An 11-year-old Black child is walking home from a school trip. He is laughing, carefree — the way all children should be. But then a white man he does not know crosses his path, calls him the N-word, accuses him of having "no business talking to white kids," and then punches him so hard he breaks his nose and it knocks a tooth loose.
This is NOW.
That white man, Paul Jonathan Bittner, was sentenced to a mere 41 months in prison.
This is what passes for justice in America, where Black bodies are disposable, Black children are stereotyped as suspicious, and racial violence is often treated as a regrettable lapse in judgment rather than a hate-fueled threat on human dignity.
As a legal professional and advocate for justice, I must say that this sentencing is not justice. It is a patchwork punishment delivered by a legal system built to sympathize with the privileged and dismiss the pain of Black children.
The Legal System Protects Whiteness — Even When It Kills and Maims
Legally, Bittner was charged with second-degree assault of a child and a hate crime enhancement. Yet, the hate crime charge amounted to little to nothing of a three year sentence.
The Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, signed by President Obama, expanded federal protections for victims of racially motivated crimes. Under this law, someone committing a violent hate crime can face up to 10 years in prison, or life if bodily injury occurs.
And yet, Bittner’s sentence was less than 4 years. The system, yet again, used mental health diagnoses, plea deals, and judicial discretion as mechanisms to soften the blow of accountability for a white man committing racial violence against a Black child.
Mental Health Defenses as Shields
Let’s be clear: Bittner's defense leaned heavily on his mental health diagnosis. He was initially found incompetent to stand trial, sent for psychiatric care, and only after 90 days deemed competent enough to plead guilty.
Mental health considerations have too often become the default shield for white offenders, especially in racially motivated crimes.
Consider this: had the roles been reversed, and a mentally ill Black man assaulted a white child in a hate-driven attack, would the outcome be the same? We know better. History shows us otherwise.
Instead, the courts use a combination of diminished capacity arguments, competency delays, and judicial discretion to soften sentencing for white defendants , even in hate crimes. While these mechanisms are part of the law, their application is not equal. They become weapons of selective mercy.
Did you know?
White defendants are twice as likely to have mental health used as a mitigating factor in sentencing compared to Black defendants.
Black people with mental health issues, conversely, are often criminalized instead of treated, leading to longer and harsher sentences.
In this case, Bittner’s mental health diagnosis did not excuse the racially explicit nature of his crime, yet it undoubtedly shaped the court's leniency.
A Pattern of Judicial Discretion That Favors White Offenders
Judges have broad leeway under the doctrine of judicial discretion, especially in states like Washington, where the law allows flexibility based on “individual circumstances.” Judicial discretion allows judges to weigh mitigating factors, such as mental health status, lack of prior convictions, or "progress" during pre-sentencing treatment. This discretion, however, too often favors white perpetrators.
This is the same system that:
Gives short sentences for white mass shooters claiming mental illness.
Dismisses or reduces charges for police officers who kill Black people under qualified immunity.
Grants leniency to white offenders under the guise of rehabilitation, while Black youth get adult sentences for far less.
Historical Precedents
Brock Turner, the Stanford rapist, who served just 3 months for sexually assaulting an unconscious woman.
Robert Aaron Long, who killed 8 people in Atlanta (6 of them Asian women) — and was captured alive, with officers excusing his rampage as a "bad day."
Countless cases of white police officers, like Daniel Pantaleo (who killed Eric Garner), who avoided charges entirely due to the protective shields of qualified immunity and prosecutorial discretion.
Emmett Till (1955): His brutal murderers were acquitted by an all-white jury despite overwhelming evidence.
The Scottsboro Boys (1931): Nine Black teens falsely accused of assault, faced the death penalty while their white accuser faced no accountability.
Rodney King (1991): Beaten by police on video, yet most officers acquitted, igniting the LA riots.
These are not isolated incidents. They are part of a systemic lineage of racial violence being sanctioned, dismissed, or softened by the justice system.
A Message to Black Children
What message does a 41-month sentence send to the Black child victim? That his pain is minor. That his trauma is secondary to his attacker's rehabilitation. That his Blackness renders him less worthy of full legal protection.
No. This is not and will not be our answer.
Children are supposed to be protected by the law, not just in theory, but in practice. But when Black children are involved, the law fails them time and time again.
A Black child was assaulted — for his skin, for his existence — and the system gave the attacker three years. The time for measured outrage is over. This is the legacy of white supremacy embedded in our judicial system, masked behind mental health arguments, judicial discretion, and public indifference.
Three years in prison is not justice when a child is forever scarred, not just physically, but spiritually, knowing that his pain was measured, discounted, and minimized by the courts.
We must ask ourselves: Whose children are worthy of the law’s full protection? If an 11-year-old Black boy can be beaten in broad daylight, called racial slurs, and watch his attacker get a slap on the wrist, then the answer is clear — and we must change it.
What We Can Demand
Elimination of Discretion in Hate Crime Sentencing: Judges should be mandated to apply the maximum sentencing in hate crimes involving minors.
National Data Collection on Hate Crime Sentencing: To track and expose racial disparities in how hate crimes are charged and punished.
Mandatory Psychological and Racial Bias Evaluations for Offenders: Those convicted of hate crimes should undergo intensive evaluations, followed by mandated anti-racism education and therapy alongside prison time.
Civil Remedies for Victims: Victims should have guaranteed pathways to civil lawsuits with government-supported legal aid to pursue damages beyond criminal courts.
