SG Talk

Full Version: Is killing sex trafficker justified because perpetrator was a sex trafficking victim?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
By TODD RICHMOND
yesterday


......

Chrystul Kizer shot Randall Volar in the head at his Kenosha home, burned down the house and stole his BMW in 2018.

Kizer, who was 17 at the time of the shooting, contends she met Volar on a sex trafficking website and he went on to sexually assault her and traffic her to others.

......

Charges she faces include arson, theft and first-degree intentional homicide.

Kizer’s attorneys want to argue that she’s immune from prosecution under a 2008 state law that absolves sex trafficking victims of any offenses committed as a result of being trafficked.

......

Assistant Attorney Timothy Barber said York’s interpretation would create an unprecedented expansion of self-defense doctrine by removing any questions about whether killing someone was reasonable or necessary.

“This can’t be what the Legislature intended,” Barber said. “The state does not believe that killing someone to get out of a trafficking situation is what’s contemplated under the statute.”

He also argued that the shooting wasn’t a direct result of trafficking because Kizer traveled to Kenosha to see Volar and had time to contemplate shooting him.

......

The justices appeared to wrestle with the concepts. Patience Roggensack, a conservative, said the law does seem to trample established self-defense doctrine. She called it “a real conundrum” and Kizer’s case “really bad for me.”

“You’re telling us this is stronger than self-defense,” Roggensack said. “(Kizer) doesn’t have to prove there’s no other way around the bush when she shot him in the head. She had an absolute privilege to do it under the statute.”

Jill Karofsky, who directed the state Justice Department’s Office of Crime Victim Services before becoming a judge, responded to Barber’s arguments that the shooting wasn’t a direct result of trafficking with disbelief, telling him that trafficking isn’t a one-time crime and a victim can be trapped in it for years.

“I think what the other side is saying is it’s a direct result out of these years of abuse,” said Karofsky, a liberal. “I don’t understand. Your argument doesn’t make any sense to me.”

......

It’s unclear when the justices might rule. Their decision could set a precedent for how far criminal immunity extends in other states


https://apnews.com/article/crime-wiscons...63e365e07b