Special Prosecutor Angela B. Corey has accused of George Zimmerman of 2nd degree murder, which in the state of Florida requires evidence of a "depraved mind." While researching this legal concept on Google News, I stumbled upon this March 16th article from the Southwest Florida News-Press about another recent case in Florida where prosecutors also brought 2nd degree murder charges for killing while "evincing a depraved mind." I think this case provides some helpful context and perspective for understanding the Florida law:
Details released today in documents by the State Attorney’s Office reveal a catalogue of hundreds of bloody items examined by investigators in the home of a Naples man accused of beheading his girlfriend last July.
Christopher Serna, 35, is charged with second-degree murder while evincing a depraved mind. ... Bishop's head was stuck on a pole in the living room. Her nude body was found on the floor in a pool of blood in a bedroom.
I'm leaving out a number of other details from the article even more grotesque. (You'll notice that I'm too squeamish to review movies of the Saw / Hostel ilk.)
On the other hand, Zimmerman was accused by NBC News of racially profiling Trayvon Martin, so I guess that's about equal evidence of a depraved mind. These days, if you suspect that a black youth with a what appears to be a track record of being a burglar might be a burglar is pretty much the same as sticking your girlfriend's head on a pole in the living room. By the standards of 2012, it's kind of a toss-up which is more depraved, isn't it?
Posts
13 comments:
Steve, "depraved mind" is something of a term of art in criminal law. Typically this would mean engaging in a highly reckless act that presents a substantial likelihood of causing death without regard for the consequences, but lack of actual intent to kill. The more common term in most states is "depraved heart" or "abandoned and malignant heart." They all mean the same thing: a highly reckless act that presents a substantial likelihood of causing death and does cause death can result in a murder charge, even if there was no intent to kill.
Florida's murder statutes are a bit of a hash, compared to what is typical of most common law jurisdictions. They have first degree murder (premeditated, intentional killing or certain enumerated felonies), 2nd degree ("depraved mind" or accomplice liability to an enumerated felony resulting in death), and 3rd degree (deaths from non-enumerated felonies). I would assume that what is 2nd degree in most states (unintentional, spur of the moment, "heat of passion" killings) would qualify in Florida as either 1st degree (if intent is shown) or 2nd (if they have a problem proving intent). Florida case law probably lays out the distinctions but I don't have access to a Florida legal database right now.
Thanks, Thomas. No doubt we will not be hearing a thorough treatment of this in the media as it could imply an examination of whether the laws would typically be interpreted to apply to Zimmerman.
To make some positive comments about the prosecutor, it should be noted that some parties privy to the facts in the original investigation thought Zimmerman should be charged. We don't know what happened. Maybe he pulled out a gun early on in the whole episode and it was determined reckless. Hopefully, his "depraved mind" is not based on the "recklessness" of getting out of the truck or carrying a firearm.
I don't know how I would feel if it's determined that the recklessness comes from something like, say, shooting aimlessly in Martin's general direction without aiming first. That would be a real bugbear.
They really need to change the term 'Depraved Mind' to 'reckless intent' or something along those lines. On all the female-oriented crime shows a 'depraved' person is a sicko. So people watch the show and then go on a jury and convict a sicko murderer on a less serious offense than intentional homicide because of the term 'Depraved.'
Not that the lynch mob will care but that distinction could make a difference in the actual trial.
I'm not sure how Florida does it, but in some states a serious crime can be charged but a person can be convicted of a less serious offence that's included in the more serious charge (so someone charged with a crime that required they possess contraband and also intend to sell it could be convicted of just possessing the stuff if that is a crime as well).
Alternative explanation: the prosecutor doesn't think Zimmerman is guilty and doesn't want to charge him. However, there's so much heat that charges need to be pressed, and a manslaughter charge would seem like cutting him slack.
This depraved mind 2nd degree murder, however, sounds bad enough that people will ease off. Zimmerman will never be found guilty of having a depraved mind. So, the prosecutor levels charges without putting Zimmerman at too much risk.
I think they are going Brevik: if you think blacks are dangerous, you've got a depraved mind.
She's charging him with Murder 2 so she can go back at him with Manslaughter if she loses. If she loses Manslaughter, they'll go down to Reckless Endangerment or up to Murder 1, or some Federal stuff. The process IS the punishment.
This guy will be prosecuted until he loses, or dies of old age.
P.S. If an Asian or caucasian is on a jury that finds Zim not guilty, he should relocate to Australia about five minutes after the court proceedings finish. If I were in the pool, I'd tell the judge to lick my hindquarters if he thought I had any desire to be strung up if I voted the wrong way. If you're going to lynch the guy, take him out back and be done with it, but leave me out of it.
Thomas: Oh please. Hard to prove intent when the BFF's head is stuck on a pole? Zimmerman's prosecution is selective, politically driven.
These days, if you suspect that a black youth with what appears to be a track record of being a burglar might be a burglar is pretty much the same as sticking your girlfriend's head on a pole in the living room. By the standards of 2012, it's kind of a toss-up which is more depraved, isn't it?
This is written humorously, but as far as public consequences are concerned, it is exactly right, as you perceptively pointed out with the Omar mass murder a few years ago (even the possibility that he was treated in a racist manner immediately extenuated his depraved actions).
You need to go one step further, though, and ask why. Is it one of those weird, spontaneous, unfathomable phenomena, like a fad that pops up out of nowhere? Or are value systems, especially unnatural value systems such as this one, imposed from without and incentivized into internalization? To decide, you need to ask, as you always do, who whom? Cui bono?
Is there a very powerful group out there (one who fears that their group interests will become freely discussed) whose power would be more threatened by race realism and habitual profiling than by the occasional head on a pole or workplace shooting spree? Who wins when race realism and open discussion of group interests becomes the taboo of taboos?
To not raise this question is to be deeply unserious. Value systems serve interests. They do not arise in a vacuum.
"These days, if you suspect that a black youth with a what appears to be a track record of being a burglar might be a burglar is pretty much the same as sticking your girlfriend's head on a pole in the living room."
Presumably, the "you" referred to is the collective "you" of people speculating about the case after it unfolded and not George Zimmerman on that fateful night in February 2012.
Yes, the worst accusation a white person can face these days is the charge of racism. Compared to that, even Ed Gein wasn't so bad. All his victims were white.
I wonder how long it will be before the New Black Panthers start threatening potential jurors?
'Holder's people' really seem to have no limits on what they can say or do.
Second-degree murder in Florida:
The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
She's charging him with Murder 2 so she can go back at him with Manslaughter if she loses. If she loses Manslaughter, they'll go down to Reckless Endangerment or up to Murder 1, or some Federal stuff. The process IS the punishment.
It doesn't work like that in the US. An acquittal on murder 2 counts as an adjudication on all lesser included offenses for purposes of double jeopardy.
"'Holder's people' really seem to have no limits on what they can say or do."
That's because they're doing it to a nation of cowards.
Post a Comment