16 yr old gets life for murder of pizza delivery driver.

[reednavy]

They ordered a pizza with the objective of robbing them of that and any money they had on them. When they did, she refused, and the gun "magically" went off and killed her.

He and his friends knew what they were doing and saying he is 16 and doesn't fully understand what is right and wrong or whatever is a pitiful arguement.

Even though he plead guilty for 2nd degree murder, the judge gave him life to make an example of him. There are way too many young thugs of all races in this town that need to see what can happen when you get caught.

[Springfielder]

Springfielder.

How long did it take you to learn from the worst mistake you ever made?  In your life?

There is no way to replace the life that he took.  Just as there isnt any way to replace the life taken from Kiko Battles, the kid shot to death in front of his grandmother just north of Springfield.

I bring this up just to make the point that we don't base our punishments on value for value.  

I do not have an opinion about this boy, or about his punishment.

I didnt pay close enough attention to decide whether or not the punishment fits the crime, so Im going to have to rely that you and the other posters on this forum did.

Was the crime sufficiently evil that the only existence that this 16 year old (probably not even done with puberty) will ever know for the next 60 years is locked in a cage?

If not, who does this serve?  And who pays for it?

If so, please fill me in.  As I said, I don't know enough about it.

First of all, any mistakes I have made in my life don't begin to compare to what happened. I've never committed a crime, much less murdered someone. This was no mistake, it was an intentional act, he knew the gun was loaded, he knew he intended to rob the delivery person...so just where is this mistake?

Simply put, these 3 thugs ordered pizzas, waiting for the delivery with the intent to rob. They successfully pulled off an armed robbery of this nature the night before, and then planned to do it again. This time, the innocent victim didn't want to give up her hard earned money, so the kid shot her...oh wait, the gun just went off, shooting her in the head and killing her.

If it were not for the fact that their first intention was robbery, they would've been charged with first degree murder, instead it was second degree. Still, a totally innocent, hard working woman is dead because of their actions.

So what does life in prison serve? It keeps someone that has no regard for the life of another, someone who had no problem pointing a loaded gun at someones head to demand their money...off the streets. It serves as one less thug off the streets. So does the punishment of life behind bars fit the crime of murder, I say yes. As for whom this serves, it serves society and the laws/punishment we set in place.

[Springfielder]

As to the other case you mentioned, neither are similar in nature...Battles is dead because of his own illegal actions. That is a completely different issue

[Springfielder]

So the point is to take him off the street?  Because he might kill again?

Well that seems to be a valid argument.  What is it based on?  Has he indicated that he is a murderer by inclination?  Or is it possible that it was an accident, and that he murdered someone that he only intended on frightening?

It's based upon the consequences set forth for committing a violent felony, that resulted in the death of another person. As I stated before, it's Second Degree Murder, because the intent was to rob, the killing was a result of that criminal/felony action. It doesn't matter if it was an 'accident, that fact remains the he took the life of another while in the commission of a felony. That's the law, and when you violate that law, society has guidelines for punishment.

To respond to the differences in the cases you mentioned and this one...the reason he wasn't charged with First Degree/Capital Murder, such as what was likely the case in the situations you mentioned, because of the degree of culpability: intentionally, willingly, neglectfully and recklessly.

782.04  Murder.--

(1)(a)  The unlawful killing of a human being:

1.  When perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being;

2.  When committed by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:

a.  Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),

b.  Arson,

c.  Sexual battery,

d.  Robbery,

http://law.justia.com/florida/codes/TitleXLVI/ch0782.html

[Andy]

I'm just gonna put down my initial thought here because I admit that I haven't read everything in the the thread or everything about the trial. But I am pretty shocked at the number of people supporting this.

This kid deserves a sentence, no question, but this whole "make and example" thing is bull. It's the same line of reasoning that thugs use when they beat a man to death for not paying for his drugs, or when they gouge the eyes out of a DJ at a local club for not playing their favorite song. It's brutal. The kid will be punished for the rest of his life anyway, through guilt, through prison time and through post-prison unemployment and possibly homelessness, with no degree under his belt and nowhere in the city hiring former violent offenders. His life was ruined in about five different ways before they decided to make an example of him. And besides, who are they making an example to? kids who play with guns? Because I've got news for you, that is going to happen as along as people don't watch their kids and allow guns in a household with kids.

