In brief, four teenagers broke into a home (that they thought was unoccupied) and were confronted by the homeowner, Rodney Scott. Fearing for his safety, Scott “grabbed” his pistol and confronted the youths. He shot one of them dead and injured another. That, then, set the stage for the application of Indiana’s “felony murder law” which comes into play when anyone is killed during the commission of various major crimes.
In other words, even though it was the homeowner who shot and killed one of the robbers, the robbers themselves were then subject to, and sentenced under, the Felony Murder law. Bottom line is that they all received what are essentially life sentences - from 45 to 55 years in prison.
I do understand that all this is totally ‘legal’. What I don’t understand is how justice was served by applying the law in this case, and under these circumstances. Did the judge and prosecutor have any discretion in applying the law? Could they have found a way to, for lack of a better word, ‘ignore’ it? And, finally, as per my OP’s title, is this justice?
ETA: To pre-empt those who might ask what my feeling is, I’ll say unhesitatingly that the sentences were unfair, and thus justice was not served. It is yet another example (similar to, say, the “three strikes you’re out” law) of not taking into account the totality of the case. In particular, it is another example of a “one size does not fit all” law.