Youth Pleads To Killing Gay Classmate

[General Mung Beans]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/22/us/br ... r=1&ref=us

Youth Pleads Guilty to Killing Gay Classmate
By IAN LOVETT
Published: November 21, 2011


LOS ANGELES — Brandon McInerney, the teenager accused of killing a gay eighth-grade classmate in 2008, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, the Ventura County District Attorney’s Office announced Monday. He will spend 21 years in prison.



The plea bargain follows a mistrial this year, when Mr. McInerney, 17, was tried for murder as an adult. Five jurors voted to convict him of murder, while seven voted for manslaughter.

Prosecutors had argued that Mr. McInerney’s lethal attack on Lawrence King, 15, was a hate crime motivated by homophobia and a budding white supremacist ideology, and they pushed for him to spend the rest of his life behind bars.

Mike Frawley, the chief deputy district attorney, said the jury’s reservations about the murder charge had more to do with the emotional difficulty of sending a teenager to prison for life than with the facts of the case, which were not in dispute.

Because he has pleaded guilty to murder, Mr. McInerney, who was 14 at the time of the killing, will not get credit for time served, meaning he will serve a total of almost 25 years behind bars.

Scott Wippert, a lawyer for Mr. McInerney, said that he still believed that his client should have been charged as a minor, but that with the plea deal he would at least have a firm date for release.

Prosecutors said Mr. McInerney, in a premeditated act of antigay rage, approached Mr. King from behind while he sat at a computer in his Oxnard school and shot him in the back of the head. He shot him in the head again as he lay on the ground.

The defense said Mr. King had made unwanted sexual advances that humiliated Mr. McInerney and pushed him to a breaking point.

[Serafina]

The defense said Mr. King had made unwanted sexual advances that humiliated Mr. McInerney and pushed him to a breaking point.

Whenever someone says this, i wonder what would happen if anyone would say this about heterosexual advances - if a man says he murdered an (ugly?) woman because she made advances towards him, or if a woman says she murdered a man because he made advances on her.

[Broomstick]

It's another case of "gay panic" as a defense - "Your honor, he made sexual advances towards me so I had to kill him." It used to be a standard way to get off a murder charge, or at least have it reduced to manslaughter. I'm not sure if the idea is that the heterosexual has to kill the homosexual in order to defend/prove his manliness/heterosexuality or if homosexuality is supposed to be so repugnant that a reaction of "Kill it! KILL IT!" is seen as perfectly normal. Or if only heterosexual males are allowed to persist with unwanted sexual overtures and all others - women and sissy boys - are supposed to be meek and passive. Or something. Really, I don't understand the mindset, but then, I've never found homosexuality to be threatening in the least.

[Feil]

Remember that it is the job of the defense to defend. If the defendant has copped to the killing, the only thing they can plead is mitigating circumstances, and they are obligated by law and moral duty to do so to the best of their ability, in order to allow the court system to function. It's always somewhat disgusting to see someone defending an indefensibly evil act, but, for the defense, in a court case, doing so is right and proper. "This guy provoked me by doing things he knew I didn't like," is a legitimate defense when you're facing life for cold blooded murder - even if there was nothing wrong with the things that provoked him.

[Serafina]

Yes, of course - i am not blaming the lawyer for his employed defense.
But "being hit on by a gay creeped him out too much" should simply not be a mitigating circumstance! It is pretty much admitting to homophobia*, which should label the crime as a hate-crime, therefore doing the defendant a massive disservice.

*And if you doubt that, ask yourself why this defense is exclusively employed by men who are hit on by other men, and never by women hit on by men or other women or men hit on by women.
The answer is because those situations are not charged with any prejudices. However, a prejudice should not allow you to get off lighter on a criminal charge - if you want to open that door, you'd also have to allow the same thing for, say, a white man murdering a black woman who made advances on him.

[Kanastrous]

second degree murder n. a non-premeditated killing, resulting from an assault in which death of the victim was a distinct possibility. Second degree murder is different from First Degree Murder which is a premeditated, intentional killing, or results from a vicious crime such as arson, rape, or armed robbery.

Permitting him to plead to second-degree murder is obscene. Unfortunately I lack the requisite legal expertise to understand how a court can simply brush aside the stone fact that the murder was entirely premeditated, and pretend as though it was a momentary lapse. Fuck, why not let him plead to unlawful manslaughter, while they're at it.

To the degree there is a positive side, he'll have an opportunity to gain a fuller understanding and appreciation of male-male relations, over the course of his incarceration.

