Originally posted by lazs2
we don't have enough information.
The prosocutor could indeed make it even 2nd degree manslaughter... the man could have gone to the parents of the boys house to confront them and then... an arguement turned into a fight turned into a killing.
The prosocutor needs to review the evidence... if the girl has been raped violently and the dna is there and the thing went down as I described...
No jury would convict based on the above scenario and a murder charge.. the prosocutor would go for manslaughter charge.
Judges? what is the difference between guildlines and mandatory sentances? the judges have guidlines and mandatory sentances impossed on them because they have done such a poor jub as a whole.
lazs
A judge normally has knowledge of a lot more of the circumstances of the case than the jury.
You could very easily have the facts of the rape kept from the jury by a prosecutor's motion due to its inflammatory nature.
If the jury convicts, the judge used to be able to take facts unknown by the jury into consideration in sentencing, they cant do that with mandatory sentencing, but this is what most seem to want, cookie cutter, simple justice, that's why he would get life without parole here.
BTW, from what I have seen of this case, the prosecutor in my county would file for 1st degree, we have dozens of 2nd degree murder convictions for DWI causing death here, don't you think the intent to kill was far stronger in this case?
shamus
