INSANE: Congolese refugee not “Culturally Competent” to stand trial
In mid-October, Judge Kimberly A. Chabot in the state’s 9th Circuit seated at Manchester, New Hampshire, ended efforts to re-instate charges against a Congolese refugee who was deemed unfit to stand trial because of a psychologist’s determination that he was “culturally incompetent” to stand trial.
Augustin Bahati had been charged with four counts of domestic violence, and one count of sexual assault.
There is no provision in New Hampshire law for “cultural incompetence.”
As far as I know, this is the first time in American history that ignorance of the law has been accepted as a valid defense. One might think that this would be national news, but alas, it has likely gone unreported outside of the Union Leader, the local paper in Manchester.
This case sets a dangerous standard, to say the least. American courts are guided not only by statutes, as in Western Europe, but also by case precedent. There is nothing stopping the next American lawyer defending a client from sexual abuse charges – or from any charges – from pointing to this New Hampshire case as a reason why his client should not have to stand trial.
Let’s say another refugee robs a bank, gets caught, and is charged with a host of crimes. What’s to stop his defense lawyer from claiming that he too should be acquitted because he is not “culturally competent” to stand trial, citing the New Hampshire case as precedent? Nothing.
Fortunately, we have not truly experienced the migrant crisis in America, likely the result of President Donald J. Trump following through on his promise to keep our citizens safe from violent Islamic refugees.
According to Newsweek, the president has all but ended refugeeism in the United States, cutting it to its lowest rate in 37 years.
However, we have seen many horror stories about the migrant crisis in western Europe. Nine out of 10 gang rapes in Sweden, now known as the “rape capital of the West,” are committed by migrants.
In April, a Muslim migrant in western Sweden was acquitted of rape charges because he couldn’t interpret the meaning of the word “no.” There was video evidence of the 14-year-old victim resisting as she was anally raped.
Also in April, a German judge acquitted a Turkish man of rape because the migrant “likely did not know what he was doing.” The rape was so brutal that it left the victim incapacitated.
Stories like these abound, but are buried by the mainstream media in America, unsurprisingly. Many migrants in Europe have either been acquitted entirely, or given light sentences or fines for a supposed lack of understanding that sex crimes are not allowed in the first world. The dominant narrative in media is that those who in any way disagree with mass migration to Europe (or America, for that matter), or the actions of those mass migrants, are simply racists and bigots.
As Americans, we should not be willing to accept this behavior in formerly-civilized western Europe, but in case you thought that the American justice system was not capable of such misgivings, think again.
And what about the vetting process of these refugees? The New York Times claims that refugees face “rigorous” vetting. Apparently, it’s not vigorous enough to pick out those refugees who might not understand that sexual assault isn’t acceptable in this culture.
The point is this: We’ve started down a very tumultuous path, and we should pump the brakes before continuing. I do not want to live in a country where one can escape criminal charges for not understanding, or claiming to not understand the law.
Our justice system is not perfect, but this would surely make it worse.