Creationist Row Ends with Death

[Androsphinx]

English fundamenalist kills Scottish biomedic in Australia

A FRUIT picking trip to NSW ended in the death of a Scottish backpacker over a row about creationism and evolution.

English backpacker Alexander Christian York, 33, was today sentenced to a maximum of five years jail for the manslaughter of Scotsman Rudi Boa in January last year.

Mr Boa, 28, died on January 27 after being stabbed by York at the Blowering Holiday Park, near Tumut.

Mr Boa and his girlfriend Gillian Brown arrived in Australia from Scotland at the end of 2005 and went to Tumut to pick fruit as their first port of call on a round the world holiday.

York had been in the country since April 2005.

The Scottish couple and York, neighbours at the caravan park, were becoming friends and spent the night of January 27 drinking at the Star Hotel in Tumut.

However, towards the end of the night, an argument between York and the pair about creationism versus evolution escalated into a shouting match at the pub.

The couple, both biomedical scientists, had been arguing the case of evolution, while York had taken a more biblical view of history.

“Although this became perhaps a little sharp edged, it did not really amount to anything,” Justice Michael Adams said during York's sentencing in the NSW Supreme Court today.

“For some reason, however ... the offender's mood changed suddenly and he began to abuse Mr Boa and Ms Brown.

“There was no hint of a physical confrontation and what a happened amounted to little more than a brief verbal contretemps.”

Although the altercation had been defused by the time the Scottish tourists left the hotel, it became inflamed again at the caravan park when all three were quite drunk.

According to Ms Brown, York was making dinner when he attacked the couple outside his tent, stabbing Mr Boa with a kitchen knife as the argument escalated.

York said he had lashed out in self-defence, after being attacked by Mr Boa.

In the NSW Supreme Court sitting in Wagga Wagga in July, York was found guilty of manslaughter but acquitted of murdering Mr Boa.

He was today sentenced to a maximum of five years in jail, with a non-parole period of three years.

He will be eligible for release on January 26, 2009.

Justice Adams said he had given York a sentence at the lower end of the scale, partly because of the accidental nature of the stabbing.

“I do not believe that he took aim but rather thrust out,” Justice Adams said.

“I think he knew that the knife was in his hand ... but he did not actually turn his mind to the potentially serious consequences of doing this.

“The offender is a person of good character and the offence is a complete aberration.”

York, unshaven and dressed in prison greens, sat impassively as Justice Adams read out the sentence.

Mr Boa's sister Debbie broke down when York was led into court, and during the sentencing.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

Five years? Bullshit. This guy knew exactly what he was doing when he stabbed the guy. This is murder, not fucking manslaughter... what a load of crap.

"I think he knew that the knife was in his hand ... but he did not actually turn his mind to the potentially serious consequences of doing this."

If the serious consequences of doing this weren't painful obvious, and completely lacking any actual need to think about them, then this guy is also a goddamn moron.

[The Vortex Empire]

Manslaughter? That's not manslaughter, that's fucking murder by every definition of the word.

[SCRawl]

Manslaughter? That's not manslaughter, that's fucking murder by every definition of the word.

Murder requires premeditation. From the facts presented, there's no indication of that, and it would probably have been difficult to prove.

Having said that, five years still sounds a little on the low side to me. The judge said that he took the defendant's character into account, which does not, I hope, include the "but he's a good Christian boy, your honour!" defence.

[Junghalli]

So apparently we have a creationist who's so invested in his beliefs that questioning them works him into a homocidal rage? Why am I not surprised?

[Temjin]

Quoted from Wikipedia:

There is a statutory defence of provocation in NSW law - Section 23 of the Crimes Act, if provocation is proven and the person would have otherwise been convicted of murder, directs the jury to find the defendant not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.

This could explain the Manslaughter charge. But even so, this is still bullshit. All they did was have an argument about religion.

[Singular Intellect]

So apparently we have a creationist who's so invested in his beliefs that questioning them works him into a homocidal rage? Why am I not surprised?

My thoughts exactly. Reading the article I didn't immediately know who was the killer, but my instinct was it couldn't have been the pro evolution individual, since to me that indicates an intelligent and stable type of person.

Glad to see I was right.

[Singular Intellect]

Quoted from Wikipedia:

There is a statutory defence of provocation in NSW law - Section 23 of the Crimes Act, if provocation is proven and the person would have otherwise been convicted of murder, directs the jury to find the defendant not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.

This could explain the Manslaughter charge. But even so, this is still bullshit. All they did was have an argument about religion.

That same arguement has lead to the horrific burning of people at the stake, so frankly this shouldn't be a surprise.

[Temjin]

That same arguement has lead to the horrific burning of people at the stake, so frankly this shouldn't be a surprise.

My point was that the argument should not be enough of a justifiable provocation to reduce the charge from murder to manslaughter.

