Should these guys receive a 20-year sentence for beating a trans woman?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2023/02/28/transgender-woman-violently-attacked-at-minneapolis-light-rail-station

This is the sort if thing that makes me wonder how prison abolitionists would propose handling or even the far less fringe position of people who'd want them treated lightly due to their young ages though not juveniles. Because this is a pretty damn horrific crime no matter how you look at it and yet those types claim to support trabs people almost always even though facing this sort of thing is a very legitimate concern for them.

20 years is the max sentence they can get under Minnesota law, although that would really be just about 13 and some months in prison and the rest on supervised release.

[Ragnaroni]

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2023/02/28/transgender-woman-violently-attacked-at-minneapolis-light-rail-station

This is the sort if thing that makes me wonder how prison abolitionists would propose handling or even the far less fringe position of people who'd want them treated lightly due to their young ages though not juveniles. Because this is a pretty damn horrific crime no matter how you look at it and yet those types claim to support trabs people almost always even though facing this sort of thing is a very legitimate concern for them.

20 years is the max sentence they can get under Minnesota law, although that would really be just about 13 and some months in prison and the rest on supervised release.

What's the normal (average) amount for beating someone up? Trans-woman thing aside, the law is supposed to be blind so they cannot take that into account. Giving them 20 years because they beat up a trans-woman isn't correct.

[dead0man]

Twenty years is a long time for a beating.  That is (as much as) twice as long as someone would get for 3rd degree murder in MN (10-15, less if young and without a history of crime).

But I believe violent criminals should by sentenced far harsher than they are now.  So I'm ok with this.  These dudes clearly can't play well with the rest of us and since having the state murder them is wrong (they tell me), so the next best thing to do is to lock them up until they are old men.  But increasing their sentence because of the reason for the beating is wrong to me.

[Damocles]

Yes, because the beating was motivated primarily by their animus towards the victim on basis of the victim's protected characteristics. Frequently, LGBT+ people find themselves in a uniquely vulnerable position in a society which often discriminates against them on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. Were the prosecution to not recognize this and not seek to press hate crimes charges, it would actually constitute a failure to enforce civil rights legislation.

[SWE]

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2023/02/28/transgender-woman-violently-attacked-at-minneapolis-light-rail-station

This is the sort if thing that makes me wonder how prison abolitionists would propose handling or even the far less fringe position of people who'd want them treated lightly due to their young ages though not juveniles. Because this is a pretty damn horrific crime no matter how you look at it and yet those types claim to support trabs people almost always even though facing this sort of thing is a very legitimate concern for them.

20 years is the max sentence they can get under Minnesota law, although that would really be just about 13 and some months in prison and the rest on supervised release.

What's the normal (average) amount for beating someone up? Trans-woman thing aside, the law is supposed to be blind so they cannot take that into account. Giving them 20 years because they beat up a trans-woman isn't correct.

This isn't remotely true. Motive is, and should be, an extremely relevant factor in fashioning a sentence.

[Ferguson97]

This wasn’t just a few bruises and a black eye, this was an extremely violent attack that could have very easily resulted in her death.

A transgender woman was violently attacked at a Minneapolis light rail station Monday morning, leaving her with a broken rib, collapsed lung and internal cranial bleeding, according to Hennepin County prosecutors.

20 years is perfectly acceptable.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Twenty years is a long time for a beating.  That is (as much as) twice as long as someone would get for 3rd degree murder in MN (10-15, less if young and without a history of crime).

But I believe violent criminals should by sentenced far harsher than they are now.  So I'm ok with this.  These dudes clearly can't play well with the rest of us and since having the state murder them is wrong (they tell me), so the next best thing to do is to lock them up until they are old men.  .

And that's part of the thing, even if they got the max sentence they'd still just be 32 and 36 when they got out.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

They should be sentenced in line with those who committed similar crimes involving non-trans people.

[DrScholl]

Kind of odd that someone would even ask this question. This is a clear violent crime that should be tried and sentenced accordingly.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I know you know that Minnesota publishes pretty clear sentencing guidelines because the maximum only exists for obvious repeat offenders, so 20 years would not be remotely realistic unless there were an extensive history of criminality, or a clearly biased judge.

Minnesota sentencing guidelines for a first case of this would be 48 months (which could reasonably be upped to 57 months if they feel there was clear bias or sociopathy) of which, they would only serve 32 months.

That is still very real time. To me, it's more like second offense time (after a prior lesser offense), and I would urge age as a mitigating factor to keep confinement right around two years if guilt were proven (unless bias were also clearly proven to bring it back up to nearly three). Hardly unreasonable or anything I'd feel bad about rendering as a criminal justice reformer.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

This wasn’t just a few bruises and a black eye, this was an extremely violent attack that could have very easily resulted in her death.

A transgender woman was violently attacked at a Minneapolis light rail station Monday morning, leaving her with a broken rib, collapsed lung and internal cranial bleeding, according to Hennepin County prosecutors.

