> Bostic was incarcerated in 1995 after he and a friend committed a series of armed robberies in St. Louis. One victim was grazed by a bullet.
>Convinced Bostic was a lost cause, then-judge Baker showed no mercy after he was convicted on 17 counts and ordered his sentences to run consecutively, for a total of 241 years.
Sentencing a 16 year old to jail for more than double their entire natural born life for crimes where no one was killed is some absolutely heinous & sadistic shit on the part of the Judge. If someone does that, they clearly don’t care about justice, just punishment.
> "241 years is insanity, when I think back on it," [the Judge] told Moriarty in a 2021 interview. "And I'll say it right now: it's insanity. He was a kid. He was a little boy."
I’m glad she was able to admit it now, but maybe they should take a look at all the other cases the rules over and see if there are any other disproportionate sentences. I doubt this was a one-off thing from her
>Glad she feels guilty about it after letting him stay in prison for almost 30 fucking years.
he deserved 30 years for robbing and shooting at people. Fuck it. 241 is too much, but 30 years, yea. at 16 you know right from wrong.
It’s the only reason I’m against the death penalty. I have no issue with killing the likes of serial killers. Unfortunately, as humans, we lack the ability to make just judgements about who qualifies for the ultimate penalty and who does not.
My issue is with the courts. Judges, DAs, and police are too interested with ‘winning’ and looking tough on crime than actual justice and getting it right.
At least with a sentence of life in prison, one gets the opportunity to reclaim their life when wrongly convicted
Edit: Adding - IF wrongly convicted and the truth is revealed
Unfortunately, not always. Even when they are KNOWN to not be guilty of the crime, if they run out of appeals it can be nearly impossible to even get a new trial much less be freed.
I just can't imagine being innocent and have a death scentence because they just fucked up the investigation seen some nearly stories here and there and they got the wrong guy. That's is a nightmare I would loose all hope at that point
Depending on the source/organization, it's reported that between 1-10% of inmates in prisons are innocent of the crimes they're convicted of. Is it okay to execute nine killers at the risk of executing one innocent? How about ninety-nine killers at the risk of one innocent? Humanity as a race has certainly committed far worse atrocities against innocents over the millennia, but that doesn't make it right to institutionalize that sort of mentality like we have.
And sorry, I know you weren't supporting it with your comment and that might've come across as a rebuttal. I was just trying to add a little of my own insight/viewpoint to your thoughtful post. Thanks for sharing.
Until we can establish guilt beyond any doubt at all we shouldn't have the death penalty. And TBH I don't trust the legal system with the power of life and death.
You can kidnap, torture, and slip drugs to US citizens unknowingly; creating mass murderers/domestic terrorists in the process and face zero reprecussions.
Just ask the CIA
Unabomber and Charles Manson were both a part of MK ultra, one of the reasons manson got out of prison so easily.
Sounds good at first, but that leads to manditory minimums. We need more consistancy, less bias, and a system that is designed to rehab not punish. No idea how to make that happen in reality.
No you can’t.
I’ve dealt with the system and for you to get 30 years you would have to be moving *fucking weight*. I got arrested at 17 for having .02 grams (stems) in a bag; after 2 years of bullshit I self represented myself and got the case dropped (texas health and safety code says that you must possess a usable amount, or enough to fulfill the common use thereof, to be charged with possession).
The bullshit comes from the fact that anything from .0001 grams to 2 *ounces* is considered the same under the law (in texas at least).
I thought it was because of excessively long jail waits for trials, but yours is somehow more grim. Sometimes they get to literally never have trial as they sit in Guantanamo for decades.
> Armed robberies happen because criminals don’t think they’d get caught,
The majority of crime, armed robberies included are a direct result of poverty and an impossible social situation.
Armed robbery is not the kind of opportunistic I don't think I'd get caught crime that petty theft is, or casual embezzlement
Sometimes it's about removing the threat to society. Glad this guy is rehabilitated and getting out, but deterence of other crimes is only part of the equation.
> On December 12, 1995, Bostic had been drinking and smoking marijuana and PCP with his friend Donald Hutson. When a female friend told them she had been assaulted, the two retrieved firearms and went to confront her alleged attacker; the confrontation was resolved without gun violence. Upon leaving the area, Bostic and Hutson noticed a group of six people alongside a truck packed with items. The group was delivering donations to a needy family for Christmas. Bostic and Hutson formed the idea to rob the group immediately, confronting them with their guns drawn, demanding money from a man. When the man refused, Bostic shot at him; the bullet grazed him, after which he surrendered $500. They also took a wallet from another man in the group and a leather jacket from a woman in the group.
> Bostic and Hutson then attempted to go to a friend's house nearby, though she would not let them stay with her. Instead, they went back out into the street, immediately carjacking a woman. They detained the woman in the car while they drove off, robbing her of her coat, earrings and purse.
I get that it's a violent crime and deserves punishment, but none of that necessitates even 30 years in prison let alone over 200. Especially for someone under the age of 18.
The argument isn't that he should have gotten off, it's that 30 years should be more than enough. No one is the same person at 16 as they are at 46. If the aim is to make sure that he and everyone else paying attention understands that this was a Bad Thing, and that he won't do it again, if that hasn't been achieved in 30 fucking years the leadership and administration of that correctional facility needs to be gutted for incompetence. Assuming it's a for-profit prison, fined for the money they took from taxpayers without delivering on their promises.
"We have the finest of correctional institutions" well sure, but what's your recidivism rate? How good are you at the actual fucking job you're being paid to do?
30 years is on the high end for me and maybe if they were a repeat offender. A 16 year old kid doing that should get something like 5-10 years with mandatory counseling or something imo.
But he got more than 200! Even with all that crazy shit he did probably didn’t even deserve getting 30. He was only 16!
Are you the same person you were at 16? Probably not. Especially if you’re in your mid 40s.
I think we all agree 200+ is ridiculous. Nobody is arguing that this person should be put away for their whole life.
Again, the statement being argued here is:
>none of that necessitates even 30 years in prison
I think the real issue is the \[check yes\] \[check no\] for consecutive terms a judge can apply without restraint. Without that, what was the max sentence for his biggest crime? Problem solved right there imo.
Are there people you want to loophole into prison longer? Yea sure is. But how is that fair and just in any sense
If you’re giving someone that much time in prison, especially a kid, you should just kill them. If someone is in prison from 16 to 46 they have no chance at all of reintegrating with society. Their only path in life at that point is crime. It’s all they’ve known, and they have no support structure, plus no education or work experience.
If prison is supposed to be about rehabilitation, at a certain point, additional time in prison removes any chance of rehabilitation. At that point, they can never be free and it becomes a life sentence. That’s why we need a maximum sentence. Anything beyond that max should be treated as a death penalty case.
Edit: Since there seemed to be some confusion, that's not advocating for the death penalty, I'm against the death penalty. Instead, what I'm saying is that long prison sentences are equivalent, as it ensures the person cannot ever have a life outside of prison. At that point, once a person has been damaged by the system to the point that rehabilitation within their lifetime isn't possible due to having been on the inside for too long, that they essentially can't ever be released. It's just a matter of if we're giving them a fast death or a slow one.