[SCRawl]

Using Temjin's reference from Wikipedia:

Murder is defined in the New South Wales (NSW) Crimes Act 1900 as follows:

SECTION 18 1) a) Murder shall be taken to have been committed where the act of the accused, or thing by him or her omitted to be done, causing the death charged, was done or omitted with reckless indifference to human life, or with intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm upon some person, or done in an attempt to commit, or during or immediately after the commission, by the accused, or some accomplice with him or her, of a crime...[20]

This demonstrates my ignorance of Australian law: premeditation doesn't have to be demonstrated in order for a killing to be a murder. Still, as Temjin points out, having a difference of opinion over a (largely settled) scientific debate shouldn't count as provocation in and of itself. I suppose the victim could have been obscenely belligerent in the way he phrased his argument, raising questions about the killer's parentage and odours of elderberries, etc., but that's not in the article quoted.

[Darth Wong]

So apparently we have a creationist who's so invested in his beliefs that questioning them works him into a homocidal rage? Why am I not surprised?

Yes, but it's a Christian, which means that it's just one crazy individual and does not reflect on the religion itself at all. Now if it were a Muslim, it would be totally different, and it would serve as proof of whatever we wanted to say about Islam.

[Kamakazie Sith]

If it is possible can any mod delete that last post of mine as it doesn't really add anything to this discussion and is just a stupi dmistake on my part.

OT - I think it's strange that manslaughter and murder are on the same scale as each other. Aren't they different crimes in Australia?

It is done.

This post edited by: Master of Ossus

[Master of Ossus]

Why isn't this a hate crime? The reason he was arguing in the first place was because his religious beliefs conflicted with the religious beliefs of the other guy.

Also, I don't know what the fuck is wrong with the Australian judicial system. It's worse than the poisonous animals they have down under. Bringing a weapon to an argument is considered evidence of premeditation in most American states, particularly given the fact that he had had time to cool down and reflect before re-instigating the argument, later. Five years is also nonsense for a voluntary manslaughter charge, anyway--in the US it would have gotten him 20.

[Crosses Australia off list of countries to visit.]

[Kamakazie Sith]

Why isn't this a hate crime? The reason he was arguing in the first place was because his religious beliefs conflicted with the religious beliefs of the other guy.

Also, I don't know what the fuck is wrong with the Australian judicial system. It's worse than the poisonous animals they have down under. Bringing a weapon to an argument is considered evidence of premeditation in most American states, particularly given the fact that he had had time to cool down and reflect before re-instigating the argument, later. Five years is also nonsense for a voluntary manslaughter charge, anyway--in the US it would have gotten him 20.

[Crosses Australia off list of countries to visit.]

Belief in evolution doesn't fall into the category of requirements for a hate crime, and in order for it to be a hate crime the victim must be chosen because of one of those categories.

[Patrick Degan]

In this country, York would likely have been charged with murder-2, which would have been plead down to first degree manslaughter for a 8-15 year sentence.

[Resinence]

Why isn't this a hate crime? The reason he was arguing in the first place was because his religious beliefs conflicted with the religious beliefs of the other guy.

Also, I don't know what the fuck is wrong with the Australian judicial system. It's worse than the poisonous animals they have down under. Bringing a weapon to an argument is considered evidence of premeditation in most American states, particularly given the fact that he had had time to cool down and reflect before re-instigating the argument, later. Five years is also nonsense for a voluntary manslaughter charge, anyway--in the US it would have gotten him 20.

[Crosses Australia off list of countries to visit.]

He didn't bring a weapon to an argument, he was making dinner when the other couple arrived home again and his rage from earlier exploded casuinghim to lash out. And he was drunk. Must "lol american law is teh best" come up every single time a crime from somewhere else is posted?

[Patrick Degan]

Why isn't this a hate crime? The reason he was arguing in the first place was because his religious beliefs conflicted with the religious beliefs of the other guy.

Also, I don't know what the fuck is wrong with the Australian judicial system. It's worse than the poisonous animals they have down under. Bringing a weapon to an argument is considered evidence of premeditation in most American states, particularly given the fact that he had had time to cool down and reflect before re-instigating the argument, later. Five years is also nonsense for a voluntary manslaughter charge, anyway--in the US it would have gotten him 20.

[Crosses Australia off list of countries to visit.]

He didn't bring a weapon to an argument, he was making dinner when the other couple arrived home again and his rage from earlier exploded casuinghim to lash out. And he was drunk.

And what does any of that have to do with the price of eggs? "Didn't bring a weapon to the argument"? He went and got one. "His rage from earlier exploded, causing him to lash out"? Guess what: it's presumed that you're supposed to have something called "self-control" to avoid situations like that. "And he was drunk"? No excuse —the drink doesn't absolve you of responsibility for an action you commit while intoxicated.

Must "lol american law is teh best" come up every single time a crime from somewhere else is posted?

Five years for what essentially was second-degree murder. Guess what: American law is better in this regard. And so, I expect, is British and Canadian law as well.

