TREE OF LIFE SHOOTER VERDICT--GUILTY!

 


The perpetrator of the deadliest anti-semitic shooting episode in American history was convicted Friday of all of the 63 criminal counts against him.  In that crime, he murdered 11 worshippers and wounded seven others.  During the trial, Robert Bowers admitted he was responsible for the massacre.

The evidence being 100% against the accused, the defense team offered no defense witnesses after the prosecution rested.  The defense will focus on defending against the death penalty.  Sentencing will occur at a later date.

Traditionally, the defense of a particularly heinous crime involves focusing on the theme that anyone who would do such a thing must be insane, and look for treatment and a life sentence.  The State will brush that defense aside and tell the court not to confuse "pure evil" with "insanity."

Aside from applauding the verdict in this case, my interest is in the government's bringing a "hate crime" charge against the defendant.   They can do it.  The charge is justified.  

But what is the point???  Seriously, no one is going to confuse what this monster did with doing his deeds out of love.  The whole idea of adding "hate crime" to a mass murder is, I think, a waste of ink.  

I have never been a fan of "hate crimes."  A crime is a crime.  The defendant either did it or he did not.  And if he had an evil motive, that comes out in sentencing as a reason for harsher punishment.  Having a category of crimes called "hate crimes" adds nothing to our legal system.

Can we all agree Robert Bowers committed a series of horrible crimes on October 27, 2018?  Can we all agree he deserves the harshest punishment American justice can dish out?  

And can we all agree it is meaningless to add, as an aside: "Oh, and by the way, did you know that his shooting every Jew in sight in a synagogue was motivated by hate?"

And may the victims of these horrible crimes rest in the peace of Almighty God.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

7 Things Lawyers Can't Tell Jurors

Image
 It is a trial lawyer's job to educate jurors, and tell them what they need to know in order to decide cases. Despite this, there are many things, true things, that lawyers are not allowed to tell jurors directly in statements to the jury or indirectly through testimony of their witnesses. Lawyers know these things, though, and I thought you might like to know some of things. #1. A lawyer can't tell the jurors anything that happened during settlement negotiations. He cannot let the jurors know, when asking them to make the defendant pay his client $100,000 that the defendant agreed to pay him $80,000 prior to the trial. The reason for this is that you want settlement negotiations to be very open. You don't want to damage a negotiation session because someone is afraid that what they say will get repeated to a jury if you don't strike a deal. #2 In Idaho, a lawyer can't tell the jurors that the defendant has insurance. In many other states, he can. Bec
Read more

Man Framed by Prosecutor Released After 29 Years in Prison Seeking Lawsuit

Image
19 year old, Charise Kamps, was found raped and strangled to death in her apartment in June 1980. Ralph Armstrong told the police that both of them were at the apartment alone doing cocaine before leaving to go see friends around 9:30 pm. Police said that they learned that Armstrong owed Kamp's boyfriend $400 and witnesses saw Armstrong handing Kamps money that night. However, the money was not found in the apartment, and Armstrong deposited $315 in his bank the next day.The defense argued that he got the money from his brother. One of the neighbors saw a lean, muscular man about 5 feet 5 inches tall with long, dark hair drive up to the apartment. Before the identification process, the police had the witness hypnotized. He was shown a photograph of Armstrong, and After being hypnotized, the witness changed the height of the man he saw. Later at a lineup to have the witness select the man he saw, he chose Armstrong. The other people in the lineup were police officers in wigs
Read more

Tuesday Tip: Reid Interrogation Technique

Image
Various methods have been used in police interrogations to elicit a confession. By far the most popular method used for over seventy years is the Reid Technique. This interrogation method assumes guilty suspects can be identified from certain behavioral cues. It is said to be proven as highly effective at getting confessions; however, there has been criticism about it for many years because it has been linked to many wrongful convictions.  Around 25 percent of post conviction DNA exonerations have been associated with a false confession from authorities using the Reid Technique. Even one of the first cases in which John Reid used this technique turned out to be a false confession. More and more scientists and scholars are saying this approach is based on outdated psychology. There are several components incorporated in this technique, including room design and how the investigator conducts the interview. There are three spatial zones the investigators use, which can be seen in
Read more