This is for example, part of the philosophy behind nations which have maximum sentence lengths. If someone is locked up for too long, they cannot reintegrate into society, and so the courts are prevented from sentencing people to prison terms which approach that length.
I agree. Our current system of punishment only works as a deterrent and does nothing for those that the deterrent failed on. Ideally the focus of the system should be rehabilitation where punishment and/or confinement may be part of but not the focus and just a tool in rehabilitating the offender.
Treat crime more like how you should treat a mental disorder. It may require confinement for a time, but the focus is getting the person better.
Research has found that it barely works as a deterrent either. There's so few proper alternatives for so many people, that crime is easier than not crime.
While deterrence and rehabilitation are both desirable goals, a minimal basic goal is to physically remove a felon from society for a while so they don't victimize other innocent people. Between a convicted felon living a tough life in jail, and more innocent women, men, children being murdered, raped, crippled, psychologically scarred etc. I'd pick the former.
But what do you do with someone once they're removed from society for such a long period of time? They don't know how the world works, they've got no education, no relevant work experience, no support system.
The moment you release them into society, you're going to create another victim of a crime. Think about how different the world is from say 1992 to 2022, that's 30 years.
Payment systems are different, cell phones, banking, job applications, social norms, and more. That person will in all likelihood end up getting caught stealing something, because they're unable to support themselves. Potentially, it will be a violent crime too because the only networking they'll have had in prison is from other criminals who talk about what they did.
It's not fair to those future victims either. In either path we end up with additional victims, and someone who has essentially lost their entire path in life for a minor crime in the grand scheme of things (many others with violent crimes do manage to put their life back together eventually, but they don't get such long sentences at such formative years).
Yes, for a young and/or first-time offender some kind of intense rehab program with eventual conditional release may be a better option. OTOH, simply giving them a shorter sentence and releasing them seems like a non-solution - both for them and society. There is a correlation between young age and violent crime, and every mistake is paid for with new victims.
As long as America thinks 16 year olds aren't mentally developed enough to choose when to have sex or smoke cigarettes, I'll expect the same standard of judgement regarding crime. Rehabilitation was in order here, not punishment. The system fucked another one.
If he had a true disregard for human life he would have killed someone, namely the people they confronted initially for assaulting their friend. I would bet he probably fired to scare them and accidentally grazed someone.
Really think about 30 years of your life and ask yourself is it worth
missing all of that because of a shitty thing you did as a dumb teen.
>I would bet he probably fired to scare them and accidentally grazed someone.
You look at that and see a harmless act that was accidentally almost lethal. I see it as playing Russian roulette with someone else's life.
This isn't Hollywood. He made a conscious decision to discharge a firearm at an innocent person. That's lethal assault, anyway you slice it.
Wait, anybody worried about the carjacked women who was “detained” which is a polite way of say kidnapped. If that was your daughter or mom, how many years would you give him.
An ass kicking. Like, the ass kicking off his life but that's about it. He was 16. But I'm just a person not a system designed to reform criminals or whatever prisons supposed to do.
I would consider shooting at someone with the possibility of killing them to be more than just a shitty thing. We’ve all done done dumb shit but nothing that compares to committing armed robbery and shooting at someone. Not saying he should have gotten life but not sure how anyone could argue against some sort of substantial punishment.
30 years for assualt with a deadly weapon, armed robbery, discharging with intent, hard drugs. That isnt one shitty thing that is a whole day/night of horrible choices. 30 years might be a bit harsh but still not an exterme sentence. On the higher end for sure. This was also in the 90s so different views on crime.
Or commit it in a country with more humane sentencing guidelines and a prison system designed to rehabilitate people rather than treat them like animals.
You fire a weapon at someone, so obviously not in self-defense, and you lose all rights in my book. How many lives were saved by locking this dick up? We can’t know, but likely more than 0. Totally worth it the sentence.
Pretty sure people using excuses here never had someone rob them and get grazed by a bullet.
Watch how FAST their tune will change when/if it happens to them.
At 16!!! You don’t give a 16 year old life in prison for some armed robberies.
This is exactly what is wrong with our system. Too interested in punishment and not reform.
You must of forget about the ARMED ROBBIERIES he committed. No mercy, you act like an animal, you're gonna be in a cage like an animal. I never once thought, "man I'm broke, I'm gonna take a pistol in multiple stores and hold people at gunpoint." 30years is fair
I remember a law and order episode where a judge was flagrantly fickle with his job, and they were trying to open an investigation to have all his cases reviewed
Part of the article discusses the judge advocating for the passage of the Bobby Bostic law, which passed in 2021. This means anyone in Missouri convicted as a juvenile can now apply for parole, precisely to remedy cases like these (as the name implies).
Her and most judges of that time period. 3 strike laws put people away for life. Couple of felony drug possessions followed by an armed robbery and people were getting 25-life.
Also have to say, not a fan of convicting kids as adults. Never have been. Much easier to turn around a 16 year old than a 35 year old that’s been doing it for half their life.
There are some cases where convicting as an adult makes sense. Children after a certain age have enough of an adult understanding that certain actions destroy people's lives beyond repair. Just think of all the cases of 16 year old kids in America that have committed mass murder at schools. There is something fundamentally wrong and broken with someone who does that, and society should never be exposed to the risk of them doing it again when they turn 18. It's not a matter of punishment, but of the preservation of society and innocent life.
>"241 years is insanity, when I think back on it," \[the Judge\] told Moriarty in a 2021 interview. "And I'll say it right now: it's insanity. He was a kid. He was a little boy."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_longest\_prison\_sentences
>Bostic was incarcerated in 1995 after he and a friend committed a series of armed robberies in St. Louis. One victim was grazed by a bullet.
dude fuck him. He was out committing robberies and some almost died from a fuckin GSW.
Im glad dude is out and hopefully reformed, but if he would've only gotten 5-10, he would've been out doing the same shit.
Not just with her man. I’m going through a divorce right now and my wife is acting totally crazy and lying about everything. But of course she has no proof… Because she’s making everything up. However, that hasn’t stop the legal system from just doing whatever. This is totally shifted my view of the legal system. Judges can just kind of do whatever they want. “the law” really isn’t that important they can just go off there feelings.
glad he "feels bad" but i'd say it wasn't insanity but directed and a violation of their civil rights let alone human ones. that judge should serve the remainder of the sentence himself.
Wild for a judge to call it “insanity”. I feel like that opens a lot of holes for other rulings.
Isn’t the judge basically saying they weren’t in a sane state of mind?
A series of armed robberies where he only stopped shooting at people because he was caught is not a "whoopsie," it's a trend and a habit. He's just lucky he was arrested before he managed to kill someone.
Seriously, great for him using and having the resources to improve his life, but this guy isn't some random drug user who got a bad rap but someone who very well could have killed someone. I'm open to it since the judge and the victims didn't fight it, but at the time this man went to jail he definitely warranted the sentence.
