Yesterday, in an Australian Court, Englishman Alexander Christian York was sentenced to Five Years max for the stabbing death of Scottish biochemist Rudi Boa during an argument over evolution. The argument happened in January of Last Year. York, traveling alone, and Boa, with his girlfriend, were backpacking in Blowering Holiday Park, near Tumut, New South Wales, when Boa suffered mortal wounds at the hand of York.
Tumut is a tourist destination at which visitors pick fruit, and stay in tents and trailers. York and Boa, together with Boa's girlfriend Gillian Brown, were neighbors in the caravan park. They had been getting along very well, and spent the night of January 27th drinking at Tumut's Star Hotel.
That is when an arguement about creationism vs. evolution erupted and escalated to the level of a shouting match. Brown and Boa , biomedical scientists, had been arguing the case for evolution. York was a creationist. The argument, it appears, continued for a while then settled down.
According to Justice Michael Adams, making this statement during the sentencing hearing:
Although this became perhaps a little sharp edged, it did not really amount to anything,...For some reason, however ... the offender's mood changed suddenly and he began to abuse Mr Boa and Ms Brown.
There was no hint of a physical confrontation and what happened amounted to little more than a brief verbal contretemps.
Later, back at the campgrounds, the drinking continued and the argument accelerated again. By later that evening, all three were quite drunk.
According to Brown (the girlfriend), York (the creatinist) was making dinner when he attacked the couple outside of his tent, fatally stabbing Boa (the biochemist) with a kitchen knife.
York, for his part, claimed he had lashed out at Boa in self defense. The Wagga Wagga NSW court found York guilty of manslaughter in July.
Stabbing an evolutionist to death, In Australia, is not considered a serious offense if you are a person of good character. According to the judge, Justice Adams:
I do not believe that he took aim but rather thrust out...I think he knew that the knife was in his hand ... but he did not actually turn his mind to the potentially serious consequences of doing this.
The offender is a person of good character and the offense is a complete aberration.
Life Science
Comments
"The offender is a person of good character"
Oh, yes: Killing someone because their well-researched scientific evidence threatens your bronze-age worldview...
Posted by: Jason Failes | December 14, 2007 8:57 AM
Posted by: Virgil Samms | December 14, 2007 9:06 AM
I think this might be more of a case of killing someone because he didn't know the safe limits of his alcohol tolerance - being completly drunk and waving a knife around is quite enough to result in someone dying, and even a trivial argument can push it too far.
He still shouldn't have been sentenced so lightly... I would be interested to know if the judge has any personal views that might have influenced the sentence.
Posted by: Suricou Raven | December 14, 2007 10:05 AM
I don't see *any* evidence that York's creationist tendencies had anything to do with his light sentence. In fact, I don't see how the creation/evolution topic has anything to do with the case, besides being the topic on which they argued - how would things be different if the topic of debate was girls/football teams/mothers? You present no evidence that the judge explicitly took the defendants belief in creationism into consideration. ("Person of good character" is not code for "believes in creationism".)
It appears to be a standard "drunk guy gets into an argument, stabs the other guy" situations. I think it is a little disingenuous to bring the whole creation/evolution thing into it - it makes it sound like you're trying to push an agenda.
Posted by: RM | December 14, 2007 10:22 AM
Is the scariest thing perhaps that someone would claim stabbing someone who tries to educate you is 'self defence'?
Posted by: James McGrath | December 14, 2007 10:27 AM
So killing someone over an argument doesn't make you a bad person or detract from your "character"?
Posted by: Schmeer | December 14, 2007 10:29 AM
The time sequence is important here. The judge tried the facts and found York guilty of manslaughter, presumably based on the evidence and the applicable law.
Now (later) the judge is considering the facts at SENTENCING, when prior behavior of York is in issue. Prior behavior means BEFORE the stabbing, when York may well have been a of good character.
Assume he has no criminal record and has been of good character. The evidence in the case shows that the 3 got along "very well" before they drank, and also that their argument was not violent at the first stage.
Which is more likely:
(1) The judge lowered the sentence because something provoked York?
(2) This is a creationist judge protecting scientist killers?
Posted by: CorrectAsUsual | December 14, 2007 12:22 PM
"... but he did not actually turn his mind to the potentially serious consequences of doing this."
Yes, that's Creationism in a nutshell.
Posted by: Jonathan Vos Post | December 14, 2007 12:57 PM
I can't discount the possibility that it is dog-whistle sentencing. We've seen this kind of mealy-mouthed in-group protectionism many times before.
Posted by: stogoe | December 14, 2007 2:41 PM
Just a coupla drunks brawling. Nothing to see here, move along please.
Posted by: Boko999 | December 14, 2007 4:46 PM
I thought Creationists figured this out 6000 years ago: when you're camping out in a nice place, don't eat the fruit or bad stuff will happen.
Posted by: Spaulding | December 14, 2007 5:07 PM
I think people are seeing things that aren't there. In Australia there is no big Creationist movement, and any official would be extremely out of place to either believe in Creationism - at least strongly enough to influence a sentence at a murder trial.
Posted by: Damian | December 14, 2007 8:25 PM
I don't assume (or even guess) that the judge was a creationist. Most likely he was a Christian, and these Christians tend to stick together, yes?
In truth we have no idea what really happened. But I can guarantee you that if this was the other way round, we'd be hearing about it from the pulpits.
Welcome, dear readers, to my pulpit.
(Big flames and black smoke, a little rumble of thunder)
Posted by: Greg Laden | December 14, 2007 8:44 PM
"Which is more likely:
(1) The judge lowered the sentence because something provoked York?
(2) This is a creationist judge protecting scientist killers?"
2.
Unless you consider stating that you don't believe in mythology to be provocation to murder someone.
Posted by: Telperil | December 14, 2007 11:55 PM
"I think it is a little disingenuous to bring the whole creation/evolution thing into it - it makes it sound like you're trying to push an agenda."
One important way it is relevant: creationists often claim that evolution is behind many evils in the world and that it causes people to devalue life and thus do things like go on killing sprees. And this incident shows that they are right: evolution leads creationists to devalue life and kill people. At least irony isn't dead.
Posted by: Amanda | December 15, 2007 10:20 AM
You could try reading this
http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/scjudgments/2007nswsc.nsf/6ccf7431c546464bca2570e6001a45d2/0173144ca9641164ca2573b000798f6a?OpenDocumen
Michael
Posted by: Michael Murray | December 16, 2007 4:37 AM
Here's a shortened version of Michael Murray's link:
http://tinyurl.com/yq9ar4
Posted by: huxley | December 16, 2007 10:47 AM
the "offender is a person of good character"......
you must admit, Australia has a flawless and glorious history of knowing what'good offenders', AND good Christian drinking limits are, right?
Posted by: the real cmf | December 16, 2007 12:49 PM