People v. Superior Court (People v. Du)

In 1991, Soon Ja Du, a shopkeeper in Los Angeles, shot and killed Latasha Harlins, a fifteen-year-old girl. At trial, the jury convicted Du of manslaughter, a crime that would typically carry a sentence of eleven, six, or three years in California. But, after finding that this was an "unusual case," the trial judge sentenced Du to probation. The District Attorney appealed, and the California Court of Appeal affirmed, in the opinion you have below. For our purposes, you need not focus on the particular aspects of California sentencing law at issue. Instead, focus on the facts and the trial judge's reasoning in imposing the sentence of probation. Do you agree? Why or why not?

All of the theoretical principles that we discussed in Dudley & Stephens are relevant here:

• Retributive arguments: How much punishment does the defendant "deserve"? (Consider both harm and culpability.)
• Utilitarian arguments: What are the consequences of imposing probation and do the "benefits" outweigh the "costs"? (Consider general deterrence, specific deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilition). 

But, unlike Dudley & Stephens, which seems made for a philosophy class, People v. Du is very much about the challenge of bringing those theories into the real world, particularly in a case that is very much about race (and perhaps also about gender and class). As you read the facts and evaluate the judge's reasoning, think about power: Who has it? How is it being used? Who is benefitting? 

People v. Du

1. What happened in this case?

2. Statutory analysis: What was Du charged with? What are the elements of that crime? (Examine the California homicide statutes at Casebook 2.2).

3. What defenses did Du raise?

4. What was the jury’s verdict? What conclusions did the jury reach about Du’s defenses?

5. Review the trial judge's sentencing rationales. What are they?

6. If you were the sentencing judge and had the option to sentence Du to prison for eleven years, six years, three years, or probation, what would you choose? Do you agree with the trial judge's sentence of probation? Why or why not?

7. Does Du deserve a more significant punishment? Why? (In other words, what are the arguments that she deserves—or doesn’t deserve—punishment?)

8. What would a greater punishment have accomplished? (In other words, what are the crime prevention arguments for and against punishment?)

9. Do you think race played a role in the killing? In the jury’s verdict? In the judge’s sentence? What about gender? What about class?

10. To what extent should the community’s view of the appropriate sentence matter? Why? What role does the criminal law play in expressing society’s values? How?