Hennepin County prosecutor declines to charge teen murderers as adults, will be free at 21

[Fuzzy Bear]

https://twitter.com/kare11/status/1633988046281490432
This is fairly controversial now. What happened is a 23-year old woman's ex-boyfriend hired a 17-year old and his 15-year old brother to do a home invasion and kill her, which is what happened. No manslaughter or accidental killing here, they broke in with an illegally obtained handgun and shot her down. Hennepin County's new County Attorney elected on a reformist platform opted to drop the charges against both to be charged as adults and offered a plea bargain to be charged as juveniles, meaning they will only serve 2 years and then probation until they turn 21 for first degree murder.

The main justification argument is that this is for a plea bargain in exchange for their testimony against the ex which could put him away him for life, but most seem to believe they could probably convict him without such evidence. The victim's family are not happy. Neither is the assistant district attorney who originally tried the case who actually removed herself from it after this decision in protest.

I voted for Moriarty and her opponent really sucked (in hindsight it's a shame Ryan Winkler didn't make the second round, he was neither in the mold of Chesa Boudin but also not a "tough on crime" time hardliner), but yeah I can totally see why people are not happy about this. Remember this is not some accidental or spur of the moment killing, it was 100% premediated and planned murder.

You got what you asked for.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I don't have any opinion on this, but I don't care about the victim's family. The criminal justice system does not exist to serve victims.

You put it in a very blunt way, but more people should accept that this is true. If we determined sentences based on how long the victims have to deal with the consequences of the crime then everybody'd get a life sentence.

I get the impression a substantial portion of the population (a majority in some states?) wants life sentences to be the norm for violent crimes. 

Why should the victim's family be OK with this?  And if they're not, why should they be quiet about this?  Please tell me.

[Fuzzy Bear]

If they're not adults they should not be charged as adults, period. The very fact that doing so is legally possible tells you all you need to know about the Orwellian nightmare that is the US justice system. If you think sentencing caps for juveniles are too low, you can increase them (not that you should, but you can), but that doesn't mean that a 17-year-old magically grows one year older the moment they commit some heinous crime.

If there is no means by which this person can be tried as an adult, how are law-abiding people to be safe from this individual?

[Fuzzy Bear]

If they're not adults they should not be charged as adults, period. The very fact that doing so is legally possible tells you all you need to know about the Orwellian nightmare that is the US justice system. If you think sentencing caps for juveniles are too low, you can increase them (not that you should, but you can), but that doesn't mean that a 17-year-old magically grows one year older the moment they commit some heinous crime.

If there is no means by which this person can be tried as an adult, how are law-abiding people to be safe from this individual?

He's saying there should be something in between, and there should be. I think if anyone is to be tried by the full weight of justice system, they should have a say in it. It is very difficult to say where the line should be, both in terms of the age of the defendant and the maximum penalty. To answer your question more directly, perhaps we should put more emphasis on corrections (i.e. rehabilitation). We can certainly devise a system that better supports rehabilitation for most people.  Not everyone can be rehabilitated or be part of regular society, but we should certainly try.

If we were talking about a plain old Home Invasion-Robbery I might agree to this.  In Florida, such an defendant could possibly be sentenced as a Youthful Offender, meaning that they'd get a cap of 6 years with some combination of prison and some kind of community supervision.  This, however, is a murder for hire.  The actions of these teenagers are quite depraved, and reflect a deep disregard for human life, as well as good reason to believe that they would commit a crime involving the taking of a human life in the future if they believed in the moment that it was in their interest to do so.  Federal Court decisions have dialed back the ability of states to sentence juveniles to life without parole, but this is not just absurd, it leaves no reason to believe that the victim's family would be safe from retribution from these individuals once they are released.  

To say that the Criminal Justice system does not serve victims is just wrong.  It does serve victims, and it should.  The identified victims of a crime ought to have the satisfaction that the person that committed a heinous crime is receiving a punishment that reflects the heinousness of the crime.  The victims ought to know that the system will provide enforcement of the collection of restitution to victims for the costs incurred of the crime (money stolen, out of pocket medical bills, funeral expenses).  Why should it not be?