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.
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”.
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?
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?
Lol can you tell me what a “bench trial” is?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bench_trial
They can just waive it in writing. So tldr, you’re wrong about the roll of a judge AND about why we have juries and their roll 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.
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.
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.
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.
Not the person you’re debating (and I’m on your side here), but what’s up with all the revisionist history going on lately?
“This thing you’re arguing for was never the intent.”
Then what was the intent you dimwit?
And they never have an answer aside from acting like it was some grave oversight that was only recently caught as a mistake.
As I’ve been repeating ad nauseum, that is not the role of the judge in a criminal trial with a jury present.
This is patently false. A jury determines whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. That’s it. There is no “we feel sad for the defendant” option. Read the transcript of any trial and see how the judge instructs the jury. Jurors do not make up the law “as the people understand it”.
That’s why “Chrystul’s” legal team advised her on her position and instructed her to take the plea deal - because a jury would find her guilty. Obviously, if Jurors just made up the law based on the vibe of a case, her legal advisors would have told her to go to trial because the jury would undoubtedly sympathise with her and find her actions reasonable.
It’s preposterous to assert that part of the function of a jury is to nullify the law. You have absolutely no evidence in support of that. If this were true in any way it would be a component in every criminal trial ever heard by a court. Why bother disputing evidence when you can simply talk about the sad circumstances of the defendant. “The victim deserved to be murdered because they were an asshole”.
I suspect that you simply prefer to believe you live in a world where good will always triumph over evil. You might find this upsetting to acknowledge but any grown up understands that life just isn’t fair, and that bad things happen to good people.
“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.
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.