Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktThere’s a localish murder trial that’s been getting a lot of attention due to the nature of the crime and those involved.
Basically, an on-again, off-again relationship between two rich attractive UVA athletes ended with him beating her to death.
You can read about the trail here.
He was convicted of 2nd degree murder and I’m pissed about it. The jury decided that he didn’t mean to beat her to death. Just beat her. He received 25 years for the murder charge and 1 year for stealing her laptop after the fact. (I don’t remember why he did that). They opted for 2nd degree instead of 1st degree (life in prison) because of the intent. Granted, I was following this mostly through radio broadcast updates when the alarm when off in the morning or on the ride home from work, so I don’t know all the details. But my concern is more general anyway.
How is kicking in a door and beating your girlfriend to death, if you went there just to rough her up, any different that waiting for a shot at 500 yards with a scoped rifle?
In my opinion, there isn’t one. Not any meaningful one anyway. He wanted to hurt her and his actions resulted in her death. I don’t understand why his intent is somehow a mitigating factor. The intent was to cause harm.
I’m sure I’m missing something here.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
“I’m sure I’m missing something here.”
State of intoxication and premeditation.
Also, she was alive when he left, so he didn’t “beat her to death”. She died later due to internal bleeding from the head wound. He thought she was still alive when he was arrested the following day (while still drunk).
All things, considered I think the jury got it correct. It wasn’t a first degree planned murder and neither was it manslaughter.
LikeLike
I don’t think the premeditation should make a difference
LikeLike
nova:
Suppose she hadn’t died. Should he receive the same punishment as first degree murder? If the intent ought not mitigate the action, why should the result?
LikeLike
“I don’t think the premeditation should make a difference”
Then you aren’t talking about first degree murder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder
LikeLike
Isn’t the result the important factor?
“Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an “abandoned and malignant heart”),”
seems like that would apply here.
LikeLike
“novahockey, on February 24, 2012 at 9:30 am said:
Isn’t the result the important factor?
“Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an “abandoned and malignant heart”),”
seems like that would apply here.”
To go back to your example, there’s a pretty obvious difference between what Hugely did and “waiting for a shot at 500 yards with a scoped rifle”.
From a English common law perspective, the result is only one factor (“Actus reus”). Equally important in deciding between degrees (First Degree, Second Degree, Manslaughter) is the state of mind (“Mens rea”).
Otherwise, all car accidents that result in a death would be first degree murder.
LikeLike
“is the state of mind”
but the state of mind in those examples are the same. intentionally harming the victim. that’s not the case in an accident.
LikeLike
“intentionally harming the victim.” is not the same as “intentionally killing the victim”.
Also, are you arguing that the jury misread the 2nd degree Murder statute as it stands currently in handing down the sentence, or that the statute itself should be changed to reflect what you argue for?
LikeLike
NoVA, I understand the frustration. The way the law parses different events in which a death occurs can sometimes make me scream, “Goddammit, don’t you get it? She’s DEAD!”
Over the years, however, I’m grateful that these parsings exist. They are not perfect in all cases, but it creates a framework in which both prosecution and defense get a chance to make the jury think about what they decide and why.
Many moons ago, I came very close to being put on a jury in which a well-known local gang member was accused of first degree murder for ordering someone killed. I frequently wonder whether I’d feel differently now if I had been on that jury.
In lighter news, WaPo has rolled out a new feature, Personal Post. I laugh at WaPo mgmt’s continued inability to get a clue.
LikeLike
msjs:
In lighter news, WaPo has rolled out a new feature, Personal Post.
What is that?
LikeLike
Looks like I’m advocating for a change in law. He started a series of events — intentionally started — that resulted in her death.
Put it this way, I don’t take much solace in this in this verdict, b/c the jury basically said, “yes, he killed her. but he didn’t mean to. he only want to beat her senseless.” I know its not, but ut it seems like excusing it.
msjs hits on what i’m talking about. I’m curious as to what you mean by your change in position.
LikeLike
He was convicted of 2nd degree murder and I’m pissed about it. The jury decided that he didn’t mean to beat her to death. Just beat her.
I knew someone in that circumstance, and when you know the person who did the terrible deed, it’s difficult to be objective. However, (in the case I am familiar with) he clearly had a violent streak, he clearly knew that when he got drunk he got violent, and new that was a “bad thing” because he went through a lot to keep it concealed . . . I dunno. He was a good guy, fundamentally, with a really bad defect in a couple of critical areas. He got 25 years in prison, on 2nd degree murder.
At the same time, I don’t have any doubt that if the dude I knew had been a teetotaler, nobody would have ended up dead. When you’re really, really angry at somebody about something, consuming chemicals that suppress your inhibitions is a very bad idea. I expect, in the case above, heavy intoxication made the difference between life and death, too.
