Reply #3: So let me get this straight...

[shockedcanadian]

This will be long so bear with me.

Let me get this straight, a 16 year old kid attempts to shoot 3 people and kill them, but he is unsuccessful, noone dies. He is sentences to 110 years for a murder(s) that never occurred? I am amazed.

Being from Canada, we have sometimes been accused of having more lax laws than the U.S. There was a time I felt a heavy handed approach was only fair, as in the American system, however I have since changed my opinion drastically, especially when the facts prove that heavier sentences are not deterrents to crime. I am not trying to defend the guilt of this kid, and I myself do not have a criminal record, nor intend to ever have one, but 110 years for an attempted crime!??! It seems grossly excessive. Does noone see the issue regarding the cost of imprisoning this kid, both the social/economic loss if this kid could have been rehabilitated and one day became a contributing member of society (might not be possible due to this kids mental state) and, the financial costs of keeping him in prison?

You see, I feel the biggest problem in the U.S judicial system lies, massive and sometimes unbalanced sentences. As an example, in Canada someone committing an armed robbery without priors would get a 5 year MAX sentence, often alot less depending on the circumstances, some might even avoid penitentiary time. Let's assume someone is committing that same armed robbery in a store in the U.S, regardless of the social reasons for the robbery (and I know some people refuse to accept socialization of criminals, but it there is no way to deny this impact, regardless of how much people hate to discuss it), he now is concerned about witnesses because he knows getting caught might land him, I don't know, 10-20 years in the pen? Is this an accurate potential sentence? I am throwing out numbers here to make my point but I am thinking the sentence range is accurate depending on the state. Let's go with this 10-20 year range.

So now this person thinks to himself, the easiest way for me to get caught is witnesses. This store clerk is the only witness to the crime, therefore, he might escalate his crime spree to include manslaughter, something he had not intended, if he feels it would decrease the chance of him getting caught for the original robbery (and hence potentially 20 years in the pen). So now instead of a simple theft of probably under $1000, 2 lives will be destroyed, the man being shot and the shooter. The system indirectly cost the store clerk his life, this is of course assuming the criminal understands the sentence range, and did not have any prior desire to commit a crime other than robbery.

I love the Libertarian system in the U.S, many Canadians gladly move to the U.S and contribute positively to your society ( I would as well if needed). I love the massive amount of freedom granted in the U.S, don't get me wrong and I assume alot of these harsh sentences try to prevent abuses of a system in which people are accountable for their actions due to these extreme democratic ideals. However, I think that often there is a "lock them up and throw away the key" attitude that does not benefit the population and it truly does not meet the objectives it was intended to serve.

Thanks for your time. Opinions/disagreements are welcome.