| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| Man gets death for 9/11 murderous rampage |
| 2003-10-10 |
| A Phoenix man was sentenced to death Thursday for murdering an Indian immigrant outside his gasoline station in an alleged hate crime just days after the September 11, 2001, attacks. Frank Roque, 44, faces death by lethal injection for gunning down Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sikh, who wore a turban and a beard as part of his beliefs and apparently was mistaken for an Arab. Prosecutors argued that Sodhi’s murder on September 15, 2001, was fueled by racism and hate and carried out by a man with a long-time drinking problem. Defense attorneys argued that Roque was mentally ill and pushed over the edge by the attacks. The jury deliberated for six hours before sentencing Roque to death in the case, which attracted international attention in the wake of the September 11 attacks. The shooting prompted India to call on the U.S. government to take steps to prevent assaults on Sikhs living in America. Sodhi, 49, who came to the United States in 1988 from a small village in Punjab, was one of several Sikhs attacked in America after apparently being mistaken as possible supporters of Saudi-born militant Osama bin Laden, believed to be behind the September 11 attacks. Roque, who still faces sentencing on other charges stemming from two other shootings of people of Afghani and Lebanese descent on the day of the murder, becomes the 127th person on Arizona’s death row. Better yet, why not send him to Afghanistan, or the NWFP. He wouldn’t last ten minutes there. |
| Posted by:Rafael |
| #19 When you call vandalism a hate crime, the number one result is publicity - the exact goal of the moronic racist monkey-spanking skinhead that is responsible. Don't show pictures in the news. Catch the little bastard, dress him in an orange jumpsuit, and make him pick-up highway trash in the hot sun while his friends moon him. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-10-10 10:11:07 PM |
| #18 re hate crimes: the real reason for hate crimes legislation is not for murders - murder is murder and should be treated seriously whatever the motive. The only real rationale for hate crimes laws is with respect to relatively minor crimes like vandalism - painting "i hate black people" on a black church is serious in a way that painting "i was here" on a railroad bridge is not. The damage to property is minor in both cases - the fear spread by the former MAY be significant, while that spread by the latter is not. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-10-10 8:44:42 PM |
| #17 "Motivation always matters in passing a sentence... I bet you that cold-blooded murder for monetary profit will be considered worse than a father murdering his daughter's rapist in a fit of rage." -Of course in this situation you're right. However, most clear thinking people know the difference between a pre-meditated cold-blooded murder of a total stranger and a "crime of passion" for revenge. For instance, if a woman comes home and finds her husband in bed w/another woman of a different background and she shoots her - is that a hate crime or a crime of passion? Or say she waits a week and then kills her husband's other woman - that's probably 1st degree murder in anyone's book but is it a hate crime? I'd say most people look at the circumstances and you shouldn't need some "hate crime" legislation to take out the garbage. Roque killed an innocent human being for no reason. He deserves to get the chair imho. But say he kills another white guy for no other reason then for shitz & giggles - should he get less of a sentence? Hell no. Therefore the whole "hate crime" tool doesn't wash w/me. Cold blooded murder is cold blooded murder. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2003-10-10 8:00:17 PM |
| #16 As a supervisor of UAW employees, I often get to hear about their reasons and motivations for misbehavior. That is a game that the Shop Steward encourages me to buy into. I don't buy and hold my employees accountable for their actions. There is a lot less misbehavior that way. In society it is better to treat the racist as a perpetrator when he perpetrates. Otherwise he gets the impression that he is part of something bigger than he is. In reality he is just a loser and should be prosecuted for the crimes he commits without glorifying his disfunction. It is very disheartening to a clown with a speel when his cause is ignored and the judge just punches the crime into the punishment register and hands him the ticket ... and his change without acknowledgement to his swastika. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-10-10 7:58:47 PM |