He's earned a punishment, but at the point where even the victim's families are capable of forgiving him as being nothing more than a stupid arrogant kid who screwed up bigger than any of us ever will (hopefully) then I would hope the state would be able to give him an appropriate sentence, not an unabashedly overblown sentence to appease people who were completely uninvolved (us wonderful voters). Political points as a "hard-nosed judge" are simply worth more than human lives I guess.

Lets pray none of us ever get crucified for our biggest mistakes, at least.

[Springfielder]

Well, if I took a life in the commission of a felony, then I would expect to either be sentenced to death or life. There are consequences for our actions, he's now going to face what his callous actions caused. He's been given life, but I didn't see where it's life without chance of parole.

Forgiving someone is one thing, punishment for a crime upon society, is another.

[Cricket]

 Where's daddy?

[duvaldude08]

You know I'm starting to wonder where his parents were. When I was 16, there is no way I could have murdered anyone. My parents knew where I was going and who I was with at all times. And they didn't like them, I could not hang out with them period.The pictures of him crying is heartbreaking, but you play, you pay. I knew at 16 that robbery and murder was wrong, so I'm sure he did too.

[kells904]

Andy:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me you're thinking about how you'd feel if it were you going to prison, when you talk about guilt, and trying to get a job as an ex-con, and all that.  The thug population doesn't give a crap about any of that, IMO.  If anything, it's reason to go right back to doing what got them put them in jail in the first place.  They sure as hell don't value other peoples lives either.  And this kid, who they want to paint as "having had a lapse in judgement" or whatever, knew exactly what he was getting into from the start, because he wanted to show the world how badass he was.  I actually got really pissed off when I saw the headline; because the criminal element in Jacksonville seems to be a special kind of stupid, so I feel NO sympathy for ANY of them, even if the sentence is too harsh.  Screw them.

My point is that nobody knows for sure, if a murderer sees the light of day again, will he kill again?  Because when and if they do, the question becomes "well why the hell did they let him out the first time?"  We ask people to pass judgement on other people, in an attempt to make society safer for all of us.  Sometimes--well plenty times--we're going to get it wrong.  But it's really the best we can do.

I don't know if a life sentence (and yeah, he'll likely be paroled before that) is the right way to go.  Again, no one can really know if a sentence is the right one.  My personal opinion is "eye for an eye". And at this point, I don't favor any type of reform.  I prefer deterrence, and the electric chair over lethal injection.  Maybe my opinions will change if it happens to me, but I don't suppose I'll do something as f***ed up as this kid, either.

[Andy]

It's true that letting a murderer out of prison should not be taken lightly, because there IS a chance that he will go back to that element. But there are other factors worth noting here.

For one, people grow up. This is a kid, not a repeat violent offender. We have no reason to believe that he will want to play gangster again once he gets out, or if he will want to work off his guilt and become a valuable member of society. Rehabilitation is a dumb buzz word, but it represents something true: that sometimes the prison time, the time removed from society results in a change of heart, when a person realizes what risks they take, both with their own lives and others.

And this kid, who they want to paint as "having had a lapse in judgement" or whatever, knew exactly what he was getting into from the start, because he wanted to show the world how badass he was.

"Knowing exactly what you're getting into" and "accidentally shooting a person to death" are not the same thing. He knew he was getting into robbery and bullshit posturing for his thugged out friends, but we're told the actual shooting was an accident. You can call BS on that if you'd like, but I personally buy it. A 16 year old kid may be deep in the drug game mentality already, but this kid wasn't doing anything with drugs. He was trying to rob a pizza delivery person. I think it WAS an accident, albeit by way of intentional attempt to get a little money and posture for his friends. But it was still an accident. And that can't be discounted.

The thug population doesn't give a crap about any of that, IMO.  If anything, it's reason to go right back to doing what got them put them in jail in the first place. 

