Locking them up, throwing away the key, and hoping no one notices
Posted by Dalton48 on 25 Apr 2009 at 09:13 am | Tagged as: Current Events
I have to admit that I have not followed the coverage of the trial of the Jane Creba killers all that closely, so it came as a surprise to me to hear that JSR, the first person to be sentenced in connection with her death, was convicted of second-degree murder although all are agreed he didn’t actually kill anyone. From the Globe story:
The prosecution conceded that Mr. Simpson-Rowe did not fire the fatal bullet that tore into Ms. Creba’s back and exited through her throat, but rather shot and wounded two other people, including one of his co-accused.
The judge in the case claims not to be “unsympathetic” to the very sad and violent upbringing of JSR, but that doesn’t make any difference to the sentence. JSR, who — let’s remember — killed no one, has spent the last three years in custody, has now received a life sentence, and will be not be eligible for parole until 2013. What, exactly, is “not unsympathetic” about this sentence? An aggressive, misguided 17-year-old has been turned into a lifetime hardened criminal, and will likely emerge from prison with an entirely justified feeling of justice denied. I agree with Judge Nordheimer that we are entitled to walk the streets without having to worry about violent gunfights erupting in our midst. But does this sentence make you feel safer? Because I don’t see how it could.
I’m not familiar with the case either, but judging from the press coverage (see e.g. Rosie DiManno’s column) it looks like the larger question may be with the jury’s decision to convict. It looks like the sentencing judge may have been in the awkward situation of having to find facts for purposes of sentencing on the basis of a conviction that didn’t make a lot of sense in the first place. It wouldn’t surprise me if there were a conviction appeal on the murder conviction at some point.
That said, we don’t know much about the background that the sentencing judge had before him when rendering sentence. The fact that JSR was already prohibited from possessing weapons and was actually banned from being in the area (indicating at least that he was already on a bail at the time of the offence and possibly that he had prior convictions for violent offences at the time), as well as what seemed to be a pretty negative picture from the pre-sentence report, would have been taken into account. Again, I don’t know much about the particulars of JSR’s case, but some 17-year-olds are already pretty hardened criminals.
(And of course, the sentencing judge has to pass sentence on the basis that the conviction is a valid conviction.)
Agreed, the sentencing judge is not responsible for the conviction. I am not sure whether I’m horrified or relieved by the fact that the conviction was decided by a jury.
The more you look at the details the worse it sounds to (admittedly poorly informed) me — banned from being in the area but was there anyway, didn’t bring a weapon with him and handed one moments before (or during?) the gunfight. Stupendously bad judgement, but a life sentence for murder, when he fired no lethal shot? I get the negative reports about his personality play a role, but I would never have thought that justified expanding someone’s crime into something that comes with a sentence that better soothes a rattled public.
The jury wouldn’t (in any event shouldn’t) have known anything about his background etc. when they reached their verdict. I’ll be curious to see what happens with a conviction appeal.
OTOH, of course, he does seem to have been properly convicted of some pretty serious offences — aggravated assault etc.
I don’t get it either. There will have to be an appeal.