Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Prison Lifer Comes Home

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 88 posts

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#11

Post by bluedino »

coldtea wrote: post #5
rayiner wrote: post #2

The 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?

Should you get less of a sentence because you testify?

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#12

Post by coldtea »

DenisM wrote: post #10
coldtea wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is this common in western countries, or one of those "only in the US and/or some third world country" things, like the "three-strikes" and the "death penalty" (even for juveniles) laws?

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#13

Post by PhantomGremlin »

Okay, as they used to say on slashdot when I frequented it (and maybe they still say it), "I know I'll be downvoted for this ...". But I'll say it anyway:

Mr Fennell was a good candidate for parole. I'm not opposed to parole for him. He didn't need to be in jail any longer.

But ...

Why oh why can 5 un-elected people be allowed to decide that his incarceration was "cruel and unusual punishment". As one of the dissenters on the court noted, mandatory life sentences "could not plausibly be described" as unusual when a majority of states endorse them.

Giving the Supreme Court the power to do this is IMO very bad. People simply love love love it when the result is something they agree with, but what about all the other decisions?

I really don't like this court decision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._Alabama

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#14

Post by Tomte »

awillen wrote: post #8
coldtea wrote: post #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 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 wi…

I'd expect Norway to let the judiciary decide whether someone is a still a threat and needs to stay in prison.

In America, it's governors who ultimately decide, and a politician has vastly skewed incentives.

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#15

Post by craigsmansion »

rayiner wrote: post #2

The 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.…

> Being 17 or acting as part of a group don’t make you less culpable.

Yes it does. Boys do strange things, boys in groups do stranger things, like not testifying against each other, especially if they feel society has abandoned them and the world is against them.

Normal societies are set up to deal with that or prevent it.

Fix your bloody society.

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#16

Post by rayiner »

throwawaysea wrote: post #6
coldtea wrote: post #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 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 rate…

Right. Homicide rate in the UK went up significantly after hangings were abolished: https://fullfact.org/news/has-murder-rate-doubled-hanging-wa....

Europe had much lower homicide rates before criminal justice reforms. Arguably, the causation runs the other way. Europeans were willing to have more lenient sentences because homicides were less of a pervasive problem.

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#17

Post by DenisM »

throwawaysea wrote: post #6
coldtea wrote: post #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 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 rate…

You are assuming that having killed once he is more likely to kill again. Depending on the person this may not be true. A psychopath will likely kill again and so should be locked for good. OTOH someone who was not a psychopath and took this chance to rethink his life choices might be about as harmless as the next guy.

Before you say "we can't tell one form the other" let me say this: we cannot tell if we never look. Northern European countries have gathered a lot of expertise in this area, the least we can do is look at it, then maybe look to expend our own understanding of psychology.

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#18

Post by nate_meurer »

coldtea wrote: post #12
DenisM wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is this common in western countries, or one of those "only in the US and/or some third world country" things, like the "three-strikes" and the "death penalty" (even for juveniles) laws?

In this case, Mr Fennell watched a man get attacked, did nothing to help the man and even actively participated in the attack, and when the man died, Mr. Fennell protected the presumed killer by refusing to testify. I don't think it's a stretch, ethically or legally, to assign him significant blame for the killing, especially since his refusal to testify deprived his victims of any further justice.

That doesn't mean I agree with the life sentence (I absolutely do not), but twenty-five years doesn't seem wildly disproportionate to me.

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#19

Post by coldtea »

awillen wrote: post #8
coldtea wrote: post #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 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 wi…

Yes, but it will also be far more common to be actually released at the default (or close). Heck, "real" life sentences in the US are handed out as peanuts...

Also no death penalty.

Plus much much nicer prison terms (very human hotel-like prisons, permission to study, no solitary crap as punishment, very low recidivism rates, prisoners can take leaves -like "vacations" and come back, etc).

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#20

Post by x0x0 »

coldtea wrote: post #12
DenisM wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is this common in western countries, or one of those "only in the US and/or some third world country" things, like the "three-strikes" and the "death penalty" (even for juveniles) laws?

I don't think it's unreasonable to say all participants in a crime that leads to a murder, even if the participant didn't personally kill someone, are equally guilty.

Obviously there is a question of proximity, but under Fennell's (presumably charitable) telling of events, he assaulted a man then returned with a co-conspirator; when the victim attempted to defend himself, Fennell threw a bottle at him and watched as his co-conspirator repeatedly stabbed the victim. Fennell then refused to help identify the co-conspirator.

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule

Post reply on HN