Table of Contents
Introduction: Beyond the Headline
The question of why actor Mark Wahlberg went to jail invites a simple, factual answer: in 1988, at the age of 16, he was convicted of assault and served 45 days in a correctional facility.
However, this fact serves merely as the entry point into a far more complex and revealing narrative of violence, race, celebrity, and the contested nature of redemption in modern America.
Mark Wahlberg’s 45-day incarceration was the direct legal consequence of a brutal, racially charged assault on two Vietnamese men in his Dorchester, Boston neighborhood.
Yet, this event cannot be understood in isolation; it was the culmination of a pattern of escalating hate crimes, a product of the racially volatile atmosphere of 1980s Boston, and the beginning of a decades-long public reckoning that challenges simple narratives of atonement.
This report will provide a definitive, multi-layered account of Mark Wahlberg’s criminal history and its public legacy.
It will begin by detailing the specific events of the 1988 assault that led to his imprisonment before examining the critical precursor: a 1986 hate crime that resulted in a civil rights injunction against him.
The analysis will then dissect the full legal proceedings, contextualize the events within the turbulent social fabric of their era, and meticulously investigate the controversial pardon campaign Wahlberg launched in 2014.
Finally, by centering the varied and often conflicting voices of his victims, this report will explore the lasting legacy of his actions and the enduring questions they raise about accountability, forgiveness, and the permanence of the past in the digital age.
Section 1: The Events of April 8, 1988: A Violent Encounter in Dorchester
The incident that resulted in Mark Wahlberg’s imprisonment occurred on the evening of April 8, 1988.
At the time, Wahlberg was 16 years old and, by his own admission in a later pardon application, was under the influence of marijuana and other narcotics.1
The sequence of events that unfolded that night in his Dorchester neighborhood was marked by extreme violence and explicit racial animus.
The Attempted Robbery and Assault on Thanh Lam
The episode began as an attempted robbery outside a convenience store on Dorchester Avenue.1
Wahlberg sought to steal two cases of alcohol from a Vietnamese immigrant named Thanh Lam, who was getting out of his car with the beer.5
The encounter quickly escalated beyond a simple theft.
Wahlberg armed himself with a five-foot wooden stick and began to beat Lam over the head.3
The assault was not a brief scuffle; court documents and sentencing memorandums state that Wahlberg continued to strike Lam until the victim lost consciousness and the wooden pole itself broke in two.5
As a result of the severe beating, Thanh Lam was hospitalized.5
The physical violence was accompanied by vitriolic racial slurs.
During the attack, Wahlberg yelled epithets at Lam, including, “Vietnam f—— s—“.5
This combination of a weaponized assault causing unconsciousness and the use of racist language elevated the crime far beyond a juvenile delinquency case.
The sheer brutality of the attack on Lam demonstrates a level of intent to inflict serious bodily harm, a factor that would heavily influence the initial charges brought against Wahlberg by the state.
The Assault on Hoa Trinh
After leaving Thanh Lam unconscious on the street, Wahlberg fled the scene.
He soon encountered a second Vietnamese man, Hoa Trinh, who is also identified in some reports as Johnny Trinh.3
According to court documents, Wahlberg approached Trinh and asked for help hiding from the police.5
However, once a police cruiser drove past the area, Wahlberg’s plea for help turned into another unprovoked attack.
He punched Trinh in the eye.3
Wahlberg was apprehended by police shortly thereafter.
His racially charged aggression did not end with his arrest.
While in custody, he continued to make derogatory and racist remarks about Asians, including references to “slant-eyed gooks”.5
The attack on Trinh, immediately following the brutalization of Lam, established a clear and undeniable pattern of behavior for that evening: targeting individuals of Vietnamese descent with both physical violence and racial slurs.
Section 2: The Legal Reckoning: From Attempted Murder to 45 Days
The legal consequences for Mark Wahlberg’s actions on April 8, 1988, were severe and were critically shaped by his prior criminal history.
The case moved through the justice system in a way that reflected the gravity of the offenses, culminating in an adult conviction and a prison sentence that would become a defining moment in his life.
