After his sister's death in the September 11 attacks at the World Trade Center, once-avowed white supremacist Mark Stroman shot and killed Waqar Hasan, who was Pakistani, and Vasudev Patel, an Indian immigrant, during a series of convenience store and gas station rampages in Texas. Rais Bhuiyan, a Bangladeshi Muslim man, was also shot and partially blinded by Stroman, who shot the men to vent his anti-Arab sentiment. Stroman was convicted of murder and awaits his execution by the state of Texas, scheduled for next week, on July 20.
But Rais Bhuiyan opposes the execution. In fact, he is part of a movement for clemency for Stroman because he believes that "in order to live in a better and peaceful world, we need to break the cycle of hate and violence."
Instead, Bhuiyan is seeking to engage in a victim-offender reconciliation dialogue with Stroman, a right guaranteed to crime victims in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Per the Texas legislature, Bhuiyan has the right to "victim-offender mediation coordinated by the victim services division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice."
Bhuiyan believes that such a dialogue would be beneficial, given Stroman's evolution over the years from a hate-monger to a more thoughtful person filled with regret for his actions, which Stroman himself has talked about at length in The Execution Chronicles. Bhuiyan reasonably believes that working with Stroman can help both men, as well as the families of Hasan and Patel, and would be a big step toward society as a whole achieving a world without hate.
The State of Texas does not hesitate to use crime victims to pressure decision makers to convict, sentence to death and carry out executions. Why only then?
In this case, we have a survivor of a vicious attempted homicide who has forgiven his would-be killer and who wants to take advantage of the state's own offering of victim-offender services to exchange ideas and heal wounds. We have a survivor who firmly believes that the man the state seeks to execute is no longer the same man who shot him because he looks like the 9/11 hijackers.
Thus far, the State of Texas has not responded to Bhuiyan's requests to meet with Stroman. Contact Texas Gov. Rick Perry and urge him to honor Bhuiyan's request to grant clemency to Stroman to live out the rest of his life in prison, and to allow for continued victim-offender understanding and healing.
In Connecticut recently, the legislature unfortunately decided that the voice of a single victim in support of capital punishment was more important than those of the many, many more who spoke out against it. We can't let that happen now in Texas. We must instead insist that Rais Bhuiyan is not another irrelevant victim to be ignored by the state -- and that the wishes of this victim are heard.
The real goal is to publicize another anti death penalty effort, which will have little effect on the discussion.
Some points:
The greatest violator of vicitm's rights in this case is Stroman.
Rais Bhuiyan avoided the obvious.
The only one exhibiting hate in this case is Mark Stroman. His hatred resulted in him murdering two innocent people and the attempted murder of Mr. Bhuiyan.
Mr. Bhuiyan has forgiven Stroman for that attempted murder.
Such forgiveness is important.
For clear reasons, both Gov. Perry and the parole board should reject Mr. Bhuiyan's petition to commute Stroman's death sentence to a life sentence.
Considering Mr. Bhuiyan's position, the commutation request should be rejected, because the foundation for Stroman's death sentence is justice, not hatred. Mr. Bhuiyan has, simply, invented that it is based in hatred. Therefore, there is not foundation for the commutation request, as it is wrongly based upon false allegation of hatred. (1)
contd
Additionally, Mr. Bhuiyan's believes that his forgiveness should provide enough to commute Stroman's sentence to life.
First, Stroman is not on death row for the attempted murder of Buiyan, but for the capital murder of Vasudev Patel.
In addition:
1) Mr. Bhuiyan has the moral authority to forgive Stroman for the attempted murder. Mr. Bhuiyan does not have the moral authority to forgive for crimes committed against others.
2) Anyone can forgive someone for the crimes committed against themselves and still find that a proper sanction, justice, is appropriate in that case.
3) Importantly, forgiveness cannot preclude punishment. In fact, punishment can be an important part of forgiveness.
Both parties, the victim and the perpetrator, can give and seek forgiveness, respectively, and both can understand that a proper sanction should be a part of the forgiveness process. The criminal should take responsibility for their crimes, confess to them, accept the sanction given and seek forgiveness based upon true sorrow and repentance.
Hopefully, that is what Stroman will do.
4) The only one who can forgive the perpetrator for the crime is the victim of that crime. Stroman's two murder victims cannot offer their forgiveness. They're dead.
As Mr. Bhuiyan's commutation efforts are solely founded on the wrongful charge of hatred and his erroneous understanding of forgiveness, both offer no foundation for commutation.
As time goes by, it is clear that Mr. Bhuiyan's crusade is, strictly, an anti death penalty effort.
contd
Mr. Bhuiyan is making a plea to commute Stroman's death sentence to a life - meaning he understands that sanction and forgiveness have no conflict and hatred is not why we sanction.
The death penalty is given for the same reason lesser sanctions are - they are a just, appropriate and proportional sanction for the crime committed. (2)
There are, more solid reasons, to deny commutation in this case, but I was only addressing Mr. Bhuiyan's.
Stroman's crimes
Stroman, a white supremist, additionally,confessed to the Sept. 15, 2001 Dallas murder of Wagar Hasan, an immigrant and Pakistani Muslim. The two murders and the attempted murder were all hate crimes, committed from September 15, 2001 to October 4, 2001, based upon Stroman seeking revenge against Muslims for the 9/11 attacks.
Stroman, previously, served a two year sentence for one count of burglary of a building and one count of theft of property; released on parole in absentia; returned from parole in absentia with an 8 year sentence from Dallas County for two counts of credit card abuse and one count of robbery; released on parole on 08/26/1991.
1) "The Death Penalty: Neither Hatred nor Revenge"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/20/the-death-penalty-neither-hatred-nor-revenge.aspx
2) "Death Penalty Support: Christian and secular Scholars"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-support-modern-catholic.html
NOTE Any violation of vicitm's rights should be condemned, with a pursuit of remedy, inclusive of legal action, if merited.
It is not a case of weakening life sentence in Texas. It is about healing of a man, and a society from Hatred and setting the example for generations to come. It is about compassion winning over hate. It is about the purpose of punishment. There are better lessons to be learned if Stroman is spared from death sentence on the request of his victiim / other victims's family.
Although forgiveness from one of his victims is commendable, it was not for his shooting that Stroman is being punished, so it is irrelevant with regard to a stay. He is being executed for a wholly different crime. That victim cannot say he forgives him. He is dead. If the deceased person's family forgives the murderer, that is great. But the crime was not committed against them, it was committed against the deceased.
He got a fair trial. He was sentenced accorrding to Texas law. It is time to carry out the sentence.