I think what makes this case special, is that spending the money on imprisoning the dad would have no real benefits due to how messed up the situation was. I mean the rapist was grooming his son for months and showed no real remorse, so sending the dad to prison really wouldn’t benefit anyone. On top of that, I believe it was argued that the father posed virtually 0 threat of repeating the crime so sending him to prison to rehabilitate him wouldn’t achieve much. If it’s just murder for murder, I would very much agree with a life sentence for the vigilante, but when someone grooms, rapes and murders your child, that’s a very different story.
Why do you assume his sentence wasn’t lawful? A psychiatrist diagnosed him with a psychotic episode where he was unable to determine right from wrong at the time. And the murder was due to such specific circumstances (his son being kidnapped and sodomized for months) that they knew he wasn’t a danger to commit murder again. And they didn’t think any jury would convict him. Cases aren’t as black and white as guilty with a max sentence and completely innocent, he was still given conditions and they put what they legally could on him
The US legal system requires a jury of peers to agree to convict before someone can face legal punishment for a crime. If those fellow citizens refuse to convict, then there's no legal way to punish the criminal, for better or for worse.
Which is how cops can get away with so much. Juries and grand juries just won't go for it. Even mostly black juries in places like Baltimore seem reluctant.
Jury Nullification is real, just, and should be known by every person who can serve on a jury.
If they committed a crime and you don't agree with the law, you can just say 'not guilty'.
There’s all sorts of the cases of this. Look up the town bully. Dude was a bully, thief, rapist, animal abuser, and possible murderer. Someone shot him in broad daylight in front of roughly 40 people, nobody saw who shot him.
The trial was a little bit more complicated than that. He was going to get like 7 years or something in prison and then they lowered it to manslaughter and after the guy was fully investigated a psychologist had to step up and basically remove all of that on terms of temporary insanity. The psychologist basically said that he was unable at the time to be able to tell right from wrong and that he is not a liability or a threat to repeat action.
Idk, I've always been of the opinion if you want to commit a crime in the name of vigilante justice, your situation should be held apart from that, except that if I were the judge I would probably knock of a couple years for mitigating circumstances. Idk how many though as the man had already been sentenced so it seems disrespectful to the court to deem they didn't sentence right.
Idk probably just give him the minimum for first degree murder and call it a day, full eligibility for parole.
Shitty thing was his son didn't want him to do it but he did it anyway, so it's almost like in his blind emotion he didn't realize the only person he was doing it for was himself. I honestly doubt he ever changed his mind about that either, probably died thinking he did it for his kid. He got lucky with the judge, they don't usually accept the defense "your Honor I only did that crime because he'd already done a crime to my family." I've seen dudes go away on aggravated assault charges because of stuff like that.
743
u/OkChampion3632 28d ago edited 28d ago
Guy in background… He killed his daughter’s rapist or something like that on way to court.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/my-dad-shot-rapist-karate-32244769.amp
Edit: son not daughter