The following table provides a comparative summary of the 1986 and 1988 incidents, illustrating the legal escalation that led to his incarceration.
| Incident Date | Location | Victims | Nature of Offense | Initial Charges | Final Outcome/Conviction | Sentence/Penalty |
| June 1986 | Savin Hill Beach, Dorchester | Group of mostly Black 4th-grade students (incl. Kristyn Atwood) | Harassment, rock-throwing, shouting racial epithets (“Kill the n—–s!”) | Civil Rights Lawsuit | Civil Rights Injunction Issued | Stern warning: jail time for future hate crimes. |
| April 8, 1988 | Dorchester | Thanh Lam and Hoa Trinh (Vietnamese immigrants) | Attempted robbery, assault with a wooden stick, punching, racial slurs | Attempted Murder, Assault | Convicted as an adult for: Assault & Battery, Assault & Battery w/ Dangerous Weapon (2 counts), Possession of Marijuana, Criminal Contempt (for violating 1986 injunction) | Sentenced to 2 years, with a 3-month jail term. Served 45 days. |
Initial Charges, Plea, and Adult Conviction
Given the severity of the unprovoked attack on Thanh Lam—beating him into unconsciousness with a large wooden pole—prosecutors initially charged Wahlberg with attempted murder.10
This charge underscores the life-threatening nature of the violence he inflicted.
Ultimately, however, Wahlberg pleaded guilty to lesser charges, including felony assault.12
A pivotal decision in the legal process was the choice to try Wahlberg as an adult, despite his being only 16 years old at the time of the crime.7
This move is not standard for juvenile offenders and signals that the court system viewed his actions as exceptionally serious, warranting consequences beyond the scope of the juvenile justice system.
This decision was heavily influenced by the fact that Wahlberg was already known to the courts for a prior, racially motivated crime.
The Final Convictions and the Crucial Contempt Charge
The official list of convictions from the 1988 incident is extensive.
According to his own pardon petition filed in 2014, Wahlberg was convicted of: Criminal Contempt (for Violation of a Prior Civil Injunction), Assault & Battery, Assault & Battery by a Dangerous Weapon (two counts), and Possession of a Class D Controlled Substance.16
While the assault charges addressed the physical violence, the conviction for criminal contempt is the legal lynchpin of the entire case.
This charge is often overlooked in casual retellings but is fundamental to understanding why Wahlberg was sent to jail and treated as an adult.
It directly references the civil rights injunction issued against him in 1986, which explicitly forbade him from committing further hate crimes.
His attack on two Vietnamese men was therefore not just a new set of crimes; it was a flagrant violation of a specific court order.
This act of contempt provided the legal justification for the state to bypass the juvenile system and impose a harsher, adult-level penalty.
It legally reframed the 1988 assault not as a singular event, but as the defiant culmination of a documented pattern of racist behavior.
The Sentence and Incarceration
Following his conviction, Wahlberg was sentenced to prison.
Sources vary slightly on the exact terms, with some reporting a two-year sentence and others a three-month sentence to be served in jail.7
Regardless of the total length of the sentence handed down, the consistent and undisputed fact is that he
served approximately 45 days in the Suffolk County House of Correction at Deer Island.1
It was this 45-day period of incarceration that Wahlberg would later credit in numerous interviews as the turning point that forced him to change the direction of his life.10
Section 3: A Precursor to Violence: The 1986 Civil Rights Injunction
To fully comprehend the legal severity with which Mark Wahlberg’s 1988 crimes were treated, it is essential to examine the incident that occurred two years prior.
The 1988 assault was not an isolated act of violence but a dramatic escalation of a pattern of behavior for which he had already been legally sanctioned.
The Attack on Schoolchildren at Savin Hill Beach
In June 1986, when Wahlberg was 15 years old, he and a group of white friends targeted a class of predominantly Black fourth-grade students on a school field trip.5
The children, who were from the Mather School, were leaving Savin Hill Beach in Dorchester when the attack began.4
Wahlberg and his friends chased the young students down the street, throwing rocks at them and shouting vicious racial epithets.5
Court documents from the time specify that the slurs included shouts of “Kill the n—–s!”.4
The attack left a lasting impact on the victims.
