Jaywalking, domestic abuse…what’s the difference?
What is the mission of the NAACP in 2014? Is it, as was once the case, to advance the prospects of African-Americans in the U.S. by ensuring their equal treatment under the law, respect and regard within the culture, and aggressive efforts to cure stubborn cultural handicaps within the black community? Or is it merely an advocacy group that determines right and wrong on the basis of skin color, and nothing more?
The conduct of the New England chapter of the NAACP in defending State Rep. Carlos Henriquez strongly suggests the latter.
Henriquez is a disgrace in every respect—to his constituents, the legislature, the state, his gender, his race. Here is part of the police report of what got him convicted of two counts of assault:
“About 4:24AM on Sunday, July 08, 2012, Officer Kamel assigned to D448A unit responded to a radio call from North Eastern Police for a female held against her will…Upon arrival Officer Kamel spoke with the victim (Gonzalves) who was being evaluated by EMT Beckett and EMT Anderson in Ambulance A2. Ms. Gonzalves …informed Officer Kamel that the suspect (Henriquez) had picked her up at about 2:00am that morning from her mother’s home … that the suspect (Henriquez) told her that he wanted to talk about their friendship. Ms. Gonzalves also informed Officer Kamel that the suspect (Henriquez)…had kept Ms. Gonzalves against her will in the Zip Car while driving around in downtown Boston…Ms. Gonzalves further stated that Mr. Henriquez had punched her with a closed fist repeatedly and strangled her while she was in the motor vehicle. Ms. Gonzalves stated that every time she attempted to jump out of the car the suspect (Henriquez) grabbed her wrists to prevent her from jumping out of the motor vehicle. Ms. Gonzalves also stated that she had to jump out from the moving motor vehicle and ran to a building where she spoke with North Eastern Police Sgt. Boyd locate at about 21 Forsyth St. Soon responding Boston Police Officers did observe scuffs on Ms. Gonzalves right shin and multiple bruises on her arms and wrists….The D102A Officers Griffin and Burwell responded to the suspect’s residence and placed him under arrest for Kidnapping, two counts of Assault and battery 209A, intimidation of a witness and larceny from a person.”
The victim testified that all of this occurred because she refused to have sex with the legislator, with whom she had been in an “intimate relationship.” A judge sentenced Henriquez to serve six months of a 2 1/2-year sentence in the Middlesex County House of Correction, with the remainder of the sentence suspended. He’s currently in jail. But taking a page from the career of Boston’s infamous James Michael Curley,Henriquez refused to resign his position.
Can we stipulate that this is absurd, unethical, and embarrassing? Elected lawmakers who break the law disqualify themselves, and those who beat up women have disqualified themselves even further. He is a negative role model, an untrustworthy public servant, and a cur, and he can’t do his job from jail. The least he could have done was have the respect for his constituents to quit, and let them be represented by someone worthy of the task. Instead, he forced the legislature to expel him, which it did.
The NAACP protested! “Representative Henriquez was duly elected by the electorate and there is no legal basis upon which the House of Representatives can properly act,” the New England chapter of the civil rights group said. It argued that Henriquez had not violated existing House rules and since his conviction is under appeal, he should not be regarded as guilty. He beat up a woman for not having sex with him! How does leaving such a man in the legislature to represent his constituency advance the interests of African-Americans? How does the NAACP making excuses for him and rationalizing his despicable conduct accomplish anything, other than diminishing the credibility and moral authority of the NAACP, making it a less relevant advocate, and increasing public cynicism about the goals of the civil rights movement in the 21st Century?
Conservative radio host Michael Graham called Juan Cofield, president of the New England NAACP, and asked him on the air why the Massachusetts House shouldn’t expel Henriquez. “He was convicted of two misdemeanors — not felonies—misdemeanors,” came the answer. “Almost every day people commit misdemeanors. Jaywalking is a misdemeanor. Would you have a member expelled from the House for jaywalking?”
“Would you really compare jaywalking to beating a woman who denied you sex?”asked Graham, obviously incredulous. “It’s a misdemeanor,” Cofield insisted
And if the exact same conduct had been charged as a felony (as it would be in many jurisdictions), how would that make Henriquez less worthy of serving in the legislature?
The argument that the rules don’t permit the Massachusetts House to remove a domestic abuser may be a legitimate one, but it is not one the NAACP should be making. Domestic abuse in the black community is a serious problem: the NAACP is the last organization that should be minimizing it to protect a miscreant like Henriquez. Black officials like him don’t advance the interests of African-Americans; they impede progress in every way. The NAACP should be at the forefront of condemning violence against women, not comparing assault to jaywalking to help a disgraced black legislator collect his paycheck while behind bars.
If the organization were properly concerned with maintaining its image, integrity, and role as an advocate for exemplary community values, that is what it would have seen as its duty in Massachusetts.
__________________________________
Pointer: Newsbusters (and a reader whose e-mail I cannot now find: my thanks, whoever you are)
Sources: Boston.com, Red Mass Group
Ethics Alarms 
The NAACP warrants a definite Ethics Dunce award:
Look at how other chapter presidents have treated Senator Tim Scott.
Devil’s Advocate: If he was appealing the case on the facts, should he still have been expelled? Admitting the behavior but appealing on technical grounds is one thing, but if his assertion is that he didn’t do any of the things she said, then wouldn’t it be correct to continue doing his job while attempting to establish his innocence?
