I’m not saying I’m certain that there aren’t mitigating factors in the mental stability of the defendant. But we passed laws which protect rape victims from certain defenses. Obviously accepting a mitigation defense based upon “unwanted sexual advances” allegedly made by the victim is to basically justify the killing of a homosexual. Period. We would not accept such a defense from a woman facing unwanted sexual advances from a man, no matter what her sexual preference and no matter how boorish the advances.
Seven jurors were willing to go there.
The abuse from his father should be admissible. Other factors about his mental stability. But the victims sexual advances, real or imagined, should not be deemed relevant to any mitigation defense. My opinion.
12 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 2, 2011 at 4:34 am
Anonymous
Ah but some say women’s panic attacks are more frequent, allowing the release of emotions. Men on the other hand, have less of them leading to to more intense panic attacks. More intense, leads to less control.
September 2, 2011 at 7:13 am
Mitch
Eric, IANAL. Can you help me understand this?
“The nine-woman, three-man panel said they took a series of votes with the last one being seven in favor of voluntary manslaughter, while five others supported either first-degree or second-degree murder.”
Logically, doesn’t that mean the defendant is convicted of voluntary manslaughter but may be retried for murder? Or does it mean the defendant is not convicted of anything?
September 2, 2011 at 8:21 am
Eric Kirk
Not convicted of anything. You need 12 jurors to decide anything. Otherwise, murder could not be obtained in another trial. Double jeopardy.
September 2, 2011 at 8:47 am
Fred Mangels
Mitch wrote, “Logically, doesn’t that mean the defendant is convicted of voluntary manslaughter but may be retried for murder?“.
It should and that makes sense to me. Seems to me if the jury just disagrees on the severity of the offense- not guilt or innocence- it would be fair enough to simply allow conviction on the lesser offense.
That’s what I felt should have happened with the Casey Anthony case, although the factors involved in that case weren’t the same. All but one juror voted for acquittal at the beginning of deliberations in that case so not quite the same.
The jury procedure got screwed up in that case, as far as I’m concerned. In this case it was maybe a case of the jury not being allowed to reach a fair verdict? I’m not sure exactly how it works. Maybe they screwed that up in the jury room, too, by them feeling they couldn’t just agree to convict on the lesser offense?
I’m sure it depends a lot on the judge’s instructions to the jury.
September 2, 2011 at 8:57 am
Bruce Ross
People who shoot other people in the back of the head deserve to be put away for first-degree murder in nearly all circumstances.
That said, a 14-year-old boy wearing high heels and makeup and flirting with other boys in the halls at a junior high school … oy. I’m all for tolerance, but that’s a situation that’s going to end badly.
September 2, 2011 at 10:37 am
Mitch
“oy. I’m all for tolerance, but that’s a situation that’s going to end badly”
Why? Aren’t all students entitled to feel safe while receiving a public education?
Perhaps you are concerned that the 14 year old boys feelings will be hurt when his flirtatiousness is rejected?
September 2, 2011 at 11:07 pm
Sally
I find it very sad, and disturbing, that the jury could not come to an agreement. The young man was obviously shot, from behind, in a pre-meditated manner. Who cares if the victim “wore makeup and high heels” and tried to “flirt” with classmates. During my years in California public schools, beginning in the 1960′s, my elementary school had “special ed” for children who were deaf. We sort of had ESL, but it wasn’t really “mainstream” then. We *did* have plenty of “bullies” (and bully-ettes), who were apparently girls and boys from broken homes, who had no real guidance, and these kids routinely weighed 30 pounds or more than their peers, and were at least a head taller than the rest of us. They would kick your ass at tether ball, or kickball. Often, they had been “flunked” a grade or two, so not only were they “bigger”; they were also “older”. Most of these poor kids were also really pissed off that they had been “flunked”, and since they had so little parental support, they were extra mean.
September 2, 2011 at 11:12 pm
Sally
I feel so bad for the young man who was murdered. The kid who shot him is probably very sick, and needs a lot of help…. but getting off scott-free for murder is not the way to go, in my opinion.
September 2, 2011 at 11:50 pm
Bruce Ross
Mitch,
What ought to be and what in fact is in the real world are often two different things. If you don’t think that’s going to be a difficult situation, all I can say is, Gosh, do you remember junior high school?
September 3, 2011 at 6:46 am
Mitch
Bruce,
I understand what you’re saying. There’s just something in the statement that sounds odd to me. At the risk of causing offense to people, let me try a substitution for you — I realize it is not exact:
(1) a 14-year-old girl wearing purdah in the halls at a junior high school and refusing to speak with boys… oy. I’m all for tolerance, but that’s a situation that’s going to end badly.
Yes, in many American junior high schools, a 14 year old boy is going to be shunned for wearing makeup and high heels, and if he tries flirting, there’s going to be an awful lot of mean-spirited comments flung at him. And if the case being discussed were one where he’d been pushed away, or someone had called him a “fucking faggot,” I can understand a reaction like “oy, I’m all for tolerance, but that’s a situation that’s going to end badly.” Maybe even if he’d been pushed into a wall.
But when discussing someone who has been killed, “oy, that was bound to end badly” sounds wrong, perhaps irresponsible, and, to my ears, insensitive and beyond. It makes me wonder (especially given the “I’m all for tolerance” part) whether it is not just acknowledging reality but going beyond that to suggest that the current reality is not so off-base.
Imagine a black 14 year old boy integrating a school in the 1960′s south and flirting with a white girl. I can just hear some Southerners saying “I’m all for tolerance, but that’s a situation that’s going to end badly.” (When I do the thought experiment, I always end up adding a self-satisfied good-old-boy chuckle.) The Southerners would be correct, but their phrasing would suggest that the problem, in part, was due to the black boy’s flirtatiousness, when the problem was due 100% to the injustices of their society.
In the case I describe above, a statement that would strike me as more a propos would be along the lines of, “Wow, that was one brave boy. Why weren’t the adults doing their job? They had to know that bastard quarterback would be stirring up a nasty reaction.”
September 3, 2011 at 6:49 am
Mitch
Oh, and thanks, Eric, for the double jeopardy explanation. It still leaves me with a chill thinking that, if the prosecutors only charge voluntary manslaughter on a retrial, another jury might refuse to convict entirely.
September 3, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Bruce Ross
Sorry if it sounds wrong to you. As I said, to me this is an open-and-shut murder charge.
But the obvious difficulty of the situation — considering the emotional maturity, impulse control and natural cruelty of your typical junior-high school boys — goes a long way to explain the verdict.
Not saying it’s right, just how the world is — or at least how junior high was, in my recollection.