One of the students, Kristyn Atwood, who was around nine or ten years old at the time, was struck by a rock thrown during the chase and, decades later, still bears a physical scar from the injury.5
In a later interview, she recalled the terror of the moment: “I was really scared.
My heart was beating fast.
I couldn’t believe it was happening.
The names.
The rocks.
The kids chasing”.3
Her teacher, Mary Belmonte, who was present during the attack, corroborated the account of the children being pursued and verbally assaulted with racist taunts.5
The Legal Consequence: A Failed Intervention
The 1986 incident was not dismissed as mere schoolyard bullying.
The state’s attorney general recognized the racial animus behind the attack and brought a civil rights lawsuit against Wahlberg and the other youths involved.4
The legal outcome was the issuance of a
civil rights injunction.5
This injunction was a formal and serious order from the court.
It served as a stern warning, putting Wahlberg on explicit notice that if he were to “assault, threaten, or intimidate anyone based on their race” again, he would be sent to jail.4
This injunction represents a critical, and ultimately failed, intervention by the justice system.
The state correctly identified a pattern of racist violence in Wahlberg’s behavior and deployed a specific legal tool designed to prevent its recurrence.
The failure of this tool is profound.
Less than two years after being served with this unambiguous court order, Wahlberg committed an even more violent hate crime, this time targeting members of a different minority group.
The 1988 assault was therefore not only a new crime but a direct and conscious defiance of a legal mandate.
This demonstrated a stark lack of “correction” from his first major encounter with the law and established a narrative of escalating incorrigibility that would be central to the decision to prosecute him as an adult and sentence him to prison in 1988.
Section 4: The Boston Context: Race, Class, and Youth in the 1980s
The crimes committed by Mark Wahlberg in the 1980s, while acts of individual volition, did not occur in a vacuum.
They were products of a specific and volatile social environment.
To understand the context in which a white teenager from Dorchester could engage in such targeted racial violence, it is necessary to examine the deep-seated tensions that defined Boston during that era.
The Long Shadow of the Busing Crisis
Wahlberg grew up in Dorchester, a neighborhood characterized at the time as a tough, white, working-class enclave.3
The 1980s in Boston were heavily shadowed by the violent and acrimonious “post-anti-school busing era”.3
Beginning in the mid-1970s, a federal court order to desegregate Boston’s public schools through busing was met with fierce and often violent resistance from white residents in the city’s notoriously insular neighborhoods, such as South Boston and Charlestown.3
White residents pelted school buses carrying Black children with rocks, and the conflict spilled over into public spaces like beaches, nightclubs, and street corners.3
This period of intense conflict created a legacy of racial animosity that permeated the city’s culture for decades, lasting well into the 1990s.3
The city became nationally known for its racial strife, creating a deeply segregated and hostile environment.
A Climate of Hostility and Violence
Within this charged atmosphere, physical attacks against people of color and immigrants were described as “not uncommon”.3
The targets of this hostility were diverse, including African Americans, Latinos, and newly arrived immigrant groups like Cape Verdeans and Asians.3
Wahlberg’s crimes fit squarely within this documented pattern of racial hostility.
His 1986 attack on Black schoolchildren and his 1988 assault on Vietnamese men were not aberrations but rather extreme manifestations of a prevailing social climate in certain parts of the city.5
This context does not excuse Wahlberg’s actions, but it does provide a crucial framework for understanding them.
His behavior was reflective of and reinforced by a localized culture of racial hostility.
He was both a product of and a participant in a community pathology that normalized violence against minorities.
One of his victim’s teachers, Mary Belmonte, would later describe the teenage Wahlberg not as uniquely evil but as “just a young kid, just a punk…
in the mean streets of Boston,” suggesting his actions were, in part, a product of a toxic environment.5
To view his crimes solely through the lens of individual moral failing is to miss the broader social and historical forces that shaped and enabled his violent racism.
Section 5: The Pardon Campaign: A Contested Quest for Public Redemption
More than 25 years after his release from prison, Mark Wahlberg’s criminal past was thrust back into the national spotlight when he sought to have it officially erased.
