NationStates Jolt Archive

He thought he was with a woman. Turns out it was a man. Killed him in a rage. Was the sentence fair?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170954,00.html

I guess. But maybe 5-10 years would have been fairier. But 4 years is fair enough. IT's perfectly voluntary manslaughter, and the punishment fits the crime.

Umm...no. Lock the fucker up for 20-30.

Huh, well, if "gay panic" was what made him kill the person, prison should be a REAL fun place for him.

I can understand being upset. I can understand beating the crap out of the guy. Maybe the victim would die from the beating, then 4 years would be justified But this defendant stabbed the victim 20 times. He knew he was going to kill the victim. 4 years is a little too light.

Wait...wait...wait.

He decieved an obviously heterosexual man, into having sex with him, without consent.

Sounds like Rape to me.

Fair punishment. Harsh, but fair.

Wait...wait...wait.

He decieved an obviously heterosexual man, into having sex with him, without consent.

Sounds like Rape to me.

Fair punishment. Harsh, but fair.
Except it isn't rape. Have a nice day. At most you're talking fraud, which is a tort, not a crime.

The Man was violated sexually.

If YOU were violated sexually by another guy, you'd be PRETTY pissed

Wait...wait...wait.

He decieved an obviously heterosexual man, into having sex with him, without consent.

Sounds like Rape to me.

Fair punishment. Harsh, but fair.

Ridiculous argument under California law.

Rape is defined as non-consentual sexual intercourse committed by physical force, threat of injury or other duress. Wearing a dress may be misleading, but it's not duress.

The Man was violated sexually.

If YOU were violated sexually by another guy, you'd be PRETTY pissed

How?

Consent was given. The man was in full control of his faculties. The guy was not physicially threatening him in any way.

It's not rape. Give it up.

I mean, yeah, killing him was wrong and all, but it's understandable why he would be angry enough to do it at the moment.

Though it would be wrong, locking him up for decades would be unfair, but giving him no consequence would be as well.

4-8 years is about fair.

I didn't bother to read the link, because this shit is all the same. However, I would imagine that his defense was the extreme emotional distress caused by finding out the other fellow was a man caused a temporary impairment of his psyche (dimnished responsiblity) and therefore he was incapable of the requiste mens rea for his act to constitute murder. I also gather, because of his smallish sentence, the jury bought it.

No biggie. This shit happens all the time.

The transgender guy should have represented himself ahead of time. He'd still be alive today. Stupid idiot.

I mean, yeah, killing him was wrong and all, but it's understandable why he would be angry enough to do it at the moment.

I've been angry a lot in my life, but I have managed to remember that it is highly inappropriate to stab someone 20 times. It is absolutely NOT understandable why he would be "angry enough" to kill someone or him getting his indescriminate freak on somehow excuses his crime.


Though it would be wrong, locking him up for decades would be unfair, but giving him no consequence would be as well.

4-8 years is about fair.

Well, at least you're not claiming it was rape anymore. :rolleyes:

I think the penalty should always fit the crime. I'm not sure this was the case in this current situation.

The transgender guy should have represented himself ahead of time. He'd still be alive today. Stupid idiot.

The killer should have learned better impulse control. The transgender guy would still be alive AND the killer would be a free man.

The killer should have learned better impulse control. The transgender guy would still be alive AND the killer would be a free man.

Yeah, I kinda think that that is the whole point here. Finding out that his prospective paramour was a man kinda took away the old impulse control.

Edit: Damn people always talking in my ear making me miss the end of my sentences.

How?

Consent was given. The man was in full control of his faculties. The guy was not physicially threatening him in any way.

It's not rape. Give it up. If someone disguised themselves as your wife and then screwed you, THAT would be rape. It's the same basis. Rape isn't always violent.

Yeah, I kinda think that that is the whole point here. Finding out that his prospective paramour was a man kinda took away the old impulse.

No, the problem here is the bullshit legal defense of "crime of passion" or "homosexual panic". It's yet another example of the lessening of personal responsiblity and the further pussification of our society.

If you're man enough to do the crime, then you're man enough to do the time. Walk in on your wife/husband boffing someone else? Feel free to scream, yell, jump up and down, or whatever. If you pull out a gun and shoot them, though, you've committed a crime and to claim some sort of "heat of the moment" defense makes you just as reprehensible as the adulterers. Same thing with the legal crock that is "homosexual panic." If you can't be bothered to take an extra second to check for a freaking penis on the person you're banging, then anything that happens afterwards is your fault and yours alone.

