I know I could Google this, but I’m sure there are others with the same question.
What is the purpose of the plus 10 or 20 years on a life sentence without parole?
In case the life sentence is reduced on appeal.
I find it loathsome to sentence someone to prison for life with no chance of parole. It is preposterous, to me, to claim now that Travis McMichael cannot reach the point in rehabilitation and personal development, after many years, where he could rejoin society. His father is too old for the distinction between life without parole and 30 years to really matter.
Depends on what you think the purpose of punishment is, I suppose. Is it just for the individual, or is it for the society as well? That is, to protect us not only from them, but also perhaps have their punishment serve as an example to others.
Frankly, if there’s a class of criminal that warrants exemplary punishment, I think it’s the gun-toting vigilante crowd, acting in terms of what they think they can get away with rather than what is really warranted under the circumstances. The kind of people who, if given the choice between arrest and summary execution for a perceived criminal, would chose summary execution (until, of course, society swings around and identifies them as the criminal: then they’re all about mercy and understanding and second chances). See also Amber Guyger.
I don’t care what they are for. I am for second chances.
Well, look at it this way: they can always appeal to the Governor for clemency. That’s second chance enough for them as far as I am concerned.
In general, I agree. As you well know, here in Canada we lean much more toward the concept of rehabilitation rather than retribution, while the US justice system appears to embrace very long sentences, in some cases extending to several lifetimes, or just simply “no parole”. I certainly don’t fault the judge in this case, as he has to conform to precedent, law, and the prevailing societal norms. But at the very least, I think there’s a moral failure when a relatively young man like Travis has no hope of ever being released. Are we to believe that 30 years from now he’s going to be gunning down black men again? Or that 30 years in jail is “not long enough”? In Norway, which has a uniquely enlightened corrective system and a low recidivism rate much like Canada, the maximum possible prison sentence (except for war crimes or genocide) is 21 years.
In Canada we have the additional provision of a “dangerous offender” designation, which was assigned to the infamous Paul Bernardo. He’s been denied parole multiple times and may always be denied. I have no problem with that, as long as the parole board is making informed decisions.
The latter. The sentencing principle of general deterrence serves to inform the public that, “if you do this, you will get that.” So yes, it is an example. There are other sentencing principles, but in this case, general deterrence seems to me to be the main one: “You don’t take the law into your own hands because you think, with no other evidence, that somebody has committed a crime. And you certainly don’t do it with guns!”
You do have it right. Anybody can change. Fullstop.
To defend the Judge who had it within his right to sentence the McMichaels for life with the possibly of parole and chose that option only for only Bryan. I would say that he was looking (throughout the trial) for any sign that the McMichaels showed any awareness of what the victim was feeling and the McMichaels offered the judge nothing.
Because of this, during sentencing the judge wanted to highlight the experiences of the dead victim.
- The comment on Travis’ testimony being wholly self-serving and focusing entirely on himself (It was the worst day of my life).
- The 1 minute silence to stand for Arbery’s 5 minutes of running.
- The line that ‘Your neighbours are more then those who buy property near you; they include “others” too’ (hinting at racial discrimination, but not saying it)
- The highlighting that once Travis shot Arbery, he immediately (and coldly) turned his back and walked away from the dying man. Showing no sense of empathy.
The judge wanted to give weight to the dead’s experiences and final moments. This was a human, who existed, was murdered, life is real and precious, this trial is not bureaucracy. If the McMichaels had shown signs that they had any empathy for their victim the sentencing might have been different for them (ofc not totally different but enough to leave prison one day).
Crime and punishment is just one of the many significant elements of American society that risks being influenced by perverse incentives.
Like so many things, I think it’s time the US look around the world, and see what other nations are doing that’s working better.
If we can get the “American Exceptionalism” crowd to STFU long enough …
[Looking at crime and punishment, like looking at social determinants of health, will require we look at no end of upstream issues that increase crime in the States]
He has to stay with precedent, and not knowing what the precedent is in Georgia, like wolfpup, I can’t criticize his decision specifically. I was just making a general point.