In November 2014, he initiated a formal campaign for a pardon, a move that ignited a fierce public debate about celebrity, accountability, and the meaning of atonement.
The Application and Stated Motivations
On November 26, 2014, Wahlberg filed a petition with the Massachusetts Board of Pardons seeking a full and unconditional pardon for his 1988 convictions.4
In his application and subsequent public statements, he offered a multi-faceted rationale for the request.
First, there were practical, business-oriented motivations.
His primary stated reason was to overcome legal hurdles that could prevent him from obtaining a “concessionaire’s license” in California and other states, an important consideration for the expansion of his family’s burger restaurant chain, Wahlburgers.13
Second, he cited civic ambitions, claiming a clean record would enable him to work more closely with law enforcement and at-risk youth, even suggesting it would clear a path to becoming a reserve police officer or probation officer.13
Finally, he framed the pardon in symbolic terms.
He argued that it would serve as “formal recognition” that he had been redeemed and could act as an “inspiration” for other troubled individuals, showing them that it is possible to turn their lives around and be fully accepted back into society.1
“I have not engaged in philanthropic efforts in order to make people forget about my past,” he wrote in the application.
“To the contrary, I want people to remember my past so that I can serve as an example of how lives can be turned around”.1
Backlash, Opposition, and Support
The pardon request immediately triggered a sharp and significant backlash.4
Asian American activist groups and other community activists voiced strong opposition, arguing that the racial nature of the crimes made a pardon inappropriate.4
The most potent criticism came from Judith Beals, the former state prosecutor who had handled Wahlberg’s cases in the 1980s.
She argued forcefully against the pardon, highlighting a critical flaw in Wahlberg’s petition: its failure to fully and honestly acknowledge the racial animus of his crimes.
She noted that his application described his “serial pattern of racist violence as a ‘single episode’ that took place while he was ‘under the influence of alcohol and narcotics'”.24
This attempt to sanitize the past, rather than confront its specific hate-fueled nature, was seen by Beals and other critics as undermining his entire claim of atonement.5
Wahlberg did have supporters.
Billy Stewart, an assistant chief probation officer in Dorchester, called him a “poster child for a pardon,” arguing that the corrections system had worked as intended and that Wahlberg’s extensive charity work and commitment to his community demonstrated his rehabilitation.4
Father Jim Flavin, a Catholic priest and longtime mentor to Wahlberg, also wrote a letter in support of the petition.4
Withdrawal and Expressed Regret
The pardon campaign ultimately failed.
Faced with mounting public criticism and a disinclination to act from both former Governor Deval Patrick and then-current Governor Charlie Baker, the request stalled.3
In 2016, the Massachusetts Parole Board sent a letter to petitioners asking if they wished to keep their cases open.
When Wahlberg’s representatives did not respond, the petition was officially “administratively closed” in September 2016, effectively ending the effort.3
Shortly thereafter, Wahlberg publicly expressed regret over the entire endeavor.
He stated that the application was “ill-advised” and that he had been “pushed into doing it”.21
He reflected that after spending nearly three decades “righting the wrong,” he “didn’t need a piece of paper to acknowledge it”.21
This reversal suggests an eventual understanding that his quest for legal absolution had backfired.
The episode revealed a fundamental disconnect: Wahlberg’s concept of redemption, focused on personal growth and philanthropy, clashed with a public demand for accountability that required a direct and unambiguous acknowledgment of the specific racial harm he had caused.
The backlash was not merely against a celebrity seeking a favor, but against a flawed narrative of redemption that prioritized the perpetrator’s desire for closure and commercial benefit over a full accounting of his hate crimes.
Section 6: Voices of the Victims: Forgiveness, Opposition, and the Power of Silence
Central to the story of Mark Wahlberg’s crimes and his subsequent attempts at redemption are the individuals he directly harmed.
Their perspectives, which are varied and complex, provide the essential human dimension to the legal and social narrative, revealing that forgiveness is a personal choice, not a public mandate.
Hoa (Johnny) Trinh: An Act of Forgiveness
Hoa Trinh, the second man Wahlberg assaulted on April 8, 1988, emerged publicly during the pardon debate in 2014 to offer forgiveness.