No, the problem here is the bullshit legal defense of "crime of passion" or "homosexual panic". It's yet another example of the lessening of personal responsiblity and the further pussification of our society.


It's not a bullshit legal defense. It's in every criminal code in the country. And you have to prove it to a jury. Are you also pro-death penalty by any chance?

Edit: And are you as strongly pissed of by battered woman syndrome, which is a bullshit defense?

If someone disguised themselves as your wife and then screwed you, THAT would be rape. It's the same basis. Rape isn't always violent.

It is always coerced, however, through force, the threat of force or under duress. Unless you know of a legal precedent I'm unaware of, someone performing an act of subterfuge is not coercion, particularly as consent was given in this case. Again, if I can't be bothered to check the identity of the person I'm about to stick a part of my body in, then really the one with issues is me.

It's not a bullshit legal defense. It's in every criminal code in the country. And you have to prove it to a jury. Are you also pro-death penalty by any chance?

No, I am most certainly NOT pro-death penalty. However, I am pro personal responsibility and it is ludicrous to basically say, "Well, I didn't really mean it," and think that somehow will bring the person back to life.

There are lots of things in the criminal code that are bullshit. "Legal" and "Right" are not always the same.

It is always coerced, however, through force, the threat of force or under duress. Unless you know of a legal precedent I'm unaware of, someone performing an act of subterfuge is not coercion, particularly as consent was given in this case. Again, if I can't be bothered to check the identity of the person I'm about to stick a part of my body in, then really the one with issues is me.

There is common law rape through fraud in the factum. He's absolutely right, if you masquerade as someone's husband and sleep with them, that indeed is rape.

Promising shit to get them into bed, like money and presents, or lying about how rich you are, is perfectly okay.

Ridiculous argument under California law.

Rape is defined as non-consentual sexual intercourse committed by physical force, threat of injury or other duress. Wearing a dress may be misleading, but it's not duress.

True but it's only a 'u' away. One tiny typo and there you are.

No, I am most certainly NOT pro-death penalty. However, I am pro personal responsibility and it is ludicrous to basically say, "Well, I didn't really mean it," and think that somehow will bring the person back to life.

There are lots of things in the criminal code that are bullshit. "Legal" and "Right" are not always the same.

No he wouldn't say he didn't really mean it. The actual defense it that the shock of discovering his prospective lover was a man was so traumatic, he was temporarily unable to form the requisite intent to actually commit murder. It's a well recognized defense, and is considerably older than most penal codes. So it's hardly bullshit. It's part of our legal history.

Now battered women's syndrome, that is a bullshit defense, but I don't see you complaining about that.

Edit: And are you as strongly pissed of by battered woman syndrome, which is a bullshit defense?

No, actually, I don't think battered woman syndrome is a bullshit defense with the big difference being that the mental state of a battered individual happens over time through violence and control. A person in that situation is molded into what they are by their abuser, not by their inability to distinguish between right and wrong even in moments of high stress. I have been outraged in my life in moments of high betrayal and yet I managed not to lose my shit and shoot or stab someone. That doesn't mean I should get a gold star because THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DO. If, however, you lose your shit, then you are responsible for the crime and it is ridiculous to say this death is somehow "less than" because you can't keep your dice in your Yahtzee cup.

There is common law rape through fraud in the factum. He's absolutely right, if you masquerade as someone's husband and sleep with them, that indeed is rape.

Cite that, please.

No he wouldn't say he didn't really mean it. The actual defense it that the shock of discovering his prospective lover was a man was so traumatic, he was temporarily unable to form the requisite intent to actually commit murder. It's a well recognized defense, and is considerably older than most penal codes. So it's hardly bullshit. It's part of our legal history.

Oh, no, it's still bullshit, regardless of its age or recognition. Simply because something is a part of our "legal history," doesn't make it any less an evasion of responsibility for one's actions.


Now battered women's syndrome, that is a bullshit defense, but I don't see you complaining about that.

You're right because the one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. But nice false comparison.

No, actually, I don't think battered woman syndrome is a bullshit defense with the big difference being that the mental state of a battered individual happens over time through violence and control. A person in that situation is molded into what they are by their abuser, not by their inability to distinguish between right and wrong even in moments of high stress. I have been outraged in my life in moments of high betrayal and yet I managed not to lose my shit and shoot or stab someone. That doesn't mean I should get a gold star because THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DO. If, however, you lose your shit, then you are responsible for the crime and it is ridiculous to say this death is somehow "less than" because you can't keep your dice in your Yahtzee cup.