Because on the one hand I see why that’s some pretty solid appearance of impropriety, but on the other hand a government body shouldn’t be taking action against someone based on a case that is still under appeal.
Depending on the level at which the case was resolved, but if this was the final trial court, an appeal on the facts would go nowhere. Appellate courts don’t hold a new trial; they look at the record for legal errors by the trial court. In Virginia, at least, there are numerous appellate opinions which state essentially that the appellate courts are not going to substitute their judgment for the trial court’s. {There are some remarkable exceptions to this, however, Alln Iverson being one.]
Interesting, and makes sense. Thanks.
I disagree. Once the initial case is decided, anyone is free to treat it as decided. They should NOT have to wait for your appeals to finish. They are certainly free to do so if they have doubts about the case, but the defendant has lost the presumption of innocence along with the trial.
Every client I had sentenced to serve time began serving it while the appeals were ongoing.
You’re not disagreeing with me, as I don’t know enough about the law to have formed an opinion. That just occurred to me as a possible interpretation, and it’s easier to lay out a line of counterfactual logic than to just say “are you sure?”- hence the “Devil’s Advocate” at the front of my post. I wasn’t trying to argue the point.
I was responding to your last line. I took your first paragraph as consideration for different types of appeals. but your final line ignored those differences as worded.
Appeals on the facts are pretty rare to non-existent in cases like this. The “he’s appealing it” is crap. By that argument, they could claim that he wasn’t guilty if he had been convicted of murder for decades (that special, misdemeanor murder designed for domestic abusers—yechh).
Like I said to Phlinn, I’m not a legal expert- I’ve got a smart layman’s understanding, so please don’t refer to my legitimate notions as “crap” (at least not while I’m still being open and honest about asking about them).
Clarification: I was designating the NAACP use of that argument as crap, and it is crap. One of the things wrong with major organizations using superficially persuasive but crappy arguments is that they understandably mislead others….which is what they are designed to in many instances. Your notion is quite reasonable given what the NAACP gave you to work with. I have many times embraced crap here in foreign specialties, when my authorities were wrong or corrupt..
Law says you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, not innocent until you are proven guilty and every possible appeal has been exhausted. Nor do appeals typically prove someone was NOT guilty. They may require a new trial.
My apologies, then. I thought you were saying my question was crap, and thought that seemed a bit harsh… Also, you have embraced Crap in foreign? Never thought you were the type to be that sort of tourist…
Ah, the understated joys of crap-embracing!
That was supposed to read “foreign specialties”…fixed it.
You ruin all my fun.
So race trumps lady parts. At least in this case. It’s difficult to keep up with the liberal Likert scale.
Like I said, melanin trumps all. It’s the 21st century potion of invulnerability.
More generally, The Historical Minority’s Immunity – Unethical Rationalization Number [TBD] in Jack’s list – related to yet another as yet non-numerated Unethical Rationalization, The Change Advocate’s Bullying Pass (a favorite one to exploit against “conservatives”, who often employ the It Ain’t Broke So Don’t Fix It Delusion).
Eeyoure-seconded on the recommended additions.
I’d call it the MOPE – Most Oppressed People Ever – wherein a member of a race previously wronged claims immunity for outrageous behavior based on that previous wrong. Possibly a few exceptions, like the Armenian assassination squads that tagged two of the Three Pashas, although they were directly affectd by the genocide of their families.
Strange that this never applies to religious groups. The Jewish people could use some immunity. (I mean religious groups that don’t have jihad, of course.)
Oh it applies to every reiigious group EXCEPT Christianity. Trot out the Holocaust and everyone runs scared. Cry Islamophobe and everyone bows and scrapes, and so on.
I agree with every word here and will only add that the even bigger tragedy is that this crime is considered a misdemeanor, you know, like jaywalking.
On the basis of that evidence, testimony and conviction, any man with the smallest remaining shred of decency would have resigned his office. As you point out, Jack, a man in his current state couldn’t conduct the affairs of his office, even if wrongfully convicted. If the NAACP had acknowledged this fact or, even, simply remained silent, I could understand. If they had made the statement that they condemn such crimes against whomever by whomever, I would have tipped my hat to them. This, however, only strengthens the (legitimate) impression that the NAACP is nothing more than a racist political group bent on power by ethnicity.
But Jaaaack, we all know that white Hispanics are guilty and black Hispanics are innocent. Have we forgotten about George Zimmerman ALREADY?!
and Hispanic Hispanics?
Not guilty, not innocent. Democrats.
I thought the response was going to be dependent on voter registration…..
“Not guilty, not innocent. Democrats.
Another classification the oddly doesn’t take Jewishness into account.
As a Hispanic Hispanic I resent that comment. 😛
Come on! Give me a shred of credibility. 🙂
“Although a jury found me guilty … it does not change my truth.”
Carlos Henriquez
Yep…when someone starts in on “his truth” that’s when you really know he’s lying. What a scumbag.
I’ve been trying to find out what exactly his “truth” is. The woman was with him. She said he assaulted her, there was evidence of assault. He had no explanation for how he could be termed innocent. What “truth”? Is his truth that he had it coming?
With Filner’s disgrace, this creep and Bill on the prowl still, are Democrats really planning on making the “war on women” their theme again in 2014? I cannot believe that women are that shallow and gullible.
Believe it, and single women are the worst, Obama’s numbers among them were sky-high.
No more so than men- which does not reflect favorably on women.
“Well that’s my OPINION, and I have a right to my opinion!” Ah, the perennial finishing move of the desperately outmaneuvered.