A Cincinnati appellate court overturned the hate-crime decision made in 2011 against 16 Amish defendants convicted for cutting the beards and hair of their fellow Amish. Members of the panel released the reversal, but the decision was marked by a clear divide among the three judges. Two of the three judges perceived that the earlier decision was made by the jury simply due to the erroneous instructions given to guide their decision-making at that time. Both judges deem that the jury should have been provided with clear directions with respect to the role religion played in the five attacks. In addition, the members of the panel pointed out that the prosecutors should have given evidence that absent the claimed religious motives by the defendants, the attacks would not have occurred at all.

Like Us on Facebook

"When all is said and done, considerable evidence supported the defendants' theory that interpersonal and intra-family disagreements, not the victims' religious beliefs, sparked the attacks," the judges wrote in the reversal decision. The members of the panel shared that it was unjust to construe that "because faith permeates most, if not all, aspects of life in the Amish community, it necessarily permeates the motives for the assaults in this case."

The aforementioned Amish beard and hair cutters were headed by Sam Mullet, a leader of a community composed of approximately 120 Amish located near Bergholz, Ohio. Reports show that some of the victims of the assault were Amish leaders who expressed their disagreement with Mullet's control while the others were attacked due to their attempt to flee his group. Court records reveal that Mullet has already served three years of the 15-year penalty given to him. Seven other attackers are currently imprisoned between five and seven years. The other eight convicted either completed their one-year sentences or in the process of ending their two-year imprisonment.

In a statement by U.S. Attorney Steven Dettelbach, he extended his respect to the two judges, but strongly expressed his disagreement with their decision to reverse the convictions. He also refuted the reasoning that an incorrect decision was made, which subsequently merited the aforementioned reversal, due to jury instruction.

Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. wrote a strong dissenting opinion against the recent court ruling concerning the issue. He insisted that religion was a clear motive for the 2011 attacks, as well as reiterated the correctness of the earlier hate-crime convictions, particularly that against Mullet. To bolster his arguments, Sargus quotes some statements of Mullet relating his religious motivations. The judge particularly pointed out the statement of Mullet. In interview with The Associated Press, Mullet explained that the objective of the haircutting was to demonstrate to the Amish community the concept that he should be allowed to discipline people who disobey church laws.

The Amish live in pastoral communities. They believe that the Bible orders the women to grow their hair long. On the other hand, the men are instructed to grow their beards upon marriage. In their society, cutting the hair or beard is regarded as dishonorable. Doing such acts forcibly against other Amish is deemed offensive.

TagsAmish, hate crime, beard cutting, hair cutting, Sam Mullet, Bergholz, Ohio, Steven Dettelbach, Edmund Sargus, Bible