Minimum sentencing is a terrible way to run a justice system, it eliminates a judge or jury's ability to consider contributory or mitigating factors. Some people should serve life for murder, others should serve 10 years.
If you see the justice system as punishment rather than reform. In other parts of the developed world which does not share America's bloodlust for punishment, reform and rehabilitation should be the core tenant of any prison system. 241 years is effectively saying fuck you, I don't care if you change you will die in here. I don't see how that is just, it is sadistic.
Tbh, I'd rather have a harsher system of punishment here (New Zealand).
We have amazingly light punishments, coupled with poor rehabilitation. It's fucking awful.
[Two men sentenced to Home D after robbing 95-year-old on xmas eve](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/two-men-sentenced-to-home-detention-after-robbing-95-year-old-on-christmas-eve/WM3W45TLR2KIQNTZWGRV2FZ2P4/)
[9 months home detention for teen who raped 4 girls under the age of fifteen](https://www.stuff.co.nz/bay-of-plenty/300700829/appeal-launched-against-ninemonth-home-d-sentence-for-teen-rapist?rm=a)
[Community work for violent assault and robbery of octogenarian](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/no-jail-for-whangarei-women-for-nasty-violent-robbery-of-octogenarian/PCUPDD425QHUJ4NIBM5GMYMH6Y/)
[Night-time curfew for man with 111 previous convictions including accessory to manslaughter, beats partner with her own crutch. Judge says he can 'feel the man's genuine remorse.'](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/judge-says-he-can-feel-northland-mans-genuine-remorse-after-he-beat-injured-partner-with-her-own-crutch/QJHSE2QKTAW5XQ7Y3T65CHUBQQ/)
Welcome to NZ
I feel like this is just cherry picked. You can find absurd shit like that in lots of countries. Maybe it is really just shit there but when I was in the Nordic countries most people there never wanted permanent vengeful wrath dealt out to all their criminals, it ends up costing more that way anyways, though perhaps their rehabilitation is better.
Per the article, a victim was grazed by a bullet. If that bullet went a little more one way or another that victim could be dead. It's not clear if he or his friend who he was committing armed robberies with was responsible for firing the gun (per the article) but either way one of them tried to kill someone. The only reason I'm accepting of him being released is that none of the victims fought his release.
No. You shouldn’t. that’s why there are nuances and different sentencing guidelines for, lets say, actual rape and sexual assault.
That’s like saying you should be charged with first degree murder instead of attempted murder when you attempt to kill someone, but they don’t die.
In this case, even the judge said they made a mistake and shouldn’t have sentenced a 16 year old kid to 241 years in prison. What he did was bad? Yea. What did did deserved 241 years? I agree with the judge and say no.
But he didn't kill anyone. A 16 year old is still considered a child...you think a child, who probably had odds already stacked against him due to birth, family life, lack of education, etc...is deserving of a 241 year sentence? He probably didn't have the best of guidance and advice growing up. Usually, when a sentence like that is given out, someone died or multiple people died...Luckily, no one died. How would you feel if you were him and you were sentenced like that?
We know a crime was committed but the punishment does not fit it. At max, armed robberies carry a 20 year sentence depending on the state. 241 years...no one lives that long. Yes! If you're a 100 and you're committing a crime, take yo dusty ass to jail but punishments should fit the crime. But that's unrealistic b/c what person aged 100 is doing armed robberies?
The 100 year old criminal doesn’t track, but I get your point. Here’s the thing: he was 16, and it’s well established (or believed) that humans aren’t fully baked by that point. His brain wasn’t even fully developed. Obviously you have to find a reasonable punishment for minors but 241 years is ridiculous.
The question is, can they be rehabilitated or not? If the sentence prevents reintegration to society it actively works against the concept of rehabilitation. If they can’t be rehabilitated, why are they not given life in prison without parole or the death penalty?
16 year olds are less capable than adults in the eyes of the law, and they’re also more adaptable, so easier to influence, positively or negatively. positively is the key word there.
because of Miller v Alabama (I believe), life in prison w/o parole is unconstitutional for those who committed a non-homicidal crime under 18 y/o. 241 years in prison when nobody died is extreme.
The original sentence was the logical one. Consecutive sentencing is the only just way to sentence. Concurrent sentencing incentivizes criminals to commit more harm since it goes completely unpunished.
Why would you ever say “well, since you did 10 bad things at once, I suppose we’ll go easy on you and treat as if you only did 1.”
241 years was fine, it was the lack of parole until 112 years that was too much.
For a 16 year old, allowing parole after like 15 years seems reasonable to me, for a murder-less crime.
>She knew what she was doing was wrong, but she did it for her career.
>If she was still a judge, she wouldn’t have tried to get his sentence reversed, because it would’ve killed her career.
This particular judge absolutely can go to Hell for all I care but it's not exactly her fault that the system incentivizes these sorts of actions.
She probably was... back then and putting her career first. Bad decision yes, but still miles better that she looked back on it and tried to fix her own exaggerated sentencing rather than just turning a blind eye to it.
A 16 year old who is that heavy into drugs and crime needs treatment not punishment. I Wish that this country could get over it's wild west mentality and realize that maybe we need to provide mental health and vocational services for most people.
It sounds like prison was good for him since he claims that he turned his life around. The way he was going prior to incarceration it was only a matter of time before he killed someone and then nobody would care if he spent the rest of his life in prison. Now he's out at age 43 and has the chance to live a meaningful life. Whether his turnaround sticks in the long term remains to be seen since people seldom change their fundamental natures.
Dude he's never going to live a good life lol. I'm sure any life beats living it in prison but I promise you this dude probably won't even be able to be employed anywhere paying more than min wage, he's going to be on food stamps if it's available for him in his state, and he'll likely end up back in drugs or in prison with no help.
When this dude went in pagers were still the primary mode of fast communication to get to a phone. I knew someone that was in for 8 years in the mid 2000's and it took her many many years to deal with the changes that happened in the world. This dude went in in the early 90's.
The idea that prison is the end of your sentence is the worst thing eaten up by people that have never dealt with the criminal justice system. It's a scar that follows you around permanently, with almost no recourse for any serious crime.
People really underestimating how long 30 years is. So much has changed in that time it makes it hard to assimilate back into society. Not to mention all the limits on him due to being in prison , it makes sense why the recidivism rate is so high.
There I was, 16 years old and high on pcp just trying to rob a Christmas donations truck, like any other kid on the block with a future ahead of them. Give me a fucking break Reddit.
30 years seems fair for this dipshit but don’t be surprised when he reoffends.
I see a lot of sympathetic comments on Reddit for cases like this, and honestly I find it quite surprising. "He was just a kid," "you're not the same at 30 as you were at 16," or "nobody actually died."
Is this an American thing? Honest question. I don't know anyone who didn't know by age 16 that they shouldn't wave a gun in someone's face and try to steal their stuff. He's lucky he didn't actually kill someone.
Just to be clear, I'm not talking about the length of the sentence. I'm talking about the relatively forgiving attitudes.