[Metahive]

To the degree there is a positive side, he'll have an opportunity to gain a fuller understanding and appreciation of male-male relations, over the course of his incarceration.

O my, how fitting, a gay rape joke in a thread about a homophobic murderer.

Stay classy.

[Kanastrous]

It's no joke. Where the court failed, the prison system will add a dimension of tailor-made extra-legal justice. And while it's a long shot, maybe he'll learn something.

Way to fixate on an opening to indulge your self-righteousness, though, while missing the legal dimension of the text above. Anything to add, concerning that?

[The Romulan Republic]

It's no joke. Where the court failed, the prison system will add a dimension of tailor-made extra-legal justice. And while it's a long shot, maybe he'll learn something.

Yeah, somehow I doubt being gay raped will make him less homophobic. This is just you indulging in your desire for punishment outside of what is permitted by the Justice System, and frankly its disgusting.

[Kanastrous]

This is just you indulging in your desire for punishment outside of what is permitted by the Justice System,

Your mastery of the obvious is awesome.

Seeing as it appears to me that the justice system fumbled this pretty horrifically, yes. I won't deny it.

[evilsoup]

The best way to judge a society is by how it treats it's prisoners; what do you think punishing even a serious crime like murder with prison rape says about you and your society?

[Zaune]

eeing as it appears to me that the justice system fumbled this pretty horrifically, yes. I won't deny it.

21 years in prison is scarcely being let off lightly, especially when you factor in the perpetrator's age at the time. It was an appalling crime, I don't dispute that, but the perpetrator's not likely to see the outside of a prison cell until he's pushing forty. For something he did at the age of fourteen.

[Kanastrous]

As it happens 'prison rape' is not a punishment available for a court to impose, since it doesn't exist in any sentencing guideline, anywhere. So I'm not playing along with 'what is says about society.'

As for what it says about me personally, if you would like to mount a dissection of my personality, we should probably do that in a separate thread.

[Kanastrous]

eeing as it appears to me that the justice system fumbled this pretty horrifically, yes. I won't deny it.

21 years in prison is scarcely being let off lightly, especially when you factor in the perpetrator's age at the time. It was an appalling crime, I don't dispute that, but the perpetrator's not likely to see the outside of a prison cell until he's pushing forty. For something he did at the age of fourteen.

Compared to life-without-parole, which impresses me as an actually just sentence, it's rather light. The victim and his family don't get out at all, pushing forty or otherwise, for what was done when the murderer was fourteen.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

We don't give 14 year olds legal rights and privileges because they are not fully cognitively developed. Why is 2nd degree murder inappropriate? I would say that it should be unlawful to charge minors with 1st degree murder in an adult court, because that implies an adult level of cognition in planning the crime. Remember this guy was 14 when he committed the crime. The 2nd degree murder charge is an adult charge. Only in the US do we go around trying children in adult court. Frankly this is the only fair result in an adult court, as it acknowledges that he is not mentally capable enough to have truly premeditated the murder. This was a hate crime, but it was also a hate crime by a 14 year old, and we shouldn't forget that. 14 year olds are inherently reformable and the idea that he should get more than this is IMO rather obscene. He will spend a total of 25 years in prison as he does not get credit for time served under the deal. Since when did locking children away for life becoming morally acceptable in the US? It's a sickening thing to do, as sickening as the murder itself was.

[Serafina]

Oh i do not object to the length of the sentence (if anything it is too severe, if he committed the murder at age 14). I'm sick of seeing the gay-defense being employed - it should not be a defense at all, given that it pretty much declares that your crime was a hate-crime.
A minor getting a lighter sentence has nothing to do with that and is perfectly appropriate.

[Kanastrous]

At fourteen I was entirely capable of conceiving, planning, and executing murder (although probably not without getting caught), and damn well wanted to for reasons that are not relevant to the thread. Since I was not in any particular way special or different from other 14-year-olds in terms of intellect or cognition when I was at that age, I have to reject the notion that at seventeen-and-three-hundred-sixty-four days of age you are somehow less culpable for your actions, than at eighteen. The line is arbitrary (having to be placed -somewhere-) and does not mean that a particular individual was less-competent in conceiving and executing a murder simply because they were a few years short, of it. Trying minors as adults is done on a case-by-case basis and some of those minors are appropriately tried in adult court.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

At fourteen I was entirely capable of conceiving, planning, and executing murder (although probably not without getting caught), and damn well wanted to for reasons that are not relevant to the thread. Since I am not at my present age and was not in any particular way special or different from other 14-year-olds in terms of intellect or cognition when I was at that age, I have to reject the notion that at seventeen-and-three-hundred-sixty-four days of age you are somehow less culpable for your actions, than at eighteen. The line is arbitrary (having to be placed -somewhere-) and does not mean that a particular individual was less-competent in conceiving and executing a murder simply because they were a few years short, of it. Trying minors as adults is done on a case-by-case basis and some of those minors are appropriately tried in adult court.