He didn't get a gold star, he got convicted of a felony: just not murder. Remember criminal intent is evaluated on a subjective standard, not an objective standard. You don't know enough about this individual to pass the kind of judgments you are making. Perhaps something in his past history caused him to be more susceptible to this type of stress than you are. Ultimately, if you can accept the rationale behind battered woman's syndrome - which is a far greater stretch because it does not require a close proximity in time between the actual crime and the traumatic event - then you should be able to accept the defense of extreme emotional distress.

At the end of the day, a jury heard all the evidence, and decided that this was reasonable in light of all the evidence, which neither you, nor I have heard. Moreover they will have been instructed by a judge from a pattern instruction with respect to this section of the law. I see no reason to get in a flap about it.

As I said, it is a well established defense, that has withstood plenty of review. And I am sure if it was offered in different circumstances, i.e the victim was not a transvestite then you would be applauding the wisdom of the legal system.

"It wasn't manslaughter. So, what is their excuse? A plea-bargain so they don't have to deal with it? I think they've made it abundantly clear that transgender people are not valued and it's OK to kill them," said Charlotte Jenks, a gay and lesbian activist in Fresno.

I don't think the punishment fits the crime, but neither do I agree with the above. The transgendered person should have made it clear that s/he was not female. That just makes good sense to me. Am I wrong here???

Cite that, please.

Lewis v. State 30 Ala. 54 (1857).

Lewis v. State 30 Ala. 54 (1857).

The only reference I could find to that case is one where it was held that a slave who impersonated a husband and then slept with white women was not guilty of rape as no force was used. Could you provide a better reference to that case law, please.

"It wasn't manslaughter. So, what is their excuse? A plea-bargain so they don't have to deal with it? I think they've made it abundantly clear that transgender people are not valued and it's OK to kill them," said Charlotte Jenks, a gay and lesbian activist in Fresno.

I don't think the punishment fits the crime, but neither do I agree with the above. The transgendered person should have made it clear that s/he was not female. That just makes good sense to me. Am I wrong here???
The transgendered person probably ought to have made it clear, but there are a couple of things to realize first. One--we don't know what the victim looked like while alive. I've known all sorts of transgenders--some pass very well, others not well at all. Which was this? Is there a chance that the transgendered person had every reason to believe the person she hooked up with would know she was in the process of changing? No way of telling, unless we'd seen her.

Secondly, regardless of whether or not she was able to pass up until the moment of truth, that's not enough provocation for her to pay with her life, not by any stretch.

The only reference I could find to that case is one where it was held that a slave who impersonated a husband and then slept with white women was not guilty of rape as no force was used. Could you provide a better reference to that case law, please.

Ooops, my bad, I gave you a counter example, doh!

Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-1401(5)(d) (Supp. 1997) (without consent includes if "victim is intentionally deceived to erroneously believe that the person is the victim's spouse"); Cal. Penal Code § 261(a)(5) (West Supp. 1998) (victim submits under belief actor is victim's spouse, and "this belief is induced by any artifice, pretense, or concealment practiced by the accused, with intent to induce the belief"); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3- 403(1)(d) (1997) (actor knows victim submits "erroneously, believing the actor to be the victim's spouse"); Idaho Code § 18-6101(6) (1997) (victim submits under belief that actor is her husband, and "the belief is induced by artifice, pretense or concealment practiced by the accused, with intent to induce such belief."); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:43(A)(3) (West 1997 & Supp. 1998) (female victim submits under belief intentionally induced by any artifice, pretence, or concealment practiced by offender); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28- 318(8)(a)(iv) (1995) (without consent includes "consent, if any was actually given, was the result of the actor's deception as to the identity of the actor . . . ."); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2907.03(A)(4) (Anderson Supp. 1997) ("offender knows that the other person submits because the other person mistakenly identifies the offender as the other person's spouse."); Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1111(A)(6) (Supp. 1998) (belief induced by artifice, pretense or concealment practiced by accused or by accused in collusion with spouse with intent to induce such belief); P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 33, § 4061(e) (1992) (belief induced by artifice, pretenseor concealment practiced by accused); Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-5-406(7) (1996) (without consent includes actor knowing victim submits or participates because victim erroneously believes actor is victim's spouse); Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-303(a)(iv) (Michie 1997) (actor knows or should reasonably know that victim submits erroneously believing actor is spouse); see also
Ala. Code § 13A-6- 65(a)(1) (1994) (commentary asserts that sexual misconduct also includes husband impersonation).

