Hunter guilty; spared life term
The Capital Times
James Nichols, of Peshtigo, was found guilty of second degree intentional homicide in a Marinette court room on Saturday. Nichols was convicted of killing Cha Vang while squirrel hunting in a wildlife area in northern Wisconsin. Although sentencing has yet to be scheduled the sentence carries a prison term of 60 years. The victim’s brother, Yee Vang, and other family members feel Nichols should have been given life in prison. This case has renewed racial tension in northern Wisconsin. Three years ago a Hmong man shot and killed six hunters. These cases have further separated the two races. Tou Ger Xiong, spokesman for the Coalition for Community Relations, believes, “the message sent to the Hmong community is that someone can shoot a Hmong hunter and not get the maximum sentence.”
I feel these two cases should not be related. They both revolved around totally different circumstances (one victim in the Nichols case versus six victims in the previous case). I think the race of the people involved is irrelevant and the case details should be examined without regards to race. In the Nichols case, I believe a 60 year sentence is worthy punishment.
3 comments:
I agree with Whitney, the two cases are not related in any way. Each case needs to be looked at differently, but sadly yes, they look at it like the "white boy" didnt get full punishment. The Hmong hunter killed six, yes he is going to get life in prison. If someone really wants to compare it what is the value of one life versus six? As a society we will be fighting the racial "unfairness" for as long as i can see into the future. I think 60 years is enough to have someone learn their lesson its practically life for most anyway, but in the end we really need to stop comparing cases to each other.
I think a 60 year sentence is sufficient for Nichols. Given the evidence that was there, nobody knows for sure if it was self defense or not. This case has nothing to do with race, as Tou Ger Xiong thought. It had to do with the degree of the crime. I agree that to compare this case to one where six people where shot and killed is ridiculous. The laws are laws and it depends on the degree of the crime to how much prison time the convicted will get. It shouldn’t depend on who did it. Someone that kills one person under different circumstances isn’t usually going to get the same sentence as someone that intentionally kills six.
I agree that these two cases must be treated seperately. You cannot prove that the previous hunting murders had any affect on this case. I think that either sentencing would be justifiable.The biggest question this article raises is that should there be a different punishment for killing 1 person than 6. I think that in the case of 6 people the person had to alot more unstable and alot more dangerous. So it is understandable that the sentencing is lighter. But its not like its alot lighter. 60 years compared to life has got to be like comparing steak to bacon. Sure bacon is better, but is it that much better that someone would make a big deal out of steak and eggs than bacon and eggs...i think not!
Post a Comment