United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Teen turns down plea deal for 25 years in prison, gets 65 years instead
Source:
MSN
URL Source: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime ... r-AAvx1hZ?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp
Published: Apr 6, 2018
Author: Marty Roney
Post Date: 2018-04-06 05:15:19 by IbJensen
Keywords: None
Views: 17468
Comments: 112
WETUMPKA, Ala. — A teenager tried as an adult under Alabama's accomplice liability law was sentenced to 65 years in prison Thursday after rejecting an earlier plea deal that recommended 25 years. In a two-day trial in March, Lakeith Smith, now 18, of Montgomery was convicted of felony murder, burglary and theft for helping in the 2015 break-ins of two homes in Millbrook, about 10 miles north of Montgomery. He did not kill A'Donte Washington, 16, of Montgomery, who was part of a group of five accused in the thefts. But several in the group, including Washington, fired shots at Millbrook police officers who responded Feb. 23, 2015, to a call of a burglary in progress, according to officer body-camera footage. The officer that Washington ran toward pointing a .38 caliber revolver fired his police-issued sidearm four times, killing Washington. Smith was accused of being criminally responsible for the acts that led to Washington's death, the gist of Alabama's accomplice law. An Elmore County grand jury cleared the officer who fired the fatal shots; the officer's name was not released. On Thursday, Judge Sibley Reynolds of Alabama's 19th Judicial Circuit Court handed down three sentences that Smith will serve back to back: 30 years for murder, 15 years for burglary and 10 years each for two theft convictions. Smith smiled and laughed through the sentencing, said C.J. Robinson, chief assistant district attorney. Smith flashed a broad smile March 14 as he was led out of the courtroom shortly after the verdicts were announced. “I don’t think Mr. Smith will be smiling long when he gets to prison,” Robinson said. “We are very pleased with this sentence. Because the sentences are consecutive, it will be a long time before he comes up for even the possibility for parole, at least 20 to 25 years.” Alabama's accomplice law states that a person is legally liable for the behavior of another who commits a criminal offense if that person aids or abets the first person in committing the offense. It wasn't immediately known how many states have similar statutes. "The officer shot A'donte, not Lakeith Smith," Smith's lawyer, Jennifer Holton, said during the trial. "Lakeith was a 15-year-old child, scared to death. He did not participate in the act that caused the death of A'donte. He never shot anybody." Other surviving defendants charged in the case — Montgomery residents Jadarien Hardy, 22; Jadarien Jackson, 23; and La’Anthony Washington, 22 — entered guilty pleas to charges of felony murder, burglary and theft, court records show. They are awaiting sentencing. Poster Comment: Ha, ha, ha! Oh, for the good old days before Lyndon Bird's Great Society where boys had fathers and mothers. Lyndon's rotting in hell over his idiocy. Lakeith, A'Donte, Jadarien , La’Anthony. With names tacked onto them like these it appears they are then marked for the rest of their useless lives.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 15.
#2. To: IbJensen (#0)
I don't think it's right to charge accomplices with murder when their accomplices get killed. That is just too far a stretch. People should be charged with criminal wrongdoing for things they do, not things others do. If they want harsher punishments for crimes, they should increase the punishments for the things they actually do, not lynchpin a murder charge on to them when they didn't pull the trigger or otherwise have direct responsibility for the death. As is in these cases, this sounds like the state created this statute just because their prosecutors haven't been able to get people convicted or punished as much as politically desired.
If they want harsher punishments for crimes, they should increase the punishments for the things they actually do, not lynchpin a murder charge on to them when they didn't pull the trigger or otherwise have direct responsibility for the death. As is in these cases, this sounds like the state created this statute just because their prosecutors haven't been able to get people convicted or punished as much as politically desired. All true. These laws are quite brutal. But in the end, the truth is that society is violent, and the people who are not are angry and sick of it, and they don't really care if they crush out the lives of criminals. The day may come when we simply execute all violent criminals on the first offense. I'm not sure that's unjust either. Ungodly? Probably. But the criminals are not godly, and most people are not willing to be martyrs for their religion. Push a Christian country too far, by being too aggressive and brutal, and you might just get a pair of atomic bombs dropped on your cities. And the Christians will apologize to God about it later. Nobody is superhuman. I believe in peace, and I don't like war. I don't like harsh punishment. But I really don't like violence done to the innocent either. And my patience is no more limitless than anybody else. When I get angry enough, I will set my morality on the shelf and resort to force, just like anybody else. Brutal judicial punishments are the sign of a society that has run out of patience. It may not be just in a cosmic sense, but it is satisfying revenge for people under a lot of pressure from violent crime. It's sort of like Dresden. Was it RIGHT, in a cosmic sense, to firebomb it? Probably not. But who really gives a shit? The Allies who did it were full of rage. The Germans who received the punch were eminently deserving of it. All of the individuals who died? No, of course not. But ultimately, so what? It's too bad, but the Germans broke the peace and got what's coming to them. They started it by bombing London and burning up a lot of British children, and given that, who REALLY cares that, in the end, the German children were burnt alive by the enranged English and Americans? Well, the Germans do. But who cares what those fuckers think? They started it. They suffered. Good. We are not gods, we are men. And men are emotional creatures. Everybody knows that you don't commit armed robbery. And if you DON'T know that, you probably need to be in a cage, because armed robbery engages us. Is it a waste of a life? Sure. But it's not MY life, and I won't think about this guy again after a few minutes. Justice is a funny thing. It's very imperfect, except at the hands of God. And of course God kills everybody in the end - and that's justice too. "We all got it comin', kid." - Will Munny
