The irony of hate crime clauses and juvenile justice reform (Situational Irony)
“'The proponents of hate-crime laws are liberals, and yet they are the ones who are the biggest critics of mass incarceration,' observes James B. Jacobs, director of New York University’s Center for Research in Crime and Justice, and an expert on hate-crime laws. 'So there are ironies piled on ironies. The remedy here is imprisonment, and prisons are the ultimate incubators of antisocial attitudes'" (175).
Jacobs demonstrates that while some politicians run on a platform of reform, their policies and ideologies often conflict with the actual goals of their reforms. Liberal politicians who make more of a point to address the concerns of identity groups are quicker to add a hate-crime clause to charges. Often these same politicians are publicly against mass incarceration and advocate for rehabilitation over punishment. However, the hate crime clause often leads to longer and harsher sentences, leading to a real-life instance of situational irony, where the outcome is the opposite of what one would have expected.
The decision to try Richard as an adult (Situational Irony)
Sasha, the victim of Richard's crime, their parents, and several identity-based advocacy groups all appealed to the Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O'Malley to try Richard as a juvenile, but it was the state that decided to try Richard as an adult. One might expect the groups who stand to be personally hurt and more directly affected by the case to ask for the harshest punishment for Richard, but they are the ones asking that his sentence focus on rehabilitation and education rather than punishment.
It was a hard time for the neo-Nazis (Verbal Irony)
In reference to the online responses of various groups, Debbie talks about one particular group of comments she read by neo-Nazis. “'They were having a really hard time,' she said. 'An African American? Oh, evil! But then it’s this trans kid wearing a skirt. What?' 'They couldn’t figure out who to root against,' Karl explained. He grinned. 'It was a really hard time for the neo-Nazi community'" (192).
What Karl says is obviously verbal irony, because it was an extremely hard time for those closely involved with the case, and by saying it was a hard time for a hate-based group that can't decide which side they loathe more underscores how ridiculous their hatred really is.
Richard is the only one questioned (Situational Irony)
Despite the fact that Lloyd and Jamal both take part in the scheme to light Sasha's skirt on fire and despite the fact that they're the ones who Richard follows onto another bus to flee the scene, and even the fact that the lighter Richard used was supplied by Jamal, neither Lloyd nor Jamal or every taken into custody or even questioned about the case. This defies the expectation that as accomplices, they would be somehow implicated.
