the amount of force necessary to restrain the suspect, then that would have been a justified citizen's arrest. But they beat him to the point where he had to be hospitalized. It's wrong when cops do something like that and it's wrong when non-cops something like that, too.
As for prison sentences, I think they are oppressive and there are too many people in prison. But I support some prisons for people who are clearly dangerous to society, and have been given ample opportunities to defend themselves in a fair court. Obviously our justice system is racist and in huge need of reform. But it's still a better option almost all the time than the justice of an angry mob.
--"Where are your beliefs?"--
No need for the snark. My beliefs are quite evident in the cause I have dedicated my entire life to, upholding reproductive justice. Given that I've spent the last few days reeling from the assassination of one of my biggest heroes, you're damn right I'm thinking carefully about the idea of violence being metted out according to an individual's personal system of beliefs, rather than through systematic means.
--You are giving the violence of the rapist more legitimacy than violence by those who sought to fight the rapist.--
Do you really think any commenters were saying that the violence of the rape was legitimate in any way?
--Why is violence by the state okay where violence by people isn't??--
Because "violence" by the state (and I disagree with you that a prison sentence is always classified as violence) is at least part of a system, albeit a highly imperfect one. Violence by random groups of people does not generally belong to a structure which operates according to (admittedly, theoretically) transparent and ameliorable rules. In the case of the people attacking the rapist - sure we can all understand why it happened - he's a scumbag and I agree that he deserves the worst. Like I said, I'd have a hard time NOT kicking his ass, if I had the chance. But your blind faith in "the people" ignores the fact that people like Scott Roeder exist. Systems are imperfect, terribly frustruating, and riddled with social injustice, but at least they contain mechanisms for improvement. Call me sheltered and isolated if you want. I call it the only option we have against pure chaos.
According to your argument, gang rape of a transsexual (violence by "the people" against something they they think is wrong or dangerous to society) is as legitimate putting a rapist behind bars (violence by the state, as you would classify it). So please don't act all outraged, ask me where my beliefs are, and tell me that I am legitimizing a rapist. No.
The huge difference is that violence from the state has to endure due process, while violence from the people is impulsive and usually unproven.
Christ
1. No one is being charged b/c guy wasn't beaten within an inch of his life, he was beaten to a degree to prevent him from leaving the scene. The fact that people let up when the police arrives shows that this was basically a citizens' arrest. Vigilantism it is not.
2. People are comparing a community's restraining of a (probable) rapist to terrorist's assassination of a doctor? Really!?! Motivations, intents and beliefs have no bearing (sp?) on the situation?
Re: point 1 - I was actually assuming that the feministing commenters must know something I didn't, since it seemed like they were talking about a near-fatal beating!
The Philly media just says he was kicked around a bit and then arrested. So, based on that, I totally agree with you that the KKK/abortion doctor analogy is a little too....academic theory-based-ish.
Here:
Critical condition is kind of serious, I think.
I stand corrected. Thanks for the info.
Vigilantism it is. A mob beating, meted out by officers of the law or citizens at large, is a punishment. And that is vigilantism. And yes, degree is important here. He wasn't killed, he was beaten multiple times with a baseball bat or similar stick. How that qualifies as restraining is beyond me.
But motivations, intents and beliefs are largely what is drawing the analogy--citizen punishment of a perceived offender out of fear that the state won't do it because the victim is seen to be an underprotected minority.
You have drawn the incident to such an extreme abstract that the description is meaningless.
For the love god, you CAN'T extract an idealogical comparison from a tactical comparison--they aren't the same damn thing.
I'm not gonna keep arguing this. I like reading this blog, but the comments drive me batty sometimes.
--You have drawn the incident to such an extreme abstract that the description is meaningless.--
Attentat, I don't understand your reply to Dangerfield. The rapist was beaten with some kind of stick. How is that an "extreme abstract"?
--I'm not gonna keep arguing this. I like reading this blog, but the comments drive me batty sometimes.--
Yeah, the self-righteousness around here can really stink up the place. Ahem.
Sounds like vigilantism to me, based on the initial reports. I have a problem with using violence in general, and vigialantism in particular--it has often been used against POC, GLBT, and other traditionally disadvantaged groups. I'm not necessarily saying this act is equivalent to KKK actions, but they are on the same spectrum, and I don't think that is a spectrum of justice or of positive change. I think violence begets violence, and that is not a good path for anyone, least of all for people who are/ have been marginalized and traditionally shut out of power.
I have sympathy for this sort of argument: sometimes the "system" is so skewed, so broken, so oppressive, so harmful to some people that some sort of sudden, violent jolt is needed. But then I look at the non-violent protests in the 20th century, the Gandhis and Kings and others, and to me, these pacifists counter the argument very powerfully. Again, violence is so often used against marginalized, oppressed people. Do we really want to use the oppressors' tools against them? Or are we more resourceful, more just, and more hopeful than that?
