The celebrity websites are all atwitter with the news of Dorchester native and Hollywood megastar Mark Wahlberg’s application for a pardon. His crimes were … well, here are a couple of excerpts from the original documents. You be the judge.
Thanh Lam left his car carrying two cases of beer. As he crossed the sidewalk, Mark Wahlberg attacked Thanh Lam. Wahlberg was carrying a large wooden stick, approximately five feet long and two to three inches in diameter. Wahlberg approached Thanh Lam calling him a “Vietnam fucking shit,” then hit him over the head with the stick. Thanh Lam was knocked to the ground unconscious. Th[e] stick broke in two and was later recovered from the scene. Thanh Lam was treated overnight at Boston City Hospital.
After police arrested Wahlberg later on the night of April 8, 1988, Wahlberg was informed of his rights and returned to the scene of 998 Dorchester Avenue. In the presence of two police officers, he stated: “You don’t have to let him identify me, I’ll tell you now that’s the mother-fucker who’s head I split open,” or words to that effect….
Shortly after 9:00 p.m. on April 8, 1988, Hoa Trinh, an adult Vietnamese male who resides in Dorchester, was standing several blocks away from 998 Dorchester Avenue, near the corner of Dorchester Avenue and Pearl Street. Hoa Trinh was not aware of the altercation outside of 998 Dorchester Avenue.
Wahlberg ran up to Hoa Trinh, put his arm around Hoa Trinh’s shoulder, and said: “Police coming, police coming, let me hide.” After a police cruiser passed, Wahlberg punched Trinh in the eye, causing him to fall to the ground.
Police arrived and Hoa Trinh identified Wahlberg as the person who punched him. Wahlberg was placed under arrest and read his rights. Thereafter he made numerous unsolicited racial statements about “gooks” and “slant-eyed gooks.”
Trinh was permanently blinded in the eye that Wahlberg punched. Wahlberg served 45 days in prison for these assaults.
And then there’s this one.
As [three black kids] were walking [home in Dorchester], defendants Michael Guilfoyle, Derek Furkart, Mark Wahlberg and another white male began to follow them on bicycles. One of the defendants said to the [kids], “We don’t like black niggers in the area so get the fuck away from the area.” The group of white males then chased the [kids], using their mopeds. During the chase, the group of white males yelled, “Kill the nigger, kill the nigger” and each threw a rock at the Coleman brothers and sister…. [The next day,] the defendants … yell[ed] racial epithets…. Then … the group of white males began throwing rocks…. Defendants Furkart and Wahlberg also threw a rocks [sic], one of which hit Emily Harr, a white female.
And then there was the time that Wahlberg beat the crap out of his neighbor.
So now Wahlberg wants a pardon because his criminal record is apparently making it harder for him to open more restaurants. Cry me a river, Marky. Shoulda thought of that a long time ago. Worse, he has not even made any effort to apologize directly to the victims of his assaults, instead apparently figuring that a statement that he regrets his actions is good enough.
Nam Pham, executive director of VietAID, a Vietnamese community organization in Dorchester, said Wahlberg should first apologize directly to Thanh Lam, a Vietnamese man Wahlberg beat with a stick more than a quarter century ago. Wahlberg also screamed obscenities and racial epithets.
“If I were him I would want the scar on my record erased,” Pham said of Wahlberg. “But I would also ask if I could help erase the scars on the victim.”
In a separate episode, some from a class that was harassed in 1986 by a group of teens that included Wahlberg were not impressed with his request for a pardon.Mary Belmonte, the class teacher, remembered leading her terrified elementary school students down a side street to avoid the hail of rocks. “I’m sure he’s sincere and he wants to clear his name,” Belmonte said. “It would be nice if he could apologize and really own up to what he was.”
Asked for further clarification, here’s what happened.
Wahlberg’s publicist did not return calls for comment.
LOL. Better, more important things to worry about, I guess. You know, Hollywood stuff.
The newly relaxed guidelines for pardons and commutations may actually do some good by, for instance, allowing for the reduction of ludicrously long sentences for selling drugs and the like. But let’s be serious: any normal person with a record of violent assaults like Wahlberg’s wouldn’t have a prayer of receiving a pardon, especially in the first round of applications under the new guidelines. If a Hollywood megastar succeeds … well, that doesn’t send a good message at all. It seems to me that, while Wahlberg has obviously turned his life around in impressive fashion, there’s no convincing reason why he should not have to live with the small inconvenience that his criminal record continues to cause him. That inconvenience is a lot smaller than the one Hoa Trinh continues to experience as a result of Wahlberg’s crimes.
All he got is 45 days in jail-we know what Garner and Brown got for considerably less threatening allegations of illegal activity.
