Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

williamwchuang t1_jc807tp wrote

Reply to comment by 8bitaficionado in Teen brutally attacked in NYC subway station; hate crime probed: NYPD by OpinionPoop

The law is a harsh mistress. For first degree murder, the law requires a showing beyond a reasonable doubt that "the defendant acted in an especially cruel and wanton manner pursuant to a course of conduct intended to inflict and inflicting torture upon the victim prior to the victim’s death." A single stab wound that results in death almost certainly cannot constitute torture under this law as a single action cannot be a "course of conduct". The idiot was convicted of second degree murder.

To give you an idea of how hard it is to get a conviction for first degree murder by torture, only three convictions have been obtained in the thirty years it has been in effect.

2

8bitaficionado t1_jc84suy wrote

The dragging out of a deli and the beat down doesn't fit those requirements? It wasn't just a stab wound.

1

williamwchuang t1_jc8cn8p wrote

Pulling him out of the deli wasn't meant to infect torture. It's a law meant for really specific purposes and the prosecutor tried to stretch it.

1

8bitaficionado t1_jcauepv wrote

You forgot the beating, but I guess they determined that that wasn't severe enough. What a joke.

1

williamwchuang t1_jcb2hqv wrote

It's clear that the crime here doesn't meet the requirements of the law. We aren't supposed to bend the law because we hate the defendants. That's why there's a saying that tough cases make bad law: we twist the law to fit a certain situation then that ends up with bad consequences down the road.

The torture law requires:

the defendant acted in an especially cruel and wanton manner pursuant to a course of conduct intended to inflict and inflicting torture upon the victim prior to the victim's death. As used in this subparagraph, "torture" means the intentional and depraved infliction of extreme physical pain; "depraved" means the defendant relished the infliction of extreme physical pain upon the victim evidencing debasement or perversion or that the defendant evidenced a sense of pleasure in the infliction of extreme physical pain;

In the context of murder, everything leading up to the death is going to be horrible. The law says that it has to be "especially cruel and wanton manner" and it has to be intended to inflict and actually inflict torture. The other ways to get convicted of first degree murder are pretty extreme and rare:

  1. Knowingly and intentionally killing an on-duty cop, firefighter, EMS, corrections officer, etc.;
  2. Killing a witness to silence them;
  3. Killing a judge out of vengeance;
  4. being a serial killer;
  5. Killing anyone while you're already in prison serving a life term;
  6. murder for hire;
  7. a killing while conducting a rape, robbery, or burglary.
0

8bitaficionado t1_jcbie16 wrote

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/125.27

> the defendant acted in an especially cruel and wanton manner pursuant to a course of conduct intended to inflict and inflicting torture upon the victim prior to the victim's death. As used in this subparagraph, "torture" means the intentional and depraved infliction of extreme physical pain; "depraved" means the defendant relished the infliction of extreme physical pain upon the victim evidencing debasement or perversion or that the defendant evidenced a sense of pleasure in the infliction of extreme physical pain; or

If you want to argue that what happened was not "especially cruel and wanton" that's on you. If you don't feel multiple people beating on someone is torturous, that's your opinion. The prosecutors and jurors thought so.

0

williamwchuang t1_jcbl58r wrote

You're making an emotional argument and an appeal to authority. The appellate court overturned the decision of the prosecutor and jury, so my appeal to authority defeats yours. If you want to say that you know more about the law than the appellate courts, then you are free to do so, but it would not hold much water because it's just your opinion supported by your emotions. At the end of the day, are you saying that the appellate court was wrong?

0

8bitaficionado t1_jcbrjyz wrote

You must be a lawyer because you are looking at this like a case you want to win and looking for a technical edge.

0

williamwchuang t1_jcbtp7c wrote

You are very clearly wrong but you're still arguing. No idea why you think you know more than an appellate court.

0