The case in both nature and outcome sounds extremely similar to the one I’m personally familiar with, and when you know the person, and their parents, and their friends . . . it feels like it should be cut and dried, but it isn’t. In these cases, it turns out the person (+ alcohol) is a bit of a Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde, and you normally only see the kind Dr. Jeckyl. And it’s hard to wrap your head around the fact that this guy did this. And I don’t know about the jurors, but I know if you personally know the person, it’s hard not to think of the drunk-violent person as someone who is almost a physically different, separate person from the sober, friendly person you know. Thus it can be hard to feel there is no distinction between murder with intent, and drunken, intoxicated, alternate-personality violence by that part of that person you rarely, or never, see. And they often come across on the stand as someone this happened to, rather than someone who did this terrible thing, because they aren’t getting pissed off and super-drunk before they get on the stand.
LikeLike
He started a series of events — intentionally started — that resulted in her death.
But he didn’t plan to kill her. Which is the distinction between first and second degree murder. A drunk driver frequently knowingly starts a chain of events that ends up with someone dead, but I don’t believe that’s ever prosecuted as 1st degree murder.
LikeLike
Nova, let’s say Person X is my best friend, and I find out Person X is sleeping with my girlfriend. I’m angry, and end up confronting Person X on the street. Person X says something smartass, and I punch Person X in the mouth. Person X stumbles backwards into the street, which is something I could have foreseen but I wasn’t thinking that far in advance, just as a bus is speeding by, and—bang! Person X is dead.
Should that be first degree murder?
LikeLike
“Should that be first degree murder?”
100% yes. You hit him. He died. You had no right to hit him.
I suppose I’m making a distinction between manslaughter and murder, but not within murder. but in this case, the cause of death was not accidental. it was the punch that caused the death, not the bus.
LikeLike
nova:
100% yes. You hit him. He died. You had no right to hit him.
So you don’t think intent should matter in the slightest?
LikeLike
I think being on a jury that gets shown the horrors of gang activity, including conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism on US soil on behalf of a foreign country, couldn’t not change you.
I can envision a scenario in which the difference between wanting someone knocked senseless and wanting someone dead, when the outcome is in fact death, might mean very little to me personally if I’d been on that gang leader’s jury and subjected to weeks of horrific testimony.
I didn’t follow the case you’re referring to, NoVA, but I understand that the jurors were initially split on the murderer’s intentions. In the end, the ‘less malice’ faction won out, hence the 2nd degree conviction.
LikeLike
ScottC, read about Personal Post here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ask-the-post/post/introducing-personal-post/2012/02/23/gIQAhkpVXR_blog.html
If you’re a registered Post user and have been on the site recently, you’ll be able to opt in to allow us to use the articles you’ve read in the past to build your stream – an affirmative authentication step that protects your privacy. Or, if you’re new to The Post, haven’t been back in a while or don’t want to opt in to use your reading history to build your stream, you can choose to use a handful of starter streams as a jumping-off point to create your Personal Post. These streams offer different collections of content, whether you’re a reader in the Washington area and can’t get enough of Capital Weather Gang and D.C. sports teams, or part of our growing national audience that comes to The Post for deep insight into politics, national security and the economy.
Note that it doesn’t fix any of the existing problems, some of which have been around for just shy of a year now (the Methode cutover was mid-March 2011).
LikeLike
msjs:
Thanks.
LikeLike
I think the intent question should be — did he mean to do harm?
If yes, I don’t see the reason that someone should receive a lesser sentence.
LikeLike
nova:
I think the intent question should be — did he mean to do harm?
So, just to be clear, you see no reason why the state should distinguish between say, a guy who gets in a bar fight over a girl, throws a drunken punch and through a freak series of events, ends up killing the guy he punched, and another guy who spends 6 months meticulously planning a method of slowly poisoning his wife to death in order to collect insurance money?
If you think the state should not draw a distinction, then perhaps we should discuss the purpose of criminal punishment.
LikeLike
OT – comment from my friend and client at NYT re: Dr. Paul.
Tom DavisAustin, TexasNYT Pick
I met Ron Paul in 1971, I think.
Being an old time surfer back in the 60’s and 70’s (our surfboards were almost 10 feet long!) We used to drive to Surfside or Galveston, Texas with our nine and 10 foot boards to surf at the one of the beaches. No one in my surfing group knew Ron Paul from Adam but fate put us together with him on a Sunday afternoon. My friend, David, lost his board (fell off) near a jetty in Galveston. The board flipped high in the air and came crashing down upon his head. David, staggered to the beach and yelled for help. As we ran toward him we saw blood running down his face and a very large hole in the bridge of his nose. We carried David him to our van, threw him in and headed for the nearest hospital, UT Medical Center, I think. The emergency lobby was mostly deserted except for a grumpy nurse and constantly smiling young doctor. The doctor, I believe, was Ron Paul. A short haircut and little ears that stuck out like little wings. The giggling laugh was evident then. We were covered in David’s blood, cold, and freaked out. This young emergency doctor joked the whole time while informing us of David’s prognosis. The grumpy nurse never smiled, seemed bored with the Ron Paul’s jokes, and mumbled something(s) about surfers and drugs. Doctor Paul ignored her mumbles, stitched up David’s nose, giggled the whole time and charged us $30. David recovered and I have never forgotten the experience. Good doctor, crazy laugh, and weird politics.