I, Mark Wahlberg, have a “specific, verified and compelling need” for a pardon, that being I’d like to open some more restaurants.
…but yes, I do think we need to go over this, and no I don’t think it’s obvious. It happened when he was 17 and maybe this will spark a discussion about being more rather than less merciful generally.
Yeah … Marky didn’t display a lot of that quality in the conduct outlined in the post. So what I don’t understand, Christopher, is why this person convicted of a very violent crime, above all others, should be pardoned. Because when was the last time a person who committed a violent crime was pardoned in Massachusetts? I’m not sure, but I am sure that you have to go back an awful lot of years. The only answer I can come up with is because he’s famous, and I trust everyone would agree that that’s not a satisfactory answer.
…and to be honest I’m having a hard time figuring out how it’s keeping him from opening restaurants. It would be one thing if he were applying to work for someone else and stumbled over a CORI (or the equivalent in other states) check, but if he is opening his own businesses that should not be an issue.
The “above all others” is exactly the assumption I alluded to challenging. Pardons are not a zero-sum game. I’m not aware of there being a limit on the number of pardons a Governor can grant. Maybe others with similar cases should be considered – I don’t know the criteria. I read not too long ago that at least Presidents used to be much more generous with pardons and clemency than they are currently lest they be labelled soft on crime. Going back to previous practice is what I meant by being more merciful generally.
My hunch is that opening up a ‘dry’ restaurant would be fine, but if he wants a liquor license, he’d run into trouble with a criminal record in most places.
That would make sense if he was listed as the license holder. That would seem strange for such an operation, though, especially given his siblings who more directly run the place. And if it is the issue, couldn’t he easily just move into an investor role and remove that problem entirely?
couldn’t that be handled by the business structure chosen? If it were a simple partnership, then maybe it’s a problem, but if it’s incorporated and he is just a stockholder, then maybe not. Any business gurus have their ears on?
Would be a good time for him to consider getting a pardon. What a jerk.
without apologizing personally illustrates to me how much he doesn’t deserve it.
He was selfish then and it appears that however mellowed out he is in his older years, he’s every bit as selfish now.
David, your basic argument boils down to this:
“…Wahlberg has obviously turned his life around in impressive fashion, there’s no convincing reason why he should not have to live with the small inconvenience that his criminal record continues to cause him.”
It is attitudes like this that result in life-time bans to vote for those convicted of a crime decades ago.
It is attitudes like this that prevent those with criminal records from being hired for a job, ending the need to a repeat offender to get money to live.
These horrific event happened almost 30 years ago by a teenager and he’s never attempted to hide the violent, racist crimes he committed. He has not only turned his life around–better than 99.9% of society–and, as the article you cite, but you fail to mention, he has given generously to help the underprivileged.
Are we not a society that believes in redemption? Or are we a society that makes an individual wear their Scarlet Letter everyday of their life? I believe in the former. Surprisingly, your comments squarely puts you in the latter class.
If you look at it one way – the fact that he has had enormous success as a musician and then an actor – he’s been redeemed a long time ago. He served his time for his crime. So why does he need a pardon?
If you look at it another way – as many other in this thread have but you studiously ignore – he has not shown any particular remorse for his specific actions. He has not attempted to redeem himself with the victims of his assaults, in particular. So why does he merit a pardon?
Countless other people in this state are in a similar situation, with records of ancient crimes hanging over their heads. I agree we should be more lenient in such matters, but I disagree that a) pardons are the way to go, and b) that we should start with Marky Mark.
The incident happened in 1988. Three years later the guy released an album that went platinum. After that, when he was 21 and already successful, he broke someone’s jaw in yet another criminal incident.
All this is a long time ago and I’m happy he’s turned it around. But the guy’s a multi-millionaire. He’s doing just fine.
You may believe that it’s simply attitudes (removed from any history or white supremacist context) that has created the War on Drugs, the prison industrial complex, and the largest incarcerated population in the world. However, you’d be extremely mistaken. Do you imagine that Wahlberg has been prevented from voting, government assistance, or is being refused work opportunities today?
Actually, I don’t think that’s true. He has not denied the crimes, but to my knowledge he has steadfastly refused to acknowledge their racial motivation. If I’m wrong about that, please do correct me.
…not intentionally, but we are.
There have been plenty of stories / interviews with him about the crimes he was convicted of…I haven’t read or seen any stories in which he disputes the facts, or the reasons behind, his plea/conviction (such as an excuse like, “I plead to this so that they would not charge a friend or family member). Unlike other famous no-gooders (Bill Cosby comes to mind) I haven’t read one story where a journalist reported Mark asked them not to write about his crimes…so, to my point, he’s never attempted to hide the violent, racist crimes he committed.
