It seems that a blind rage or grief response to horrific events or crimes, especially concerning children, have historically been forgiven by law. In that when, or if they make it to court, a judge or jury is fully able to see themselves capable of the same actions. I was born in Mississippi and raised in Texas and was very aware of a common belief in instant justice for such evil actions.
I do not remember anyone publicly criticizing Gary Plauche for killing child molester Jeff Doucet. There were a lot of "I would have done the same thing" comments, and I think it would have been unlikely that a jury would have given him a harsher sentence than the judge did, if any.
I think that seeing your two dead children having been killed by drunk driver would snap most peoples minds, and all reasoning would be forgotten.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: I absolutly do remember that. Just referenced it the other day in a conversation about this very thing. I have always been amazed at the lightness of that sentence. I mean, it was a premeditated murder for revenge.[/u[

Not according to the psychologists that examined Plauche.
1. He was determined to be not of sound mind at the time of the shooting.
2. He was truly fearful that Ducet would continue to abuse his son and/or others either if he got off, or once he got out of prison.
3. He accepted a plea bargain from the DA's office.

"The entire incident was captured on camera. Officials grabbed hold of Plauche and recognized who he was at once. They kept him pinned against the wall, asking him as captured on camera, "Gary, why? Why, Gary?". Doucet died of his gunshot wound the following day. After the incident, Plauche was originally charged with second-degree murder, but after bargaining with prosecutors, he pleaded no contest to manslaughter. In the end, he was sentenced to five years probation and 300 hours of community service work, which he completed in 1989.[3] Psychological reports helped Plauche's case after it was found out that Doucet had abused Jody Plauche months prior to the kidnapping. [u]Doctor Edward P. Uzee examined Gary Plauche and determined that he could not tell the difference between right and wrong when he killed Doucet. A voice inside Plauche's head was telling him that he had to kill Doucet or else he would continue to abuse and harm his son. He also found out that Doucet had the ability to manipulate others and took advantage of the fact that Gary was separated from his wife June at the time, and had managed to wedge his way into the Plauche family."

(Note the part where the psychologist reported Plauce did not know right fro wrong at the time he killed Ducet. That, was a major factor in his plea arangement, and in law, precedent is everything. We may well see the same defense used in the current issue.
In most cases and crimes,bBoth judges and juries have legally afforded and statute supported right to award a lesser sentence--or even no sentence at all, even if the defendant pleads guilty or no contest. It is part of the much touted "Rule of Law" we hear so much about.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 02-16-2013).]

quote Originally posted by maryjane: In most cases and crimes, both judges and juries have legally afforded and statute supported right to award a lesser sentence--or even no sentence at all, even if the defendant pleads guilty or no contest. It is part of the much touted "Rule of Law" we hear so much about.

Rule of Law has nothing to do with weather you agree or disagree with its conclusion at trial or sentencing.
In other words, you don't have to like it, but you must respect it.

Or change it (the laws) earlier in the process.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: Rule of Law has nothing to do with weather you agree or disagree with its conclusion at trial or sentencing. In other words, you don't have to like it, but you must respect it. Or change it (the laws) earlier in the process.

Are you referring to law or legislation?

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: Rule of Law has nothing to do with weather you agree or disagree with its conclusion at trial or sentencing. In other words, you don't have to like it, but you must respect it. Or change it (the laws) earlier in the process.

Point is, that according to the psychologist, the killing was not "for revenge" --it was (in his temporarily deluded and stressed mind) a necessary defensive act carried out to protect his family (and others) from future and imminent harm.
You said you were amazed at the lightness of that sentence----you shouldn't have been. The rule of law allows for it. Jurisprudence.

I was on a jury one time, in a case that was civil in nature but with criminal potential if plaintiff proved their case. That went for about 5 days--long days. At the end of the plaintiff's part, the judge sent us all into the jury room, and when we were called back in, the judge announced that the plantiff had not presented enough evidence to make it worth the state's time to go forward--and explained which part of the law allowed him to do so. Defendants never had to offer any testimony whatsoever. The case was over at that point and non-appealable.
The jury foreman was PO'd big time. She swore no such law existed, and the judge flat told her in front of all the courtroom to first learn a litle law, then she would understand basic courtroom proceedings. I saw it on TV news that night. The look on her face was just priceless.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 02-17-2013).]