20 years is perfectly acceptable.

You know you can stop being an authoritarian creep and become an adult already. You're almost in your late 20s. At least physically and chronologically.

[Ferguson97]

You know you can stop being an authoritarian creep and become an adult already. You're almost in your late 20s. At least physically and chronologically.

Thinking that 20 years is an appropriate sentence for attempted murder makes me an "authoritarian creep"? Huh?

[Vice President Christian Man]

I don’t know about 20 years but it should be treated as both attempted murder and a hate crime.

[dead0man]

You know you can stop being an authoritarian creep and become an adult already. You're almost in your late 20s. At least physically and chronologically.

Thinking that 20 years is an appropriate sentence for attempted murder makes me an "authoritarian creep"? Huh?

for what's worth, there are people serving time in MN prisons right now, for murder, that won't do twenty years.  Twenty years is a very long sentence in the US for a first time offence.  We don't know about any previous convictions yet, but I Google the one with a name similar to Terry Funk Jr and there was nothing, but that doesn't mean much.

[Tekken_Guy]

That kind of beating warrants 20 years against anyone, trans or not.

[Badger]

No problem with the penalty being enhanced bye a year or three due to it being a hate crime.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You know you can stop being an authoritarian creep and become an adult already. You're almost in your late 20s. At least physically and chronologically.

Thinking that 20 years is an appropriate sentence for attempted murder makes me an "authoritarian creep"? Huh?

for what's worth, there are people serving time in MN prisons right now, for murder, that won't do twenty years.  Twenty years is a very long sentence in the US for a first time offence.  We don't know about any previous convictions yet, but I Google the one with a name similar to Terry Funk Jr and there was nothing, but that doesn't mean much.

Neither of the guys arrested are a first time offender. One is on probation for a domestic violence case against his ex. Another has three outstanding warrants for failure to appear in court for previous charges and in fact was already banned from the light rail* for opening dealing narcotics at a station.

Sadly this sort of thing is fairly common in Minnesota because the Minnesota Constitution prohibits remand...so someone can be arrested for a violent crime and the judge is always required to offer bail. Then if that person commits another violent crime while out of bail they still need to be offered it...or even if they jump bail and are caught. Note that these guys were still offered bail. Thus you get cases like this where a man killed a shopkeeper less than an hour after leaving court for a gun charge case...he was on trial for engaging in a drive-by shooting, was already banned from possessing a gun due to two prior felony convictions and also two other felony charges against him pending in a different county...and he still was offered bail for the murder charge because no Minnesota judge can ever refuse it.

*Anyone who's ever ridden the Twin Cities light rail can tell you it takes A LOT to get in any type of trouble much less banned from it.

[ProudModerate2]

It seems the physical violence in this case could have killed this individual. And then add "hate crime" into the mix.
So I believe the sentence is reasonable.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Well in light of those facts, the criminal history enhancer increases the recommended sentences to 68 and perhaps even 78 months. The extreme high end of the recommendation is 7.75 years. They would probably wind up serving a little over five years.

Feels about right. I could understand a victim wanting to go a little above that though.

[dead0man]

You know you can stop being an authoritarian creep and become an adult already. You're almost in your late 20s. At least physically and chronologically.

Thinking that 20 years is an appropriate sentence for attempted murder makes me an "authoritarian creep"? Huh?

for what's worth, there are people serving time in MN prisons right now, for murder, that won't do twenty years.  Twenty years is a very long sentence in the US for a first time offence.  We don't know about any previous convictions yet, but I Google the one with a name similar to Terry Funk Jr and there was nothing, but that doesn't mean much.

Neither of the guys arrested are a first time offender. One is on probation for a domestic violence case against his ex. Another has three outstanding warrants for failure to appear in court for previous charges and in fact was already banned from the light rail* for opening dealing narcotics at a station.

then throw the book at them and get rid of the keys.

Sadly this sort of thing is fairly common in Minnesota because the Minnesota Constitution prohibits remand...so someone can be arrested for a violent crime and the judge is always required to offer bail. Then if that person commits another violent crime while out of bail they still need to be offered it...or even if they jump bail and are caught. Note that these guys were still offered bail. Thus you get cases like this where a man killed a shopkeeper less than an hour after leaving court for a gun charge case...he was on trial for engaging in a drive-by shooting, was already banned from possessing a gun due to two prior felony convictions and also two other felony charges against him pending in a different county...and he still was offered bail for the murder charge because no Minnesota judge can ever refuse it.

*Anyone who's ever ridden the Twin Cities light rail can tell you it takes A LOT to get in any type of trouble much less banned from it.

that is crazy, is there any push to fix it?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You know you can stop being an authoritarian creep and become an adult already. You're almost in your late 20s. At least physically and chronologically.

