Not justice

I did not post last Friday. This was not for a lack of material, but kind of too much material (but also work being busier and the tiredness growing).

So this post may not be a good one, but I want to write about some of the issues with the trials of the killers of Latasha Harlins and Vincent Chin. There were significant differences, and similarities.

In the case of Vincent Chin, there was an increasing sloughing off of responsibility.

The officers who showed up to on the scene did not treat Ronald Ebens like they had just seen him beat someone to death with a baseball bat. They were off-duty, but still, that's a really violent crime and they caught at least the end of it.

That preferential treatment may be why he was treated kind of lightly at the station, where things kept being easier than they should have been.

That is not necessarily why the prosecutors were not in court on the day that Ebens was convicted. That was not even that abnormal, but someone should have objected to the 2nd Degree Murder charge being dropped down to manslaughter. Even if the DA's office would have wanted a plea bargain, in theory they would not want a brutal killing to result in no jail time; only probation and a fine.

There was no plea bargain in the case of Soon Ja Du; the jury found her guilty of voluntary manslaughter, and then Judge Karlin suspended the prison sentence, again opting for just probation and a fine.

I think Judge Kaufman has the most apt quote, regarding Ebens' sentencing:

"These weren't the kind of men you send to jail... You don't make the punishment fit the crime; you make the punishment fit the criminal."

Meaning men who would pick a fight in a strip club, hunt down the person later, and then one would hold the victim while the other beat him in the head with a baseball bat. Because they had jobs (well, the one was laid off, but he used to have a job). 

He never said that it was because they were white, and he was appalled by that insinuation, but what part of their previous lives made murdering okay?

For Judge Karlin, perhaps she was kind of impressive in her understatement:

"Did Mrs. Du react inappropriately? Absolutely. But was that reaction understandable? I think that it was." 

Thanks for acknowledging that shooting a 15 year old in the back of the head is inappropriate.

Karlin later complained about political correctness, so we know where she stands.

(Remember that "political correctness" comes from an effort to use more specific, respectful language where we can understand things better, which might help you understand how you are influenced subconsciously. https://sporkful.blogspot.com/2023/03/waking.html)

There is some discomfort for me in writing this, because the carceral state does more harm than good. I apparently am not truly a prison abolitionist, though, because we do not have something in place for cases like this. I would absolutely rather prevent the murders than punish the murderers, but we are really not there yet.

(I don't think it is a coincidence that one well-known prison abolitionist has chosen an abuser over his victims.)

 I'm not against the concept of double jeopardy, either, because I totally believe in court abuses, but when a case is so blatantly unjust, where is the remedy?

Well, civil cases. 

As it is, there were two civil cases against Ebens. He lost the first one, and then appealed and won. There were two main factors in the later victory. In the second trial the defense exploited differences in the prosecutor's speech to claim that she was coaching the witnesses. Her attempts to make sure everything was right was able to be turned against her.

Probably more importantly, Ebens did not testify at the second civil trial. In the first one, his testimony consisted of only remembering things that spoke in his favor, but he was not able to remember anything that might have worked against him. The first jury did not find that convincing. He did not have to testify against himself, so in the second trial he did not and came off better.

Mainly, it all makes me think of a different quote:

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

This neglects intersectionality -- one of the killers is a brown woman -- but as long as there are people whom it is okay for you to abuse and bully and threaten and kill, then maybe you can put up with those who are allowed to abuse you.

It's not good for anyone, but there are those whom it hurts more. 

That is not exactly what the other aspect is, but it relates, so that will be the other post.

Related:

https://slate.com/business/2022/06/wilhoits-law-conservatives-frank-wilhoit.html

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/pocharaponneammanee/benjamin-brennan-fraternity-hazing-coma