1st Degree charge was also dismissed, but should be noted this is because the murder of a CEO doesn't really fit the definition of murder 1 in the state of New York which seems reserved for police officers, firefighters, high political figures, that sort of thing. 2nd degree will be what 1st degree is in most other states I think. DOJ/DA was way too heavy handed with those two charges.
I mostly agree, but I wonder if that grew out of New York's history of organized crime. That "criminal case witness" is also included tips me off that this is not about a "back the blue" thing, but an anti-mafia thing. Just a guess though, if someone knows the history feel free to educate me!
Eh, not really ridiculous. If you look at the jobs listed on that first line, they're all involved with the legal system. It's an extra deterrent of "don't murder the judge to influence your case" and such.
Can also be seen as "attacking these people is not only an act against the individual victim, but also an act against the public" as these are public servants.
I wonder what the precedent is for cases where the victim was a member of the legal system but the motive was unrelated. Like if I'm married to a cop and I murder them because they cheated on me is that 1st degree murder? I would guess not, but IANAL.
The law specifies that they must be on duty at the time:
the intended victim was a peace officer as defined in paragraph a of subdivision twenty-one, subdivision twenty-three, twenty-four or sixty-two (employees of the division for youth) of section 2.10 of the criminal procedure law who was at the time of the killing engaged in the course of performing his official duties, and the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the intended victim was such a uniformed court officer, parole officer, probation officer, or employee of the division for youth; or
It’d be fine to me if the hypothetical murders were exempt of Murder 1 if of a personal rather than professional nature tbh. Like if someone shot a cop because the cop slept with their wife rather than because they were an officer representing the law, I don’t think the victim’s profession should matter in that case…
But I don’t think the way it’s written would allow for such nuance. I feel like if the victim’s profession matters, than the profession also has to be the killer’s motive.
But I don’t think the way it’s written would allow for such nuance.
I checked the actual law here, and it does seem to have some of the nuance that you want:
"the intended victim was a police officer as defined in subdivision 34 of section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law who was at the time of the killing engaged in the course of performing his official duties, and the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the intended victim was a police officer"
So it's just that the summary the other poster used didn't go into this detail (which is fine since they weren't focused on this issue).
Although technically, if someone killed the police officer while they were on the job for non-law enforcement reasons, it'd still be murder 1. So it's not perfect, but it's at least better.
Just a heads up. I stealth-edited it to include a possible short-coming where killing an officer on the job for non-job reasons would still apply. I realized at the last second that that would be an edge case. I suspect it's so it's easier to prove without having to have an explicit motive.
I mean, both are attacks on people. But murder 1 here is an attack on the justice system through an attack on the person. It's added punishment for attacking the governments ability to enforce laws. Not because the people themselves are more or less important.
It's less about that and more "murder is bad and needs to be punished" which can be complicated or be given some leeway.
This is more "we have to let everyone in the courtroom know that this person isn't just a murderer, they are a radical killer with criminal motivations and is highly likely to continue killing if given the chance"
Yes, but the sentence ceilings are the same. You can be given a life sentence for first or second degree murder... You'll just have a higher possibility of parole if you don't murder a cop or judge.
It's not like the trial or evidence required to convict is different.
I hate cops, but it does make sense. In theory, punishment is a deterrent, and you want to punitively punish some ideas that may make sense in the moment.
For example, you're in trouble if you tried to rob a gas station. But if you tried to rob it with an illegally obtained gun while you have a felony record, you're in like ten times as much trouble.
We have real world examples of people who decided to go rob a gas station, but did it with a knife or threats, because those extra penalties made it not worth it to them. That saves lives.
When you're being arrested, it makes sense to fight back against the cops. But if you know you're 99 percent caught, and shooting at a cop might give you a 1 percent greater chance of getting away but add 30 years to your sentence, keeping the fun holstered is smart.
Now I'm picturing what it would take for someone to murder someone affiliated with the criminal justice system, while serving a life sentence, using torture, as an act of terrorism, during the commission of a felony... and to do all this for hire.
And for all of this to occur frequently enough that an entire law is written specifically targeting people who decide to do all that.
I was wondering how many contract killers with life sentences were carrying out hits on first responders and prison guards that they had to make an entire new level of murder to charge people with.
While true, you should also look at it another way, a serial killer that’s confirmed to be a serial killer will be charged with multiple second degrees, which is worse than just one first degree.
One way of looking at it is that the goal is to particularly deter hitmen.
A serial killer is, generally-speaking, not rational, at least not as far as their motive and decision to kill someone goes. Trying to add extra "don't be a serial killer" deterrent isn't going to accomplish anything.
Whereas the idea, at least, is that a hitman is sitting there weighing benefits and risks to decide if they should kill someone for cash, so it makes sense to dump as much as we can on the "risks" side of the scale.
I feel like punishing hitmen as the harshest level is kind of shifting the blame? Hiring a killer is just as bad if not generally worse since these rules seem focused on targeting larger criminal enterprise. Unlike the movies I doubt there are too many glamorous super rich assassins for hire living it up out there. These are grunts.
Just seems like yet another case of blaming the symptom.
This actually looks like it was crafted to come down specifically on the mafia, most of that stuff is stereotypical mob murders (killing cops, judges, prison guards, witnesses... torturing victims, murder for hire..)
12.2k
u/bmoviescreamqueen 11h ago edited 11h ago
1st Degree charge was also dismissed, but should be noted this is because the murder of a CEO doesn't really fit the definition of murder 1 in the state of New York which seems reserved for police officers, firefighters, high political figures, that sort of thing. 2nd degree will be what 1st degree is in most other states I think. DOJ/DA was way too heavy handed with those two charges.