What these men did was vile and criminal, and a human being is dead as a result and his family bereft. I am not sympathizing with murderers, or for that matter thieves, rapists or fraudsters. But people CAN change, and there is next to zero evidence that the “lock 'em up and throw away the key” approach is useful.
We now look back at the days of torture and execution for stuff like theft and think “what barbaric fools they were.” I believe in a few hundred years people will look back at the way we locked up our fellow humans for lifetimes and think the same. It’s hard, I know, to look at the likes of these three Cletuses and to find any humanity in our hearts for them, but I think we have to try.
I’d go a little further and suggest exemplary punishment is needed for the people who enable people like the McMichaels to get away with their crime. The people who have the public trust to see the law applied fairly but conspicuously do not do that.
To wit, the McMichaels were not arrested until two months after the murder. Why? (see story below)
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/03/us/ahmaud-arbery-jackie-johnson-indicted/index.html
Tl;Dr: The DA would have let these guys go with zero punishment. The only reason they got busted was because Bryan released a video that went viral and they had to prosecute due to public outrage.
People CAN change but I will stake my life that these 3 can’t and won’t. Locking them up protects society, which they are not capable of living in like ethical, moral people. The kind of people who don’t chase innocents with pickup trucks and then shoot them.
I, too, am not knowledgeable of the precedent in Georgia. I’m working with only my interpretation of the judges words. It is my assumption that the judge could have chose the sentences to be served concurrently (instead of sequential) but since the McMichaels offered him no reason to be lenient he chose to throw the book at them.
The judge saw Bryan’s behaviour as markedly different and full of remorse thus he was more gentle (gentle as possible while staying within the bounds of the conviction). I saw this as an exercise of his powers.
My takeaway is that it pays to visibly appear aware of the victim’s suffering and to show signs of remorse during your trial (in actions and/or words).
I also understand and agree with Rickjay. Locking up a person and throwing away the key shouldn’t even be an option.
This is regardless whether they display signs of acknowledgement and remorse.
Summary
But if it IS an option, it should be applied in a consistant, equitable, and fair manner… (but it shouldn’t be an option).
IIRC the judge noted their lack of remorse. Bryan had a little, the judge noted, but it didn’t amount to much.
I cannot know but I would be willing to bet the McMichaels will go to jail feeling they were done wrong.
Does their age figure into it?
Say…20 years when you are 20 years old but if you are in your 60s then only five years for the same crime so the person can have some life after prison?
I’m for clemency on certain grounds (like infirmity due to advanced age), but I don’t think 60’ish makes it.
(plus it hardly sounds like a punishment but a free ticket for elderly people to commit crime)
Personally, I think the sentences are too long.
While I am against the death penalty in most cases, so long as it is something that exists, this is the sort of place where it is warranted.
I don’t believe that any amount of time in prison, nor any work of rehabilitation will ever turn any of these three into people who our society should accept. They still don’t show any remorse over the life they ended, any remorse they show is over the consequences that they face.
They will never believe that what they did was wrong, and if allowed to rejoin society will only double down in their racism and hatred.
If Georgia did not have and regularly use the death penalty, I would not advocate for it, but so long as they are putting people to death, I would submit these three as prime candidates. Their crime is just as heinous as most of those who received capital punishment.
How much does it take for deterrence to be effective? (if it ever is) This isn’t a crime like theft, where if they get away with it they’re rich, and if they get caught they’re in jail. They apparently didn’t consider the consequences at all when they did this, so the fact they were risking 5 years, 10 years, of life wouldn’t have entered their mind.
If it had crossed their minds, 30 years in prison would have been plenty to deter them.
I think this was a horrible crime and well deserving of a harsh sentence. I guess, (unusually for me) the retribution aspect of the punishment seems to fit.