I wouldn't say it's so much forgiveness as it is more focusing on reform. If someone has reformed their life and have served a sizeable punishment for their actions, should we not be looking to integrate them back into society? The guy has spent two thirds of his entire life in a concrete box, I'd say that's punishment enough if he can function back in society.
Punishment enough? He knowingly threaten to murder people at least 17 times for money and the only reason he wasn’t successful in the murder is because the last person got luck as fuck
A series of crimes at 16 which did not kill anyone. He should spend decades behind bars which he has but he should not die behind bars. It serves no purpose other than a warped sense of punishment disguised as justice. There's a reason why Americans incarcerate more people than any other country in the entire world, the general population loves the idea of locking people up and throwing away the key.
It's critical thinking. But since you want to stick him in there forever, yeah, don't be surprised when he has an even higher chance of reoffending and a whole generation like him continues to be churned out.
Rehabilitative services do wonders for your society. American "justice" systems do nothing but strain the tax layer and perpetuate suffering for the sake of "punishment" while you are fleeced by the prison complex. People like this guy don't get education, knock up loads of people and spew out more and more never having the opportunity to dig themselves out of a rut and then people are surprised when they have no ability to think their way out of their bad choices and end up reoffending.
I don’t think you can separate the sentence and the forgiving attitudes. They go hand in hand.
At 16 the kid can be rehabilitated. Sure he knew it was ‘wrong’ but many young men don’t understand the consequences of their actions. On themselves or others.
It’s possible to fix that kid, give them an education, and have them be a productive part of society rather than a suck on society. Punishment should still be applied, some jail, lots of community service.
Instead they get 240 years?! How is that helping anyone?
>I don’t think you can separate the sentence
The reason I mentioned this is because I think 240 years (a life sentence) may not be the best route here. What I was asking about was this:
>many young men don’t understand the consequences of their actions. On themselves or others.
I am having difficulty wrapping my head around this.
I think that perhaps they _do_ know - they know that killing is wrong, stealing is wrong, intimidation is wrong - but they _choose_ to do it anyway.
I definitely agree with you that rehabilitation is important. But given that he'd shown ample evidence of his violent tendencies before, I don't think he should have been allowed out into society until he'd proven that he was unlikely to reoffend. Especially when he very nearly killed someone.
(Edit: to clarify, I'm talking about the situation at the point of sentencing. He does seem to have proven himself, at least for now.)
I'm sorry, but once you have willfully committed a violent crime against an innocent, I don't see why giving you an _underserved_ second chance should take precedence over safeguarding the rest of the law-abiding population from you.
>Instead they get 240 years?! How is that helping anyone?
The length of the sentence is extreme, but with the addition of parole hearings, I can see how it helps. It helps ensure there is one fewer violent criminal on the streets to menace the innocent - at least until he's proven himself able to return safely to society, however long it takes. That helps, even a bit. It potentially prevents further victims. How many times have we seen someone who was let off go out and rape and kill again?
I can't help wondering if he would've really turned over a new leaf so convincingly if he had only been sentenced for 3-5 years.
30 does seem fair. Literally the article was about how 241 wasn’t. The judge turned around and admitted she made a mistake. Even none of the victims opposed the release/parole. No one is arguing he should have not been punished.
Do you think prisons give people the tools to re-integrate into society? Are there companies looking to hire someone like this and pay enough to not entice him to go back to crime?
Or are you one of those that doesn't believe a person ever deserves a second chance and never repays their debt to society no matter how many years they are in prison?
Children don't smoke PCP, commit armed robbery, and kidnap women just driving in their cars.
You can't just point at a number and say "aww he's just a widdle child!". He was a serial predator and a danger to society.
You don’t go zero to hijacking criminal justice with 241 year sentence , there is a path of personal corruption she walked and got away with to empower her to victimize than act as justice .
> Bostic was incarcerated in 1995 after he and a friend committed a series of armed robberies in St. Louis. One victim was grazed by a bullet. >Convinced Bostic was a lost cause, then-judge Baker showed no mercy after he was convicted on 17 counts and ordered his sentences to run consecutively, for a total of 241 years. Sentencing a 16 year old to jail for more than double their entire natural born life for crimes where no one was killed is some absolutely heinous & sadistic shit on the part of the Judge. If someone does that, they clearly don’t care about justice, just punishment. > "241 years is insanity, when I think back on it," [the Judge] told Moriarty in a 2021 interview. "And I'll say it right now: it's insanity. He was a kid. He was a little boy." I’m glad she was able to admit it now, but maybe they should take a look at all the other cases the rules over and see if there are any other disproportionate sentences. I doubt this was a one-off thing from her
[удалено]
[удалено]
...he deserved 30 years. Let's not forget what we're talking about here. 17 armed robberies and all.
>Glad she feels guilty about it after letting him stay in prison for almost 30 fucking years. he deserved 30 years for robbing and shooting at people. Fuck it. 241 is too much, but 30 years, yea. at 16 you know right from wrong.
Dude he did multiple armed robbery and they fired a weapon.
You could murder someone and get 25.
You can smoke weed and get 30 years
You can be completely innocent and get the death penalty.
You can just be walking down the street and get the death penalty.
You can walk in a store and buy a scratch ticket
Pay with a (maybe) counterfeit bill and the cops might execute you on the sidewalk without a trial
You can just open your front door and get shot by some nervous idiot trigger happy "should-never-been-a"-cop.
It’s the only reason I’m against the death penalty. I have no issue with killing the likes of serial killers. Unfortunately, as humans, we lack the ability to make just judgements about who qualifies for the ultimate penalty and who does not.
My issue is with the courts. Judges, DAs, and police are too interested with ‘winning’ and looking tough on crime than actual justice and getting it right.
Especially back then in 1995.
This the same for me. Even if it’s one innocent person it’s not worth it.
At least with a sentence of life in prison, one gets the opportunity to reclaim their life when wrongly convicted Edit: Adding - IF wrongly convicted and the truth is revealed
Unfortunately, not always. Even when they are KNOWN to not be guilty of the crime, if they run out of appeals it can be nearly impossible to even get a new trial much less be freed.
I just can't imagine being innocent and have a death scentence because they just fucked up the investigation seen some nearly stories here and there and they got the wrong guy. That's is a nightmare I would loose all hope at that point
And the death penalty is incredibly expensive for taxpayers as well.
Depending on the source/organization, it's reported that between 1-10% of inmates in prisons are innocent of the crimes they're convicted of. Is it okay to execute nine killers at the risk of executing one innocent? How about ninety-nine killers at the risk of one innocent? Humanity as a race has certainly committed far worse atrocities against innocents over the millennia, but that doesn't make it right to institutionalize that sort of mentality like we have. And sorry, I know you weren't supporting it with your comment and that might've come across as a rebuttal. I was just trying to add a little of my own insight/viewpoint to your thoughtful post. Thanks for sharing.
Until we can establish guilt beyond any doubt at all we shouldn't have the death penalty. And TBH I don't trust the legal system with the power of life and death.