No, it isn't, because they don't have the same social rights, so they should have the same social responsibility, either. At any rate, "planning" a murder and fully understanding the consequences of doing so and carrying it out in a substantiative way are quite different things, and furthermore if you look back on your memories then you do so as a fully cognitive adult, which means those memories are rather fallacious, and don't reflect your actual ability then. The human memory is always played through the lens of current cognitive capability, this is just objective fact. 25 years imprisonment is perfectly reasonable for a 14 year old committing a hate crime murder.

[Kanastrous]

No, it isn't, because they don't have the same social rights, so they should have the same social responsibility, either.

Should not have the same social responsibility, either, is what I figure you mean. Well, I can't vote or drive on public roads, and as compensation I should get to slide a bit on premeditated murder doesn't work for me. If it works for you, I'm content to disagree.

At any rate, "planning" a murder and fully understanding the consequences of doing so and carrying it out in a substantiative way are quite different things, and furthermore if you look back on your memories then you do so as a fully cognitive adult, which means those memories are rather fallacious, and don't reflect your actual ability then. The human memory is always played through the lens of current cognitive capability, this is just objective fact.

Still have my notes and diagrams filed away somewhere (written intent being indicative of inexperience and the kind of poor judgment that gets people caught and convicted if they follow through). They serve as memory-reinforcement. Although I do like the you can't remember your own personal experience with sufficient clarity to be able to comment angle.

25 years imprisonment is perfectly reasonable for a 14 year old committing a hate crime murder.

What would you say to someone defining it as excessive?

[evilsoup]

Kanastrous, my point is that you are not only accepting prison rape as a part of your prison system, but you are actually applauding it as if it is a legitimate part of the punishment. This is an attitude I've seen a lot in US media, but it's probably not fair to judge your whole country on it's cop shows, so I concede on that part.

It may be that you consider this murderer morally unworthy of your notice, but please bear in mind that no matter what he has done, he is a human being. By wishing criminal violence on him, you are lowering yourself morally - not quite to his level, obviously, but too close for comfort. I don't know about you, but I like to think myself morally superior to murderers, rapists and other violent criminals.

Since when did locking children away for life becoming morally acceptable in the US? It's a sickening thing to do, as sickening as the murder itself was.

Just out of curiousity, was there ever any reason given for the USA not to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?

[Kanastrous]

Kanastrous, my point is that you are not only accepting prison rape as a part of your prison system, but you are actually applauding it as if it is a legitimate part of the punishment.

More like, because I believe the plea and sentence to be unjust I find that I am not particularly disturbed by the prospect of the murderer suffering at the hands of his fellows, which to a small degree (from my perspective) redresses the balance. I am not arguing that it is legitimate because the law not only fails to provide for it, but of course prohibits it (sexual assault being an offense in prison, just as it is outside).

As a matter of policy I'm as against prison rape as I imagine most people would be, for a variety of reasons. In this particular and specific matter, though, the idea of the murderer suffering it does not bother me. Insert condemnations of my character, questions concerning my parentage, and speculations regarding my sanity, -here-.

This is an attitude I've seen a lot in US media, but it's probably not fair to judge your whole country on it's cop shows, so I concede on that part.

I share the impression that there's a sentiment out there that 'anyone in prison is a Bad Person, so Bad that it's fine if they get raped on an hourly basis, they're criminals so who cares' (although I doubt it's a majority that holds that sentiment). For my part, I suppose I would have to modify that to 'where this particular individual is concerned experiences it, well, I certainly would not arrange for it to happen, but I wouldn't shed a tear, either.'

Were there a nobody-gets-raped-in-prison (well, or anywhere else) button to push, I'd push it not for his particular benefit, but for the general benefit of people for whom I *would* shed a tear. Since the button is unavailable, I'll acknowledge the reality of what happens, and not lose sleep over it happening to this particular person.

It may be that you consider this murderer morally unworthy of your notice, but please bear in mind that no matter what he has done, he is a human being.

