People
v. Superior Court (Du)
5
Cal.App.4th 82, 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 177.
Dressler,
49-52.
Facts: The Du family ran a liquor
store. The defendant didn’t usually work
the counter at the store, but was working there on the day of the crime. The defendant thought the victim was
shoplifting, and tried to stop her.
There was a struggle, and the victim punched the defendant in the eye
twice. As the victim apparently prepared
to pay for the item the defendant thought she was stealing, the defendant first
threw a chair and then shot the victim in the back of the head. The defendant made various claims at trial about
not remembering firing the gun and not intending to kill the victim. The jury found her guilty, so it implicitly
must have found that these claims were untrue.
The
probation officer said Mrs. Du was unlikely to commit another crime but
recommend she be sentenced to prison.
Issue: How much punishment is it
just for Du to receive?
Rule: A just punishment should:
1) protect society, 2) punish the defendant for wrongdoing, 3) encourage the defendant
to be good in the future, 4) deter other crimes, 5) incapacitate the defendant,
6) make restitution for the victim, and 7) be comparable to punishments for
similar crimes.
Analysis: The court reasons that of
these frequently used justifications for punishment, most either don’t give any
guidance or suggest Mrs. Du should not be punished. The court says that there is value in
punishing Mrs. Du for wrongdoing.
The
court also argues that even though a firearm was used, this is an “unusual case”
for three reasons:
1. The statute is
intended to apply to criminals who arm themselves to go out and commit crimes,
as opposed to shopkeepers who keep firearms for self-defense.
2. The defendant
has no criminal record.
3. The defendant
was under duress.
The
court found that the act was partially excused by the fact that the victim had
attacked the defendant with her fists.
Conclusion:
The court
suspended a ten-year sentence and put Mrs. Du on probation.
Notes
and Questions
1. I debated
between sentencing the defendant to the maximum term and letting her off on
probation. The only reason I could see
for sentencing the defendant would be to try to deter similar behavior in the
future. I think even a death sentence
may fail to bring about general deterrence, and of course the cost to Mrs. Du
would be enormous. Therefore, since even
the maximum penalty allowed by law would probably fail to deter, I would let
her off on probation.
2. A judge should
consider the effect of a verdict on the community, but most of the time, the
effect on the community will be small compared to the possible long-lasting
impact of a profoundly unfair, unjust, or simply illegal verdict. If returning a patently unjust verdict would
save hundreds or thousands of lives that are immediately threatened, then this should
be taken into account. This goes for the
case of adjusting later verdicts based on public reaction to earlier ones. If the next completely legal verdict will
cause a thousand people to die but an unjust verdict will kill one person now
and five hundred in the next five hundred years, the court should announce the
unjust verdict.
3. Mercy is
inefficient because it creates uncertainty of information in the criminal
justice system. Certainty of information
ensures that at least in the macro sense, people will make rational decisions
about committing crimes. If we set up
the right system of carrots and sticks, and it’s swift and sure, we hope to be
able to deter most crime.