The transgendered person probably ought to have made it clear, but there are a couple of things to realize first. One--we don't know what the victim looked like while alive. I've known all sorts of transgenders--some pass very well, others not well at all. Which was this? Is there a chance that the transgendered person had every reason to believe the person she hooked up with would know she was in the process of changing? No way of telling, unless we'd seen her.

Secondly, regardless of whether or not she was able to pass up until the moment of truth, that's not enough provocation for her to pay with her life, not by any stretch.
Good points ... both of them. I've seen some transgendered folks who were total knockouts. If someone hadn't keyed me in, I might have hit on one or more of them. Heh! But I would just have been embarrassed at my own stupidity, not angry at someone who was, in effect, just being themselves.

Good points ... both of them. I've seen some transgendered folks who were total knockouts. If someone hadn't keyed me in, I might have hit on one or more of them. Heh! But I would just have been embarrassed at my own stupidity, not angry at someone who was, in effect, just being themselves.
I've had that happen as well--and on one occasion, it was a guy I'd known as a guy who was making the change and I didn't recognize her at first. My reaction was one of embarassment at not having recognized this person I'd worked with before.

I've had that happen as well--and on one occasion, it was a guy I'd known as a guy who was making the change and I didn't recognize her at first. My reaction was one of embarassment at not having recognized this person I'd worked with before.
Heh! I've never known anyone before they went through the changes, but I did make a kinda friendship with one who already had. She was a super nice person and very upfront about her transgendered status.

Ooops, my bad, I gave you a counter example, doh!

Heh, thanks. I mean, if you want to argue my side for me, go right ahead. :D

Heh, thanks. I mean, if you want to argue my side for me, go right ahead. :D

Yeah, that wasn't smart. But as I think you see from the statutes I cut and pasted, husband impersonation fits the bill in some jurisdictions. (It is based on an english case, but I can't recall at present.)

In any case, it is a secondary issue, and really isn't apposite.

Ooops, my bad, I gave you a counter example, doh!
Um, unless they were into certain types of bondage, how stupid would the spouse have to be not to know whether or not they're married to the person having sex with them?

he ought to hang....

he ought to hang....

He already got stabbed 20 times, what ELSE do you want?

He already got stabbed 20 times, what ELSE do you want?

must have missed that bit.... we are both on about the criminal here, ansd whether 4 years was enough aren't we?

He got let off too easy, should have had the max.

Pervert.

Yeah, that's sufficient mitigating circumstances.

I think 4 years is too light a sentence for any murder, regardless of circumstances.

Without knowledge of the facts and testimony of the defendant, it's impossible for us to know whether the circumstances should have diminished the sentence.

Personally, I think poor judgement was used by both parties.

The outcome of this case was rediculous. Manslaughter and only four years? Was the prosecution that inept? Honestly...

I think the transexual was a bit mean :rolleyes: But then again, well, weird people exists everywhere. I am sure he had some kind of reasoning behind why he lured the man to have sex with him under false pretenses, but he is dead now so we will never know what it was.

But the murderer should get sentenced to a psychic hospital or something. I mean, he took a scissor, and stabbed the man 20 times. Test yourself, grab something (a pen or something similar) and hit your pillow (or something) 20 times!!
I fully ignore that he got a 'shock' and went in total frenzy for 'homophobic horror'. A 'normal' person would probably give the transexual a thorough beating and throw him out off the room. This guy took a scissor (probably looked around the room to find a suitable weapon) then hit him 20 times with it.

4 years is to mild. This person isn't suitable for the normal socity.

The outcome of this case was rediculous. Manslaughter and only four years? Was the prosecution that inept? Honestly...
Crimes of passion count as manslaughter, but he got far too few years.

To be fair, some of us know exactly what and where a clandestine weapon can be found and used. Some people are just wired funny that way.

I can't decide whether man one or hate crime: voluntary manslaughter is the more appropriate punishment. On the one hand, I do feel that the killer was raped in the sense that he did not consent to what he received. On the other hand, I can't help but ask, would he have stabbed his rapist to death if it were simply a woman disguised as another woman? It sounds motivated by prejudice to me, and thus may fall into the second category. Then again, it could be said that he consented to sex with a woman and received sex with a man, and then my question would be irrelevant. Moreover, if I found out I'd been tricked into fucking a man, I would probably hospitalize the fucker. Would I kill him? No. But I'd make sure that he would never try that shit again. And, to go on, I definitely think that it's the transgender's fault that this shit happened in the first place. What the fuck was he thinking? Nevermind, I don't wanna know.

