Quote from the article (Chen was the judge who denied the motion):
“The court cannot shake the impression, after observing and listening to defendant over the course of the two-hour April proceeding, that he feels no remorse about committing the four murders nor empathy for the victims or their families,” Chen wrote. “Defendant’s statements … felt hollow and performative.”
I’m actually a little bothered by that, because I after reading about his crimes, I don’t care if he feels remorse now, and has empathy for the victims and their families, he still deserves to die in that cell. If he feels remorse and has empathy, he should channel it towards improving the other lives of other inmates, not try to get released. I’d hope that the judge wouldn’t have released him even if she did believe his statements.
Also, I have to wonder if “it seems to me he wasn’t sincere” is any kind of strong reason. It seems pretty weak sauce to me, considering what he did.
I’m not any kind of lawyer nor have any experience in judges’ statements about this kind of thing. I would have thought, however, that the reason for denying compassionate release should be more about how stupid and inadequate the reason for asking for it was.
When have prison inmates (specifically in N.Y. state, but elsewhere as well) been given compassionate release on the grounds that they’ve supposedly changed into better people?
I thought compassionate release was basically confined to people who were elderly, seriously/terminally ill and/or couldn’t get adequate medical treatment in prison. A-bad-upbringing-made-me-do-it might have some relevance in a parole hearing, but not as compassionate release grounds.
I followed the trail to the court filing. It states, as part of the argument, that the courts are no longer bound by the original grounds limitations. The court can can provide comoassionate release for pretty much any reason they find compelling, save that rehabilitation cannot be the sole grounds.
His lawyers are arguing he was young and impressionable and got sucked into the lifestyle by father surrogates. They also argue be was sentenced under mandatory minimum laws that have since been overturned.
His “remarkable” transformation and rehabilitation are being argued to show that his release would not be a threat to society.
Oh, that explains it. He was just treating the animal himself. But what was so important he couldn’t take the poor creature to a qualified person to treat her?
There’s more at the article. But this is more than enough to qualify as evil.
Long story short: Uber-Christian parents make the fatal decision not to take their jaundiced newborn to the hospital, state subsequently seizes two more babies to prevent them from dying in a similar way.
Fortunately, the preview had the name of the child in it, so I could look it up and find a version of the article people can read without a paid subscription.
Exact same article, only without the preview ad trying to get you to subscribe; just press the “X” in the top right corner of the ad to get to the full story.