Feb. 7, 2012 at 9:44 a.m.RECOMMENDED12
LikeLike
I don’t see a difference from the victim’s perspective. other than the state valuing one life more than another. As a surviving family member this would infuriate me.
LikeLike
nova:
I don’t see a difference from the victim’s perspective…
I agree. But from the victim’s perspective, there is no difference between an intent to harm and no intent to harm. Dead is dead. Also, from the victim’s perspective, there is as little difference between life in prison and 25 years as there is between the intent to kill and the intent to stop the guy from hitting on his girlfriend. Again, dead is dead. So I don’t think the victim’s perspective is that relevant.
…other than the state valuing one life more than another.
Well, that is why I said we would need to talk about the purpose of criminal punishment, and I don’t think that purpose is to convey how much the state “values” something.
LikeLike
“So I don’t think the victim’s perspective is that relevant.”
I was thinking from the survivors’ standpoint, but otherwise take your point.
“the purpose of criminal punishment” — this is probably beyond “preventing vigilante justice?
LikeLike
nova:
this is probably beyond “preventing vigilante justice?
I think so. Laws against vigilantism are used to prevent vigilantism.
Deterrence is the main purpose, I think, both of the immediate perpetrator and the more general population. And, as regards deterrence, intent and planning would seem to me to play a significant role. I suspect the potential punishment for killing someone would play a greater role in the decision making process of someone who is planning on poisoning his wife for insurance money than it will play for someone who is trying to stop a guy in the bar from hitting on his girlfriend and, in fact, isn’t even contemplating killing the guy. If so, it makes more sense for the former to carry a greater punishment than the latter.
LikeLike
Takes us all back to the mens rea days of 1st year Crim Pro
LikeLike
“Takes us all back to the mens rea days of 1st year Crim Pro”
I’m assuming I’m getting an F here, right?
LikeLike
“I suspect the potential punishment for killing someone would play a greater role in the decision making process of someone who is planning on poisoning his wife for insurance money than it will play for someone who is trying to stop a guy in the bar from hitting on his girlfriend”
I wonder if it does though. anyway, taking a position opposite the usual side has been fun. and exhausting.
LikeLike
WAPO piece about this trial illustrating why jury trial is the worst possible honest system of jurisprudence:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/george-huguely-jury-saw-a-limit-to-his-malice/2012/02/23/gIQAJ3spWR_story.html?hpid=z4
LikeLike
“By the end of nine hours of discussion Wednesday, the seven men and five women concluded that Huguely, 24, had acted maliciously but that he hadn’t kicked through her locked bedroom door intending to kill her, which could have sent him to prison for life.”
Questions for the lawyers … assume I’m on the jury, and when it’s my turn to speak I say: “I really don’t care what he intended .. I think he should get life” Is that a problem, ground for appeal?
LikeLike
I think it was more of a problem that the one juror started talking about his own alcohol experiences and estimates of recovery in the deliberations. In my state, that would be a no-no.
LikeLike
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/02/george_huguely_convicted_of_second_degree_murder_in_yeardley_love_case_how_the_jury_decided_.html
interview with the jury foreman
LikeLike
“novahockey, on February 24, 2012 at 2:28 pm said: Edit Comment
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/02/george_huguely_convicted_of_second_degree_murder_in_yeardley_love_case_how_the_jury_decided_.html
interview with the jury foreman”
It’s a good interview and shows that they took the jury instructions seriously. Here’s your explanation on why this is second degree, not first degree murder:
“Having eliminated voluntary manslaughter, the jury also eliminated first-degree murder on the grounds that his threatening email to Love “was not enough proof to indicate it was premeditated.”
Nor did the jury believe Huguely was too drunk to know what he was doing, which ruled out involuntary manslaughter. Though he admitted to drinking heavily during the day and witnesses painted a picture of a sodden Huguely hitting the links with his father earlier that morning, “No one took a blood alcohol level [test], that we saw in the evidence,” Gruia says. Moreover, the jury saw copies of text messages he sent after he’d been to Love’s apartment that night. “Those texts were legible and coherent. He wasn’t passed out. He wasn’t blacked out. He was with it. And while yes, alcohol may have made him heightened in terms of his emotional state, it didn’t incapacitate him from the ability to call someone for help or get help.
“It could have ended very differently if he had compassion,” Gruia says.
Hence, second-degree murder.”
LikeLike