Not based on any real case. A 14 year old’s body is found. It’s determined that he was killed 21 years ago. After some cold case investigating they eventually work out that he was killed by one of his old friends. The now 35 year old has been a good citizen for 21 years, the only crime he’s committed being continued failure to report a murder. After he’s confronted with the evidence he claims that they got in a fight and he used lethal force to stop the fight, the detective thinks that he deliberately killed him so he could take his expensive toy. The evidence doesn’t dispute either alternative.
Assume you know nothing about what the actual law is about cases like this. What would you like to happen in this situation?
But he can’t be not committing a crime–each and every day of his life after the murder that he hasn’t confessed to the police, he is guilty of covering up a murder.
If the evidence to prove murder doesn’t exist, there’s nothing to be done. The detective’s opinion isn’t evidence. I suppose the DA could roll the dice and charge him, but “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law”.
Can he be charged as an adult for a crime committed when he was 14? That’s another wrinkle.
I think he should be charged with whatever crime the prosecutor feels is appropriate and that they can prove. My only other thought is that the punishment he receives should be the same that a 14 year committing that same crime would get (to the extent that this is possible).
So if a 14 year old would have received 3 years and 5 of probation, but an adult would get 15, he should get the more lenient sentence. With the exception that as an adult he would serve his time in real grown up prison, not juvenile detention.
“Failure to report a murder” isn’t a thing, unless you actively covered it up.
The crime here is “murder”, for which there is no statute of limitations.
And the subject in the OP has basically already plead guilty to manslaughter.
Either alternatives are not in dispute by the evidence because they are not mutually exclusive. If the subject has been proven to have been in possession of the “expensive toy”, really the question is whether he intentionally murdered Friend to obtain the toy (1st Degree Murder) or whether the fight was provoked by his taking the toy.
Those are the only crimes he’s committed that we’re aware of. He concealed one major crime for twenty-one years.
Granted, we can’t judge him guilty for other theoretical crimes. But I don’t see it as a point you can argue is in his favor. You don’t get to play the “It’s the only crime I ever committed” card when you’re accused of hiding a major crime.
Every day that the parents wake up not knowing what happened to their son, a crime is happening. Every day that the police have the case still open, a crime is happening. It may not be legally, but it certainly is morally.
There is also a purpose of providing an incentive not to commit crimes, because being imprisoned is a bad life experience. There is a purpose of providing some kind of emotional satisfaction to people who have been hurt by the crime. I also think (though I anticipate debate on this one) that there is a purpose of inducing some kind of salvation through suffering, as a Christian gesture. All of these purposes would be served by imprisoning this murderer. They would also be served by some other punishments.
There is a purpose of protecting the public from further murders. It is often true of a murderer that they kill again within the following 21 years. But this was not true of this murderer. One could argue that the 21 years without a crime strongly indicates that they won’t commit any further crimes. People who accept this argument as the only relevant one may be satisfied without punishing this murderer.
*"He was 24 when he shot and killed two police officers and 45 years later, facing prison at last, Gerald F. Mason tearfully told his victims’ families, “I don’t understand why I did this.”…
“I feel like I am dreaming,” Mason said. “It makes no sense. It’s contrary to everything I believe. At no other time in my life have I intentionally harmed anyone. I don’t know why I did this.”
“Please forgive me,” he said. “Do not be bitter.”
Under a plea deal, rape, robbery and kidnapping charges were dropped against the 69-year-old retired service station owner, who apologized in court Monday as he stood before the families and about a dozen members of the El Segundo police department.
He was immediately sentenced to two consecutive life terms."*
He should be prosecuted in accordance with the laws pertaining to 14-year-old offenders; if the law is different now than it was then, he should be prosecuted by whichever version of the law is the most lenient.
I don’t know anything about the man, nor do I have to. The law rules supreme. If he is worthy of some leniency, then if the judge has some degree of discretion in sentencing, the leniency may be found there.