COMMENTARY : Amber Jefferson Case Provided Lessons in Human Relations : Residents rightly rose up to denounce the attack as a hate incident. Officers gained valuable experience from the inquiry.

Since the creation of the Orange County Human Relations Commission in 1971, there has been an explosion in ethnic diversity that has enriched the county in many ways, from bringing it a more cosmopolitan culture to providing labor and professional talent for its growing economy. But the appearance of so many people of varied origins has also led to a series of human relations problems that threaten to undermine the progress made in civil rights over the last two decades.

When a violent confrontation between whites and predominantly minority youth left Amber Jefferson nearly dead and scarred for life in Stanton on Aug. 7, the county was tested against people’s historical perceptions of it as an all-white, affluent, conservative community, insensitive to minorities.

The county was judged by the sufficiency of public outcry to this violent confrontation. Criminal justice authorities were scrutinized for their handling of this hate-related crime. Black leaders were looked to for their response to this racially charged fight. Other leaders were challenged to recognize the bigotry that blacks in the county face every day. The media were examined for their handling of this explosive issue.

The reactions of outrage, allegations of racism, criticisms of authorities for not publicly denouncing the incident as racist and calls for swift arrest and prosecution of the responsible parties were welcome additions to an Orange County that may not have batted an eye at such an incident 30 years ago.

When someone is so severely attacked and injured, public outrage is healthy and plays an important role. This outrage cannot be based on an absolute knowledge of all the facts that law enforcement officials may have. It is a community judgment based on the facts made available to the public.

Our justice system requires the protection of juveniles, judgments by a jury of peers and that officials not prejudice cases with public statements. All of these factors precipitate against the full disclosure of facts that would be required for a fair judgment of specific individuals.

Does that mean that the community should be silent when faced with brutal crime? Does that make a community judgment of the overall situation derived from the facts available unwise? Does that mean that immediate reactions to heinous clashes are to be discounted as hysteria and emotion or seen as unwarranted challenges to the justice system?

The County Human Relations Commission says No! No! No!

Who among us would feel comfortable living in a community that did not cry out in protest at the commission of a gruesome crime? As Times writer Dana Parsons put it: “If anyone thinks Amber’s parents intentionally turned this case into a racial incident that perhaps didn’t exist, I would suggest that you try to picture your daughter in a hospital bed, with her head sewn up and her jaw broken. You might make some noise too.”

The community leaders and organizations that spoke out on this case should be congratulated because their voices, raised against racism, against vicious violence and for swift punishment of the guilty, are the voices of an Orange County that will not tolerate injustice against anyone.

The county sheriff may initially have been reluctant to judge this as a racially motivated crime, but when authorities heard the allegations of racism and came to an understanding of the definition of “hate-related” incidents, they acted quickly to increase their efforts and investigate that aspect of this case. Their subsequent judgment concluded that there may have been hate crimes committed by three of the whites involved. This was a precedent for the sheriff’s office and reflected the seriousness that they placed on the racial aspects of this case.

The county district attorney, who had successfully prosecuted hate crime perpetrators previously, immediately placed a high priority on the Jefferson case, assigning top staff members and relieving them of conflicting duties so they could concentrate on this important case. In one week they identified the suspect they believed responsible for hurling the shard of plate glass deep into the face of Amber Jefferson and brought serious felony charges of mayhem and assault with a deadly weapon against him. Until that announcement, the public had been told that no one knew who cut Amber.

These charges carry the potential for much longer prison sentences than the hate crime charges. The district attorney also brought lesser charges against two other whites and one black involved in the fight.

Before the case was ever referred to the district attorney, he told the commission that he was knowledgeable and experienced in dealing with the relatively new hate crime law. He went on to say that if he found evidence that it was a hate-related crime, he would prosecute that to the fullest extent possible so it would serve as a deterrent to other hate-related incidents.

Orange County has learned from the Amber Jefferson case.

We hope that county officials and residents will give greater recognition to the positive role that the family and community played in condemning this incident.

There was an important education of the public about the intolerance that blacks face on an all-too-frequent basis in our affluent community.

The sheriff and district attorney gained experience that they feel will help them to do a better job handling hate-related incidents in the future.

We have all judged this horrible crime based on the information that we had available at the time. Perhaps we could have done better, but on balance justice is being served. Race relations in the county have grown through this crisis--and will continue to grow.