I guess this is an entirely different kettle of fish, but I find that the 'human being club' is something into which you are born holding an automatic membership card, which is not irrevocable. You can exclude yourself from the club by your own voluntary actions. Sure, you can be as biologically human as the next person. What benefit, if your actions don't comport, with that?

By wishing criminal violence on him, you are lowering yourself morally - not quite to his level, obviously, but too close for comfort.

Hmm. Walking up behind an unarmed, unsuspecting person and shooting them to death, having considered and planned the act is "too close for comfort" to suggesting that it's un-tragic for the murderer to suffer in prison? That's an interesting moral system, that places premeditated murder of a defenseless person 'too close' to ill-wishes directed toward the murderer. Think about that - murder = ill-will. Really?

I don't know about you, but I like to think myself morally superior to murderers, rapists and other violent criminals.

Well...I have better impulse-control. And am probably at least a bit less sociopathic.

Just out of curiousity, was there ever any reason given for the USA not to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?

I know that was directed to the Duchess, but my guess is that it's regarded as interference in our judicial system. I'm not speaking the the ethical quality of that objection, but I suspect it might be the case.

[Broomstick]

The best way to judge a society is by how it treats it's prisoners; what do you think punishing even a serious crime like murder with prison rape says about you and your society?

Do I really have to point out that rape, even in prison, is against the law? It's not encouraged, it can be prosecuted, and if they think he's at real risk of it he may be put in segregated custody rather than the general population.

ETA: The people I know who actually work in prisons tell me that prison rape is much less common than supposed. No doubt it gives wannabe tough guys a frisson of pleasure to think of such being meted out as some twisted form of justice, but it's far from a universal occurrence.

[evilsoup]

Of course I know that prison rape is just as illegal as rape in any other context. I was under the impression that it was endemic in the US prison system; if that is a misapprehension and there are serious efforts to prevent prison rape, then I withdraw that comment.

Kanastrous, I believe in the perfectibility of humanity, and that redemption/rehabilitation is possible for anyone, no matter what they've done. Yes, even serial killers; even serial killers of children. I tend to reject punishment except as a part of rehabilitation, or to serve necessity (it's often necessary to execute tyrants, for example).

I also believe that coarsening yourself to human suffering is a dangerous path to go down. I didn't say that murder=ill will, but I accept that my language was unclear. Of course toughguy 'maybe he'll get raped in prison herp derp' stuff isn't anywhere near committing pre-meditated murder, but I do consider such posturing to be morally wrong.

[Kanastrous]

Kanastrous, I believe in the perfectibility of humanity, and that redemption/rehabilitation is possible for anyone, no matter what they've done. Yes, even serial killers; even serial killers of children. I tend to reject punishment except as a part of rehabilitation, or to serve necessity (it's often necessary to execute tyrants, for example).

An essentially faith-based position which, like most such positions can't really be argued. If that's your belief I don't begrudge you.

I also believe that coarsening yourself to human suffering is a dangerous path to go down.

My sensitivity to human suffering depends upon the particular humans we're talking about. Some are more deserving of consideration, than others.

I didn't say that murder=ill will, but I accept that my language was unclear.

Your language was clear enough.

Of course toughguy 'maybe he'll get raped in prison herp derp' stuff isn't anywhere near committing pre-meditated murder, but I do consider such posturing to be morally wrong.

I'm always amused when expressing a view someone dislikes is "tough guy-ism." Exactly how does my position make me tough? It's an opinion, which in no way alludes to physical strength, aggression, courage, martial prowess or any other measure by which 'toughness' is generally measured. The whole 'tough guy' business is a cheap lazy easy way to say "this is just you puffing yourself up or something, not an actual considered point of view." You don't have to like or approve of that point of view, but trying to cast it as my attempting to impress you with my toughness is ridiculous. I can't really effectively do that, unless you are within arm's reach, if for some reason or other I wanted to.

[Rahvin]

More like, because I believe the plea and sentence to be unjust I find that I am not particularly disturbed by the prospect of the murderer suffering at the hands of his fellows, which to a small degree (from my perspective) redresses the balance.

In other words, you're an internet tough guy, and you think that rape is an acceptable form of compensation for the commission of a crime. And when called on it, you backpedal.

Rape is never acceptable. Ever. Doesn't matter what the victim did. If you're not disturbed by rape, then you count it as an ethically acceptable phenomenon in at least one situation, and you deserve to be called out for your repugnant posturing.