Thinking that 20 years is an appropriate sentence for attempted murder makes me an "authoritarian creep"? Huh?

for what's worth, there are people serving time in MN prisons right now, for murder, that won't do twenty years.  Twenty years is a very long sentence in the US for a first time offence.  We don't know about any previous convictions yet, but I Google the one with a name similar to Terry Funk Jr and there was nothing, but that doesn't mean much.

Neither of the guys arrested are a first time offender. One is on probation for a domestic violence case against his ex. Another has three outstanding warrants for failure to appear in court for previous charges and in fact was already banned from the light rail* for opening dealing narcotics at a station.

then throw the book at them and get rid of the keys.

Sadly this sort of thing is fairly common in Minnesota because the Minnesota Constitution prohibits remand...so someone can be arrested for a violent crime and the judge is always required to offer bail. Then if that person commits another violent crime while out of bail they still need to be offered it...or even if they jump bail and are caught. Note that these guys were still offered bail. Thus you get cases like this where a man killed a shopkeeper less than an hour after leaving court for a gun charge case...he was on trial for engaging in a drive-by shooting, was already banned from possessing a gun due to two prior felony convictions and also two other felony charges against him pending in a different county...and he still was offered bail for the murder charge because no Minnesota judge can ever refuse it.

*Anyone who's ever ridden the Twin Cities light rail can tell you it takes A LOT to get in any type of trouble much less banned from it.

that is crazy, is there any push to fix it?

That would require a constitutional amendment meaning it'd have to be passed by the legislature and then approved by the voters. I don't have much doubt voters would approve it (although it'd probably be a mild one that only changed the rules if someone had multiple offenses or for violent offenders or even just for people that are already wanted for bail jumping) but there's been no push for that. The GOP didn't even when they held the legislature. But that was before a bunch of high-profile cases like this. We'll see what develops.

I will note though that I think the guy on probation at least can still be held now because he violated his probation and he was already convicted of that so it's not the same thing as being held without bail.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

They each got sentences of...four months: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2023/05/15/two-plead-guilty-in-february-attack-on-transgender-woman

[dead0man]

oh, so the govt decided they just beat the sh**t out of the victim for the "yuk yuks" of it, so they only get 4 months?  That's 50lbs of bull sh**t.  If a "hate crime" is the only way to get violent criminals off the streets, perhaps all violent actions should be charged as hate crimes?

[Person Man]

My understanding is that these sort of laws are based the common law difference between "Battery" and "Mayhem". States deal with this sort of thing all kinds of ways but based on what I understand to be customary and reasonable, the difference between misdemeanor Battery and felony Aggravated Battery/Mayhem would be if the victim required medical attention that was more than First Aid.

If someone almost died or was disabled or permanently deformed, yeah. That should be 10 or 20 year prison sentence. On the other hand, if someone gave someone else a nasty cut that required a couple of stitches, that's really tough. I would say that it would be either reasonable to call that a Misdemeanor but have them stay a 100 days in jail followed by the rest of the year of probation or have them do two or threes of house arrest depending on whether this was an isolated incident or not.

If someone got their ass kicked and had a bunch of bruises and were humiliated and probably had to rest for a couple of days, that's probably a typical misdemeanor but any unwanted touching is technically a misdemeanor.

oh, so the govt decided they just beat the sh**t out of the victim for the "yuk yuks" of it, so they only get 4 months?  That's 50lbs of bull sh**t.  If a "hate crime" is the only way to get violent criminals off the streets, perhaps all violent actions should be charged as hate crimes?

And of course there is the issue of something being a "hate crime". Obviously Free Speech is important and it is a fundamental right to be able to feel the way that you do about anything. However, no matter how much you believe in something or hate something, it isn't part of what you are entitled to do if it makes it so that someone else cannot exercise their rights. What makes hate crime particularly aggravated isn't that it is targeting a sociologically unprivileged group, but that it is attempting to push or facilitate the defendant's agenda or preferred policies through self-help. Not ironically, that is the definition of terrorism.


So if it can be proven that this battery was an attempt at intimidating the community into acquiescing to the defendant's wants, the appropriate thing to do would be to compare this case to other terror attacks with similar facts.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I know you know that Minnesota publishes pretty clear sentencing guidelines because the maximum only exists for obvious repeat offenders, so 20 years would not be remotely realistic unless there were an extensive history of criminality, or a clearly biased judge.

Minnesota sentencing guidelines for a first case of this would be 48 months (which could reasonably be upped to 57 months if they feel there was clear bias or sociopathy) of which, they would only serve 32 months.

That is still very real time. To me, it's more like second offense time (after a prior lesser offense), and I would urge age as a mitigating factor to keep confinement right around two years if guilt were proven (unless bias were also clearly proven to bring it back up to nearly three). Hardly unreasonable or anything I'd feel bad about rendering as a criminal justice reformer.

And would be a lot more than they actually got!