In the article, a man is sentenced to death after pleading guilty to two counts of first-degree murder. The perpetrator, one Robert Diamond, shot and killed two coworkers outside a warehouse on August 1. The prosecutors argued that the killings were race-related and that the defendant believed two had “conspired to get him into trouble on the job.” The article explains that Diamond was mentally ill (though his illness is not named), and the defense attorney argued that it was behind the killings, calling the judgment a “travesty of justice.”
The article is plainly laid out: here are the dregs of society, killing one another off. For one, there’s the mentally ill assailant. Because most Americans probably believe that a mental illness cannot be responsible for a person’s committing murder, they probably think Diamond deserves the sentence. Diamond’s family members departed upon hearing the verdict, while Diamond showed no emotion upon hearing of his death sentence. Because the victims were people of color (while Diamond presumably is not, from the picture on the webpage), their biographies were not explored a la the EMT who was killed in the line of duty (as seen in class, and from various other sources). Rather than garner sympathy for the dead, the reporter instead slants Diamond as a random but violent killer. His mental illness, then, is no excuse for his behavior. The fact that the man apparently had little social support – mentally ill but still forced to work to survive; his family is present but abandons him when his fate is sealed – is not mentioned. His dispassionate display in court, upon hearing his sentence, could be for any number of reasons. His illness could mean that he does not know what is happening or what the sentence means. Or, he elected to keep an impassive face because, in American society, men who show emotion are weak – surely a man who has killed two people and been sentenced to death would like to keep his masculine integrity. The defense decries the sentence, as the article mentions, which might normally be taken with a grain of salt. After all, lawyers are seen as the scum of the earth in America. But the fact that someone who went through law school and makes pennies at an often thankless job believes in Diamond’s innocence gives reason for pause. The circumstances, too, become suspect. What methods did the police use to “break” Diamond, make him confess? Does Diamond truly know the gravity of the trial, given his illness? The holes are interesting and are meant to paint mentally ill (read: “other”) people as volatile, random killers. Instead, it reflects the devaluation of people in his situation, as well as the lack of credibility that we assign them, within society.