Six Years for Murder

I don't understand. How can you get be sentenced to six years for murder? Not to mention that he didn't even finish it.

I am ALWAYS shocked by the short sentences given out for murder here in Canada. I always wish they would look south of the border for more appropriate sentencing lengths...EXCEPT FOR THIS CASE. I'm doubly shocked.

William Haskins said:

they were just idealistic, mixed-up kids when they shot this woman and left her bleeding on the floor to die.

Click to expand...

That is certainly a tragedy for them. They should have been afforded several decades of quiet solitude to recover from their ordeal.

KTC said:

I am ALWAYS shocked by the short sentences given out for murder here in Canada. I always wish they would look south of the border for more appropriate sentencing lengths...EXCEPT FOR THIS CASE. I'm doubly shocked.

Click to expand...

Ha. My first thought when I saw the thread title was that it was in reference to something Canadian.

jennontheisland said:

Ha. My first thought when I saw the thread title was that it was in reference to something Canadian.

Click to expand...

Exactly my first thought too.

Don't shine me on. No one ever gets murdered in Canada. They either die bungee jumping in a picturesque gorge or peacefully in their sleep at age 104.

I really wish they'd have elaborated on why the judge found that a sufficient sentence. It's just not.

There was no room in the prison. He had to be released to make room for prisoners who had been given mandatory minimum sentences for selling one gram of crack.

BTW, the murder conviction was under the felony murder statute. (All those involved in the commission of a felony where someone is killed can be charged with murder, even if they were not directly involved in the killing.)

Kilgore took part in the robbery, but the victim, Myrna Opsahl, was actually shot by Emily Harris -- another piece of work.

Oh I see. Well, I guess that makes just the tiniest bit of sense. I guess. Still...

Less than six years.

So, if I kill someone....it would be in my best interest to hide out for 10-20 years....then when I get nabbed, I will only get a slap on the wrist? Hey. That could work.

I wonder what the family of the murdered woman thinks about this? This is such a sad thing. Six years. You get longer then that for lots of other crimes.

<<<<wonders away.....

It does make it look like running away and living on the lam is the best course of action. By the time they find you, it will all have blown over and you'll get off relatively easy.

Good to know.

Yeah, CactusWendy nailed it. Hide and be a productive citizen (after all, being a wanted person is good incentive to behave), then get arrested, and get a short sentence because, well, the crime was so LONG ago. I feel for the victim's family.

There is also a racial/class component to sentencing. If you are of a certain type, you do get sentenced less. The statistics on sentencing vs. Race/Class are pretty surprising.

And of course, if you have a GREAT LAWYER, that is probably the most important factor (ask O.J. and William Kennedy)

Mel...

(even outside the legal aspect, i think this is a really complicated problem-- if a murderer could be a productive member of society, should they remain in jail? perhaps it would have benefited the prisons to keep him/her--in the article, they wrote that this man was a model prisoner and tutored others. his crimes deserve no amnesty, though, and so I don't understand this sentencing/release from either a moral or a legal perspective).

i also wonder what the family thinks, and if they had an impact on the release.


amc

rugcat said:

There was no room in the prison. He had to be released to make room for prisoners who had been given mandatory minimum sentences for selling one gram of crack..

Click to expand...

QFT

This is a HUGE problem right now. Similar to the Border problem, this is another 800 lb gorilla we do not want to acknowledge in this country. The vast majority of those in prison are in prison due to drug usage and or minor possession/selling. So many wardens are faced with unrealistic expectations of meeting demand (new convicts) with an inferior supply (over capacity). As a result, the 'system' has to find relief somehow and one means is through early parole of those on good behavior.

But, this has been a problem for so long, that we don't even consciously think of it in this country anymore.

Mel...

