A Prison Lifer Comes Home
theatlantic.com
A Prison Lifer Comes Home
1–10 of 88 posts
Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home
#2The article leaves out some facts. While Fennell’s participation in the attack (at the age of 17) was sufficient to convict him for murder, regardless of who ultimately delivered the killing blow, the jury may not have convicted him for murder (or a judge may have later commuted his sentence) had he testified against the man who directly killed the victim: https://www.newspapers.com/image/?clipping_id=19706704&fcfTo.... He refused to testify even though he provided a statement to the police at the time of his arrest stating who had performed the stabbing.
My beef with articles like this one is not that I think a 17 year old should get life in prison for a stabbing. I think nobody should. Our murder laws produce sentences vastly longer than Europe, where 15-20 years is a typical maximum sentence for murder, and longer sentences are reserved for people who are active threats.
Rather, my problem is the attempt to draw lines between more or less egregious conduct that don’t make any sense. Someone who along with three other young men tries to rob and ends up killing a man is among the most dangerous and culpable of criminals. Such premeditated group violence is the greatest threat to social order. Being 17 or acting as part of a group don’t make you less culpable.
Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home
#3>Imprisoned for decades for a crime he committed as a juvenile
So, for a single, first time, first degree murder, Pennsylvania gives "a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole, including for juveniles"?
What kind of medieval backwater has such laws?
And how is that working out for them? [1]
Compared to e.g. countries which have much smaller sentences for the same type of crimes (especially for juveniles), in much more humane prisons, and achieve much lower crime rates...
For comparison, the guy who methodically mass shoot and killed 77 people in Norway, only got 21 years in prison (and in a vastly more humane prison, more like a Motel 8 than the hell-holes in the US, at that). Perhaps that's another extreme, and I'd be OK if he went in for life, but the Pennsylvania extreme is medieval, inhumane, and depraved too. Too much Old-Testament inspired morals...
[1] Rhetorical question, I've checked the Pennsylvania homicide rate: https://patch.com/pennsylvania/abington/crime-falls-u-s-here...
Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home
#4The article leaves out some facts. While Fennell’s participation in the attack (at the age of 17) was sufficient to convict him for murder, regardless of who ultimately delivered the killing blow, the jury may not have convicted him for murder (or a judge may have later commuted his sentence) had he testified against the man who directly killed the victim: https://www.newspapers.com/image/?clipping_id=19706704&fcfTo.…
[deleted]
Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home
#5The article leaves out some facts. While Fennell’s participation in the attack (at the age of 17) was sufficient to convict him for murder, regardless of who ultimately delivered the killing blow, the jury may not have convicted him for murder (or a judge may have later commuted his sentence) had he testified against the man who directly killed the victim: https://www.newspapers.com/image/?clipping_id=19706704&fcfTo.…
And when you refuse to testify that someone else did the murder, you become the murderer in that system?
Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home
#6> Imprisoned for decades for a crime he committed as a juvenile So, for a single, first time, first degree murder, Pennsylvania gives "a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole, including for juveniles"? What kind of medieval backwater has such laws? And how is that working out for them? [1] Compared to e.g. countries which have much smaller sentences for the same type of crimes (especially for juve…
I can’t tell if your post was being sarcastic or sincere.
It’s a first degree murder. Putting him away for life is what he deserves and others (law-abiding free citizens) should not have to bear the risk that he would commit more extreme crimes given the extreme nature of the crime here. That’s not medieval or inhumane, it’s appropriate and common sense.
The relation you imply between laws, sentencing, and crime rates between different locations and demographics is not causal and doesn’t account for various other factors, and is therefore irrelevant.
Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home
#7> Imprisoned for decades for a crime he committed as a juvenile So, for a single, first time, first degree murder, Pennsylvania gives "a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole, including for juveniles"? What kind of medieval backwater has such laws? And how is that working out for them? [1] Compared to e.g. countries which have much smaller sentences for the same type of crimes (especially for juve…
[deleted]
Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home
#8> Imprisoned for decades for a crime he committed as a juvenile So, for a single, first time, first degree murder, Pennsylvania gives "a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole, including for juveniles"? What kind of medieval backwater has such laws? And how is that working out for them? [1] Compared to e.g. countries which have much smaller sentences for the same type of crimes (especially for juve…
The Norway example is misleading for people who are primarily familiar with US sentencing. Twenty one years is the maximum sentence one can be given initially, but it can be extended five years at a time at the end of the sentence. There are no limits on the number of five year extensions, so a twenty one year sentence can effectively be a life sentence.
It's basically equivalent to a US sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole after 21 years, though the default is that you're released after 21 years, as opposed to the US default of you continuing to stay in prison unless you can convince a parole board to release you.
Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home
#9The article leaves out some facts. While Fennell’s participation in the attack (at the age of 17) was sufficient to convict him for murder, regardless of who ultimately delivered the killing blow, the jury may not have convicted him for murder (or a judge may have later commuted his sentence) had he testified against the man who directly killed the victim: https://www.newspapers.com/image/?clipping_id=19706704&fcfTo.…
And when you refuse to testify that someone else did the murder, you become the murderer in that system?
Maybe it was false and he stood on the side of only saying what is true and/or not condemning the wrong person for the crime.
Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home
#10The article leaves out some facts. While Fennell’s participation in the attack (at the age of 17) was sufficient to convict him for murder, regardless of who ultimately delivered the killing blow, the jury may not have convicted him for murder (or a judge may have later commuted his sentence) had he testified against the man who directly killed the victim: https://www.newspapers.com/image/?clipping_id=19706704&fcfTo.…
And when you refuse to testify that someone else did the murder, you become the murderer in that system?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule
when an offender kills (regardless of intent to kill) in the commission of a [felony], the offender, and also the offender's accomplices or co-conspirators, may be found guilty of murder.
Which is to say, he was guilty from the get-go.