In an interview with the Daily Mail, Trinh, who also goes by the name Johnny, stated, “He was young and reckless but I forgive him now.
Everyone deserves another chance”.3
He expressed support for Wahlberg’s pardon request, saying he would like to see him get it.10
Trinh’s testimony also served to correct a significant and long-held misconception about the attack.
For years, it was widely believed and reported that Wahlberg had blinded Trinh in one eye during the assault.10
Trinh clarified that this was false.
He had lost the sight in his left eye during a grenade attack while serving in the South Vietnamese army during the Vietnam War, long before his encounter with Wahlberg.3
“He did hurt me, but my left eye was already gone.
He was not responsible for that,” Trinh explained.10
Wahlberg later expressed his relief at learning this fact.12
The pardon process did facilitate a moment of direct reconciliation.
Wahlberg was able to meet with Trinh, his wife, and his daughter to apologize in person for his “horrific acts”.12
This meeting was a tangible outcome of the otherwise failed pardon campaign, providing a measure of personal closure between the perpetrator and one of his victims.
Kristyn Atwood: A Steadfast Opposition
In stark contrast to Trinh’s forgiveness stands the unwavering opposition of Kristyn Atwood, a victim of the 1986 rock-throwing incident.
When Wahlberg’s pardon request became public, Atwood spoke out, insisting that his crimes should not be erased from the record.
“I don’t think he should get a pardon,” she stated unequivocally in an interview with the Associated Press.5
Atwood’s opposition is rooted in her belief that the racial motivation of the attack is an indelible part of the crime that must not be forgotten or forgiven through a legal maneuver.
“It was a hate crime and that’s exactly what should be on his record forever,” she said.5
She expressed deep skepticism about the possibility of genuine change, adding, “I don’t really care who he Is. It doesn’t make him any exception.
If you’re a racist, you’re always going to be a racist”.5
Her perspective ensures that the narrative of redemption is not universally accepted and highlights the lasting trauma inflicted upon the victims of his first documented hate crime.
Thanh Lam: An Enduring Silence
The most conspicuous voice in this entire saga is the one that has never been heard.
Thanh Lam, the man who was beaten unconscious with a wooden stick and hospitalized, has never spoken publicly about the 1988 assault.
Multiple major news organizations, including the Associated Press, made efforts to locate him for comment during the pardon debate but were unsuccessful.5
This absence creates a profound and unresolvable void at the very heart of Wahlberg’s redemption narrative.
While Trinh’s forgiveness is significant, it comes from the victim who was less severely injured.
The perspective of the man who suffered the most brutal violence remains entirely unknown.
Without his voice, any declaration of complete atonement or full reconciliation is inherently presumptive and incomplete.
Wahlberg cannot claim to have made amends with the person he harmed the most, because that person has never been in a public position to grant or deny forgiveness.
This silence is not a neutral element; it is a powerful, defining feature of the entire story, a permanent question mark hanging over any claim of closure.
Section 7: Legacy and Lingering Questions: Celebrity, Atonement, and the Permanence of the Past
The decades-long story of Mark Wahlberg’s crimes and their aftermath serves as a compelling case study in the complex interplay of justice, celebrity, and public memory.
The trajectory from his incarceration to his failed pardon attempt raises enduring questions about the nature of accountability and the possibility of true redemption in the public eye.
The Double-Edged Sword of Celebrity Justice
A central question is whether Wahlberg’s fame helped or hindered his cause.
On one hand, some involved in the process believed his celebrity made him a target for unfair scrutiny.
Mike Albano, a member of the Governor’s Council in Massachusetts, argued that if Wahlberg’s name were “Mark Smith,” a pardon would have been an uncontroversial matter for a youthful offender who had clearly rehabilitated himself and contributed significantly to his community.3
From this perspective, his fame created a political hurdle that an ordinary citizen would not have faced.
Conversely, it was precisely his celebrity that amplified the story, drew intense scrutiny to his pardon application, and ultimately mobilized the opposition that led to its failure.4
His fame gave a platform to his victims and critics, ensuring their voices were heard on a national stage.