| #15 Murder for reasons of hate towards an entire group causes a climate of fear for that entire group. The offense is worse because it's directed against an entire segment of the population. I don't get your logic, Aris. If that "entire group" that feels a climate of fear is rapists, then that's not a bad thing as far as I'm concerned. If that "entire group" is a racial or ethnic sub-population, targeted by a murderer, there's still no moral difference between the effects that that murder has on one sector of society than that which another hateful murderer, whose motivations are different, has on society as a whole. Indiscriminate murder should be punished in the same way as racially-targeted murder, and that is with extreme severity. To argue that a racially motivated murder of an innocent person is somehow more serious than a race-neutral murder is in fact racist in itself. Should a man who murders only women be sentenced more harshly than a non-sexist man who murders people of either sex equally? BTW, did the Greek police go after November 17 with a greater sense of purpose than other murderers? |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-10-10 5:51:04 PM |
| #14 Aris, Mercutio, well stated, I've reconsidered my blanket opposition to hate crimes legislation. I'd only considered the victim and justice for the victim and not the perp or the community. |
| Posted by: Yank 2003-10-10 4:15:13 PM |
| #13 "Is it worse to kill someone for stupid reasons than for money? " Motivation always matters in passing a sentence... I bet you that cold-blooded murder for monetary profit will be considered worse than a father murdering his daughter's rapist in a fit of rage. Murder for reasons of hate towards an entire group causes a climate of fear for that entire group. The offense is worse because it's directed against an entire segment of the population. And it hurts society as a whole. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-10-10 4:03:36 PM |
| #12 FYI for all Americans: Sikhs are good! They hate Muslims just like we do! Pick your targets more carefully! |
| Posted by: Greg 2003-10-10 1:45:18 PM |
| #11 I believe the "hate crime" designation was a legal category legislated to allow the death penalty (or at least heavier penalties) in cases where it otherwise might not apply since judicial precedent has managed to remove most victim's rights from the board. Something like the old federal charges of "denying someone's civil rights" when what really happened was murder. In this case, the hate crime designation is not a PC tool but a useful mechanism for taking out the garbage. |
| Posted by: Mercutio 2003-10-10 1:43:43 PM |
| #10 Don't use the lethal injection though, some kid might be able to use a kidney. -SH, good point. But can we at least fire up ole' sparky? |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2003-10-10 12:54:37 PM |
| #9 I am not for the death penalty, but nobody likes a hate criminal. A stupid homocidal maniac is even worse. Don't use the lethal injection though, some kid might be able to use a kidney. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-10-10 12:45:53 PM |
| #8 The shooting prompted India to call on the U.S. government to take steps to prevent assaults on Sikhs living in America. I probably worded that too strongly. I deplore this killing. Just pointing out that India hasn't done a great job of curbing violence against ethnic and religious minorities in their own country. |
| Posted by: lkl 2003-10-10 12:35:10 PM |
| #7 lkl, please explain where India is lecturing us on our? Jarhead, I agree 100%. Hate crimes are just doublespeak. He murderered someone, that's enough to kill him so why add the additional Hate crime. Is it worse to kill someone for stupid reasons than for money? |
| Posted by: Yank 2003-10-10 11:14:26 AM |
| #6 A minority that did kill Indira Ghandi and played footsies with the ISI in the bid to establish Khalistan (sp.). |
| Posted by: Brian 2003-10-10 11:11:48 AM |
| #5 lkl The victim was a sikh: a member of one India's religious minorities and often victim of discriminations, persecutions and pogroms. |
| Posted by: JFM 2003-10-10 10:24:59 AM |
| #4 "murdering an Indian immigrant outside his gasoline station in an alleged hate crime" -I still don't care for the whole "hate crime" terminology. I'd say it's pretty obvious if someone kills anyone in cold blood - that's a hate crime. If a person is killed by someone of the same background is that a "just didn't like each other crime?". PC horse-crap. Frank Roque, 44, faces death by lethal injection -Good, one less douche bag. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2003-10-10 9:25:20 AM |
| #3 Ta-ta, Roque, say hi to Himmler for us. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2003-10-10 8:29:34 AM |
| #2 Roque got what he deserved. I bet he was seething long before 9/11 and probably just snapped. I live in a town with a large Sikh community and they could give lessons on civic pride and family values. Good riddance Roque! |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2003-10-10 8:24:53 AM |
| #1 Maybe India could work on restraining its own murderous citizens before it lectures us about ours: * Missionary slashed in India attack * Official blamed for anti-Muslim riots * Youths attack church with machineguns * Nun shot in face * Australian missionary Graham Staines and his two sons burnt to death by a crowd |
| Posted by: lkl 2003-10-10 4:08:34 AM |