Not sure why a British tabloid was first on this story, but there you go: the Daily Mail found Johnny (Hoa) Trinh, the guy Mark Wahlberg punched in the eye, and ascertained that Trinh supports Wahlberg’s pardon application.
In an exclusive interview with Mail Online Trinh said he is happy for Wahlberg to be given a pardon saying: ‘He was young and reckless but I forgive him now. Everyone deserves another chance.
‘I would like to see him get a pardon. He should not have the crime hanging over him any longer.’
Trinh added that he would like to meet Wahlberg face to face to tell him he does not bear a grudge.
Interestingly, the Daily Mail also reveals (I think for the first time, and contrary to every other account of the event that I’ve seen) that Wahlberg’s attack actually did not cause any lasting damage: Trinh was already blind in his left eye when Wahlberg punched him.
One has to admire Trinh’s spirit of forgiveness. And certainly, Wahlberg’s pardon request seems stronger with one of his victims backing it. But I’d still like to see Wahlberg deliver personal apologies to all of his victims before his application is taken seriously, and I still find it unsettling that a movie star seems to be the first person in many years to have committed a violent crime in Massachusetts and then have a pardon application taken seriously. UPDATE: Alert BMGer kayceecee correctly points out that, in fact, Governor Patrick has approved a pardon for True See Allah, who was convicted in 1991 of armed assault with intent to murder (the assault left the victim paralyzed). That pardon is presently before the Governor’s Council for its approval. Of the four pardons approved by Patrick, that is the only one involving a violent crime.
TuanAnh says
So instead of serving 45 days for partially blinding a man while hurling racial epithets, he served 45 days for beating an already half-blind man while hurling racial epithets.
I appreciate Jonnny Trinh’s magnanimity but this still doesn’t change the fact that Mark Wahlberg has never paid civil restitution for his assault or never directly apologized to his victims. And of course, he’s only asking for a pardon now in order to further his business interests or be able to work out-of-state.
Sorry, still not buying it Marky Mark.
kayceecee says
An actual pardon/commutation process is going on right now, including the hearing process for True See Allah, a violent offender whose pardon application has already been accepted by the Governor. The media hoopla about Marky Mark is predictable, but a distraction from what is actually going on in the Governor’s Council at the moment. There, people’s futures are being decided by a couple of completely ridiculous people. No disrespect to the rest of the very serious councilors who take their jobs quite seriously.
This week and next, 4 pardon applicants and a woman seeking a commutation of her drug sentence are being subjected to hearings in front of the Governor’s Council. The Council has no fact-finding purpose, as that was the job of the Parole Board, but will vote up or down on these people’s fates. The hearings, by all accounts, have been characterized by unprofessionalism, certain councilors’ inability to understand the process and their role in it, and their lack of purpose and focus.
I have never been an advocate of abolishing the Governor’s Council (full disclosure – I work closely with some of the members) but I urge citizens to pay attention to how their elected representatives are behaving during this very important process. Some members are clearly not up to the task, and some appear to have getting a quote in the Globe as their sole agenda. Forget about Marky Mark. There’s nothing to see there.
jconway says
God help us all.
David says
Yes, the Council has to approve any pardon or commutation.
hesterprynne says
for Wahlberg’s convictions not to be considered by licensing agencies making decisions about the expansion of his restaurant empire, then, because his convictions are more than 10 years old, he can simply follow the procedures that everybody else in his position uses for getting them sealed. Pursuing a pardon instead creates the impression that what he’s really interested in is the publicity value of his character reformation. Oh, wait.
andytarsy says
Hate crimes are unusual in that the target – intended or not – is an entire group. Having worked in depth with diverse communities that have found themselves targeted by violent hate crimes, including Southeast Asian communities, I can attest to the fear that extends far beyond the actual victim. The message sent is that the individual is not the issue – it is his/her identity and the presence of that group that is repugnant to the perpetrator. And that message is generally received far beyond the individual – even far beyond the neighborhood. My point is that it is a given to expect Mark Wahlberg to personally apologize to his targets; but that would be insufficient for me to support his pardon application. His apology – and his constructive amends – are owed to the entire communities he sought to terrorize (African American in one case, and Vietnamese-American in the other) and he can start working on that any time. No-one needs a lecture on what each of those communities has faced and overcome seeking to take rightfully owned seats at the table in this country. So Mark – let’s see some effort for the people you sought to frighten. Then we can talk.
jconway says
I saw him on some late night show the other day and immediately changed the channel. I won’t be watching his stupid show or eating his burgers either. Time to own up to his past, and if he is truly redeemed and remorseful, why not apologize to the individuals and to the groups? It’s not like this information isn’t going to get out there sooner or later and get worse before it gets better. He can ask Bill Cosby how successful stonewalling these things can be.
petr says
petr says
Blasted html tags…
andytarsy says
Agree with you both – in that he ought to have made the apologies years ago and not just statements. And also that he should not be judged as a rotten guy regardless. And finally – that public opinion is thankfully not the arbiter….
Also though, I think its important to remember that he is asking for something almost literally no-one gets. Thousands in MA alone coping with the burden of CORI – many for good reasons and many not at all. And some of their crimes much less remarkable. So what makes this different? What makes a pardon even worth considering if it is such a rarity?
scott12mass says
There should never be a change to anyone’s record unless there is an opportunity for the victim to provide input, similar to a victim impact statement. No council should be allowed to consider a pardon without it. If the victim is dead then no change should be allowed.