Maybe only 16 months for multiple murder. My goodness.

Parent Cafe
1

<p>Here’s a link to a story on the fire in the Seton Hall dorm.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.c-n.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070127/NEWS/701270304[/url]”>http://www.c-n.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070127/NEWS/701270304&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I’m not going to blame the prosecutor. It’s quite possible that there wasn’t enough evidence to be certain of a murder conviction. You do the best you can with what you’ve got.</p>

<p>On the other hand, I think it’s time we, as a country, began to deal with the issue of unequal justice. People like these who can afford good representation get away with the equivalent of firing loaded guns into crowds of people. Someone with a public defender is probably looking at 30 years.</p>

<p>And then, there are the accessories. Apparently, family members sheltered these animals. They also got off scott free.</p>

2

<p>And a 17 year old got 10 years for having consentual oral sex with a 15 year old. Strange laws we have.</p>

3

<p>"Many scorned the “smirks” they had seen for years on the faces of the defendants, and derided the matching plea statements in which LePore and Ryan said the fire was “a prank that got out of hand.”</p>

<p>Several family members said they had long harbored suspicions about LePore and Ryan, who were not charged until three years after the fire.</p>

<p>Indeed, Peter Giunta – the brother of John and a junior at Seton Hall who had to be rescued from the fire – said he recalled that while searching the grounds for his sibling, he noticed that LePore and Ryan were about the only people not covered in soot.</p>

<p>The remarks came after LePore and Ryan faced the families of the dead and injured and made brief remarks.</p>

<p>“There’s nothing I can really say to take away your pain,” LePore said. “I want you to know I’m terribly, terribly sorry for your loss. I’m sorry.”</p>

<p>“I want you to know I am very, very sorry for your losses,” Ryan added. “I hope you can move on. I’m very, very sorry.”</p>

<h2>A student horribly burned in the blaze rejected the apologies. “I can’t see myself ever forgiving these two kids for starting this fire,” Alvaro Llanos wrote in a letter that a prosecutor read in court after his wife was overcome. “They should have been man enough to bang on doors and save everyone’s life. Instead, they ran away like the cowards they are.”</h2>

<p>“I hope you can move on”??? The nerve.</p>

<p>I saw footage of the boys after sentencing…and indeed one was smirking and the other wasn’t the least bit upset…even after hearing from grieving family members and fellow students who were severely injured in the fire.</p>

<p>Compare this with the demeanor of Genarlow Wilson, who didn’t hurt anyone. In his interview, he states he was wrong for acting like a big superstar in h.s.; and that after viewing the tapes of the wild party, he felt, though the relationship with the girl in question was consensual, very embarrassed about his behavior. He sounded like a mature young man who certainly has spent time reflecting on what had happened to him and how he came to be in his predicament. He is not someone who deserves to be in prison for even one day.</p>

4

<p>If someone drives carelessly and unintentionally causes an accident which kills 3 people, should they be punished more severely than someone who consciously tries to harm or kill people but fails through no fault of their own? </p>

<p>Criminal punishment, in my opinion, should focus more strongly on the evil intentions of the doers than on the sometimes unpredictable outcomes of what seems to me in this case to be – fairly – described as a prank that went awry. Yes, people died. No, that wasn’t the intention of the defendants. In fact, it probably wasn’t even all that predictable an outcome of what they did. It’s easy to be blinded by sorrow or outrage at the end result of an event and lose sight of what’s a genuinely just treatment of those responsible for it. If the burning banner had sputtered out without causing any injury or loss of life - a not too unlikely alternate scenario - would the defendants be any less blameworthy? Would people be calling for even more severe punishment than five years in prison? Is it rational to gauge the punishment for an event by the sometimes arbitrary outcomes rather than the degree of ill will and intent of those responsible?</p>

<p>Lots of questions to ponder here.</p>

5

<p>swimcatsmom–did you read that in the ESPN article? or are you from Georgia? not too many people i’ve talked to have heard about that case. that kid made some mistakes but i hope they make the new law retroactive and he gets released.</p>

