(I don't want to get into a sentence length discussion, I think sentences for both murders should be equal.)

 Reply

ugh, no. colorblindness is NOT a solution to racial oppression.

*sighz*

 Reply

And the fact that they're just doing their job? Well, bully for them. I hadn't realized that we couldn't criticize people's jobs.

The language used is insulting and demeaning, belies the incredible ignorance exhibited by the general public towards transgenderism, and helps uphold the ignorance of those beliefs. What's more, it could have been MY cousin, so I think my anger is wholly justified.

 Reply

When I talked about "doing their job" I wish it was that easy. Being a defense lawyer is not just "a job", nor can it be assessed in isolation from the rest of the judicial system. The role of defense lawyers in our society is incredibly important in protecting people from the abuse of state power, from being wrongfully imprisoned, from receiving harsher sentences than they deserve, etc. Going to jail, aside from being placed involuntarily in a psychiatric institution, or being put on death row, is the most serious infringement of civil liberties that can occur to a person. It should not be done lightly and the prosecution must prove every element of the offense and every factor which warrants additional consideration beyond a reasonable doubt. They clearly did that in this case.

The defense has a moral obligation to put forward the strongest defense possible, while adhering to client instructions, which includes trying to mitigate based on the client's state of mind. We have no idea whether a plea was offered, whether it was rejected, what the client told the defense to argue, etc. The larger societal implications are left to the judge/jury to decide. It is not the role of the defense to make normative decisions about how our society should behave towards one another. The reason for this is it would compete with the obligation to mount a vigorous defense and to represent your client to the full extent that the law permits because the focus must be on the client, no matter how despicable or reprehensible their actions are because of the seriousness to which their lives are in jeopardy.

While this may sound callous, especially because Angela died at the hands of this person who was clearly motivated by hatred, but the fact is it is up to the state to prove that Mr. Andrade, did in fact commit this crime.

I think it would be better if we as a society focused on how we all use language so as to ensure that defenses like this one continue to be rebuked. So that the strategy of calling Angela a man would be sure to backfire. But, when it comes to a criminal defense, the only obligation is to the client, and, until there's a complete overhaul of our judicial system, that is how it must be.

So, it's not that I don't think your anger is not justified, but I was trying to show the other side.

BTW, as a law student working in a clinic, I have been on the other side, representing transgendered clients, and attacking vigorously the misuse of language as a violation of one's rights (this is not a criminal case). I've been up against a defense that I think callously and insultingly referred to the client as the wrong gender, and I will be arguing that this is a continuing insult that should not go unsanctioned. The other side is putting forward what they think is the best defense (I happen to disagree) but that is their role in this system and it's up to the decision-maker to decide and all I can do is keep pressing as to why this language should not be tolerated.

 Reply

*fumes more quietly*

 Reply