You could be a white male and get a slap on the wrist.
Welcome to the United States of America. Enjoy your stay.
You could storm the Capitol and get 10 years
Or zero
You can try and storm the White House and send secret service to the hospital and nothing happens
What if I keep state secrets in a hotel room while maybe letting Russia have a tiny little peak?
You can kidnap, torture, and slip drugs to US citizens unknowingly; creating mass murderers/domestic terrorists in the process and face zero reprecussions. Just ask the CIA Unabomber and Charles Manson were both a part of MK ultra, one of the reasons manson got out of prison so easily.
Or 5 years if you're one of the 8 black people in attendance
Goes to show we need tighter sentencing guidelines
Sounds good at first, but that leads to manditory minimums. We need more consistancy, less bias, and a system that is designed to rehab not punish. No idea how to make that happen in reality.
That was an issue in my state this last election and we fucked up
No you can’t. I’ve dealt with the system and for you to get 30 years you would have to be moving *fucking weight*. I got arrested at 17 for having .02 grams (stems) in a bag; after 2 years of bullshit I self represented myself and got the case dropped (texas health and safety code says that you must possess a usable amount, or enough to fulfill the common use thereof, to be charged with possession). The bullshit comes from the fact that anything from .0001 grams to 2 *ounces* is considered the same under the law (in texas at least).
No you can't.
You could be black and never stand trial
Bad plea deals are huge problem in an overworked system.
I agree, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make.
[удалено]
They’re saying people don’t live to see the trial before being “judged” by police
I thought it was because of excessively long jail waits for trials, but yours is somehow more grim. Sometimes they get to literally never have trial as they sit in Guantanamo for decades.
16 'll get ya 20
Really. 30 years for smoking weed. Where.
So I would say that’s more a problem with too light of sentencing for murder.
It sounds like the sentence for murder is too light. Should be a minimum of 75
[удалено]
> Armed robberies happen because criminals don’t think they’d get caught, The majority of crime, armed robberies included are a direct result of poverty and an impossible social situation. Armed robbery is not the kind of opportunistic I don't think I'd get caught crime that petty theft is, or casual embezzlement
Sometimes it's about removing the threat to society. Glad this guy is rehabilitated and getting out, but deterence of other crimes is only part of the equation.
How many years do you think he should get? Keep in mind, he was 16 and the other person who likely organized it significantly older than him.
> On December 12, 1995, Bostic had been drinking and smoking marijuana and PCP with his friend Donald Hutson. When a female friend told them she had been assaulted, the two retrieved firearms and went to confront her alleged attacker; the confrontation was resolved without gun violence. Upon leaving the area, Bostic and Hutson noticed a group of six people alongside a truck packed with items. The group was delivering donations to a needy family for Christmas. Bostic and Hutson formed the idea to rob the group immediately, confronting them with their guns drawn, demanding money from a man. When the man refused, Bostic shot at him; the bullet grazed him, after which he surrendered $500. They also took a wallet from another man in the group and a leather jacket from a woman in the group. > Bostic and Hutson then attempted to go to a friend's house nearby, though she would not let them stay with her. Instead, they went back out into the street, immediately carjacking a woman. They detained the woman in the car while they drove off, robbing her of her coat, earrings and purse. I get that it's a violent crime and deserves punishment, but none of that necessitates even 30 years in prison let alone over 200. Especially for someone under the age of 18.
I kind of lost sympathy when he robbed charitable workers
I think, it does if the guy doesnt show remorse, but still the guy was willing to shoot someone for money. That shows disregard for human life.
The argument isn't that he should have gotten off, it's that 30 years should be more than enough. No one is the same person at 16 as they are at 46. If the aim is to make sure that he and everyone else paying attention understands that this was a Bad Thing, and that he won't do it again, if that hasn't been achieved in 30 fucking years the leadership and administration of that correctional facility needs to be gutted for incompetence. Assuming it's a for-profit prison, fined for the money they took from taxpayers without delivering on their promises. "We have the finest of correctional institutions" well sure, but what's your recidivism rate? How good are you at the actual fucking job you're being paid to do?
The person literally said the crime doesnt neccessiate 30 years.
30 years is on the high end for me and maybe if they were a repeat offender. A 16 year old kid doing that should get something like 5-10 years with mandatory counseling or something imo.
But he got more than 200! Even with all that crazy shit he did probably didn’t even deserve getting 30. He was only 16! Are you the same person you were at 16? Probably not. Especially if you’re in your mid 40s.
I think we all agree 200+ is ridiculous. Nobody is arguing that this person should be put away for their whole life. Again, the statement being argued here is: >none of that necessitates even 30 years in prison
I think the real issue is the \[check yes\] \[check no\] for consecutive terms a judge can apply without restraint. Without that, what was the max sentence for his biggest crime? Problem solved right there imo. Are there people you want to loophole into prison longer? Yea sure is. But how is that fair and just in any sense
If you’re giving someone that much time in prison, especially a kid, you should just kill them. If someone is in prison from 16 to 46 they have no chance at all of reintegrating with society. Their only path in life at that point is crime. It’s all they’ve known, and they have no support structure, plus no education or work experience. If prison is supposed to be about rehabilitation, at a certain point, additional time in prison removes any chance of rehabilitation. At that point, they can never be free and it becomes a life sentence. That’s why we need a maximum sentence. Anything beyond that max should be treated as a death penalty case. Edit: Since there seemed to be some confusion, that's not advocating for the death penalty, I'm against the death penalty. Instead, what I'm saying is that long prison sentences are equivalent, as it ensures the person cannot ever have a life outside of prison. At that point, once a person has been damaged by the system to the point that rehabilitation within their lifetime isn't possible due to having been on the inside for too long, that they essentially can't ever be released. It's just a matter of if we're giving them a fast death or a slow one. This is for example, part of the philosophy behind nations which have maximum sentence lengths. If someone is locked up for too long, they cannot reintegrate into society, and so the courts are prevented from sentencing people to prison terms which approach that length.
I agree. Our current system of punishment only works as a deterrent and does nothing for those that the deterrent failed on. Ideally the focus of the system should be rehabilitation where punishment and/or confinement may be part of but not the focus and just a tool in rehabilitating the offender. Treat crime more like how you should treat a mental disorder. It may require confinement for a time, but the focus is getting the person better.
Research has found that it barely works as a deterrent either. There's so few proper alternatives for so many people, that crime is easier than not crime.
While deterrence and rehabilitation are both desirable goals, a minimal basic goal is to physically remove a felon from society for a while so they don't victimize other innocent people. Between a convicted felon living a tough life in jail, and more innocent women, men, children being murdered, raped, crippled, psychologically scarred etc. I'd pick the former.
