The Long Island teenager accused of stabbing and killing an Ecuadorian immigrant in a racially motivated attack was convicted on Monday of manslaughter as a hate crime, a less serious crime than the initial murder charge—saving him from spending the rest of his life behind bars.
Some people will read this as proof that America, and Suffolk County, New York in particular, is racist. That if the victim had been white and the perpetrator black or Hispanic, the verdict would have been different.
Not true. It is further evidence that juries want to be fair. There was a black and a Hispanic on the jury and the verdict was unanimous. “Manslaghter” means that the defendant did not intend to kill the victim, only injure him seriously. The newspaper article recounts the evidence and you can see that, despite the publicity and pressure from different ethnic and white groups, the jury focused on the stabbing, where on the body it took place, the fact that the victim, though mortally wounded, staggered away, and that if the defendant was intent on killing him, he would not have let his victim walk away. These are nuts and bolts pieces of evidence. The larger picture of race (although it was an element) did not enter into the decision inappropriately. The jury found the defendant guilty of manslaughter as a hate crime. That is a perfectly understandable verdict based on the evidence.
Further proof that you can rely on United States juries to at least try to do the right thing: Even if there are prejudiced jurors, in order for racism to prevail, all 12 jurors have to be racists because a verdict of guilty or not guilty must be unanimous. Anything less results in a “hung” jury. So if you are innocent, go to trial. If there is one body of people without an axe to grind, it is a jury.