Also, for those that are saying this wasn't rape, I would offer a quick comparison. Having sex with someone under the influence of drugs or alcohol is illegal. Why? Because the inebriated person is supposedly not competent enough to grant consent. In theory, this man, too, was not competent enough to grant consent, as he was misinformed as to the nature of his partner. Personally, I think the whole "drunks can't consent" law is a stupid crock of shit, but it is a law, and one that I feel can be related to this situation. Just a point.

---*snip*Also, for those that are saying this wasn't rape, I would offer a quick comparison. Having sex with someone under the influence of drugs or alcohol is illegal. Why? Because the inebriated person is supposedly not competent enough to grant consent.

Nowere in this article it said they had done a complete intercourse. Granted, I just skimmed. So everything is just second opinons. The killer wouldn't happily digress everything if it was 'bad for his case', rather naturally.

So in essance, it could be so simple that he knew it was a shemale (not all shemales looks like real women unless they are rather good with makeup and some nice plastic surgery). So in theory (just theory) he knew it was a shemale and killed the person later on because the shemale mayby made fun off him for not being able to do the intercourse. Very probably.

Or, they started to make out. The moment he discovered that it was a shemale... what? Did he have something showed up somewhere? Seriously. I doubt that. He was probably trying to pull off the shemales clothes when he found that out.

With the chance of insulting every female player on Nationstates, I don't see kisses and touches as rape. It may be 'disgusting' and 'terrible' and all that, but rape its not. You don't brake. I think you do that if you are rape, brake somewhere, but you can probably shrug off a kiss.

In theory, this man, too, was not competent enough to grant consent, as he was misinformed as to the nature of his partner. Personally, I think the whole "drunks can't consent" law is a stupid crock of shit, but it is a law, and one that I feel can be related to this situation. Just a point.

There I think you are wrong. He consented to what he saw. Its what we all do. If you meet a stranger in a bar or anywhere else for that matter, you follow a invisible law that you get more than you bargained for. You don't have to like it, but if you do it, you have to more or less accept something can happen. (Husband burst through door, partner in crime comes in and takes photos while you and your new found friend has fun, you find yourself under someone who has a nasty idea about how amazing sex shall be)
This time it was somone pretending to be a woman, it could very well have been a person with a disease of some kind. For example, the woman has a sexual transferable disease that it knows about, she don't tell her 'one-night stand' because she wants to have sex. He finds a note in her bags saying 'positive for XX' and he gets all frantic and kills her with a scissor 20 times.

And its not uncommon to get a sexual transfered disease if you listen to the department of health :p

From my point of view, yes, he could have beaten the person silly. Thats it.

It looks to me like the killer's sentence was not sufficient to the crime.

Except it isn't rape. Have a nice day. At most you're talking fraud, which is a tort, not a crime.

Both. Fraud is both a tort - and - a crime..

Different procedure, of course, in either case, or both, depending on circumstances.

Both. Fraud is both a tort - and - a crime..

Different procedure, of course, in either case, or both, depending on circumstances.
True, but killing the person who defrauded you is never considered acceptable, at least legally, as far as I know. :D

Killing should be 10+ years.

True, but killing the person who defrauded you is never considered acceptable, at least legally, as far as I know. :D

That's true, unless you were in immediate fear for your life or the life of a loved one.. freaking out because some guy you throught was a woman wasn't a woman doesn't cut it, and should be punished based on circumstances.. that's my opinion, at least, although some nut kept calling me a bigot for suggesting that this case *might* not be a hate-crime, in either case.. meh.. I should let it go..

Not fair. Should have been 10 years minimum, with no chance of parole for those 10 years.

4 years? Nah. Death penalty? Nah.

Just perform transgender surgery on the guy and send him back out into the world. That would be justice.

Can you get parole after half the sentence in America? If you can then 4 years is totally insufficient.

I'd say 8-10 years (without parole) personally.

I can understand being upset. I can understand beating the crap out of the guy. Maybe the victim would die from the beating, then 4 years would be justified But this defendant stabbed the victim 20 times. He knew he was going to kill the victim. 4 years is a little too light.

Considering the man jumped out of the T-V's window after the stabbing, and collapsed on the street, convulsing, covered with blood in a fetal position; temporary insanity seems to have very well been in effect; so they are lucky they got ANY time on him.

I think the 4 years will suit fine.... And hopefully it will destract anyone else from commiting fraud within an area as infused with passion as misrepresenting your sex to someone you're attempting relations with...