The article leaves out some facts. While Fennell’s participation in the attack (at the age of 17) was sufficient to convict him for murder, regardless of who ultimately delivered the killing blow, the jury may not have convicted him for murder (or a judge may have later commuted his sentence) had he testified against the man who directly killed the victim: <a href="https://www.newspapers.com/image/?clipping_id=19706704&fcfToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJmcmVlLXZpZXctaWQiOjE4NjcxMTY0NywiaWF0IjoxNTY5Njg5OTAzLCJleHAiOjE1Njk3NzYzMDN9.P6iYNFC9X467ToUvyEFIQcNcmzzPKi8kco-0XMKEpiM" rel="nofollow">https://www.newspapers.com/image/?clipping_id=19706704&fcfTo...</a>. He refused to testify even though he provided a statement to the police at the time of his arrest stating who had performed the stabbing.<p>My beef with articles like this one is not that I think a 17 year old should get life in prison for a stabbing. I think nobody should. Our murder laws produce sentences vastly longer than Europe, where 15-20 years is a typical maximum sentence for murder, and longer sentences are reserved for people who are active threats.<p>Rather, my problem is the attempt to draw lines between more or less egregious conduct that don’t make any sense. Someone who along with three other young men tries to rob and ends up killing a man is among the most dangerous and culpable of criminals. Such premeditated group violence is the greatest threat to social order. Being 17 or acting as part of a group don’t make you less culpable.
> <i>His $830 a month included a few hundred in Supplemental Security, but he mostly relied on close to $600 in Social Security spousal benefits, thanks to Bernadette’s years in the workforce. He said he’s offered to refund her a portion of that, but she declined.</i><p>It's generous of him to offer to give her part of his spousal benefits, but the word "refund" makes me wonder if there is some confusion over how spousal benefits work. They aren't <i>taken</i> from the other spouse; their benefit remains unchanged.<p>A somewhat simplified explanation: if one spouse (or ex-spouse in some cases) is receiving more than twice the Social Security benefit of the other, the one with a smaller benefit gets theirs "topped off" to be half of the other's benefit.<p>It this case Bernadette may be receiving $1660/month in benefits. Haywood's benefit of several hundred dollars is increased to half of that, or $830. Bernadette still gets her full $1660.<p>There are various requirements and conditions that may change this amount; I'm assuming both spouses are of full retirement age.<p>Anyone receiving or about to receive Social Security benefits where one spouse earned significantly more than the other would do well to look into this.<p><a href="https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/applying6.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/applying6.html</a>
><i>Imprisoned for decades for a crime he committed as a juvenile</i><p>So, for a single, first time, first degree murder, Pennsylvania gives "a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole, including for juveniles"?<p>What kind of medieval backwater has such laws?<p>And how is that working out for them? [1]<p>Compared to e.g. countries which have much smaller sentences for the same type of crimes (especially for juveniles), in much more humane prisons, and achieve much lower crime rates...<p>For comparison, the guy who methodically mass shoot and killed 77 people in Norway, only got 21 years in prison (and in a vastly more humane prison, more like a Motel 8 than the hell-holes in the US, at that). Perhaps that's another extreme, and I'd be OK if he went in for life, but the Pennsylvania extreme is medieval, inhumane, and depraved too. Too much Old-Testament inspired morals...<p>[1] Rhetorical question, I've checked the Pennsylvania homicide rate: <a href="https://patch.com/pennsylvania/abington/crime-falls-u-s-here-s-what-happened-pennsylvania" rel="nofollow">https://patch.com/pennsylvania/abington/crime-falls-u-s-here...</a>
I don't understand how these people are supposed to re-integrate.<p>You commit a crime...cool, we are going to send you to a boarding school for criminals, where you are subjected to a ton of violent behaviour, that is heavily structured and limiting on your freedom...and in twenty years (or whatever), you are going to come out and be expected to be like everyone else...okay...<p>It would be interesting to ask how the behaviour of those who work in these institutions is effected by this environment...if this is the case then it is clearly non-rational to believe that people in that environment 24/7 are going to be fine after they come out.<p>(I don't have a solution to this either...just a chimp throwing peanuts from the gallery).
Okay, as they used to say on slashdot when I frequented it (and maybe they still say it), "I know I'll be downvoted for this ...". But I'll say it anyway:<p>Mr Fennell was a good candidate for parole. I'm not opposed to parole for him. He didn't need to be in jail any longer.<p>But ...<p>Why oh why can 5 un-elected people be allowed to decide that his incarceration was "cruel and unusual punishment". As one of the dissenters on the court noted, mandatory life sentences "could not plausibly be described" as unusual when a majority of states endorse them.<p>Giving the Supreme Court the power to do this is IMO very bad. People simply love love love it when the result is something they agree with, but what about all the other decisions?<p>I really don't like this court decision.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._Alabama" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._Alabama</a>
I think they should do as the laws in Brazil.<p>In Brazil, It is not allowed to give sentences for more than 30 years, and if the prisoner has good behavior, he is out in 1/6 of his sentence.<p>And still, if he is not caught in 24h, was his first murder and has a job he may wait for the final judgment outside prison (after <i>all</i> appeals).<p>Brazil is big, multi-diverse and is very nice.<p>The Brazilian penal code is the most human and modern criminal code.
And it brought great success as [1](<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Brazil" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Brazil</a>)<p>Nowadays we have a "repressive", "gun-loving" president that wants the revert our success. [2](<a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/22/brazils-murder-rate-finally-fell-and-by-a-lot/" rel="nofollow">https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/22/brazils-murder-rate-fin...</a>)<p>[1] - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Brazil" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Brazil</a><p>[2] - <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/22/brazils-murder-rate-finally-fell-and-by-a-lot/" rel="nofollow">https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/22/brazils-murder-rate-fin...</a>