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.

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

    This is patently false.

    It might feel like a nice idea to have a jury sitting around thinking about what the fairest outcome might be but that is simply not their role.

    A jury’s sole job is to determine whether a defendant is guilty of the charges against them.

    If it was a jury’s job to decide on fairness she would’ve gone to trial rather than taking the deal.

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

      I don’t think her decision to take the deal took into account whether jury nullification exists or not. The way you explained it sounds like retrocausality, though I don’t know if that’s the way you meant it.

      Jury nullification isn’t about fair outcomes, I should clarify, but about whether the law itself is lawful, representative of the people, or applied lawfully. Maybe that fits into the definition of fair I had in mind, but I was thinking on it more objectively, not subjectively.

      There are proponents and opponents within the United States, true, but if a legal system does not permit punishment of jurors, then jury nullification is a logical byproduct of the system. And an important one I would argue. It fits into why trials by jury are important in a democratic legal system - the people have the final say, whether they realize it or not.

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

        Jury nullification doesn’t exist as an intended option to be afforded Jurors.

        Judges instruct jurors to find defendants guilty or not guilty, there is no third “nullification” option.

        Jury Nullification is the name given to this type of frustrated process. A jury unanimously declaring a defendant not-guilty of charges they know them to be guilty of is a perversion of their function.

        In a democratic legal system, the people elect governments to make the laws, police enforce the laws and judges apply those laws. There is no “juries ultimately decide based on the vibe” part of democracy.

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

          I get what you’re saying, and yet it exists and a term exists for it.

          I know there’s no “nullification” verdict and the binary guilty/not guilty are the only recognized options, but nullification is used to describe the not guilty verdict despite any charges and evidence in a trial, which I’m sure you understand.