We are such emotional creatures and so susceptible to a good narrative that depending on who you listen to, you might think Johnny should go free right now or that he should serve every second of his sentence. The story from his side is one of hard work and rehabilitation. He has certainly spent his time in prison wisely. He has been non-violent for decades and seems to have set himself up to be a valuable member of society. There was a homicide involved, but it was accidental. He was just trying to shoot the lock off the door, not shooting to kill. He is sorry for his crimes and is a different man all these years later. He has proven to no longer be a danger to society and also that he is willing and able to make positive changes in the world.
If you heard the prosecutor or victims families tell the story you might think differently. He was involved in a crime spree. He entered many houses with the intent to commit armed robbery. He was said to have brutally beaten and pistol whipped some victims and also to have dragged a woman through a house by her hair. On the final robbery he (along with some accomplices) bound and kidnapped a woman, took her to her (ex?)boyfriends residence and made her knock on the door. When the man opened the door and saw what was gong to happen he slammed the door. Johnny fired his gun through the door and killed the man. He says it was accidental and that sounds believable, but when you are this reckless with other peoples lives, can you call any death accidental? Any number of these previous robberies could have ended with death. I would say it was just a matter of time.
Large majorities are willing to forgive drug offenses, property crimes or non violent theft, but forgiveness is tougher for violent offenses. Especially when it comes to murder. Most people cant imagine inflicting that type of violence on another human so its easy to just categorize murderers as animals. It's not a huge logical leap to say that those who choose to take another humans life, forfeit their freedom forever. Forever sounds harsh, but that was the cost to the person Johnny killed, Jermaine Campbell, who was only 24. This is not a stance I would take or one we currently have (murderers don’t all get life), but it’s easy to see how someone would feel that way. Especially someone who lost a family member.
If the goal is to rehabilitate and protect the public from a dangerous person then this case seems pretty clear cut. Let him free. So I guess it comes down to deciding what portion of a sentence is punitive. Has he been punished enough for what he took?
(This was the best description I could find in 15 minutes. Not sure its all accurate and he may dispute some of these details)
We are such emotional creatures and so susceptible to a good narrative that depending on who you listen to, you might think Johnny should go free right now or that he should serve every second of his sentence. The story from his side is one of hard work and rehabilitation. He has certainly spent his time in prison wisely. He has been non-violent for decades and seems to have set himself up to be a valuable member of society. There was a homicide involved, but it was accidental. He was just trying to shoot the lock off the door, not shooting to kill. He is sorry for his crimes and is a different man all these years later. He has proven to no longer be a danger to society and also that he is willing and able to make positive changes in the world.
If you heard the prosecutor or victims families tell the story you might think differently. He was involved in a crime spree. He entered many houses with the intent to commit armed robbery. He was said to have brutally beaten and pistol whipped some victims and also to have dragged a woman through a house by her hair. On the final robbery he (along with some accomplices) bound and kidnapped a woman, took her to her (ex?)boyfriends residence and made her knock on the door. When the man opened the door and saw what was gong to happen he slammed the door. Johnny fired his gun through the door and killed the man. He says it was accidental and that sounds believable, but when you are this reckless with other peoples lives, can you call any death accidental? Any number of these previous robberies could have ended with death. I would say it was just a matter of time.
Large majorities are willing to forgive drug offenses, property crimes or non violent theft, but forgiveness is tougher for violent offenses. Especially when it comes to murder. Most people cant imagine inflicting that type of violence on another human so its easy to just categorize murderers as animals. It's not a huge logical leap to say that those who choose to take another humans life, forfeit their freedom forever. Forever sounds harsh, but that was the cost to the person Johnny killed, Jermaine Campbell, who was only 24. This is not a stance I would take or one we currently have (murderers don’t all get life), but it’s easy to see how someone would feel that way. Especially someone who lost a family member.
If the goal is to rehabilitate and protect the public from a dangerous person then this case seems pretty clear cut. Let him free. So I guess it comes down to deciding what portion of a sentence is punitive. Has he been punished enough for what he took?
(This was the best description I could find in 15 minutes. Not sure its all accurate and he may dispute some of these details)