According to defendant, on the night of the murders, Arthur Beckom and Kentrell Stoutmire observed people walking through their neighborhood that they believed belonged to a rival gang. Beckom and Stoutmire approached defendant, who was standing outside on a corner in the neighborhood, and asked him to stand as a lookout. Defendant saw that both Beckom and Stoutmire had guns in their possession, and although defendant never handled or touched the guns, he agreed to stand as a lookout. One minute later, Beckom and Stoutmire fired gunshots in the direction of Jones and Alexander, who both died as a result of their injuries. Once the shooting began, defendant ran to his girlfriend's house.
But under Illinois law, "the court shall sentence the defendant to a term of natural life imprisonment when the death penalty is not imposed if . . . irrespective of the defendant's age at the time of the commission of the offense, is found guilty of murdering more than one victim." 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(a)(1)(c)(ii). [emphasis mine]
No gun, no affirmative bad acts, life term? The trial court and a unanimous Illinois Supreme Court agreed that for a child convicted under a theory of an accountability theory, this was too much to stomach:
Accordingly, we hold that the penalty mandated by the multiple-murder sentencing statute as applied to this defendant is particularly harsh and unconstitutionally disproportionate. We agree with defendant that a mandatory sentence of natural life in prison with no possibility of parole grossly distorts the factual realities of the case and does not accurately represent defendant's personal culpability such that it shocks the moral sense of the community. This moral sense is particularly true, as in the case before us, where a 15-year-old with one minute to contemplate his decision to participate in the incident and stood as a lookout during the shooting, but never handled a gun, is subject to life imprisonment with no possibility of parole-the same sentence applicable to the actual shooter.
Or, as the trial court judge put it:
I believe he was proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and I believe he should suffer harsh criminal consequences for acting as a look-out in this case, but to suggest that he ought to receive a sentence of life without the possibility of parole, I find to be very, very hard to swallow to the point where I can describe it as unconscionable. I am concerned that a person under the age of 18 under Illinois law can do everything that John Gacy did, can torture and abuse and murder over 30 people, and would be in the same boat as [defendant] right now looking at a sentence of a minimum and maximum of life without the possibility of parole.
I have a 15-year-old child who was passively acting as a look-out for other people, never picked up a gun, never had much more than-perhaps less than a minute-to contemplate what this entire incident is about, and he is in the same situation as a serial killer for sentencing purposes.
You can access the full opinion here. Again, congratulations to the Clinic (of which I am an alum, though not of this project) and all those who worked on this case for this victory. Under the leadership of Professors Randolph Stone and Herschella Conyers, the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Project has shown an extraordinary commitment to children accused of brutal crimes, often taking on some of the worst, most unpopular cases you can imagine, and do extraordinary legal work on behalf of their clients.
In my two-plus years of clinical work under Professor Gary Palm, I learned an extraordinary amount about the actual nuts-and-bolts practice of law and the right way to represent clients vigorously, much more than could ever be gained in the classroom. For more on the Clinic, keep reading here. (My project, the former Anti-Poverty Project, is noted on page three. (Initial link courtesy How Appealing.)
No comments:
Post a Comment