Darth_Yuthura Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 At 14 years-old, Quantel Lotts received a life sentence for murdering his step brother and was tried as an adult. He is expected to spend the rest of his life in prison without the possibility of parole. I have issues with this because a 13 year-old (when he committed the crime) had been tried as an adult and received the same thing as a death sentence. His crime involved stabbing his victim 30 times... which obviously was heinous. He deserved a severe sentence, but the idea of life in prison without the possibility of parole for a 14-year old just goes too far. He was under 18... not saying he was 'just a kid,' but that he would do more time because he was so young. If he lived to be 73(today's average), that means 59 years behind bars. Some have criticized that he should have gotten a lethal injection instead, but I find that is going just as far. He has served nearly a decade of that time at present. This guy had only killed one person... he was not a serial killer. He was only 14, which meant that he could well could be rehabilitated by a few decades in prison. Although that one victim was killed brutally, that in itself didn't justify a death sentence. I think that he should have been given the possibility for parole because he was under 18. One or two decades behind bars is real time I seriously think that he should have been given a less severe sentence. What do others think of this? (I realize that I must have come across a very old source. I hadn't realized that this took place nearly a decade ago. I really need to read the dates properly.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Do you have any links to the story? The basis for being "tried as an adult" is that they knew what they were doing was wrong and did it anyway. Now, it's one thing to stab a guy and run away, but stabbing someone 30 times either takes a real disconnection from reality, or a really sick mind. It might be possible to rehab him, and I do hope they try, but I don't have high hopes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Swish: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/08/teens.life.sentence/?iref=mpstoryview Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Yuthura Posted April 9, 2009 Author Share Posted April 9, 2009 Alright, I obviously have a bad habit of not checking the dates of what I come across. I hadn't realized that the crime took place almost a decade ago. That doesn't exactly change what I wanted to debate, but I realize that I should have gone over this more before posting anything. The point that I was trying to get at was the idea of harsh sentencing and the problems with the US justice system providing parole for serial killers and quashing all hopes for rehabilitation for certain crimes. Parole options are not dates by which a person will be released, because they have to be passed by a parole board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Nope, don't feel any pity for him. If there weren't any mitigating circumstances that affected the sentence, then there's no reason to feel bad for him. Maybe he should have been given possibility for parole after 30 years or so, but of course, I'm not the lawyers or the judge or the jury involved in the case. And I'm not sure what you're getting at. He'll serve more time because he's younger? Well duh. But that's because he committed the crime when he was 13. If we would have been 80 when he committed first degree murder, the sentence would have been less. Take that issue up with God. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ztalker Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 You kill = suffer the consequences. The European rules are WORSE. Here, if you kill someone, you'll get released with 12 years, options of parole, etc. Whilst the victims family suffers their entire life. Kill a child driving drunk? No prison sentence...community work, drivers license revoked..etc. I'd take the hard rules any time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Yuthura Posted April 9, 2009 Author Share Posted April 9, 2009 People speak so lightly about someone committing a murder and just getting 15 years w/plea bargain and that's all. Hate to break it, but over a decade in prison is not exactly something I believe most people take lightly. In states where the death penalty is present, homicide rates are not significantly different than states where it's abolished. There is a point where it wouldn't really matter if the maximum sentence were 20, 75 years, or the needle... very few would really be willing to risk so much to kill someone else. I would be for sentences not to be served congruently for serial killers or rapists because they already demonstrated that they continued after their first victim. Some people are so mortified after killing once that they wouldn't have committed the same act again. To those people who act twice or more, then I would support life w/out parole; but only because they didn't have enough remorse to stop. For those who acted once, there is the possibility that they have already changed. Those such people should serve a decent chunk of time, but there should be the option for parole at some point. That's not 'get out of jail,' it's a potential incentive for people to change. Those that don't would be rejected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Avlectus Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 You murder in cold blood, frankly, if it were up to me I'd just whip out my gun and blow your head off. However, I suppose if he was young enough, they ought to try rehabbing him. However it should take a long time, plus he's gotta mean it. Those that repeatedly show to never change should never be released. I have dealt with those promising to change. Those going through "rehab". Part of that is vocational training. I worked in a landscaping biz for a bit of time (in fact I occasionally still do come back to it--work is work), while the government contracted with them to train and 'rehab' a handfull of ex cons. Hard to tell if these particular fellows meant well, but to be on the safe side I'd assume not. Not the type you take casually, either. I do hate how some prisons are run more like a business, though. And I do believe that is one of the primary reasons we don't execute death row prisoners. Could just be my opinion though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Yuthura Posted April 10, 2009 Author Share Posted April 10, 2009 I do hate how some prisons are run more like a business, though. And I do believe that is one of the primary reasons we don't execute death row prisoners. Could just be my opinion though. Well there is an issue with overcrowded prisons vs. the death penalty. The cost of capital punishment... in terms of dollars is WAY too high to make sense on a massive scale. That is a flaw in the justice system and not my first solution to deal with life sentence without parole. When you have inmates working, they have incentive to cut their sentence for each day they provide community service. When you condemn someone to life in prison without any hope of parole, you might as well pay the millions to legally execute someone because they would forever be a weight on the economy. Those who have some incentive to work would be able to pay for themselves at the very least through what they generate, but those who have nothing to gain wouldn't have reason to do this. I guess my main issue is the severity of the sentence for murder essentially condemning a teen long before he even became an adult. If serial killers can manage to get the possibility for parole, then why not Lotts? If Lotts doesn't get that option, then why would older serial killers have much more hope of rehabilitation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 You do realize that people who are "mortified" after killing, show genuine remose for their crime, get lighter sentences(unless you pre-plan a killing spree of say, a dozen people, then remorse won't get you anywhere). The problem with community service is the "community" part. You can't exactly trust a criminal, who is probably rather diseased, around the food supply, you can't trust rapists around women, pedophiles around children, murderers around people in general. That's the whole point of prison, to isolate people from the society that they harmed, and punish them for their actions. Sometimes in cases of serial killers, there are back-room deals being made, don't take the system at face value. Perhaps a serial killer gave up some important information or is willing to help out cops on another case, as they sometimes do, and in exchange their sentence was cut down. Also, there are medical conditions and remorse of course, if Lotts, even at 14, showed no remorse, and perhaps a desire to do it again, people would favor giving him a harsher sentence. Also there is some meat to the idea that many judges who try kids unfairly give them harsh sentences, from petty crime to murder, they receive disproportionate sentencing, this however, is often the fault of the judge, not the system, or perhaps the prosecutor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi_Man Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 Also, slightly off topic since you were getting at the severity of punishments, If a little kid touches you inappropriately, you get charged. IF you just sit outside a room that your friends are robbing, you get tried for it, and if you just walk away without saying anything, its assumed that you are giving consent to it. WEIRD!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shem Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 I don't have a problem with this sentence. I mean, you know right from wrong at 13, and you know what you're doing when you murder someone. You may have a point about others who do worse can get out, but it all depends on where the crime happened, and who the judge is. It's messed up, but that is the way it is. However, I fell no pity for someone who has the nerve to take another life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HK-42 Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 Any account why he took his brothers life? Could he have been threatened, tormented all his life by him, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 Also, slightly off topic since you were getting at the severity of punishments, If a little kid touches you inappropriately, you get charged. IF you just sit outside a room that your friends are robbing, you get tried for it, and if you just walk away without saying anything, its assumed that you are giving consent to it. WEIRD!! Being tried for a crime and being convicted of a crime are two different things. Lots of people get tried for crimes they didn't commit and many of them are found innocent of them. On the same note, some people are tried for crimes they did commit and found innocent. In the particular situation with the "innocent joe" outside a robbery, is that if your friends are robbing a place, and you just "happen" to be outside, you're probably not that innocent. I had a friend who got like, 2 or 3 years of probation for getting drunk and then ending up being the driver while his friends robbed a store. What was the lesson? Don't get flat ass drunk and do stupid stuff, or drive. As for a kid touching you, that's kinda a stretch, as it depends on the way a person feels about their child doing that. If a kid starts punching you in the nuts for no reason, even if the parent presses charges, it's unlikely anything will happen. If a kid randomly slaps your ass, it'll probably blow over with no charges or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marius Fett Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 If he's willing to take somebody elses life, he should be able to live with the consequences. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sith'ari Darth Bane Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 His sentence is payment for the life he took. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 If you are old enough to commit an adult crime, you are old enough to do adult time. A person that is stabbed to death by a 13 year old is still just as dead as one stabbed to death by an 18 year old. Chances are what got him the life in prison sentence was premeditation and lack of remorse. The same thing that would get an adult sentenced to life without parole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 I guess my main issue is the severity of the sentence for murder essentially condemning a teen long before he even became an adult. If serial killers can manage to get the possibility for parole, then why not Lotts? If Lotts doesn't get that option, then why would older serial killers have much more hope of rehabilitation? Irrelevant. The system is designed to take a certain number of sets of rules and apply them individually to each case, with some wiggle-room for the DAs to make deals, etc. You can't look at another case and try to retrofit facts from this case to it. Other serial killers may have done their crimes in different places, that had different laws about life without parole. Other serial killers may have done their crimes in a time where the laws were differently written about how parole rights are given. &etc. Any account why he took his brothers life? Could he have been threatened, tormented all his life by him, etc. I'm sure that would have been taken into account when he was sentenced (or else this would be in the realm of miscarriage of justice, but we have no reason to suspect that). _EW_ Sorry if this is incoherent... I just woke up and now I'm posting in Kavar's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 I would like to think that the DA's office gave all of the circumstances surrounding this case an appropriate amount of consideration before charging this kid as an adult. Likewise, I would hope that the judge did the same before sentencing him. That being said, if both the DA's office and the judge did the above and this outcome was the result, then this kid must not have shown any remorse at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 Ya know before the kids was tried as an adult, they more than likely gave the family the opportunity to plea bargain. "If he signs a full confession, we'll make sure he gets sentanced as a minor." If HE feels he was wrongly convicted, he can ask for a retrial. But chances are there was plenty of evidence for him being the killer. Stabbing the brother to death.. That's pretty brutal. Now, life no parole for non-murder... That's a different thing. But again, it depends on the crime and severity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW01 Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 I think this case is another prime example of a situation in which the courts, judges and prison services will simply be unable to win. They invoke the wrath of various groups for keeping this person in prison for life without parole, yet it is almost a certainty that if a convicted murderer was to be released, and should kill again, they would all still be criticised for releasing him - 'rehabilitated' or not. There will always be that strain between Victims groups and Prisoners groups. Incidentally, does anyone have a link to a source stating that the victim was stabbed 30 times? That CNN article reports 'stabbed twice'. Murder is still murder, of course, but I would like to know where that figure came from. I rarely like to trust newspaper/site sources for the facts of any case - let alone criminal cases. Normally it seems that the journalist starts off with a particular goal, either to support or undermine a decision, then bends or omits facts as necessary. If defence counsel were unable to raise any basis for mitigation of the sentence (which they are all well trained and usually well practiced in doing), then in all probability no such basis, recognised by law, existed. Another thing to consider is that the majority of (competent) Judges do not generally make rash decisions on sentencing - it doesn't look good at appeal and does very little for their reputation. Finally, it seems that Review was rejected at first instance. That seems a strong indication (without consultation of facts) that the case was properly decided, or at least was in accordance with the law. If the latter is the case, I doubt any Judge will be disposed towards overruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamqd Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 Hey you get executed in a Van and have your Organs sold on the Black Market for Tax evasion in China FGS. Lotts should think himself lucky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 Incidentally, does anyone have a link to a source stating that the victim was stabbed 30 times? That CNN article reports 'stabbed twice'. Murder is still murder, of course, but I would like to know where that figure came from. Negative on that, Papa Bear. The only figure I can see is on CNN, all other reports appear to omit the number of stabbings. Definitely don't see any instances of 30 stabs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunkside Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 He deserves a life in jail. And a lethal injection... well that would have been too merciful, i mean no one is really going to suffer from the injection. Its just a sting and a bye bye. A life in prison... well thats a punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 If defence counsel were unable to raise any basis for mitigation of the sentence (which they are all well trained and usually well practiced in doing), then in all probability no such basis, recognised by law, existed. Another thing to consider is that the majority of (competent) Judges do not generally make rash decisions on sentencing - it doesn't look good at appeal and does very little for their reputation. Agreed. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.