Hold on just a minute
The underlying premise of this story is that 20 years in prison without parole is a lengthy sentence for fatally shooting someone and precipitating further gang violence that led to other deaths. From there the article goes on about what a strong message this is sending, how hard it is for the judge to be that harsh, yada yada.
But do we all agree that 20 years is such heavy punishment? How much less could the judge have given the convicted killer?
Comments (6)
I think the 20 years with no parole was appropriate given that it sounds like it wasn't pre-meditated, and it could have just as easily been the victim who was up for sentencing but he didn't get his shot off first. The judge was expressing his deep frustration as a black man that he was sending a young black man to prison for something that was entirely senseless and very destructive to the African American community.
Posted by Usual Kevin | March 30, 2010 10:21 AM
After reading that article, the sentence wasn't long enough.
Posted by Darrin | March 30, 2010 11:21 AM
"It has to stop," Walker said. "I wish we could take every gun in the world on a boat out to the ocean and dump them."
Leaving millions of people defenseless against these thugs who would simply find some other means to do damage to their victims (knives, bats, etc).
Stupid.
Posted by Joey Link | March 30, 2010 11:45 AM
Not saying anything can bring back the victim to his family, who drew the permanent sentence without any due process. But 20 years is a long time. Think about it, 17 to 37, 25 to 45. The prime years of one's life. Think the judge made the right call. Just hope the message is heard where he wants it to be heard. Any statement from Jesse Jackson on this issue?
Posted by Drew G. | March 30, 2010 12:09 PM
Twenty years is an extremely long sentence for first-degree manslaughter - twice the mandatory minimum of 10 years under Measure 11. My guess is the state didn't believe they could get a murder conviction and agreed to a contract plea with an agreed-upon 20 years. If the judge deviated from that sentence, the agreement would have disappeared.
Posted by Dave Anderson | March 30, 2010 1:47 PM
I'll admit right up front to being a conservative moron, so those of you left of me don't have to waste the bandwidth with your diatribes. However, it seems to this moron that the judge has given in to the lowest common denominator here - you don't haev a societal expectation that the guy should not blow someone away for a petty grievance. Would you have reacted differently if you believed he was competent to know how to behave? We must stop having difering expectations.
Posted by Molly | March 30, 2010 8:01 PM