1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Murder or manslaughter? Jail time or a suspended sentence? You decide.

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by Double J, Jan 18, 2007.

  1. Double J

    Double J Active Member

    In this case, a fed-up father whose 16-year-old daughter was addicted to drugs, including morphine, blew away her boyfriend/dealer.

    The judge has already ruled that the jury must find him guilty of either first- or second-degree murder or manslaughter -- acquittal is not an option.

    Based on the summarization presented in the story linked below, what would be your verdict? What would be your sentence?

  2. Someone in Canuckistan is going to have to explain how a judge can specifically tell a jury not to acquit someone.
    Down here, that would be grounds of appeal from jump. Jury nullification against the rules up north?
    (Manslaughter's my vote, given the options.)
  3. Columbo

    Columbo Active Member

    Stipulating that I might have very well done the same thing, that looks like first-degree murder to me.

    And judges toss verdicts in the states. Same principle.
  4. slappy4428

    slappy4428 Active Member

    Same principle doesn't mean it's allowed
  5. Columbo

    Columbo Active Member

    A judge tossing a not guilty verdict IS the same principle as telling a jury beforehand that innocence is not an option.

    What the fuck do you mean by "not allowed"?
  6. heyabbott

    heyabbott Well-Known Member

    Guilty 1st degree murder. Sentence 1 day, time served
  7. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    Interesting case. I wonder what would happen if the jury came out and said, "Screw you, judge. We find him not guilty."
  8. Flying Headbutt

    Flying Headbutt Moderator Staff Member

    While I certainly understand why the guy did it, do we want vigilante justice running rampant? I mean look what happened to that Connecticut lawyer who killed the guy who supposedly molested his two-year-old, only he didn't.

    On the one hand I say give him manslaughter with a very light sentence, hell give him a medal for ridding us of a drug dealer. But on the other, what sort of precedent does that set, especially if the wrong guy gets it?
  9. Double J

    Double J Active Member

    What would happen? The members of the jury would probably be cited for contempt of court and a mistrial would most likely be declared.

    Why the dad's lawyer didn't go for a temporary insanity defence here is beyond me. He had a much better chance of walking than with a justifiable homicide defence.

    By the way, I looked into the various punishments for homicide in Canada. In many cases, manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death don't carry minimum sentences like murder beefs do. But when a firearm is used, a conviction for manslaughter or crim neg causing death results in a mandatory sentence of at least four years in a federal penitentiary. And, because it's a mandatory sentence set out in statute law, I don't believe the judge would have the power to suspend it.
  10. EStreetJoe

    EStreetJoe Well-Known Member

    I'd want to give him manslaughter, but the evidence says I have to give him first-degree murder.
    Agree with you Double J, his lawyer should have gone with the temporary instanity defense. Can the father appeal on grounds of incompitent representation and try to get it overturned on temporary insanity?
  11. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    I agree the guy is guilty of a crime but as a juror, I would have a problem with a judge telling me I had to find a guy guilty.

    Now, if the judge wants to say to look at the evidence and strictly follow the law, etc., etc., but to say I have to find him guilty is just wrong.

    If I were on the juror it seriously would make me more likely to acquit the guy.
  12. Killick

    Killick Well-Known Member

    Reason the judge is telling them they cannot come back with a not guilty verdict is the guy ADMITS HE SHOT THE KID. How're you gonna come back with a not guilty verdict?
    I come back with a first degree rap -- that seemed to be an awfully short road to "I guess my only recourse is to kill the kid," and five shots... suggests to me the intent was to kill, not just protect his daughter. Also not buying the vague memory defense ("defence").
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page