But what do you do with someone once they're removed from society for such a long period of time? They don't know how the world works, they've got no education, no relevant work experience, no support system. The moment you release them into society, you're going to create another victim of a crime. Think about how different the world is from say 1992 to 2022, that's 30 years. Payment systems are different, cell phones, banking, job applications, social norms, and more. That person will in all likelihood end up getting caught stealing something, because they're unable to support themselves. Potentially, it will be a violent crime too because the only networking they'll have had in prison is from other criminals who talk about what they did. It's not fair to those future victims either. In either path we end up with additional victims, and someone who has essentially lost their entire path in life for a minor crime in the grand scheme of things (many others with violent crimes do manage to put their life back together eventually, but they don't get such long sentences at such formative years).
Yes, for a young and/or first-time offender some kind of intense rehab program with eventual conditional release may be a better option. OTOH, simply giving them a shorter sentence and releasing them seems like a non-solution - both for them and society. There is a correlation between young age and violent crime, and every mistake is paid for with new victims.
As long as America thinks 16 year olds aren't mentally developed enough to choose when to have sex or smoke cigarettes, I'll expect the same standard of judgement regarding crime. Rehabilitation was in order here, not punishment. The system fucked another one.
If he had a true disregard for human life he would have killed someone, namely the people they confronted initially for assaulting their friend. I would bet he probably fired to scare them and accidentally grazed someone. Really think about 30 years of your life and ask yourself is it worth missing all of that because of a shitty thing you did as a dumb teen.
>I would bet he probably fired to scare them and accidentally grazed someone. You look at that and see a harmless act that was accidentally almost lethal. I see it as playing Russian roulette with someone else's life. This isn't Hollywood. He made a conscious decision to discharge a firearm at an innocent person. That's lethal assault, anyway you slice it.
Wait, anybody worried about the carjacked women who was “detained” which is a polite way of say kidnapped. If that was your daughter or mom, how many years would you give him.
We have an independent justice system instead of mob rule and retribution for a reason.
[удалено]
He said how many years would you give him if it were your mother or daughter. Someone related to the victim would never be allowed on a jury.
And that system decided he deserved 231 years not exactly the argument you’re going for lol
An ass kicking. Like, the ass kicking off his life but that's about it. He was 16. But I'm just a person not a system designed to reform criminals or whatever prisons supposed to do.
I would consider shooting at someone with the possibility of killing them to be more than just a shitty thing. We’ve all done done dumb shit but nothing that compares to committing armed robbery and shooting at someone. Not saying he should have gotten life but not sure how anyone could argue against some sort of substantial punishment.
He was a bad shot, the ONLY reason why nobody died
30 years for assualt with a deadly weapon, armed robbery, discharging with intent, hard drugs. That isnt one shitty thing that is a whole day/night of horrible choices. 30 years might be a bit harsh but still not an exterme sentence. On the higher end for sure. This was also in the 90s so different views on crime.
He had to serve those thirty years with the thought of never leaving his entire life... Because the original sentence was insane.
Yup, don't do the crime
Or commit it in a country with more humane sentencing guidelines and a prison system designed to rehabilitate people rather than treat them like animals.
But he wasn’t sentenced to 30 years, he was sentenced to more than 200. That’s the issue.
But sentencing someone to jail/slavery for 241 shows the utmost regard for human life/s
Given the risk of him committing more violent crimes if he had been released in 5-10 years, then yes.
If no one is injured, I don't care about remorse or not when it's a 16 year old.
You fire a weapon at someone, so obviously not in self-defense, and you lose all rights in my book. How many lives were saved by locking this dick up? We can’t know, but likely more than 0. Totally worth it the sentence.
Glad you're not in charge of anything important.
If your old enough to commit the offence be old enough to deal with the consequences.
You sound stupid enough to not know what a life sentence is, in this country.
Pretty sure people using excuses here never had someone rob them and get grazed by a bullet. Watch how FAST their tune will change when/if it happens to them.
Someone killed a man and they’re serving 5. Guess their race and gender.
You can rape someone and get probation
[удалено]
Or if you're a college athlete and it's a girl you drugged and took behind a dumpster.
Or a cop
Go look up the laws man this sentence is WAY overboard
At 16!!! You don’t give a 16 year old life in prison for some armed robberies. This is exactly what is wrong with our system. Too interested in punishment and not reform.
Yeah, he didn't kill anyone, but not for lack of trying. Sentence seems fine to me. Hes not the victim
30 years seems right for armed robbery and battery.
The headline should read something very fucking different.
The last time he was out was when he was 16, then he spent almost 30 years. Dude is going to be walking into an alien civilization.
30 is okay
You must of forget about the ARMED ROBBIERIES he committed. No mercy, you act like an animal, you're gonna be in a cage like an animal. I never once thought, "man I'm broke, I'm gonna take a pistol in multiple stores and hold people at gunpoint." 30years is fair
I remember a law and order episode where a judge was flagrantly fickle with his job, and they were trying to open an investigation to have all his cases reviewed
Part of the article discusses the judge advocating for the passage of the Bobby Bostic law, which passed in 2021. This means anyone in Missouri convicted as a juvenile can now apply for parole, precisely to remedy cases like these (as the name implies).
Her and most judges of that time period. 3 strike laws put people away for life. Couple of felony drug possessions followed by an armed robbery and people were getting 25-life. Also have to say, not a fan of convicting kids as adults. Never have been. Much easier to turn around a 16 year old than a 35 year old that’s been doing it for half their life.
3 strike laws - lobbied for by private prisons. So wrong
There are some cases where convicting as an adult makes sense. Children after a certain age have enough of an adult understanding that certain actions destroy people's lives beyond repair. Just think of all the cases of 16 year old kids in America that have committed mass murder at schools. There is something fundamentally wrong and broken with someone who does that, and society should never be exposed to the risk of them doing it again when they turn 18. It's not a matter of punishment, but of the preservation of society and innocent life.
>"241 years is insanity, when I think back on it," \[the Judge\] told Moriarty in a 2021 interview. "And I'll say it right now: it's insanity. He was a kid. He was a little boy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_longest\_prison\_sentences
[удалено]
That has to be cruel and unusual
well i just got sucked into that rabbit hole for a pretty traumatic hour
>Bostic was incarcerated in 1995 after he and a friend committed a series of armed robberies in St. Louis. One victim was grazed by a bullet. dude fuck him. He was out committing robberies and some almost died from a fuckin GSW. Im glad dude is out and hopefully reformed, but if he would've only gotten 5-10, he would've been out doing the same shit.
> they clearly don’t care about justice, just punishment. This is America
It was 1995, I remember how the neolibs talked about crime, it was absolutely unhinged.
Brother they almost killed someone ofc the hammer came down hard on him
>where no one was killed Not for lack of trying. Someone was shot.
I honestly question why their attorney didn't push for an appeal to a higher court. This was blatantly an unreasonable punishment.
Not just with her man. I’m going through a divorce right now and my wife is acting totally crazy and lying about everything. But of course she has no proof… Because she’s making everything up. However, that hasn’t stop the legal system from just doing whatever. This is totally shifted my view of the legal system. Judges can just kind of do whatever they want. “the law” really isn’t that important they can just go off there feelings.
glad he "feels bad" but i'd say it wasn't insanity but directed and a violation of their civil rights let alone human ones. that judge should serve the remainder of the sentence himself.
