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

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[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.

[Хahar 🤔]

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.

[DaleCooper]

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.

[Skill and Chance]

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. 

[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.

[dead0man]

How many years will we have to wait for the bump this thread will get when one of these pieces of sh**t murder (or at least does violence for no good reason) again?  The 17 year old will be out in less than 4 years, so a nice over/under will be <does maths> Jan 13th, 2027.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[dead0man]

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.

perhaps we need something between "adult" and "not adult".  Obviously charging a 6 year old is pointless, either that little human is broken and needs to be in a home for the rest of his/her life or it's had a horribly tragic life so far and just removing them from that will go a long way to making them a productive member of society.  But a 17 year old, even one with a horribly tragic life, is a completely different kettle of fish and must be handled differently.  Perhaps we don't treat them as harshly as we would a 35 year old (also with a horribly tragic life), but it's got to be more than this.

We literally just had a thread last week where two dudes, also in MN, are looking at 20 years just for beating somebody up for reasons we don't like to see people get beat up for (as if getting beat up for fun or for money is less bad or something?).

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, I'm also not against an intermediate category of legal responsibility where we recognize you're somewhat responsible for your actions but not to the same extent as a fully grown adult (and just to trigger BRTD, we could even say it goes all the way up to 25 since that's around when the brain stops developing). I agree that 2 years in juvie for premeditated murder seems a bit lenient here, though there should be a solution that still allows these guys to have a meaningful chance of reforming, which clearly cannot happen if they spend the rest of their teens and twenties in prison.

[Torie]

Now that DeadO has posted nothing else needs to be said. I would have different sentences for the 15 and 17 year old, particularly if the 17 year old was dominant, and would have longer sentences, but less than for someone over 18 or 21. The sentence range for the 17 year old might be long enough to get him to the point where is hormone count is dropping - until he is 35-40.

The need to plea bargain down to get evidence against the client of the hit "men," strikes me as a total BS justification.

[Anti-Trump Truth Socialite JD Vance Enjoying Juror]

I agree with having a category in between full criminal responsibility and juvenile systems for this. Having partial criminal responsibility from, say, 12/13-17/18 seems like a decent solution. The murderers here certainly need more than 2 years, but you still should t be charging and punishing 15 year olds as adults.

[libertpaulian]

Maybe life without parole might be a little extreme for a teenager, but 2 years for murder is risible, if not outrageous.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

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 have no problem with people saying this(tough on crime or not) if they are consistent about it. It infuriates me when these tough on crime people ignore the victims family when they don't want the death penalty for instance

[Skill and Chance]

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.

They shouldn't be.  I was merely stating a fact about the voters, not expressing an opinion.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yeah, I'm also not against an intermediate category of legal responsibility where we recognize you're somewhat responsible for your actions but not to the same extent as a fully grown adult (and just to trigger BRTD, we could even say it goes all the way up to 25 since that's around when the brain stops developing). I agree that 2 years in juvie for premeditated murder seems a bit lenient here, though there should be a solution that still allows these guys to have a meaningful chance of reforming, which clearly cannot happen if they spend the rest of their teens and twenties in prison.

By that logic the guy who orchestrated it and is probably getting life should get a far more lenient sentence because he is 22.

[ingemann]

Honestly, the kid will almost certainly kill again. Even if we don’t care about the victim and her family, the smart thing would keep them inside until their late thirties. At such an age most of the people in their criminal network would be retired (from crime) or dead, the kids would also be too old for that kind of stuff anymore. It would likely also save their lives.

[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?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

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.

perhaps we need something between "adult" and "not adult".  Obviously charging a 6 year old is pointless, either that little human is broken and needs to be in a home for the rest of his/her life or it's had a horribly tragic life so far and just removing them from that will go a long way to making them a productive member of society.  But a 17 year old, even one with a horribly tragic life, is a completely different kettle of fish and must be handled differently.  Perhaps we don't treat them as harshly as we would a 35 year old (also with a horribly tragic life), but it's got to be more than this.

We literally just had a thread last week where two dudes, also in MN, are looking at 20 years just for beating somebody up for reasons we don't like to see people get beat up for (as if getting beat up for fun or for money is less bad or something?).

Intriguing idea.

[Pericles]

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.

The point is that victims have no more of a legal stake in the case than any other citizen. Crimes happen and people are tragically affected by them, and just like anyone else it's their free speech right to comment on cases. The actual case though is between the state and the defendants.

[SWE]

Yeah, I'm also not against an intermediate category of legal responsibility where we recognize you're somewhat responsible for your actions but not to the same extent as a fully grown adult (and just to trigger BRTD, we could even say it goes all the way up to 25 since that's around when the brain stops developing). I agree that 2 years in juvie for premeditated murder seems a bit lenient here, though there should be a solution that still allows these guys to have a meaningful chance of reforming, which clearly cannot happen if they spend the rest of their teens and twenties in prison.

We should not be molding policy around superstition

[Torie]

Victims often give opinions about sentencing, and it is not improper for judges to give those opinions consideration. That is my impression anyway.

[Ferguson97]

Bump

https://twitter.com/louraguse/status/1644103430879821826

[politicallefty]

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.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Horrible decision. They should both serve a minimum of 20–25 years in prison.

Also, unless we're going to bump up the age of legal adulthood to 21 or 25, there's no reason to treat a 17-year-old differently from an 18-year-old.