It's surprising how much sympathy a little trendy leftist radicalism will buy you in many communities. That's doubly disturbing in this case, given that one of the two murder victims, Marcus Foster, was exactly the kind of intelligent, praiseworthy, patient reformer I would consider a prime political role model. The irrational, conspiratorial part of my mind even wonders if they shot Foster because he was busy proving that a thoughtful reformer is more effective than a crazed angry radical, and they got jealous.

There is a fundamental disconnect between why we have prisons and why we say we have prisons. On paper, at least, prisons are not there to punish, but to keep society safe by keeping violent people restrained, and to help to rehabilitate those people. Retribution does not fit into liberal legal philosophy.

And of course, in practice, prisons are there for retribution (in addition to rehabilitation, which I do also support), because when someone destroys other people's lives, there needs to be an actual punishment for that, and I think most of society agrees on that.

But the SLA members are in their sixties now. Their crimes were mired in the radicalist, rebellious psychology of youth. It's obvious to any competent psychologist or judge that they won't re-offend, and they've shown they can live peaceful lives in the interim. So the only possible reason for a harsh sentence is retribution, and our legal system can't bring itself to acknowledge that on paper. Even the obscene drug minimum sentences are (in theory) a deterrent, rather than retributive.

I do not think this approach is a good thing, though I realize that a sadistic and vindictive legal system could be (very, very) bad as well. There needs to be a balance.

I saw the name "Kilgore" and immediately thought of Kilgore Trout from Vonnegut's Breakfast of Champions.

anybody else miss the entire story because they had this same thought? I don't even know what this thread is about really. All I can think about is Kilgore Trout.

Contemplative said:

It's surprising how much sympathy a little trendy leftist radicalism will buy you in many communities. That's doubly disturbing in this case, given that one of the two murder victims, Marcus Foster, was exactly the kind of intelligent, praiseworthy, patient reformer I would consider a prime political role model. The irrational, conspiratorial part of my mind even wonders if they shot Foster because he was busy proving that a thoughtful reformer is more effective than a crazed angry radical, and they got jealous.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's an irrational thought at all. There's nothing that will drain support (and delay the coming of the revolution) as quickly as a reformer working within the system who proves to be effective and improves people's lives.

Perks said:

I don't understand. How can you get be sentenced to six years for murder? Not to mention that he didn't even finish it.

Click to expand...

The lady who had a face transplant had half her face blown off by her husband with a shotgun. I think he was sentenced to seven years. . .maybe six??

It happens a lot.

AMCrenshaw said:

(even outside the legal aspect, i think this is a really complicated problem-- if a murderer could be a productive member of society, should they remain in jail? perhaps it would have

i also wonder what the family thinks, and if they had an impact on the release.
amc

Click to expand...

Who is assigned the enormous task of determining that a prisoner can, in fact, be a productive member of society?

Who is assigned the enormous task of determining that a prisoner can, in fact, be a productive member of society?

Click to expand...

that's a good question. couldn't psychologists predict whether or not someone would be prone to committing anti-social or violent radical behavior again? by 'productive' perhaps i meant at least as neutral as the most of us.


amc

AMCrenshaw said:

that's a good question. couldn't psychologists predict whether or not someone would be prone to committing anti-social or violent radical behavior again? by 'productive' perhaps i meant at least as neutral as the most of us.

Click to expand...

I think our current psychologists are actually very good at sussing this out in 90% of cases. One problem is that the remaining 10% are more difficult to suss out, and "psychologists can't get a good grip on you" isn't a very just reason for keeping people in jail longer than others.

The other issue is the retribution/rehabilitation divide. Take the case of a fairly normal person who kills someone while DUI. The psychologist can probably discern alcoholism -- it's fairly easy to diagnose -- so let's say he's not an alcoholic, and has been in prison for a year. Normal, non-alcoholic people who have killed someone while DUI in the past and gone to jail for a year will never, ever in a million years drink and drive again. You don't need to be a qualified shrink to realize that.

And yet, we don't necessarily want them out on the streets again after a year -- not because they'll reoffend or they aren't fully rehabilitated, but because it isn't just.