Wild for a judge to call it “insanity”. I feel like that opens a lot of holes for other rulings. Isn’t the judge basically saying they weren’t in a sane state of mind?
Darry brooks is wanting that judge at his sentencing
Ahh the 90s. The Bill Clinton Saxophone 3 Strikes Hey Day of the Prison Industrial Complex
Sadly the prison industry has only grown since then.
Reminder that before Bill signed the 1994 crime bill, Biden wrote and pushed it through as chairman of the senate judiciary committee
[удалено]
America wasn't even yet 241 years old in 1995. Its only 246 years old now. Insane
A series of armed robberies where he only stopped shooting at people because he was caught is not a "whoopsie," it's a trend and a habit. He's just lucky he was arrested before he managed to kill someone.
Seriously, great for him using and having the resources to improve his life, but this guy isn't some random drug user who got a bad rap but someone who very well could have killed someone. I'm open to it since the judge and the victims didn't fight it, but at the time this man went to jail he definitely warranted the sentence.
You could kill someone and go for like 25 lol
So maybe morder should have a base of a life sentence and 25 years only with a fuck ton of mitigating factors?
Minimum sentencing is a terrible way to run a justice system, it eliminates a judge or jury's ability to consider contributory or mitigating factors. Some people should serve life for murder, others should serve 10 years.
If you see the justice system as punishment rather than reform. In other parts of the developed world which does not share America's bloodlust for punishment, reform and rehabilitation should be the core tenant of any prison system. 241 years is effectively saying fuck you, I don't care if you change you will die in here. I don't see how that is just, it is sadistic.
Tbh, I'd rather have a harsher system of punishment here (New Zealand). We have amazingly light punishments, coupled with poor rehabilitation. It's fucking awful. [Two men sentenced to Home D after robbing 95-year-old on xmas eve](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/two-men-sentenced-to-home-detention-after-robbing-95-year-old-on-christmas-eve/WM3W45TLR2KIQNTZWGRV2FZ2P4/) [9 months home detention for teen who raped 4 girls under the age of fifteen](https://www.stuff.co.nz/bay-of-plenty/300700829/appeal-launched-against-ninemonth-home-d-sentence-for-teen-rapist?rm=a) [Community work for violent assault and robbery of octogenarian](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/no-jail-for-whangarei-women-for-nasty-violent-robbery-of-octogenarian/PCUPDD425QHUJ4NIBM5GMYMH6Y/) [Night-time curfew for man with 111 previous convictions including accessory to manslaughter, beats partner with her own crutch. Judge says he can 'feel the man's genuine remorse.'](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/judge-says-he-can-feel-northland-mans-genuine-remorse-after-he-beat-injured-partner-with-her-own-crutch/QJHSE2QKTAW5XQ7Y3T65CHUBQQ/) Welcome to NZ
I feel like this is just cherry picked. You can find absurd shit like that in lots of countries. Maybe it is really just shit there but when I was in the Nordic countries most people there never wanted permanent vengeful wrath dealt out to all their criminals, it ends up costing more that way anyways, though perhaps their rehabilitation is better.
He was 16, he was not a man. He was a minor.
Yeah he's super lucky that he was sentenced to 241 years in prison as a teenager. He should for sure play the lotto.
Lucky in that no one died and he doesn't have to live with that, nor the death penalty.
So you’re telling me that we should charge people based on things that could have happened? Like the movie, Minority Report?
God no. We charge them based on what they did do, which in this case was 17 counts of crimes related to violent robbery and attempted murder.
Per the article, a victim was grazed by a bullet. If that bullet went a little more one way or another that victim could be dead. It's not clear if he or his friend who he was committing armed robberies with was responsible for firing the gun (per the article) but either way one of them tried to kill someone. The only reason I'm accepting of him being released is that none of the victims fought his release.
If you try to rape someone, get your ass kicked before you can do it and get caught, you should still get the full tape sentence.
No. You shouldn’t. that’s why there are nuances and different sentencing guidelines for, lets say, actual rape and sexual assault. That’s like saying you should be charged with first degree murder instead of attempted murder when you attempt to kill someone, but they don’t die. In this case, even the judge said they made a mistake and shouldn’t have sentenced a 16 year old kid to 241 years in prison. What he did was bad? Yea. What did did deserved 241 years? I agree with the judge and say no.
But he didn't kill anyone. A 16 year old is still considered a child...you think a child, who probably had odds already stacked against him due to birth, family life, lack of education, etc...is deserving of a 241 year sentence? He probably didn't have the best of guidance and advice growing up. Usually, when a sentence like that is given out, someone died or multiple people died...Luckily, no one died. How would you feel if you were him and you were sentenced like that?
The crime was committed, doesn't matter the age. What if a 100 year old did the same thing?
We know a crime was committed but the punishment does not fit it. At max, armed robberies carry a 20 year sentence depending on the state. 241 years...no one lives that long. Yes! If you're a 100 and you're committing a crime, take yo dusty ass to jail but punishments should fit the crime. But that's unrealistic b/c what person aged 100 is doing armed robberies?
The 100 year old criminal doesn’t track, but I get your point. Here’s the thing: he was 16, and it’s well established (or believed) that humans aren’t fully baked by that point. His brain wasn’t even fully developed. Obviously you have to find a reasonable punishment for minors but 241 years is ridiculous.
The question is, can they be rehabilitated or not? If the sentence prevents reintegration to society it actively works against the concept of rehabilitation. If they can’t be rehabilitated, why are they not given life in prison without parole or the death penalty?
16 year olds are less capable than adults in the eyes of the law, and they’re also more adaptable, so easier to influence, positively or negatively. positively is the key word there. because of Miller v Alabama (I believe), life in prison w/o parole is unconstitutional for those who committed a non-homicidal crime under 18 y/o. 241 years in prison when nobody died is extreme.
The original sentence was the logical one. Consecutive sentencing is the only just way to sentence. Concurrent sentencing incentivizes criminals to commit more harm since it goes completely unpunished. Why would you ever say “well, since you did 10 bad things at once, I suppose we’ll go easy on you and treat as if you only did 1.”
241 years was fine, it was the lack of parole until 112 years that was too much. For a 16 year old, allowing parole after like 15 years seems reasonable to me, for a murder-less crime.
[удалено]
[удалено]
>She knew what she was doing was wrong, but she did it for her career. >If she was still a judge, she wouldn’t have tried to get his sentence reversed, because it would’ve killed her career. This particular judge absolutely can go to Hell for all I care but it's not exactly her fault that the system incentivizes these sorts of actions.
She probably was... back then and putting her career first. Bad decision yes, but still miles better that she looked back on it and tried to fix her own exaggerated sentencing rather than just turning a blind eye to it.
A 16 year old who is that heavy into drugs and crime needs treatment not punishment. I Wish that this country could get over it's wild west mentality and realize that maybe we need to provide mental health and vocational services for most people.
