Why is cutting someone's beard punishable with 15 years of prison?

[Voyager]

@Martin_Hyde

So your contention is in the 1950s, when rape was still a death penalty offense for example, I could orchestrate a series of crimes in which we broke into multiple occupied homes to terrorize, assault, and detain individuals I’d be looking at three months of jail time?

In some parts of the country, depending on the race of the breaker and the breakee, yes. But probably not in this case, even back then.

[panache45]

I think there are three reasons for the severity of the punishment:

1. Among the Amish, a man’s beard has religious significance. It’s not just a matter of cutting off a guy’s beard.

2. As others have noted, there were all kinds of criminal acts committed.

3. The guy’s name is Mr. Mullet. That, in itself, should be punishable.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Voyager

In some parts of the country, depending on the race of the breaker and the breakee, yes. But probably not in this case, even back then.

I was actually considering saying, “unless the perpetrator was a member of the Klan, his victims were black families, and this was the South in the 40s-60s” because this bears a lot in common with Klan intimidation of black families. Which if anything just high lights how crazy it is to believe this wouldn’t be punished seriously in the 50s.

The Klan’s behavior would have been punished with a lot of severity if it hadn’t been targeted at blacks, and this is a case of the same sort of behavior but inside of a minority religious group–where there isn’t the sort of societal issues going on like you had with race problems in the South.

[Clothahump]

The leader of a dissident Amish sect was sentenced on Friday to 15 years in prison for a series of bizarre beard- and hair-cutting attacks…

Samuel Mullet Sr., 67, the leader…

I find the juxtaposition of the name and the crime to be mildly amusing.

[Jake]

Mr. Mullet was running a cult. Plain and simple.
Akin to the Charles Manson cult. In my opinion.

[Telemark]

@Donnerwetter

The combination of breaking into a man’s house, tying him up and cutting his beard is somewhat unusual. So I really don’t know. But I have had worse things happen to me.

Have you actually read the list of offences in the charge? You don’t seem to be willing to read beyond the sensational headline.

[Malthus]

@Clothahump

I find the juxtaposition of the name and the crime to be mildly amusing.

I imagine if his crime truly matched his name, the sentence would have been even more harsh. And rightly. :eek:

[Donnerwetter]

@Telemark

Have you actually read the list of offences in the charge? You don’t seem to be willing to read beyond the sensational headline.

I just can’t help it. I’m a sucker for those catchy, sensationalist New York Times headlines.

[Saint_Cad]

@Malthus

I imagine if his crime truly matched his name, the sentence would have been even more harsh. And rightly. :eek:

I don’t know. If he were cutting off people’s mullets wouldn’t that be a public service?

[Malthus]

@Saint_Cad

I don’t know. If he were cutting off people’s mullets wouldn’t that be a public service?

I was assuming the crime was the reverse - forcibly giving someone with long hair a mullet.

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@Donnerwetter

The combination of breaking into a man’s house, tying him up and cutting his beard is somewhat unusual. So I really don’t know. But I have had worse things happen to me.

And apparently you are okay with that?

Stranger

[Donnerwetter]

@Stranger_On_A_Train

And apparently you are okay with that?

Stranger

No. It’s very, very, very bad.

[11811]

@panache45

I think there are three reasons for the severity of the punishment:
3. The guy’s name is Mr. Mullet. That, in itself, should be punishable.

Now you’re just fishing for reasons.

[Lasciel]

Also, to elaborate on a couple of things:

1. they’re in Federal prison partly because that makes THEM safer from possible retribution from other jailed locals who might try and “punish” those mean Amish guys (and a woman or two, I think) further. Federal prison removes them from the area, so people in those systems are less likely to have personal or cultural associations with the Amish, and are (hopefully) thus less likely to attack them while they’re jailed.

2. they’re also in Federal prison because the things they did qualified as hate crimes. The Amish are very modest and very traditional about their hair - in that community, men are not allowed to be bare-faced, and women are not allowed to cut their hair. Let me repeat: Men are NOT ALLOWED to be without a beard. Most men go a step further and let their beards grow long, or even go without cutting it, especially the older and more traditional of them. Their beard is a very obvious and prominent example of them being faithful to their religious commandments.

In addition, Amish aren’t supposed to be individual. They aren’t to stand out or try to be different, and if they are, they’re supposed to squelch it so that they don’t get prideful. That’s why they wear what are essentially uniforms, that’s why they have strict rules about appearance, that’s why they won’t have pictures taken - they aren’t supposed to be individually noteworthy.

So now, these men and women victims have had their outward (required) examples of faithful religious adherence removed from them, it will take a while to grow back, and while it’s growing back, they’re obviously and markedly different from their fellows, in a way that is specifically forbidden by two very important cultural and religious reasons.

The reason the beards are making headlines is partly because it is a perfect headline, and also that at least the women put their hair up in buns and cover it with a bonnet or a cap, so they’re not obviously violated in front of the community and standing out from the community for the months or years it takes for their hair to grow back.

So yeah. Pretty serious, even if that *were *the only things these assholes were doing.