6

<p>Most definitely there are multiple degrees of manslaughter and murder that take into account intent or lack of intent. But 16 months? Especially when they made a conscious effort to run and hide after the fire got out of control… Especially when the boys did not confess to their part in the tragedy… Remember it took three years to build a case and prosecute these boys. </p>

<p>I think the point is…16 months for these boys and 10 years plus a lifetime of carrying the label child molester for Genarlow Wilson doesn’t make sense.</p>

7

<p>Actually, this was not just a prank gone awry. This was a pretty bad crime, and I’m just amazed they got off this lightly. </p>

<p>When the fire took off, they ran away instead of knocking on doors to save lives. Then, they contacted boys who suspected they had started the fire, and tried to convince them to lie and say it wasn’t them! </p>

<p>A slap on the wrist for an odious crime. Oh, well, I’m sure the parents of the dead kids will take the boy’s sage advice to “move on”!</p>

8

<p>Cards4life - I read a thread about it on CC then was on CNN.com and there was a video about it (it is under the law section now). Quite unbelievable. The video did hold out some hope that things may be about to happen for this young man.</p>

9

<p>I hate to harp on it, and know that it upsets some folks, and I understand that, but does anyone believe that would be the sentence if the defendants were African-Americans without good attorneys? </p>

<p>(And, for the record, and for reasons eloquently stated by Kluge, I’m not “outraged” by the sentence; I just think there is need for more equity.)</p>

10

<p>Why are y’all assuming that these young gents had “good” lawyers or “good” representation? From the article I couldn’t tell that. From the article I couldn’t tell if they had court apponted counsel or retained counsel nor was there any mention of “expensive” counsel or “teams” of attorneys or high-priced attorneys. </p>

<p>So are we just guessing that white college kids get “good” lawyers and other college kids don’t? In this case that could have happened but why are y’all assuming that DID happen without any facts? Or are we assuming they had to have good lawyers to get such a great deal? Just wondering.</p>

<p>BTW, in this case I think the attorney played by Joe Pesci could have gotten these “two utes” the same plea. The prosecution had some warts on their case and got what they could. They didn’t want to risk a not guilty.</p>

11

<p>For what it’s worth , I will tell y’all that college kids , regardless of race, get more leniency from our system than youths the same age who are employed or out of work.</p>

12

<p>“For what it’s worth , I will tell y’all that college kids , regardless of race, get more leniency from our system …”</p>

<p>That doesn’t necessarily apply to the “system” in Durham, NC. Those kids haven’t gotten much leniency from the “system” there. They haven’t even been given a chance to prove innocence. :eek:</p>

<p>It appears that race clearly WAS a factor.</p>

13

<p>kluge:</p>

<p>Let’s break this down to make it more manageable. I’m sure the law has all sorts of distinctions and it would be helpful if I knew them, but I don’t. So, I’m going to wing this.</p>

<p>First off, I think it’s a matter of responsibility and accountability for one’s actions. I’ll explain.</p>

<p>Let’s take the case where someone is killed because someone else was careless. A man backs up over a two-year-old who has been allowed to run free in the neighbor’s yard. Careless? Well, just barely. It’s hard to imagine that any reasonable person would check behind his wheels before backing his car out of his driveway. The rearview mirror, yes. But there’s a limit to how careful it’s possible to be, and the parents of that two-year-old bear the greatest responsibility in my book.</p>

<p>Let’s go on. A kid falls asleep at the wheel, crosses into oncoming traffic, and kills someone. The kid bears responsibility because he shouldn’t have been driving when he was that tired. But we can forgive this, at least a bit, because tiredness is a human condition. It happens. The kid should be punished, but he, as you say, had no intent to drive while impaired.</p>

<p>Next, a woman drives while drunk, hits a pedestrian, and kills him. Here you have a greater responsibility because the woman voluntarily impaired herself, then voluntarily put others at risk. I believe this warrants a hefty prison sentence.</p>