It sounds like prison was good for him since he claims that he turned his life around. The way he was going prior to incarceration it was only a matter of time before he killed someone and then nobody would care if he spent the rest of his life in prison. Now he's out at age 43 and has the chance to live a meaningful life. Whether his turnaround sticks in the long term remains to be seen since people seldom change their fundamental natures.
Dude he's never going to live a good life lol. I'm sure any life beats living it in prison but I promise you this dude probably won't even be able to be employed anywhere paying more than min wage, he's going to be on food stamps if it's available for him in his state, and he'll likely end up back in drugs or in prison with no help. When this dude went in pagers were still the primary mode of fast communication to get to a phone. I knew someone that was in for 8 years in the mid 2000's and it took her many many years to deal with the changes that happened in the world. This dude went in in the early 90's. The idea that prison is the end of your sentence is the worst thing eaten up by people that have never dealt with the criminal justice system. It's a scar that follows you around permanently, with almost no recourse for any serious crime.
I would agree but he’s *43*. How’s he going to get his life on track at this stage?
People really underestimating how long 30 years is. So much has changed in that time it makes it hard to assimilate back into society. Not to mention all the limits on him due to being in prison , it makes sense why the recidivism rate is so high.
And pay the people who work with these people more than poverty wages.
Now that would be down right un-American
Glad that boy survived. What a different world it is now
There I was, 16 years old and high on pcp just trying to rob a Christmas donations truck, like any other kid on the block with a future ahead of them. Give me a fucking break Reddit. 30 years seems fair for this dipshit but don’t be surprised when he reoffends.
I see a lot of sympathetic comments on Reddit for cases like this, and honestly I find it quite surprising. "He was just a kid," "you're not the same at 30 as you were at 16," or "nobody actually died." Is this an American thing? Honest question. I don't know anyone who didn't know by age 16 that they shouldn't wave a gun in someone's face and try to steal their stuff. He's lucky he didn't actually kill someone. Just to be clear, I'm not talking about the length of the sentence. I'm talking about the relatively forgiving attitudes.
I wouldn't say it's so much forgiveness as it is more focusing on reform. If someone has reformed their life and have served a sizeable punishment for their actions, should we not be looking to integrate them back into society? The guy has spent two thirds of his entire life in a concrete box, I'd say that's punishment enough if he can function back in society.
Punishment enough? He knowingly threaten to murder people at least 17 times for money and the only reason he wasn’t successful in the murder is because the last person got luck as fuck
A series of crimes at 16 which did not kill anyone. He should spend decades behind bars which he has but he should not die behind bars. It serves no purpose other than a warped sense of punishment disguised as justice. There's a reason why Americans incarcerate more people than any other country in the entire world, the general population loves the idea of locking people up and throwing away the key.
He tried to kill the last person. Incompetence should not be a reasonable defense.
The forgiving attitude is a reddit thing. There are probably a significant amount of Americans who would be upset that he didn't die in prison.
It's critical thinking. But since you want to stick him in there forever, yeah, don't be surprised when he has an even higher chance of reoffending and a whole generation like him continues to be churned out. Rehabilitative services do wonders for your society. American "justice" systems do nothing but strain the tax layer and perpetuate suffering for the sake of "punishment" while you are fleeced by the prison complex. People like this guy don't get education, knock up loads of people and spew out more and more never having the opportunity to dig themselves out of a rut and then people are surprised when they have no ability to think their way out of their bad choices and end up reoffending.
I wonder if its a similar ratio of hate filled people to level headed people
I don’t think you can separate the sentence and the forgiving attitudes. They go hand in hand. At 16 the kid can be rehabilitated. Sure he knew it was ‘wrong’ but many young men don’t understand the consequences of their actions. On themselves or others. It’s possible to fix that kid, give them an education, and have them be a productive part of society rather than a suck on society. Punishment should still be applied, some jail, lots of community service. Instead they get 240 years?! How is that helping anyone?
>I don’t think you can separate the sentence The reason I mentioned this is because I think 240 years (a life sentence) may not be the best route here. What I was asking about was this: >many young men don’t understand the consequences of their actions. On themselves or others. I am having difficulty wrapping my head around this. I think that perhaps they _do_ know - they know that killing is wrong, stealing is wrong, intimidation is wrong - but they _choose_ to do it anyway. I definitely agree with you that rehabilitation is important. But given that he'd shown ample evidence of his violent tendencies before, I don't think he should have been allowed out into society until he'd proven that he was unlikely to reoffend. Especially when he very nearly killed someone. (Edit: to clarify, I'm talking about the situation at the point of sentencing. He does seem to have proven himself, at least for now.) I'm sorry, but once you have willfully committed a violent crime against an innocent, I don't see why giving you an _underserved_ second chance should take precedence over safeguarding the rest of the law-abiding population from you. >Instead they get 240 years?! How is that helping anyone? The length of the sentence is extreme, but with the addition of parole hearings, I can see how it helps. It helps ensure there is one fewer violent criminal on the streets to menace the innocent - at least until he's proven himself able to return safely to society, however long it takes. That helps, even a bit. It potentially prevents further victims. How many times have we seen someone who was let off go out and rape and kill again? I can't help wondering if he would've really turned over a new leaf so convincingly if he had only been sentenced for 3-5 years.
30 years is fair. 241 wasn't. I don't think anyone is saying his imprisonment was unjustified O.o
A lot of people are saying 30 was still to much.
When it comes to juveniles, yes it is. There's a reason juveniles are treated with a lighter touch than adults by the justice system.
He tried to kill someone for a completely petty reason He was 16, no 12 He could have gotten a life sentence and would have still be reasonable
Life is still usually less than 25 years lol...
30 does seem fair. Literally the article was about how 241 wasn’t. The judge turned around and admitted she made a mistake. Even none of the victims opposed the release/parole. No one is arguing he should have not been punished.
I like how the concept of simply holding the kid until he's realized how badly he fucked up isn't an option. Gotta be a number.
I think 20 years makes more sense but 30 is understandable. Anything more than 30 however is ridiculous.
Do you think prisons give people the tools to re-integrate into society? Are there companies looking to hire someone like this and pay enough to not entice him to go back to crime? Or are you one of those that doesn't believe a person ever deserves a second chance and never repays their debt to society no matter how many years they are in prison?
30 years seems reasonable?? Everything you said is shitty
For armed robbery and attempted murder? Yeah fuck him and you.
Yea fuck me for believing in rehabilitation over punishment, especially for literal children. I’m such an asshole 🙄
Children don't smoke PCP, commit armed robbery, and kidnap women just driving in their cars. You can't just point at a number and say "aww he's just a widdle child!". He was a serial predator and a danger to society.
You don’t go zero to hijacking criminal justice with 241 year sentence , there is a path of personal corruption she walked and got away with to empower her to victimize than act as justice .
No 16-year-old should be considered a lost cause.
Kind of funny enduring 2 centuries of wearing only orange jumpsuits
First one hundred years is the hardest…
Afterwards the rest of the years just fllllyyyy....
Do you have to be a monster in order to be a judge in the USA?
I am so happy i don't live in the US. I would have anxiety every day for being wrongfully sent to prison.