[Master of Ossus]

He didn't bring a weapon to an argument, he was making dinner when the other couple arrived home again and his rage from earlier exploded casuinghim to lash out. And he was drunk. Must "lol american law is teh best" come up every single time a crime from somewhere else is posted?

Blow me. American law is MUCH better at handling situations like this. He stabbed a guy to death for arguing with him about a subject that, for him, was a religious topic. And he got five years for it. As for your bullshit about intoxication being an excuse, it's fucking apologism for murder. You don't have a problem with this?

As for the argument that they came to him, so he didn't bring the weapon to the argument, he got a knife and stabbed people outside of his tent.

Even when you're drunk, in THIS country, you're still expected to be responsible for your actions. I guess other countries don't think that way, but American law frankly makes much more sense in this regard. And let's not mince words: this is murder. Manslaughter charges are reserved, in the US, for cases where there is legally adequate provocation (eg., not "words alone" like this case shows). In other words, in Australia you can murder people and be free in five years. Sorry, but American law would have provided a better outcome than this.

The only other places I've seen "American law is the best" coming up is in comparison with ridiculous crimes that come up in the Middle East (sorry, once again, edge goes to the US legal system), and some crimes in Europe that result in ridiculous outcomes. The US legal system isn't perfect, but it produces results that are much better than the one in this case and the sort of honor-killings that dominate in parts of the West Bank.

In this case, the judge didn't even give him a harsh sentence GIVEN THAT IT WAS DECLARED MANSLAUGHTER, apparently because stabbing someone with a knife during an argument counts as being "accidental" in Australia. Sorry, but that's not a reasonable or even a defensible judicial decision in the civilized world. And you missed my favorite part: he's not even going to spend five years in prison. He's eligible for release in January 2009! He'll be free in less than three years. For stabbing a guy to death. American law IS better than that.

[SCRawl]

Here's a cheery thought: he might get out in three years, instead of five. He's probably a parole board poster-boy.

As for the notion that alcohol consumption might mitigate the circumstances of one's crimes, in almost all cases that's just silly. If you know that you're the sort of person who loses control when he drinks, and you drink anyways, well, guess whose fault that is? You still took that first drink when you were sober.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Actually, I missed the drunk bit. In order to commit a crime in the US you must have the mental state. Example in most US states the mental state for murder is knowingly or intentionally.

Being drunk can negate those two mental states, and bring it down to recklessly. If you recklessly kill someone then you have the mental state for manslaughter.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Here's a cheery thought: he might get out in three years, instead of five. He's probably a parole board poster-boy.

As for the notion that alcohol consumption might mitigate the circumstances of one's crimes, in almost all cases that's just silly. If you know that you're the sort of person who loses control when he drinks, and you drink anyways, well, guess whose fault that is? You still took that first drink when you were sober.

I agree. I'm not a big fan of the intoxication defense...

[Master of Ossus]

Actually, I missed the drunk bit. In order to commit a crime in the US you must have the mental state. Example in most US states the mental state for murder is knowingly or intentionally.

Being drunk can negate those two mental states, and bring it down to recklessly. If you recklessly kill someone then you have the mental state for manslaughter.

No, recklessness is sufficient for Murder-2, which does NOT require intent, and gross recklessness is sufficient for Murder-1 under the "depraved heart" theory. In either case, it would have been a much more satisfactory outcome than "accidental" manslaughter.

[mr friendly guy]

Yeah, welcome to Australia. We have plenty of good things, unfortunately having appropriate sentences for the crime seems to have eluded us. Except of course if the government accuses you of terrorism, then you are fucked even if the courts find you not guilty.

Otherwise, the sentencing has been a goddamn joke.

[fgalkin]

Yeah, welcome to Australia. We have plenty of good things, unfortunately having appropriate sentences for the crime seems to have eluded us. Except of course if the government accuses you of terrorism, then you are fucked even if the courts find you not guilty.

Otherwise, the sentencing has been a goddamn joke.

Or unless you're Stofsk.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[CmdrWilkens]

Actually, I missed the drunk bit. In order to commit a crime in the US you must have the mental state. Example in most US states the mental state for murder is knowingly or intentionally.

Being drunk can negate those two mental states, and bring it down to recklessly. If you recklessly kill someone then you have the mental state for manslaughter.

Aside from the fact that drunkness generally only prohibits Murder-1 (and not always as MoO pointed out) lets take the idea that it does get dropped to Manslaughter-1. In most states that is still anywhere from 15-25 years on the high side and 7-12 years on the low side. Most likely Man-1 would be the pleas bargain reached in a case such as this with sentencing left modest so in the end probably 15 years with parole possible after 10 or 12. That's the plea deal. If the state's attorney got ambitous about making a statement then Murder-2 is going to get pushed through and then its life with parole after 25 or so. All said every one of the options your average US state offers is less absurd than outcome here.