<p>Moving up the scale, a man is offended in a bar, tracks down and beats another man who later dies. Clearly, he is out of control with anger, but does he not have a responsibility to control that anger, and should he not be accountable for his actions? He may not have meant to kill the man, but he did so all the same. I see this as reprehensible, and should require a very stiff sentence.</p>

<p>Next, we have two kids who decided to set a fire in a place where large numbers of people sleep. When the fire became dangerous, they didn’t help anyone or alert anyone. Three people died, and others were cruelly burned. After the fact, they tried to get people to lie for them. This was a deliberate act a degree up from the guy who beat another guy to death because this was in a place and at a time where that sort of “non-intentional” murder probability was very, very high. I see this as being completely malicious and criminal.</p>

<p>And then, of course, another step up and we have the person who deliberately contemplates, plans, and executes murder.</p>

14

<p>

</p>

<p>True, but they’re going to get off because their parents can afford to get them off. How many of these types of cases end up with the innocent parties going to jail or even being executed?</p>

15

<p>My point is that they were wrongfully indicted without just cause because of their race.</p>

16

<p>“When the fire took off, they ran away instead of knocking on doors to save lives. Then, they contacted boys who suspected they had started the fire, and tried to convince them to lie and say it wasn’t them!”</p>

<p>IMHO, this is the behavior that merits a tougher sentence. I’m sure they didn’t intend to set the building on fire, much less kill anyone. But to run away without pulling a fire alarm or calling 911 is unforgivable. Imagine that the fire had started spontaneously from a broken appliance in the lounge, and the defendants happened to be the only two students awake to see it. Then imagine that they ran away and hid, again without screaming, pulling an alarm, or calling 911 from outside, and imagine that they asked their families to lie to authorities about their presence in the lounge. Wouldn’t you find that reprehensible on its own? I would think they were morally responsible for those deaths even if they hadn’t struck the match.</p>

17

<p>

</p>

<p>Really? You have proof of this?</p>

18

<p>Hanna:</p>

<p>I think there are two issues: intent and degree of carelessness. For instance, if I were to fire a gun into a group of people, while deliberately aiming away from them just for a “prank,” and one of those bullets kills someone a block away that I didn’t see, I believe I should go to prison for a long time for being criminally negligent in my behavior.</p>

<p>To my way of thinking, setting a fire in a dorm is like shooting into a group of people with the intent to miss.</p>

19

<p>Oh, I agree that degree of carelessness matters. But IMHO, the selfish contempt for human life they showed by raising no alarm dwarfs the act of setting the fire.</p>

<p>To continue the firing-into-a-crowd analogy, it’s as though the defendants were the only ones who saw that three people were hit in the leg. Paramedics could easily save the victims, but instead of calling 911, the shooters let them slowly bleed to death. To me, that choice greatly multiplies the initial wrong. To see the consequences of your initial action – be it roaring fire or bleeding person – and choose to run away elevates the crime to an intentional act.</p>

20

<p>Tarhunt, I think you telegraphed your bias by the way you titled the thread. They’re not likely to walk after 16 months, and it’s definitely not a case of “murder”. I understand that you feel that these defendants should be punished more severely, but when you understate the sentence and overstate the crime as your premise it’s kind of hard to ignore that in assessing the validity of your opinion.</p>

<p>Incidentally, it’s a statistically established fact that the severity of punishment imposed in homicide cases reflects the nature of the person killed, even more consistently than the nature of the homicide itself. Specifically, the death of a white person is more likely to result in the perp getting the death penalty than the death of a black person. Are you sure that the fact that the people killed were college students isn’t a driving force in your feeling that the perps should be punished more severely than they were, as opposed to the conduct of the defendants themselves? I know I am more protective of young people than old people, being a dad myself. But I try not to let that drive my opinions about how others should be punished for their misdeeds.</p>