If the sentiment is that such people can never be redeemed and are permanently morally disfigured after committing a single crime, then fine, pass a law imposing the death penalty for any crime deemed a felony. At least then, the lawmakers will be honest. Did they start it? Germans were unjustly blamed and penalized for the Great War To End All Wars. I don't think it a PC rewritten history to conclude that. A mere 20 years went by since the end of WW1 to WW2, during which the German economy was destroyed by that treaty of V which is hardly enough to erase memories. It's been 16 years since 911, and how many Americans have forgotten that? And that was, proportionally, a drop in the bucket compared to what the German's endured in the 1920's. In that sense, it's not inaccurate to say that WW2 was simply a continuation of WW1. As for your general sentiment of writing off mass killings.... I can understand the sentiment that death, even mass death and mass killing, can sometimes be practically unavoidable in the course of prosecuting a war. But even so, if you cannot fathom enough care to answer the "WHO CARES?" question, then I can only shake my head. As you are a professing Christian, I can only honestly be of the opinion that you have a lot to learn about morality. Maybe I'm wrong, but just as you have expressed a moral judgment upon WW2 Germans, I in the same way hold that moral judgment of you. You say we are men. No, I don't believe that. We are souls. Immortal souls. Our human side is only a minority of what we are, and our morality answers to our greater soulful nature, not our human nature. And your sentiment, in my view, comes from your lessor human side, not the far greater part of you that is immortal. I mean this with complete respect, but as I see it, you have far more to learn about morality than you know. That is what I see in what you write.
At the risk of veering off tangent here... Can it be said that our "human nature" filters our perception of reality through THAT physical lens? And by "lens" I mean not only the visual, but all the physical senses. I am not discounting the soul or spirit as part or most or all of final discernment of who we are (and yes, our physical embodiment *does* comprise who "we" are in this dimension.) What *acts* the body/flesh commits to is not independent of spirit and thus bears responsibility for immorality and possible future "payment"/redemption. The inevitable question that has been discussed is the method and source of and for "cleansing" the soul in the Hereafter. AND by what "Authority" or standard it is cleansed (if at all.) By "Christian" standards, this is an "ALL OR NOTHING" proposition. A speck of dirt (or past immorality) is STILL "dirt".
Sure, but there are nevertheless degrees of dirty. There's a little dirty and a lot dirty. Obviously a speeder is far less of a criminal than a mass murderer.
#22. To: Vicomte13, Pinguinite (#15)
Sure, but there are nevertheless degrees of dirty. There's a little dirty and a lot dirty. Obviously a speeder is far less of a criminal than a mass murderer. Yes Vic, your points are understood and valid. My bad. I should have explained my post more thoroughly. My point was intended in the context of Eternal Judgment before The Almighty and NOT in the context of earthy offenses. In your context, I agree -- there are certainly "degrees" of "dirty" and immorality and "sin".
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#4. To: Pinguinite (#2)
I don't think it's right to charge accomplices with murder when their accomplices get killed. That is just too far a stretch. People should be charged with criminal wrongdoing for things they do, not things others do.
#6. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
The day may come when we simply execute all violent criminals on the first offense. I'm not sure that's unjust either. Ungodly? Probably. But the criminals are not godly,
It's sort of like Dresden. Was it RIGHT, in a cosmic sense, to firebomb it? Probably not. But who really gives a shit? The Allies who did it were full of rage. The Germans who received the punch were eminently deserving of it. All of the individuals who died? No, of course not. But ultimately, so what? It's too bad, but the Germans broke the peace and got what's coming to them. They started it by bombing London and burning up a lot of British children, and given that, who REALLY cares that, in the end, the German children were burnt alive by the enranged English and Americans?
Well, the Germans do. But who cares what those fuckers think? They started it. They suffered. Good.
#10. To: Pinguinite, Vicomte13 (#6)
Our human side is only a minority of what we are, and our morality answers to our greater soulful nature, not our human nature.
#15. To: Liberator (#10)
By "Christian" standards, this is an "ALL OR NOTHING" proposition. A speck of dirt (or past immorality) is STILL "dirt".
Replies to Comment # 15. By "Christian" standards, this is an "ALL OR NOTHING" proposition. A speck of dirt (or past immorality) is STILL "dirt".
End Trace Mode for Comment # 15.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]