- Journal Archives
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
Although the Amish attacks were brazen, victims were initially reluctant to come forward, in part because the Amish community is insulated from mainstream society
The JETlaw Blog typically focuses on the cutting edge of technological innovation and the laws that govern it. Today, however, we are going to take a moment to remind ourselves that technology cannot solve all of our problems, and neither can avoiding technology altogether.
Last Friday, a District Court in Ohio sentenced the leader of a group of criminals to fifteen years in prison. The facts leading to his and his crime ring’s arrest? Forcibly cutting the beards and hair off of other Amish citizens. The perpetrator was Samuel Mullet, Sr., a sexagenarian bishop from Berholz, Ohio. Mullet led a sect of people to use horse shears and scissors to remove the religiously symbolic head and facial hair from neighbors and parents.
Bishop Mullet orchestrated the de-bearding attacks to shame other Amish men and women whom he believed to be living less piously then they ought. As is commonly known, the Amish grow their hair and beards to show strength in their faith, and by cutting it down to the face and scalp, Mullet and his cohorts aimed to send a message to the community. While the Amish people are generally self-regulating, brave victims came before the court to testify about how “sons pulled their father out of bed and chopped off his beard in the moonlight and how women surrounded their mother-in-law and cut off two feet of her hair.”
The prosecution charged Mullet and the members of the crime ring not just for simple assault, but with violating the hate-crimes statute. ”The victims in this case are members of a peaceful and traditional religion who simply wanted to be left to practice their religion in peace,” U.S. Attorney Steven Dettelbach said. “Unfortunately, the defendants denied them this basic right, and they did so in the most violent way.” The defendant received fifteen years, but the prosecution tried to give him life in prison for leading the attacks that deprived the victims of their constitutionally protected freedom of religion.
It is sad to think that most of the defendants in this case had no idea how the United States legal system operates. While ignorance of the law is no defense, counsel for the defendants still intend to challenge the constitutionality of the hate laws. During the trial, the suspects asserted that “the Amish are bound by different rules guided by their religion and that the government had no place getting involved in what amounted to a family or church dispute.” It seems unlikely that such an argument will carry much weight, but while we argue about Apple and Samsung and patent trolls, let us not forget about our luddite comrades and their struggles with dissident cults like Bishop Mullet’s.
Recent Blog Posts
- Guest Post: Harnessing the Power of Fans in Sports Franchise Ownership through Crowdfunding
- Faceboculus: The Metaverse had a Kickstarter
- Heigl v. Duane Reed: A Battle for Publicity
- Weev Still Got a CFAA Problem: Andrew “Weev” Auernheimer’s Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Conviction Vacated
- Monday Morning JETLawg
- Crowdsourcing Disaster Relief
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government information security intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution