I 100% agree.
There is no rehabilitation to be had here. Even if they went to jail for five years I doubt they’d come out and be gung-ho vigilantes again. They’d probably never commit another crime (although I doubt they even think they committed the crime they were convicted for).
We are not keeping them in jail for life to protect us from them. This sentence is a message to future wannabe vigilantes.
In this case we have an active movement of people who want to be able to move through society armed and kill certain kinds of peopl with impunity—essentially a revival of lynching —it is worth treating them as examples rather than weighing heavily their individual capacity for reform. Indeed, if the death penalty exists at all in out society, it makes no sense not to impose it in such cases. This kind of situation represents not just individual evil but is an active unit is a n active social movement seeking to bring out more evil in our society.
If this tweet (and the related research) is to be believed, perhaps empathogen therapy could be incorporated into their incarceration to facilitate rehabilitation where it seems otherwise impossible.
His father is 30 years older, and I hardly need to tell you that he was also doing just that.
Yes, but he wasn’t spending those 30 years sitting in jail cell thinking things over and maybe coming to the conclusion that racist vigilantism and public lynching wasn’t such a good idea.
My guess is that it’s more likely that he’ll spend those 30 years hanging out with the Aryan Brotherhood and deciding that racist vigilantism and public lynching are good ideas (as long as you don’t get caught).
Sounds like you completely reject the concept of the justice system as a means of rehabilitation. The justice systems in all the advanced countries of the world disagree with you in most cases.
I think some people are not capable of being rehabilitated. When we’re talking about non-violent criminals, I’m all for rehabilitation. Drug use, prostitution, gambling, failure to pay fines, breaking curfew, shoplifting, etc. People who are convicted of those sorts of offenses should be put in a system set up to rehabilitate them. Whatever the evidence suggests is most likely to work, I’d be in favor of it. Therapy, inpatient rehab, counseling, whatever it might be. Violent people, however, should have the book thrown at them.
I think rehabilitation is possible with anyone, but I do need to acknowledge that so far the McMichaels have shown little to no demonstration of remorse, empathy, or regret for their murder.
Rehab is possible but I doubt you will find much of it in the US prison system. I have to agree with @FlikTheBlue that, in a US prison, the McMichaels are likely to be cause célèbre and plug into the white supremacists there. They almost have to. They will not get a good reception from other groups in the prison.
They hunted a person and killed him. Think about that. It was not a “heat of passion” thing. They went after this guy and murdered him. And they are not young. And, they showed no remorse at the trial.
Rehab? Eh…not seeing it.
Most Americans believe that prison is for punishment, not rehabilitation. (No, I don’t agree.) And a for-profit prison system has no incentive to invest money in rehabilitation. Hell, they have every incentive to make sure that people leave the prison system more likely to commit crimes rather than less.
I just checked the verdict and Travis McMichael was found guilty of all the nine counts he was charged - they included both felony murder AND malice murder.
When does Ahmaud get to rejoin society?
They supposedly tried to stop him from leaving the scene of a ‘burglary’ but he had nothing in his hands. If it was an occupied house they could maybe, maybe state he had stolen jewelry &/or cash but what can one steal from a construction site that’s small enough to not need to carry? 3x10-penny nails? No, they went a-huntin’.
He might eventually be sorry for what he did but I doubt he’ll ever be sorry about what he did.
The most amazing part of the defence/Travis’s testimony was claiming that all their forms of escalations (hunting, chasing, screaming threats “I’ll blow your fucking head off!”, capturing, and finally brandishing a shotgun at Arbery) were all types of de-escalations that Travis was doing.
“In your experience, can pointing a gun at somebody de-escalate a situation?” his defense attorney, Jason Sheffield, asked.
“Yes,” McMichael answered.
“How so?”
“If you pull a weapon on someone, from what I’ve learned in my training, usually that caused people to back off or to realize what’s happening” and comply with orders, McMichael said.
It was Arbery’s fault for being killed because he escalated by: looked sus, not stopping, silently ignoring them, running away, and finally attempting to disarm Travis.
Now being trapped and attempting to disarm Travis… THIS was the threat which required killing Arbery. That’s their claim to self-defence. How crazy.
What’s even more crazy is how the DA’s office tried to cover for this lynching.
Just gets back to the philosophical question. Is prison to punish or protect society and rehabilitate?
I don’t take issue with these sentences because Georgian law is already draconian and the judge has limited discretion once murder charges have been proven. For the judge to give the McMichaels leeway for philosophical reasons is not only not his job, but more to the point probably injurious to American society today. Unfortunately perhaps the greatest societal good is achieved by throwing the book at them (relative to Bryan) as an example that justice will prevail. We have the system that we have (at least in Georgia) and in terms of protecting society probably this was the way to go.
But I have a hard time arguing against those that advocate for a more Scandinavian system. I don’t know that vengeance is the best synonym for justice.
To be honest, if they think they did anything wrong, it was in releasing that video. Because without it, I doubt they would have been convicted.
Never, which is why they’re going to prison.
I realize that it’s emotionally satisfying to adopt a “hang 'em all” position, but I refuse to do that and I try to put aside my thirst for vengeance. We are much better off as a society for being merciful and trying to rehabilitate people. It won’t always work, but when it does, it’s worth the effort.
Agreed, and this is why I have qualms about “without the possibility of parole” sentences. If the McMichaels are beyond rehabilitation as many people here (including me) believe, then they don’t get parole. Removing that possibility, 30 years before you see what happens to them, appeals to my vengeful side, but I try to be better than that.
Thanks for the correction. I was going by the judge’s sentencing statement, in which Travis M. was sentenced to life without parole for the first count, malice murder, and that each of the felony murder charges were “vacated by operation of law”. I somehow misremembered this as an acquittal. I take it that the aforementioned phrase means that in view of conviction of the more serious murder charge, the other ones are rendered moot according to established legal principle.
Personally I think these sentences are overkill, based on the sentences that far more depraved murderers typically receive.
My question here is: suppose the appeals court judges similarly find these sentences to be far too severe. Does that make them more likely to overturn the verdicts entirely? I would tend to think so, but don’t know. (Though of course, those judges might find the sentences to be just fine, and/or think there’s no basis to overturn the verdicts anyway.)