This public accountability continues to follow him.
In 2023, his selection to present a Screen Actors Guild award to the predominantly Asian cast of the film
Everything Everywhere All at Once sparked widespread criticism on social media, demonstrating that his past hate crimes remain a sensitive and easily resurrected part of his public identity.8
The Contested Nature of Atonement
The entire saga highlights a fundamental conflict over the definition of atonement.
Wahlberg’s narrative, presented in his pardon application and interviews, centers on personal transformation, religious faith, philanthropic work, and serving as a role model.4
In his view, he has spent decades “righting the wrong” through good deeds.
However, critics argue that this form of redemption is insufficient because it has largely avoided a direct and sustained confrontation with the specific racial animus of his crimes.8
This raises a crucial question: Is turning one’s life around sufficient atonement for a hate crime, or does true atonement require a specific and ongoing engagement with anti-racism? The former prosecutor, Judith Beals, and activist Jamarhl Crawford argued that Wahlberg had never truly acknowledged the racist element of his crimes, a failure that invalidated his plea for redemption.4
One Vietnamese American community leader, Nam Pham, even suggested a more fitting form of atonement would be for Wahlberg to use his platform to create a film that directly addresses the themes of race, reconciliation, and brotherhood in Boston.25
The Indelible Record in a Digital Age
Wahlberg’s story is a powerful illustration of the permanence of the legal and digital record.
His failure to secure a pardon means the conviction for a violent hate crime remains on his official record, a specific outcome his victim Kristyn Atwood fought for.5
In the internet era, court documents, news articles, and victim testimonies are perpetually accessible, ensuring that his past actions are never truly in the past.
They are subject to constant re-litigation in the court of public opinion, a reality that even A-list celebrity status cannot erase.14
Wahlberg’s own perspective appears to have evolved.
He transitioned from actively seeking to expunge his record in 2014 to expressing regret for that decision by 2016, claiming it was an unnecessary and painful revisiting of his past.21
This shift may suggest a move from a desire for legal absolution to a pragmatic acceptance of his indelible history.
Conclusion
Mark Wahlberg’s 45 days in jail were the direct result of a violent, racially motivated assault that was itself the culmination of a documented pattern of hate-based crimes.
The legal system’s decision to convict him as an adult was predicated on his flagrant violation of a prior civil rights injunction, transforming the 1988 attack from an isolated incident into an act of criminal contempt against the court.
Ultimately, the story of Mark Wahlberg’s incarceration and its aftermath serves as a powerful case study in the limits of celebrity influence and the complexities of public forgiveness in the modern era.
He successfully transformed his personal life and built an enormously successful career, but he could not transform public memory or unilaterally dictate the terms of his own redemption.
The failed pardon attempt demonstrates that while the justice system can provide a sentence and a form of legal closure, it cannot mandate reconciliation.
In an age of accessible information, a narrative of atonement is not solely the perpetrator’s to write.
It is co-authored by the victims who choose to speak, by the critics who demand a fuller accounting, and by the public that weighs the evidence.
With one victim offering forgiveness, another steadfastly opposing it, and the most severely injured party remaining silent, the story lacks a clean resolution.
It remains a contested space, a testament to the enduring weight of history and the collective, often fractured, nature of memory.
Mark Wahlberg paid his debt to society as defined by the court, but the broader debt owed to the individuals he harmed and the communities he targeted remains a subject of permanent public debate.
