"I kept yelling, I'm innocent, I didn't do anything, I don't know what's going on," Zenquis said. "They were just calling me, 'Rapist! You deserve to die!' They were saying, 'Kill him, kill him!', and it was just too much."
Police took Zenquis to the hospital and then took him to the police department where detectives realized they had the wrong guy. Zenquis was released with apologies.
Meanwhile, another angry mob recognized Carrasquillo and, when he tried to flee, beat him severely, inflicting head injuries that sent him to the hospital in critical condition. He stabilized quickly and was soon released from hospital care, but he has not yet been charged with the rape and it isn't clear that the evidence against him (despite his criminal past) is strong enough to prove his guilt.
Two members of the mob who first cornered Carrasquillo received reward money from the Fraternal Order of Police, whose president praised them for "stepping up to the plate." While reasonable minds might question whether law enforcement officials should reward vigilantes for administering street justice without the bother of a trial or proof of guilt, the FOP president said he had "no problem with how Carrasquillo was apprehended."
"There wasn't even a second thought [about giving the reward]," he said.
So vigilantes who manage to beat up the right guy -- who decide for themselves that he's guilty and deserves brutal punishment -- merit a reward? What about the vigilantes who get it wrong, like those who clobbered Zenquis? Should they be praised because their hearts were in the right place, despite the pain and suffering they caused an innocent man?
The due process rights that accompany a criminal trial help assure that the innocent aren't punished. Dispensing with those rights in favor of summary justice dispensed by an angry crowd places the innocent at risk. Zenquis cannot appeal from the mob's verdict; he's lucky just to be alive.
A community's anger about the brutal and repeated rape of a child is understandable and justified, but it is nonsensical to claim that "the community’s brand of justice is both appropriate and necessary" because the vigilantes were entitled to send a message about rape. What message did the community send when the mob attacked Michael Zenquis? What will the community's message mean if Carrasquillo turns out to be innocent? And if mob violence is justified because an angry comnmunity wanted to send a measage, why isn't Scott Roeder's alleged vigilante killing of Dr. George Tiller equally justified? Does the righteousness of vigilante justice depend upon whether we agree with the message the vigilante wants to send?
The reality is that George Tiller's killer, presumably a member of the furthest fringe of the anti-abortion movement, disregarded the rule of law. ... But so too did the mob of Kensington residents bent on revenge.
None of the mob members who beat Carrasquillo will be charged with a crime. The vigilantes who battered Zenquis received no reward, but based on local law enforcement's sympathy for the anger that pervaded the community after they named Carrasquillo a "person of interest," it seems unlikely that anyone will be prosecuted for the unprovoked attack on Zenquis. What message do those decisions send?
If a message needs to be sent in Kensington, it is this: every person, even a "person of interest" who may have committed a vile crime, is entitled to the protection of the law. Punishment does not precede a trial; guilt is not determined by vigilantes; due process is not a technicality that stands in the way of justice. Due process is justice. The angry citizens of Kensington need to get that message, as do the law enforcement officials who praise vigilantes.
