96-Year Sentence for a Non-Fatal Shooting

At first it sounds excessive, to say the least, but I suppose the courts need some flexibility when determining if a person has a reasonable chance of rehabilitating himself. What do you think?

A Lower Valley man on Friday became the latest gang defendant to be handed an effective life sentence for a nonfatal shooting.

Chad Duncan, who prosecutors said uses the nickname "Hitman," had to be escorted from the courtroom by guards after he delivered an outburst claiming the judge had no authority over him and refused to sit down.

Please leave a comment.

The Accutane Killer Gets Life

ThePittsburghChannel.com reports on the tragic story of two high school sweethearts gone bad.

A young Monroeville man who repeatedly stabbed ex-girlfriend Demi Cuccia after a desperate, daylong exchange of text messages about the status of their relationship was found guilty of first-degree murder Monday.

You can accuse me of being soft on criminals, of not caring for the victim, all that, but doesn't that statement have a built-in contradiction in it? A "desperate, daylong exchange of text messages" does not lead to "first-degree murder." Not in my book. And it certainly does not lead to a sentence of "life without the possibility of parole," especially for one who committed the horrible crime at 18.

The most amazing part is that the best defense they could come up with was blaming it on the acne medicine. To me that's just bizarre.

Actually my heart does go out to the victim and her family. Who could not be moved by that video? But I also feel for the young John Mullarkey and his family. At 18 years of age, he was so incapable of dealing with rejection that he resorted to an act of such violence that it boggles the mind.

What's your opinion? Is the sentence he received appropriate?

Please leave comment.

No Commutation for Arnold King Says MA Governor

The Boston Globe reports on the hard line taken by the Massachusetts governor in the case of Arnold King.

Governor Deval Patrick yesterday denied the first commutation petition to come before him since he took office, concluding that a man serving a life sentence for shooting a Boston political aide to death in 1971 received "just punishment."

This decision came in spite of unanimous support by the Parole Board, various community leaders and interested academicians for his petition. During his 36 years behind bars, King earned undergraduate and master's degrees, mentored fellow inmates, and participated in programs counselling youths about the pitfalls of drugs and violence. Nevertheless the governor felt this case did not meet the exceptional circumstances necessary for executive clemency.

By the age of 18, Arnold King had already proven to be a violent repeat offender. In the intervening years, however, he seems to have turned his life around. Can good behaviour while incarcerated be interpreted as really turning one's life around? Is it possible that for three and a half decades he was faking his rehabilitation and if released would return to his old ways? What do you think?

Should the decision of a Parole Board be set aside by a governor? I thought the governor relies on their judgment and just rubber stamps it. What's your opinion?

Nichols Gets Life not Death

CNN reports on what could be viewed as a victory for the anti-capital punishment movement. The jury in Atlanta could not agree unanimously on the death penalty for Brian Nichols. We discussed this case before plus on Daisy's site there's a post with some fascinating background.

Nichols, 37, was convicted last month of 54 counts for a deadly shooting rampage that began in the same courthouse where he is standing trial. Nichols shot three people at the downtown courthouse and a federal agent in neighboring Gwinnett County.

Defense lawyers said Nichols, who confessed to the killings, suffers from a mental disorder.

I don't think anyone could argue with the need to keep a guy like Nichols off the street, I certainly wouldn't. He was on trial for rape when he made the daring and bloody escape. He's cool enough under fire to shoot people dead, one after the other. Yet, somehow the jury contained three members who would not agree to the death penalty. I mark that as a hopeful sign that we can move away from the vengeance and convenience factors inherent in capital punishment.

What do you think? Do you think the other nine jurors were right? If so, why? One thing missing in this case, at least in the reports I read, is the vengeance-seeking family member of the victims. Do you think they got a bad deal with this decision?

N.J. Man Sentenced to Life for Murder

The Star-Ledger reports on the life sentence meted out to a New Jersey man who killed his girlfriend more than ten years ago.

George Jenewicz has been behind bars since he was arrested days after the Oct. 22, 1998, killing of Eunice "Nadine" Gillens-Joseph in the house they shared. Convicted of murder, he won a second trial and was found guilty again in September.

The sentencing judge called this one of the most gruesome crimes he'd ever heard of because, after Jenewicz shot his wife he dismembered her body and boiled her head in a pot, planning on using the skull for Halloween.

"I've been a judge for many, many years and I suspect this is one of the most gruesome and horrible crimes I've ever seen," DeVesa said. The judge said he expected any effort by Jenewicz to win parole would be rejected so "you spend the rest of your life in prison.

I noticed that Mr. Jenewicz was a "research biologist and an avid hunter." I don't think that could have anything to do with it. He was from Jersey. No, that probably didn't enter into it either. His girlfriend had an "expensive cocaine habit," which means he probably did too and there were guns all over the place. Now, those things must have had something to do with it.

What's your opinion? Should cocaine addicts be allowed to have guns? Oh, that's right, they're not allowed to have them. But is there nothing that can be done? I know the gun enthusiasts who comment here have made it very clear that they are not to blame for this kind of thing. Fine, but who is then?

What about the fact that he was a "research biologist and an avid hunter?" That sounds like he was, at least at some point in the past, a fairly responsible person. Is he one of the ones I keep talking about who went from being a good guy with guns to being a bad guy with guns? Are they really in such a small minority that we can write them off? (If you've already answered that, please don't feel you have to repeat yourself.)

By the way, when I came across this article, I was scouring the internet for positive gun stories. I was honestly trying to do what I've been asked to do. But this story was too good to pass up. And besides, I do post positive gun stories when I see them, like this one.

Other questions come to mind, like, did he merit the death penalty? Is New Jersey getting soft on the sentencing?

What do you think?