Works cited
- Mark Wahlberg seeks pardon for 1988 assaults – Corrections1, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.corrections1.com/arrests-and-sentencing/articles/mark-wahlberg-seeks-pardon-for-1988-assaults-OR8yOXtOzhhfjN2N/
- Mark Wahlberg Seeks Pardon For 1988 Assaults In Dorchester – CBS News, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/mark-wahlberg-seeks-pardon-for-1988-assaults/
- The Reconciliation Of Mark Wahlberg | GBH – WGBH, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.wgbh.org/culture/2017-01-12/the-reconciliation-of-mark-wahlberg
- Mark Wahlberg’s pardon appeal relies on good he does in Dot | Dorchester Reporter, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.dotnews.com/2014/wahlberg-begs-our-pardon-appeal-relies-good-he-does-dot
- Mark Wahlberg harassment victim says actor should not be pardoned – The Guardian, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/jan/20/mark-wahlberg-racism-pardon
- Mark Wahlberg victim in 1980s assault doesn’t think he should receive pardon | CBC News, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/mark-wahlberg-victim-in-1980s-assault-doesn-t-think-he-should-receive-pardon-1.2919209
- Mark Wahlberg victim says he shouldn’t be pardoned – CBS News, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mark-wahlberg-victim-says-he-shouldnt-be-pardoned/
- Mark Wahlberg and SAG Awards criticized for actor presenting award to Asian cast after committing hate crimes – CBS News, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mark-wahlberg-sag-award-everything-everywhere-all-at-once-criticized-presenting-asian-cast-hate-crimes/
- Mark Walhberg’s Atonement: A Follow-Up | GBH – WGBH, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.wgbh.org/culture/2017-01-03/mark-walhbergs-atonement-a-follow-up
- Mark Wahlberg assault victim: ‘Everyone deserves another chance’ – The Guardian, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/dec/11/mark-wahlberg-1988-assault-victim-pardon
- Forgive Mark Wahlberg’s Cinematic Crimes, If You Like—But Not His Real Ones, accessed August 8, 2025, https://time.com/3623630/mark-wahlberg-pardon/
- Mark Wahlberg Is Sorry He Requested a Pardon for His Teenage Assault Conviction, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/news/a48588/mark-wahlberg-assault-conviction-pardon-request/
- Should Mark Wahlberg Be Pardoned? | Boulder Attorney Steven Louth, accessed August 8, 2025, https://stevenlouth.com/mark-wahlberg-pardoned/
- Mark Wahlberg racist hate crimes: The full list of actor’s racially motivated attacks, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/mark-wahlberg-racist-hate-crimes-wikipedia-history-george-floyd-blm-protests-a9554191.html
- Mark Wahlberg and the Long Term Consequences of Juvenile Records, accessed August 8, 2025, https://jlc.org/news/mark-wahlberg-and-long-term-consequences-juvenile-records
- Mark Wahlberg, accessed August 8, 2025, https://time.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/wahlberg.pdf
- Victim supports Wahlberg pardon – YouTube, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-azi3dlt1Qc
- Victims of one of Mark Wahlberg’s racially motivated attacks as a teenage delinquent in 1980s Boston – YouTube, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wibt-yvilio
- Victims of one of Mark Wahlberg’s racially motivated attacks as a teenage delinquent in 1980s Boston – YouTube, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMfu1641x9o
- Collateral consequences and the curious case of Mark Wahlberg, accessed August 8, 2025, https://ccresourcecenter.org/2014/12/06/collateral-consequences-pardon-case-mark-wahlberg/
- Mark Wahlberg Now ‘Regrets’ Pardon Request for Teenage Assault …, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.thewrap.com/mark-wahlberg-now-regrets-pardon-request-for-teenage-assault-conviction/
- Mark Wahlberg requests pardon for 1980s assault conviction – The Guardian, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/dec/05/mark-wahlberg-seeks-pardon-assault-conviction-prison
- Mark Wahlberg Says He Regrets Applying For Pardon – CBS News, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/mark-wahlberg-pardon-regrets-application/
- Mark Wahlberg’s Prosecutor Says He Shouldn’t Be Pardoned For Youth Crime, accessed August 8, 2025, https://time.com/3668851/mark-wahlbergs-prosecutor-says-he-shouldnt-be-pardoned-for-youth-crime/
- The reconciliation of Mark Wahlberg – The World from PRX, accessed August 8, 2025, https://theworld.org/stories/2017/01/11/wahlberg
- Mark Wahlberg’s Request for Assault Pardon Dropped | Entertainment Tonight, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.etonline.com/news/198173_mark_wahlberg_s_request_for_assault_pardon_dropped
- The Dark Story of Mark Wahlberg – YouTube, accessed August 8, 2025, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2-I9W7uaaXg&pp=ygUJI21vam9tYXJj