And why should violence be a tool that belongs exclusively to the oppressor? Just as there are pacifist there are groups like the African National Congress and EZLN who relize that there comes a time when you have to fight back using all of your options. Also, your statement is dismissive to the contribution of many non-pacifist groups to social movements. I think oppressed people should always act from a place of justice, love, and freedom from hierachy and use every form of resistance at their disposal. The Great Society programs where a direct result of civil unrest. And what of people who are occupied? What about those in Ireland who blew up a landing strip that was a refueling and maintenance station for bombers headed to Iraq and Afghanistan?What about those in Latin America who occupied a bank that was financially oppressing people with the use of weapons and explosives? Or the revolution to overthrow slavery in Haiti? Or those in ghettos during WWII who fought back with force against their captors? I think we are resourceful enough to weigh all our options and use every weapon at our disposal. Sometimes that does mean fighting back with force. When a government is willing to slaughter unarmed people in the streets, or let people die of easily preventable causes, I do not think there is anything at all wrong with using violence as a tactic. It's self-defense. There are obviously times and situations when it would be futile and pointless to use violence, not because it's wrong but because the state could easily crush us, but at the same time there are times when the use of violence and force can help accomplish a mission.
Sure, as other commenters have said, some violence may be ok, like for self-defense and protecting loved ones. And, like I said, I do have sympathy for the argument that sometimes the system is so broken that violence is, in effect, the only/best answer.
I think that's the case rarely, however. Rarely is violence the most effective tactic, in my mind.
Hi Tracey. Your post might be read as casually regarding violence as simply another useful tool at the disposal of the oppressed.
In the case of the African National Congress, as I understand it, this does not reflect the moral qualms of the organisation about the use of violence.
Firstly, the ANC spent decades as a non-violent organisation before concluding that an armed struggle was mandated in South Africa.
What's more, even then they did not decide to use "every form of resistance at their disposal" since ANC policy (albeit occasionally ignored by some of its members) specifically stipulated that violence was not to be used against civilians.
In other words, at least in the ANC's struggle against a murderous and undemocratic regime, violence was a last resort to be used with appropriate restraint. The vigilante mob involved in the accused-rapist's beating don't seem to have been concerned with either of these considerations (it wasn't a last resort and it wasn't used with restraint).
It is really, really, really really really sad that the cops have to let regular people do the cops' goddamn job of catching rapists because the cops won't fucking do it. It's a pretty disgusting comment on what a piss-poor job our own law enforcement does at prosecuting rape.
I still don't know how I feel about this, though. It's getting on pretty slippery ground to condone vigilante justice. Historically, the characters in this situation would have been reversed: white women (often wrongfully) accusing black men of raping them, and the community using it as an excuse to carry out their own "vigilante justice" in the form of lynching.
I'm always disappointed by the failures of the legal system in prosecuting and investigating rape, but that does not seem to be the case in this instance.
The suspect was beaten with the police en route. The investigation was pretty far along and the citizens identified the (alleged) offender BECAUSE police had determined the identity of the "person of interest" through their DNA investigation.
So, this case is NOT a failure of the police to do their job.
Can we please stop using the phrases "violently raped" and "brutally raped" (per the title of this post, and the first hyperlink, respectively). Rape is rape. I don't even really get what you mean by "brutally raped", honestly. Is there any other type?
Geezus.
The child victim needed surgery after being raped multiple times.
I agree 100% that all rape is inherently violent and brutal...but I also totally get why these adjectives are being used in this case.
vigilante justice is never ok, it simply prepetuates violence and is illegal. Protecting yourself and your loved ones however is ok. and DNA is not a cut and dry conviction. I have a twin sister, and identical twin. If for some reason she commited a crime and there was DNA evidance? I would be a "person of interst" even though after long rigorus testing it could be proven I wasn't guilty. I can't reacall the case exactly, but I do remember a case where a twin was convicted for a crime his brother commited based on DNA evidance, though thankfully he was eventually set free and cleared of fault.
That individual might truely be innocent, but without trial we wouldn't be able to say for certian. Those people may have felt justified in their actions, but they were wrong.
Even without the case of identical twins, DNA evidence doesn't always indicate guilt. In this particular case, DNA from semen would be pretty damning. But what if the DNA came from a hair they found on the girl's body or clothes? That would not necessarily indicate he is the rapist.
This incident can't be compared to Dr. Tiller's murder or other horrific acts of vigilantism. The suspect in question was beat up- not murdered. The community members detained a person of interest until the police could arrest him. The suspect lived to tell about the incident with minor injuries.
However, I don't think it's ok to go around beating people in the name of vigilantism. It's just that in a situation like that, it's hard to say what justice really is. If you caught a person breaking and entering into your house and injured the intruder in self-defense, the intruder should not then be allowed to sue. Likewise, if a suspect is attempting to flee and community members detain him, whether forcefully or not, he should not be allowed to press charges.
