Teen turns down plea deal for 25 years in prison, gets 65 years instead

Or, this is a message to everyone in the state that if you are involved in a group that commits a crime and someone dies as a result then you and everyone in that group are responsible for that death. Plain and simple.

 

and that is why your arguments with me are a waste of time. This thread is not about the rights or wrongs of the case and I have never argued about them except when people were being really ridiculous comparing this boy with Manson..and then just making the point that there is no evidence he even fired any gun. That is all I have said with respect to the case.

My argument from the OP has been questioning whether the reason that he had a 'plea bargain' of 25 years changed to 65 years was because he chose to have his right of being heard through a court and whether this was intended as a warning to others not to have a trial whether innocent or guilty. I have pointed out that only 3% of criminal cases in the US ever go to trial and that research shows 10% of those who agree to plea bargaining are innocent. I questioned whether the raising of his sentence to 65 years from 25 years was a message to everyone else that what they are told is correct and that if they do not respond to plea bargaining they will spend years and years in prison and I am talking about serious cases which have the potential for very long sentences. I have heard that police in the US can make charges which deeply exaggerate what the individual did and of course sometimes they are innocent but still feel they must take the plea bargaining for fear something like this will happen or they may even land up on death row. This is not justice.

I illustrated that in Scotland when someone pleads guilty and does not have a trial which I think is only for more minor issues, it still goes to court and the maximum that the Sheriff can give is a reduction of a third of what would have been the maximum possible sentence. It should be obvious that not everyone will get the maximum. The intention is that the reduction in sentence ought not to be sufficient to get innocent people to plead guilty.

To have a system where a person can go to court and for the cheek of going to court result in having a charge which is moving towards three times more than they would have got on plea bargaining squeals of something improper going on and does not sound like justice. Hence I suspect it is a punishment for being prepared to demand justice through the court...and it is on that I am saying that your justice system does not stand up to its name. I have provided an paper which says the same - that plea bargaining in the US is a perversion of justice. I also pointed out that if the US moves further towards authoritarianism/fascism this is the ideal system for imprisonment without trial because in reality that is what it is except for the very rich - again we are dealing with sentences similar to this which have a serious effect on your life, not minor issues as you are using.

.

 

the cop is the one that decides to kill or not

one should not be charged with murder cause a cop decides to kill

this only encourages racist cops to kill black suspects, all the cop has to do is kill one black person in a group and the whole group goes to prison for up to 65 years... all based on the cops choice of actions

 

The cop was being shot at. What was he supposed to do?

 

This is a sad story and a perfect demonstration of the cruelty of the authoritarian mindset that is so big a part of the old south. Hate your next door neighbor but don't forget to say grace.

Was it Uriah Heep that said the law is an ass?

 

I don’t think you understand plea bargaining - a prosecutor drops some charges in exchange for your guilty plea. If you make plea bargaining illegal than most people would have much harsher sentences.
That kid probably had a page full of charges against him - burlglary, theft, resisting arrest and so on. Each charge carries its own sentencing guidelines and your ultimate sentence is a sum of those charges that you committed. In plea bargaining the prosecutor offers to drop some charges in exchange for guilty plea for other charges. When a prosecutor drops a charges its wiped from your record, you have never committed that particular crime. How is that worse than being forced to face the judge for every single crime that’s on the list of your original charges?
If plea bargain was outlawed then the kid in this particular case would have never been even offered a 25 year sentence. You remove plea bargain and a lot more people would be in prisons, because in most plea bargaining cases you can viggle out of prison sentence unless you committed a serious violent crime.
As for your point about 10% innocent people serving time for crimes they didn’t commit - well you can’t fix stupid. Why do you plead guilty for a crime you didn’t commit? Taking a bargain means that you can’t appeal. So, if you are truly innocent you must go through trial, at least because it will give you an opportunity to appeal or even ask for a retrial.

 

Tough that you disagree. imo, you are in the very small minority. Don't run with bad people.

 

Death and murder are precisely what the code of law for Alabama says they are.

 

If you brandish a gun against a cop you're probably going to die. If you open fire on a cop and the cop returns fire, like he is supposed to, you are even more likely going to die.

You might win the gunfight you started and kill that cop, but then more are coming for you, all that the force can spare at that moment.

 

First of all, if you reject a plea you are throwing the dice. The facts show he was clearly guilty so obtaining a non guilty verdict is highly unlikely. He was hoping for a compassionate jury. In a place like this the jury will have a large number of blacks on it. So race will not be the issue that determines his guilt. Next, if you accept a plea, your sentence is set and can't be changed. If you are convicted by trial, the judge usually with recommendations from the jury sets the sentence. The judge will look at your record and that can affect your sentence. The judge will also consider if you are remorseful for your crime. This kid further exasperated his case by being a smart aleck and laughing during the proceedings. That truly showed he had no remorse and no respect for the court. I would also bet he had gang ties and a lengthy record. He got what he asked for.

 

I am not going on what I say but on what people who know a lot more than both you and myself have been saying. I will point out however that they have not mentioned removing plea bargaining but are pointing out that as it stands it is not a just system and is very open to abuse.

I would say though that there is all the difference in a system that reduces the time a person will be sentenced to if they plead guilty or plea bargain than what we are seeing in this case. Very few as I say even try to go to court. Only 3% of Americans who are arrested for criminal offences are tried in court. The rest are made to believe whether innocent or guilty, or guilty of only part of what they are charged with, that if they do not agree and accept what is offered, they will find all hell descending on them. The court in this instance could not have given a better example.

