The third degree murder conviction may go. Since Chauvin was convicted of second degree murder, the prosecution doesn't need that conviction for sentencing purposes. And the Supreme Court of Minnesota may narrow that statute in the Noor case without fear of rioting. Nope involves whether third degree murder applies when the defendant raises a substantial risk of harm to one person.
This actually disturbs me quite a bit. Living in MN, I followed the trial closely, and I learned a lot about our justice system that strikes me as unjust. I feel like if the defendant here was less deplorable, liberals would be crying foul about how our justice system railroads people into convictions. That having scads of elected officials proclaim their desired results ahead of the trial isn't grounds to say that trial cannot be fair is legitimately shocking to me--as is the idea that a jury is still considered valid, even after having a juror admit that they don't believe in the bedrock of our justice system.
Even little things, like the definition of murder 2 (which I've never looked at before, because why would I?) strike me as problematic. I understand the idea of felony murder, but having this weird "backdoor" where the action that is the felony is also the action that makes it count as murder instead of manslaughter just seems like a way for prosecutors to ratchet up the sentencing without having to prove a more serious crime. Maybe it was the correct choice in this case, but I imagine there are cases that got no press where it's been used for unjust outcomes.
The third degree murder conviction may go. Since Chauvin was convicted of second degree murder, the prosecution doesn't need that conviction for sentencing purposes. And the Supreme Court of Minnesota may narrow that statute in the Noor case without fear of rioting. Nope involves whether third degree murder applies when the defendant raises a substantial risk of harm to one person.
This actually disturbs me quite a bit. Living in MN, I followed the trial closely, and I learned a lot about our justice system that strikes me as unjust. I feel like if the defendant here was less deplorable, liberals would be crying foul about how our justice system railroads people into convictions. That having scads of elected officials proclaim their desired results ahead of the trial isn't grounds to say that trial cannot be fair is legitimately shocking to me--as is the idea that a jury is still considered valid, even after having a juror admit that they don't believe in the bedrock of our justice system.
Even little things, like the definition of murder 2 (which I've never looked at before, because why would I?) strike me as problematic. I understand the idea of felony murder, but having this weird "backdoor" where the action that is the felony is also the action that makes it count as murder instead of manslaughter just seems like a way for prosecutors to ratchet up the sentencing without having to prove a more serious crime. Maybe it was the correct choice in this case, but I imagine there are cases that got no press where it's been used for unjust outcomes.