Unit 1012: The Victims' Families For The Death Penalty.: ERIC ZORN: DON’T REWARD YINGYING ZHANG’S KILLER FOR HIDING HER BODY

Tuesday, June 9, 2020

ERIC ZORN: DON’T REWARD YINGYING ZHANG’S KILLER FOR HIDING HER BODY

“I am against the death penalty, but not in the case of my father.”
– Niklas Frank, son of Hans Frank, Nazi War criminal.

Although the Eric Zorn is a death penalty opponent, he conceded that Brendt Christensen deserves to die for the sadistic murder of Yingying Zhang. He is most probably similar to Niklas Frank, Alan Dershowitz and W. James Antle III. They all oppose capital punishment but concede that the worst of the worst should be put to death.

A cropped version of a photograph of Yingying Zhang that was entered as an exhibit by the prosecution during the trial of her murderer. The photograph shows Yingying Zhang in graduation regalia around the time of her college graduation.

Column: Don’t reward Yingying Zhang’s killer for hiding her body

By Eric Zorn

| Chicago Tribune |

Jun 28, 2019 | 3:55 PM

No deal, I hope.

Late Tuesday, we learned this past week, Brendt Christensen, who was recently convicted of the torture slaying of a University of Illinois scholar visiting from China, offered to provide information as to “the location of the victim’s remains” if federal prosecutors agreed not to pursue the death penalty against him.

Christensen, 29, admitted through his lawyers that he abducted 26-year-old Yingying Zhang, then raped and savagely murdered her in his apartment in Urbana in 2017 .

Her body has not been found, and Christensen appears intent on using its location as a chit to bargain for a lesser sentence.

And yes, extortion of this sort pales in gravity to the heinous crime he committed, but it is an additional, aggravating offense nevertheless, one that causes additional, gratuitous pain to his victim’s family.

Assuming that prosecutors don’t take Christensen up on this vile offer and that his sentencing hearing begins on schedule July 8, Christensen’s attorneys don’t want it mentioned.

In a 17-page court filing, Christensen’s legal team argued that the judge should preclude family members from testifying during their victim-impact statements “that their sense of loss or their pain has been exacerbated because they have been reflecting on … the manner in which the defendant disposed of the victim’s remains and the fact that they have not been located or recovered.”

It would be wrong, the defense lawyers wrote, to “imply to the jury that Mr. Christensen has refused to provide any information about what he did to Ms. Zhang," when, in fact, he did offer to provide such information as part of a plea deal that the government refused.

It does seem, though, that the jury ought to be reminded somehow that Christensen is willing to continue inflicting pain on others in an effort to save his own life.

Didn’t Illinois abolish the death penalty? Yes. Eight years ago, on July 1, 2011. I celebrated the move — not because I light candles for killers or have moral or philosophical qualms with capital punishment, but because our justice system has proved too prone to error to grant it the power of life and death, because it’s prone to racial and socioeconomic bias and because it has no measurable deterrent value over life sentences, which, paradoxically, are far cheaper to carry out than executions.

In state court, where nearly every murder case is heard, Christensen would be facing a maximum sentence of life without parole.

But the federal government still has the death penalty, and Christensen’s case ended up in federal court because the FBI took over the case almost immediately after Zhang’s disappearance due to her status as a foreign national.

In January, Christensen’s lawyers argued in a motion that the invocation of federal jurisdiction for a murder that was hatched and committed in Illinois was simply a pretext to pursue the death penalty against Christensen, and that the case should be referred to state court.

That’s how it looks to me too.

They lost that motion, but their point looks like solid enough grounds for appeal that I suspect it explains their unusual decision to take the case to trial and then to admit, in opening statements June 12, that their client committed the crime.

God takes no pleasure in the death of sinners, so as to delight simply in their death; rather, he delights to magnify his justice by inflicting the punishment which their iniquities have deserved. A righteous judge who takes no pleasure in condemning a criminal, may yet justly command him to be executed so that law and justice may be satisfied, even though it is in his power to procure him a reprieve.

– George Whitefield, Letter to Wesley, Bethesda in Georgia, Dec. 24, 1740

http://victimsfamiliesforthedeathpenalty.blogspot.com/2020/02/can-angry-judge-be-just-our-fair-and.html

The other explanation offered for this nearly unprecedented move — that the defense team wanted to go through the motions of a trial in order to soften up the jury so they’d show mercy during the upcoming sentencing phase — makes little sense given how the evidence revealed beyond any doubt that Christensen is sociopathically evil and killed Zhang in such a heinous manner that I won’t repeat it here. And given how even mildly attentive jurors will realize without being told that every day he doesn’t point authorities to Zhang’s remains is a new offense that makes him that much more deserving of death.

Yes, he deserves it. He deserves worse, in fact. But the feds don’t deserve the right to pull an end run around Illinois law in an effort to kill him.

INTERNET SOURCE: https://www.facebook.com/VictimsFamiliesForTheDeathPenalty/posts/2144146669040621

…………………………..https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/eric-zorn/ct-column-brendt-christensen-yingying-zhang-death-penalty-extortion-20190628-6p3wftd3qvfqlfbmgxsvqmkvwe-story.html

OTHER LINKS: