The Daily Beast (Newsweek) Synopsis
After a little under a year, Ma'lik Richmond was released from his juvenile detention center. I think this is ridiculous. Although this case happened back in March, learning about Richmond's release aggravates me since it feels very, very, very soon for him to be let out. I feel that his punishment was not harsh enough and inadvertently makes light of the fact that he raped another human being while she was intoxicated and vulnerable.
But what do you think? Please don't be frightened by my strong feelings about this case; I'm genuinely interested in hearing other opinions on Richmond's release. According to Richmond's attorney, Richmond has "reflected, learned, matured and grown in many ways." I'm not sure if I am swayed by Richmond's self discovery, but if you are, I'd be interested in hearing why.
Oh, and another topic of discussion: Richmond's age. As a seventeen year old, he is subject to a different set of rules under a criminal law trial than he would be if he were only a little older. In regard to this case, I feel Richmond's age seems a little arbitrary considering his actions but I can understand others' arguments that stress the importance of young people not having to be defined by one moment in their life.
Are these different standards for seventeen year old criminals versus eighteen year old criminals necessary? Archaic? Fair? Unfair?
1 comment:
Not having known much about the specifics of this case and Richmond himself, I will decline to pass judgement on whether Richmond has maturedNot having known much about the specifics of this case and Richmond himself, I will decline to pass judgement on whether Richmond has matured and instead focus on the legal aspects of his punishment.
In Roper v. Simmons, the Supreme Court ruled that minors who commit crimes are due diminished culpability. Although I wholly disagree with the arbitrary 18 yr. old line as the benchmark for maturity and decision making ability, that is what currently stands as the guiding doctrine when sentencing minors. I agree more with O'Connor's dissent since it addresses the idea that 18 isn't a hard and fast line in any case, rather the particulars of the case should take precedent. Since the Simmons case was in 2005, I wouldn't call it archaic, but I would disagree with the majority opinion on this one.
At the same time, judges are allowed a substantial amount of discretion in the United States, usually bound my minimum and maximum sentencing guidelines, but otherwise free to sentence as they see fit. Although the judge may have exercised his judgement poorly in this case, judicial discretion is a core aspect of our legal system that has performed admirably for the most part, despite its drawbacks and faults.
Post a Comment