Are you aware of any “no comment” or where he “teadfastly refused to acknowledge their racial motivation”?
Now I think it is a fair point you–and others make–that he should be acknowledge more about the pain he inflicted to his victims and he should have a track record as a strong anti-racist crusader educating people against racism. And I would concede that working with under-previleged youth (of all races) does not make the pardon grade.
But my reaction was to the swagger of the rhetoric, that people should live with the actions of their youth for the rest of their lives. To them, I want to introduce you to Rick Dyer.
From a 1993 Globe story. Note that the person actually speaking is Wahlberg’s manager, since Wahlberg himself was in Hawaii at the time.
Is that good enough for you? It strikes me as pretty weak tea.
When I tried to connect to the comments on this post, I was apparently connected to the Boston Herald commenters.
I think Christopher has it exactly right–this is a good chance to look carefully at who should get pardons and why.
I’m suitably impressed with how tough and street-wise some of the commenters are. But I don’t think too many other people will be fooled.
… which is strange, you being a lawyer and all… How do I know you’re a lawyer? Well, your diary here lays out a clear (re-)prosecution of cases to which he’s already been found, or plead, guilty.
Pardons are for crimes. The bigger the crime the greater the need for both scrutiny and for mercy. The more heinous the crime the more the state needs to examine it’s belief in redemption. And a pardon is the state saying it believes in redemption.
But the pardon should not have anything to do with the length of time served nor harm done… else it’s not really a pardon, just further extenuating the prosecution… In addition, Hoa Trinh and Thanh Lam have had the intervening 24 years to bring any civil suit against Wahlberg for damages. Maybe they already did. I don’t know. Maybe they already forgave him. I don’t know. Their status should have no bearing upon the states decision to pardon or not.
If Walhberg is, as you allege, insufficiently contrite and is really only seeking a pardon to further his business interests then he should not receive a pardon. But the only questions before the state are:
“Did he commit a crime?”
“Is he truly sorry?”
“Is he likely to re-offend?”
That’s it. That’s the only questions the state could, or should, ask and seek answers to… I might agree with you that Wahlberg isn’t particularly contrite (I don’t really know) and so would come down on the side of saying “no.” All the rest isn’t relevant.
that’s the only thing that came across my mind when I saw the headline. They beat the herald to the “story”. I’ve been noticing the crap they’ve been posting online. Snow porn something or other, do I have to buy my hookup a Christmas gift.
It’s hard to imagine that the group of people who recommends petitions will recommend this petition, given how Wahlberg does not have the character to even write a letter of apology to his victims. And if they do, I think Gov. Patrick has seen, in his life, many people who have served longer sentences for lighter crimes, and then had their economic opportunity limited by the convictions.
Wahlberg is already insanely rich, by selling shallow images of thoughtless violence to the public.
Gov. Patrick has a history of commitment to social justice, and he clearly knows there are pardons that will do a lot more good for society than letting a multimillionaire make more millions.
Can’t wait to see how many Herald columnists and commenters beg Deval for this clemency while they still insist the cops in NY and Ferguson were in the right. Getting real fed up with this open racism.
I hear his kvetching and start my own rant. What Wahlberg says through his Me-Me-Me-Me plea is that he is clean and clear and wholesome, ergo, he deserves a pardon.
Instead, how about he lobby (or even pay minions to lobby) to stop the insanity of perpetual punishment for all convicted criminals? Yes, we are slowly reforming CORI regs, but as underwear boy’s case shows, the MA laws and regs let petty bureaucrats permanently harm, hamper and hinder ex-offenders. How about the fundamental concept of paying your debt to society and moving on?
Yes, yes, we have exceptions for registered sex offenders deemed likely to do it again, but really? Shouldn’t our laws and regulations let someone who has been blameless for say a decade go about his literal and figurative business.
Personally, I want Mark Robert Michael Wahlberg to ask forgiveness from those he harmed with violent deeds and words. Maybe he should also share some of his millions. Meh.
The big effort here should be for him drop this egocentric whinging. Instead look at what happens to ex-felons and reform the law. Do that first, Wahlberg.
Whether or not you think Wahlberg should be pardoned, we should be pardoning far more people in general: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/forgive-forget–2
with Marshall’s larger point. But there’s just no way that Mark Wahlberg should be first in line. If MA wants to launch a large-scale program to pardon offenders who’ve turned their lives around, great, I’m for it, and Wahlberg can and should apply (should he get it? I’m still concerned about his lack of apology and the hate crime-y nature of what he did). But if he’s the only one, then it’s just because he’s rich and famous, and that’s an outrage.