I don't necessarily approve of the beating, on the basis that it is possible he may be innocent. Maybe they did get the wrong guy. But, what if he was the right guy, allowed to flee, never arrested and he raped another girl (or woman)? Better to detain a suspect and give him a few bruises than to set a potential rapist free to possibly act again.
This (for situations where the vigilante justice is less severe than the original crime).
The comparison to Dr. Tiller has ONLY been drawn in terms of logic of the attackers, not in severity of merits of the attack.
No one-NO ONE-would suggest that "This is as bad as Dr. Tiller's murder!"
If Dr. Tiller was beaten up, instead of murdered, would we be any less angry at anti-choicers who insisted he got what was coming to him?
Guanabee brought this up on their site yesterday. I think it adds a different perspective on the debate of why vigilante justice may be justified.
http://guanabee.com/2009/06/jose-carasquillo
I agree with the decision not to charge the people who beat the man. I think it's significant that they stopped when police officers arrived, for one thing. An out-of-control mob, as opposed to people who were trying to do justice for a little girl, would probably have kept right on going. I also think that even though it wasn't RIGHT, per se, for them to go beyond restraining him until the police got there, attacking him was not a sufficiently immoral action to justify sending the attackers to jail and giving them criminal records.
Out of curiosity, if it turns out that this man actually was innocent, would that change your feelings about whether the people who beat him should be charged?
I mean, it's easy enough to say "no, they shouldn't be charged for this" if we assume without reservation that this man is guilty. However, if our acceptance of this is completely contingent on this man's guilt (and really, I think it is), then I'd like to see a reasonably high standard applied when it comes to assessing that guilt.
I'm not sure. I'd probably still lean towards not charging them, given that they had a lot of evidence suggesting that he was guilty, but that does make it more difficult.
I don't know. I just don't think I can get behind that. A preponderance of evidence doesn't seem to me to be sufficiently compelling to warrant a beating with a baseball bat or stick. I also think it's worth noting that hitting someone with a weapon is, in general, considered to be deadly force. In this case (obviously) it was non-fatal, but that was more likely due to chance than anything else.
I also have to say that the fact that the beating stopped when the police showed up doesn't necessarily indicate anything positive about the people who were doing this. If a mob of people were beating someone for their wallet, or because of some perceived insult, or even just for the hell of it, the arrival of the police would probably make them stop as well.
It is really strange to me that the headline for this piece includes the word "violently".
...this kind of language really seems to go along with police referring to women being raped (see Jane Doe in Toronto) as "non-violent" rapes.
"Hello, police? Help! I've been non-violently raped."
I get what you're saying, but at least within this space I think that the use of "violently" is simply indicative of how much *more* violent this rape was (i.e. leaving the victim in need of stitches).
It's a tough call; using a modifier such as "violently" or "brutally" in this case seems to indicate that other rapes could conceivably be "non-violent" or "not brutal." By the same token, not qualifying this incident as violent seems to ignore the horrific level of physical damage and pure brutality that occurred.
wow... okay, let me get this straight. a community of "persons of color" is perfectly justified in believing that police will not adequately investigate a rape of an 11 year old girl in their neighborhood, but perfectly justified in using baseball bats to beat into critical condition a person of color based on the uncorroborated identification of this person as a suspect by the police. you people are obviously getting better weed than i am. please, hook me up.
because police have a really good track record of checking on rapes in minority communities. /sarcasm
Because angry mobs perform a thorough investigation before beating the shit out of someone. /sarcasm.
I just want to ask this question: If this was your daughter, your sister, your mother or your wife/girlfriend, would you wait for the "justice system" to do the act of convicting this guy? Personally, I think they should cut the 'person of interests" dick off and ram it up his ass. Oh, maybe that will happen in jail if we are all lucky. They have DNA evidence from a child who was attacked, mutilated, and needed surgery. This "person of interest" attacked before, has drug charges, and whatever else they will find. The community had every right to retaliate. How is that for "vigilante justice"? Sure, he is not convicted..yet, but for those of you who are crying his rights to a trial, great, he could also very well be acquitted of a crime he DID commit. Then where is this justice for a young child who's life will be hell for however long it takes her to be rehabilitated, if she can ever be rehabilitated? I'm sure I will start a heated "bleeding heart" debate here, but I'm sick of reading about some asshole's right's to a trial to be found guilty or not, when he clearly doesn't deserve to be on the streets due to his conscious descision to hurt others.
Are you kidding me?? What about this, if your son, your brother, your dad or you husband/boyfriend was accused of something he didn't do, yet got attacked by a group of people in the area because he could have done it based off DNA evidence, which is in no way conclusive, and most likely wasn't in this case because he still wasn't a suspect at that time, then would you feel the beating of this person you were close to into critical condition was justified?
And if you say no, based off your argument, I'll say I'm sick of reading about some asshole's right's to trail to be found guilty or not.
White women get very little justice, if any, when they are raped. Can white women set mobs upon suspects? Perhaps.