A large portion of these repeat offenders we talk about are forced back into their former lives by circumstance. We can't just punish someone and expect them to become good members of society. They need something to come back to, someplace to work and survive off of that will accept their past transgressions. Because if we don't the drug trade surely will. We have to offer punishment and opportunity both if we expect the cycle to break. It's not right to color all of these offenders as a group when so many of them would get out of the violence if they had the chance. Life in prison alleviates the need by total and complete removal... but at the cost of keeping the potential productive members of society locked up and fighting for their lives.

We ask people to pass judgement on other people, in an attempt to make society safer for all of us.  Sometimes--well plenty times--we're going to get it wrong.  But it's really the best we can do.

I disagree. We can do better than being told we have to "make an example" of a teen who screwed up in a big way. We can give a person fair sentence based on what happened, not based on political points, reputation and the need to look "harsh on thugs." And not based on how we expect anyone else to react to the story for that matter. And we can give ex cons more assistance when they are dropped back into he world after thirty or forty years of fighting to survive in prison. We can give them a new shot at a decent life, if for no other reason than to prevent another gangster rejoining the street.

I don't know if a life sentence (and yeah, he'll likely be paroled before that) is the right way to go.  Again, no one can really know if a sentence is the right one.  My personal opinion is "eye for an eye".

If you can name a time in a conflict when one person retaliated against the other and then the fight just ended because they were "even," please let me know. If your kid hits his classmate, should you allow the classmate to hit back? And do you expect the conflict to end once your eyes are averted? This ideal is incompatible with justice, because it in itself endorses injustice, via retaliation. My best guess at an alternative is removal and then granting of empowerment. Remove the dangers to society for a reasonable time, and then put it back with the tools and parts they need to work correctly. That's what I think anyway, and it certainly seems better than the old "eye for an eye" adage.

I disagree with almost everything you've said, but I do appreciate the civil tongue. It's rare in internet debates.

[Shwaz]

I was more impressed with ability of both families to come together during the most intense outcome.
I'm reading more of a positive message about humanity and understanding than a negative message in the sentence handed down.

[kells904]

True, we don't know he will go back to that element, but we don't know that he won't either.  That's the gamble you take every time you try to rehablitate.  Not that I don't think rehabilitation works for some people, I prefer to err on the side of caution.  "Sometimes" isn't good enough for me. 

I don't agree with providing an ex-con with a way back into society, or their being forced back into their old lives due to circumstances, either.  If you murder someone, you have forfeited your right to the pursuit of happiness and all that because you took somebody else's.  The onus is on YOU to prove yourself worthy of rejoining society; it's not my job to provide you with an alternative--the path you chose NOT to take in the first place--to stop you from going back to a life of crime.  Even the poorest American doesn't have it as bad as the Have-nots in third world countries.  They look for a way out, knowing that if they don't, they will die.  So...circumstances, shmircumstances.

I guess I don't really know what a "fair" sentence is, because if it were my world, he'd at least get 20 years, and that whole time, he and everybody else in prison would basically be some form of indentured servant/slave until their sentence was up or they committed suicide.  That'd save countless tax dollars on various city functions country-wide.  Cruel?  Maybe.  But again, I don't care; I think we as a society are desensitized to just how terrible murder is.

Oh, and if I had a kid who started a fight, then yes, I would expect the other kid to hit him back.  And if that kid "finishes" the fight my offspring initiated, then that's what he deserves; I'd punish him after I made fun of him.  That's how conflicts used to get settled when our parent were kids.  And it usually got the job done.

Well there's no point in being a total ass when you disagree.  Maybe the other guy might have a valid point you never thought of.  But you're totally wrong on this one, though

[Bill Ectric]

I think her deserves life in prison and should be given nothing but pizza to eat every day of his life.

[jandar]

Everyone forgetting the 10-20-life law?
10 years for pulling a gun during a crime
20 for firing that gun during a crime
25-life for injuring or killing someone with that gun during a crime

the judge simply followed state laws.

[kells904]

I think he deserves life in prison and should be given nothing but pizza to eat every day of his life.