So this Aryan gets a mistrial on an open/shut case. A classroom with witnesses how can there be any doubt that it was anything but first degree?
Mistrial In Gay Hate-Killing Case
- Thread starter MA-Caver
- Start date
Nomad
Master Black Belt
If this had been an adult committing the identical crime, there would be no doubt of the outcome. I think the difficulty here is that the shooter was 15, and was being tried as an adult. I could understand that many people would balk at convicting someone his age of 1st degree murder, even under these circumstances.
Note that the jurors agreed on his guilt; where they disagreed on was the "degree of his guilt"; in other words, whether he can be held fully culpable for the crime.
Note that the jurors agreed on his guilt; where they disagreed on was the "degree of his guilt"; in other words, whether he can be held fully culpable for the crime.
True.
I am personally not a fan of this acceleration of punishment...(I mean, I am sure they didn't give him a nudy magazine and a smoke...)
Twin Fist
Grandmaster
no one said he wasnt guilty, they said he didnt deserve a 1st degree muder conviction at 15
I don't see why not. If you're grown up enough to premeditatedly shoot someone in the head, you're grown up enough to hang in my book {that'll be my 'in favour of the death penalty when there is no doubt' side coming through there 
}.
}.I don't see why not. If you're grown up enough to premeditatedly shoot someone in the head, you're grown up enough to hang in my book {that'll be my 'in favour of the death penalty when there is no doubt' side coming through there
well, it's an ethical principle:
There are much more benign things that the state deems young people incapable of handling at a young age: smoking, drinking, sex ad there are really no exceptions to the rule. You get caught, you do time.
On the other side there is the assumption that because the crime was bad enough, the person is also mature enough to face 'adult' punishment. I doubt they give him a smoke and a drink though. Reeks of vengeance to me.
In most jurisdictions, a finding of first-degree homicide has to be supported by the terms 'willful' and 'premeditated'. That basically means that the killer intended to kill and that he or she planned the event. The defense in this case appears to have argued that the homicide was intentional, but that the cause was sudden emotional stress and not premeditation. A more common example of that would be a man who comes home to find his wife in bed with someone else and kills her 'in the heat of passion'. In other words, he intended to kill her, but did not make a plan to come home, discover the infidelity, and then kill her; it just happened that way.
One must also remember that the prosecution must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury. If a jury member has a doubt - a reasonable doubt - as to the intent or the premeditation, then they must vote to acquit or for a lesser included offense if that is an option in the case (as it appears it was here). These are the instructions given to juries in the USA everywhere, and quite common in a system that requires the prosecution prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt such as ours.
One might also consider that in California, the death penalty can be applied to first-degree murder convictions; and not to second-degree murder convictions. Although it should not influence jury members, if the death penalty had not been previously removed from the table, a juror or jurors may have felt hesitant to find for first-degree knowing that the result could end up with a death penalty being awarded. I'm not saying it's right, just saying it's a possibility.
I think it is also important to remember that this is a mistrial. The boy does not walk free. Since no verdict was returned, double-jeopardy does not attach; the prosecution is free to (and will most definitely) refile charges. They may go for something they know they can get such as second-degree murder the next time around, or they may attempt to argue their case differently or simply take their chances with a fresh jury.
But the simple fact that the shooter walked up behind the victim and shot him point-blank in the head does not prove either intent nor planning by itself, although it would be hard to argue against intent (and indeed, the defense accepted that the element of intent had been proven).
It may seem an open-and-shut case, but by our legal standards, it's not.
