article
After the verdict of the Kate Steinle case was released, Trump went on record to bash the criminal justice system as ineffective and unable to show the full facts of the case. Though the the DOJ (prosecution) had their charges dropped, they still got him on the charge of illegal possession of firearm.The details of the case are actually quite weird in the sense that the jury voted on the evidence without factoring in his previous felony history. Although legally, in this case, the prosecution could not have mentioned it to the jury, it certainly does reflect quite a bit on his violent behaviors and the fact that he was ordered for deportation 5 times allows Trump to exploit this case for his political gain.
Although many people must also agree that the case result illustrates a failure of the judiciary system, it is not the president's place to comment on such proceedings. Innocent or not, naming new immigration laws after the victim only further politicizes her murder. It is also unfortunate as there is a clear spotlight on every immigrant (illegal or not, but especially illegal immigrants). Their actions are inevitably politicized and will be used as ways to support Trump's immigration bill. Although Zarate is not a completely innocent man, it is not our job to question the jury's examination of evidence, nor is it correct to hold his felonies against him. The POTUS questioning this case only incites a cultural division, perpetuating a distrust of immigrants.
1. It is hard not to apply this case in context of the general question but what do you think about reentry laws into the US? Should they be more stringent, or kept the same, or looser?
2. What do you think about Trump's politicization of this event? It does spread a message, but is it necessarily a good one?
3. Is it unsafe for public officials to become involved in judicial proceedings?
4. What are your thoughts on the system as a whole, does it need improvement so that less murderers walk free?
7 comments:
I disagree with David's opinion that the president should not comment on the effectiveness of the judiciary system. If anything, the president is the single most important person in our country whose opinion on this topic matters because he can get involved in the amendment of this process. As for my opinions on the case itself, I am in disbelief that someone who admitted to shooting someone doesn't get penalized for it. This just means that either everyone on the jury is stupid or the defense lawyers found a way to get into the minds of the jurors. Either way, something needs to be done because guilty people who admit to being guilty should never ever be let off.
Just as Matthew stated in his comment, I also believe that the president should be able to discuss his own take on the judiciary system. The president is an important political figure, so he should be able to talk about his own belief. I think that Trump is right that the judiciary system is somewhat messed up currently. The criminal of this case stated that he did not mean to shoot the victim, but he was already holding the gun. Even if this is an accident, the man deserves punishment for killing a person. This incident could be considered a precedent for how people could get away with killing others as they can say it was just an "accident." The man is being sent back to his country, but that doesn't help the fact that he did kill someone, accidental or not.
It's not unusual to rule on a case without factoring in a victim's criminal history. The law is in all ways impartial regardless of what kind of person ends up in court. To tell the jury about Zarate's felony history would potentially jeopardize their idea that he is innocent until proven guilty. In this specific case, Zarate claims to have found the gun wrapped in a cloth on a bench. When he unwrapped the gun, it went off, and the bullet ricocheted off the pier he was on and hit Steinle. Obviously, this man is not innocent of manslaughter, but given these details it's pretty unlikely he intentionally killed Steinle. People are overlooking the finer details of this case, and are way too quick to brand Zarate a murderer. I think Zarate should have been charged with involuntary manslaughter, but not second degree murder. On top of all this, the fact that he has been deported several times bears no relevance to this case. Yes, it should be considered on a separate case about his residence in the US, but with regards to this incident, there is no relation. Justice is supposed to be served on a case-by-case basis. You are judged for what you did, not who you are.
I don’t think that illegal possession of a firearm necessarily speaks to a “violent history.” The jury should put facts of the case above someone’s history, it doesn’t make sense for them to find him guilty simply because he was previously charged. The bullet that killed Kate Steinle was not directly shot at her, but ricocheted off of the gun that was (according to the defendent) accidentally fired. While Zarate is no perfect human, I do believe that he did not intend to shoot anyone and so did the jury. I agree that Trump is using this to fuel hate against (Latino) immigrants which is ignorant and also is further hurting the family (the father expressed disapproval of the politicization of his daughter’s death).
here are no re-entry laws into the U.S., if you get deported, you are not allowed to come back in legally. This man came illegally all 5 times, we already have strict immigration laws but it shows that people can find one way or another to come back into the U.S. I think they should have done better research on his criminal history to come to their decision. I also don't believe Trump should make stricter immigration laws based on one man because that is just stereo typing all immigrants, which is unfair.
Illegal reentry into the United States after being previously deported should be punished more severely because people are clearly not taking this felony seriously. Maybe illegal reentry should be punishable by death and see how many people try to come back into the US.
Trump has every right to be outraged at the result of this case. It is plain and simple: A 5-time-deported illegal alien and 7-time felon was walking along the Embarcadero, a street that is known for its magnificent views of the Bay, and shot Kate Steinle IN THE BACK with a Sauer P239 handgun that he had stolen from a police car.
The system does need improvement because it is ludicrous that someone with this many prior convictions could even walk/ travel the US so freely.
I think Trump should have gotten involved, but not in the way he did. Of course he is going to use what happened to support his new immigration law, as he has every right to, but I also think it was a good opportunity to express the flaws in the justice system. For a long time I've always believed something needs to be done about the justice system. I do think many criminals are convicted of their crime, but many criminals walk free and many suspects are wrongfully convicted. I think it is absurd that this man admitted to killing her and was not charged for anything besides illegal possession of a firearm. He may not have intentionally killed her, but an innocent life was taken and there should be a punishment for the perpetrator.
Post a Comment