A Milwaukee woman has been jailed for 11 years for killing the man that prosecutors said had sex trafficked her as a teenager.

The sentence, issued on Monday, ends a six-year legal battle for Chrystul Kizer, now 24, who had argued she should be immune from prosecution.

Kizer was charged with reckless homicide for shooting Randall Volar, 34, in 2018 when she was 17. She accepted a plea deal earlier this year to avoid a life sentence.

Volar had been filming his sexual abuse of Kizer for more than a year before he was killed.

Kizer said she met Volar when she was 16, and that the man sexually assaulted her while giving her cash and gifts. She said he also made money by selling her to other men for sex.

  • LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    Why do we have a jury to decide if a defendant is guilty or not guilty when a judge is trained to do the same thing? Why do we allow a jury at all? I think there’s more to the function of the jury than just guilty/not guilty or else they would be replaced with a different system.

    • fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’m getting weary of repeating myself.

      It is very clearly not the role of a judge to decide whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. They are not “trained” to do that. That is the role of the jury. Hence the phrase “you have been found guilty by a jury of your peers”.

      You have a jury to balance the power of the judge, such that a judge can not simply dole out “justice”.

      • LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        Defendants can elect to have a jury trial. If they don’t have a jury trial, who finds them guilty or not guilty? Is it the judge? If it’s the judge, why do we allow jury trials to occur when every trial could be determined by a justice of the peace?

        What is “training” if not education in the laws and legal system? Are judges not educated in law school before becoming lawyers and then justices? Is this irl experience not also considered training?

        • fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          Honestly I’m not really sure what you’re talking about.

          The role of a judge and the role of a jury is a fundamental characteristic of a court. You seem to be mixing them up?

              • LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                A bench trial is a trial by judge, as opposed to a trial by jury.

                With bench trials, the judge plays the role of the jury as finder of fact in addition to making conclusions of law.

                , if a defendant is entitled to a jury trial, the trial must be by jury unless the defendant waives a jury trial in writing. In the various state court systems, waiver of jury trial can vary by jurisdiction.

                They can just waive it in writing. So tldr, you’re wrong about the role of a judge AND about why we have juries and their role in the judicial system. Which is to be a check toward aristocracy and unfair laws. The jury literally exists specifically to decide guilty, not guilty, or null. That’s why it’s an option.

                • fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  The ability to waive your right to a jury trial does not change the role of a jury.

                  Jury’s do not exist to interpret the law according to the vibe of a given case. If they did, obviously Chrystul would’ve gone to trial instead of taking the deal.

                  If a jury concludes that the defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt then they return a guilty verdict, there is no “unless they’re not feeling it” part of the deliberation process.

                  If a law is unjust, that’s a matter for a democratically elected government to resolve, not 12 randomly selected members of the public.

                  • LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 months ago

                    Okay so you now admit that judges can determine a guilty or not guilty sentence? And that judges have special training helping them to understand the law exactly, whereas jurors typically do not have this training?

                    Yes, it does, because it implies a jury is meant to function outside of the established law by definition and instead focus on law as the people use and understand it. This is justice. That’s why we can legally protest and get laws changed.

                    Chrystal should have indeed gone to trial, that’s why so many people are upset she didn’t, because we all think she would probably have gotten off. But it’s not a guarantee so she took the deal. That’s literally why people are talking about jury trials here lol, and her legal counsel.

                    Jury’s do not exist to interpret the law according to the vibe of a given case. If they did, obviously Chrystul would’ve gone to trial instead of taking the deal.

                    Like this is such a stupid position. Chrystal, a girl who was sex trafficked most of her teens and is still young, wouldn’t know whether it’s better to go to trial or not. And her knowledge of if she should go to trial or not doesn’t dictate the role of juries lmfao. She doesn’t determine that.

                    Again we go back to why juries exist. They have jury nullification available literally specifically so juries can indeed nullify the law. That is part of the function of a jury. Just because that upsets you, doesn’t mean that’s not what they are for. Since you didn’t even know that a bench trial existed, you’re not exactly a legal expert on this.

                    A jury is a democratically elected government. They are voted in by both the prosecution and defense. And the people in the Supreme Court decide our laws and are a much smaller and more corrupt group. Congress and the senate also make laws and proportionate to the country’s population, are also a very tiny group making laws for everyone.

                    I think you just don’t understand juries and this upsets you.

          • xcjs@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            “What you say disagrees with my world view, so I’m just going to pretend you’re crazy and your words don’t make sense.”

            I’ve had this exact tactic used against me - it’s very transparent when used and weakens your position.

            • fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Honestly I’m not really sure what you’re talking about.

              That’s a pretty polite way to encourage someone to clarify their position IMO.

              If you interpret that as an accusation of being crazy and not making sense, I think that says more about you than it does about me.