Given that he went to court, we do know what the charges were or certainly what he was convicted of - that is 'felony murder, burglary and theft'. Of course the other obscenity was that he was tried as an adult although he was only 15 at the time. For his sentence to go up from 25 to 65 years suggests something very fishy happening in your courts. As I said it suggests an attempt to stop others using the justice system and instead to accept what they are 'told to' outside of the right of a fair hearing. Any change between the sentence which you would get from plea bargaining and going to court must not be seen as a disincentive to those who are either innocent or believe themselves to be guilty of lesser charges, from going to court. The right to defend yourself is a right in democracy and giving someone who goes to court going on three times the length of sentence that he would get if he plea bargained has no place anywhere which calls itself a democracy.

I believe the Court were intending on using him as an example so that no others would get 'uppity' and decide to defend themselves if they were being accused of things they were innocent of or charged with more than they were guilty of. That suggests that except for with the very rich the US engages in 'imprisonment without trial' an extremely dangerous situation for any country which considers itself a democracy.

 

I think there is a good chance he will get some reduction of sentence on appeal. I doubt he will do as good as he would have taking the offer, however.

Yeah, when you do dumb you're almost always going to pay.

 

Same same in California, same same in Taxachucetts. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

 

If you are innocent, you should never plead guilty to anything.
If you think you should be charged with a lesser crime - well, that’s why it’s called a plea BARGAIN. If your are willing to plead guilty to a lesser crime you need to make sure prosecutor is aware of that.
Anyway, your claims about racist and unjust legal system don’t hold the water if you also take into account cases like OJ Sympson, Casey Anthony and the Pharma Bro.

 

Typical that black people in the US get very harsh sentences.
It has been proven,... statistics dont lie.

 

That does seem to be how many DAs function in the US, in the interest of expediency, but not just against blacks. Of course it does cause some who are innocent to plead guilty...but on the other hand it is so easy to get away with crime in general because of our stance that hard proof is needed to establish guilt, it improves the stats a bit.

Does your country assume everyone is guilty until proven innocent as they do in France?

 

he was supposed to shoot back, no one ever said he was not supposed too, what were are saying is this 15 year old did not murder his friend, the cop killed his friend in self defense

your in cop defense mode.. no one is saying the cop did anything wrong here, they are saying the da over charged the boy and the judge over sentenced him

the boy did wrong and deserves time for the crimes he did, not 65 years for the crime he did not do

 

But that is showing an enormous naivety. In a properly functioning democracy with a properly functioning Judicial system this would be true. However in a judicial system where using what is supposed to be a free and fair trial can get your sentence raised from 25 to 65 years and where you are told this will be what happens to you if you do not plea bargain, basically believing the system is totally bent against you which many blacks do, this is no longer the case.

No plea bargaining should make such a difference between what one gets with plea dealing and what one gets on going to court that would act as a deterrent to those who are either innocent or guilty of far lesser crimes than they are being accused of. This case shows that Clearly the US does and that is what I have been hearing about the US for some time. That is certainly one and possibly the most important reason why your plea bargaining system is not a just judicial system at all.

No, these do not change what I said though I am afraid OJSimpson is the only one I have heard of.

Your system at the moment is subject to local abuse and in any case does not offer the free and fair trial which is part of a good justice system. This has gradually diminished since you brought in your plea bargaining - was it in the 70's so that now only 3% of American's accused of criminal offences have the opportunity of trial leading to the US in all but name being a country of imprisonment without trial.

 

Innocent until proven guilty. A key thing which is lost in your system. We do although people can plead guilty and get a lesser sentence. I think for more serious crimes people still have a trial if they plead guilty. The big difference to the reduction in sentence in Scotland is that the most that can be reduced for pleading guilty, and this is done in court, is 1/3rd off the maximum sentence possible. Given that many who plead not guilty will not get the maximum possible sentence the difference is hence not so great. This is to ensure that the amount of time off is not sufficient to deter the innocent and those who believe they are being charged of greater crimes than they have committed, from going to court which clearly the change in this guys sentence from 25 years to 65 years does. I have read and watched documentaries of the trial business in the US and people do seem to be warned that if they do not accept this and decide instead to argue against in court they will get a result as we see above.

With regards racism, there is no question that this exists in some of your states and one in particular where 'fixing up' of blacks and their killing was prevalent. I did do some research on it some years ago but unfortunately on a different computer and cannot remember where it was. I do also accept though that anyone who cannot afford a good lawyer is stuck in a similar boat even if it is less likely for false charges to be used.

Regarding it apparently being about saving money. Well firstly if you are going to have justice there is a cost for it...but also is it not extremely expensive to keep all these people in jail. I am sure the US has about the largest number of people in jail per population in the world. (2nd largest apparently) Again, particularly with your black community, people are describing the US as 'warehousing them' and that is what your justice system is certainly vulnerable to enabling, for any group so chosen.

 

I think it's fine. Compared to in France where people under 18 can get away with murder or rape with one years of prison. He took poor decisions and was old enough to know it was poor decisions, he pays the price now.

 

I think it will soon have to be the case in every western country; if it isn't then global Islam will prevail much faster they they or us will believe possible.

 

He was a minor of the male sex going through puberty, I think what you say above is highly doubtful...just saying

 

You need to spend some time learning about felony murder.

 

a forum is for you to express your views and knowledge.

Please explain how felony murder results in an extra 40 years being added to the 25 offered on plea bargaining for taking your case to court.

 

He declined the plea bargain. He was tried, convicted and sentenced according prevailing guidelines. The purpose of the plea bargain was to avoid trial by taking a lesser sentence. He went to trial and lost the lesser sentence. Better read up on plea bargains as well.