Why the sentence imposed on Michigan school shooter Ethan Crumbley is significant

[ThatRobGuy]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/09/us/michigan-oxford-shooting-sentence-judge-historic/index.html

CNN —
More than two years after Michigan’s deadliest school shooting, a judge imposed a historic sentence – and the harshest possible penalty – for the teenage gunman.

Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Kwamé Rowe sentenced Ethan Crumbley, 17, on Friday to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the November 2021 shooting that left four students dead at Oxford High School. Six other students and a teacher were also wounded in the attack.

It’s a punishment that has become both rare and a point of contention over concerns about sentencing a minor to die in a cell before they reach full maturity.

Crumbley, who was 15 at the time of the shooting, became the first minor to receive an original sentence of life without the possibility of parole in more than a decade since the US Supreme Court in 2012 banned mandatory life sentences for juveniles and ruled courts should consider the circumstances of each defendant and their maturity before such punishments are handed down.


This does raise a series of questions and ideological debates around a variety of topics surrounding when we consider someone to be an adult and capable of making their own independent decisions.

If a person committing a lethal crime at 15 can result in a life sentence because "they were old enough to understand the gravity of their actions"... how can we say a 15 year old isn't old enough to join the military, open a credit card, or get a tattoo?

Looked at from a different vantage point, if society is going to say we need to provide extra layers of protections for minors to account for their impulses that could very well change (that ties into some of the other hot button issues being debated today, and I think we all know the issues I'm talking about), then should we be giving such harsh sentences to minors?

It's a conundrum..."15 year olds shouldn't be making such life altering decisions" doesn't gel with "a crime committed at 15 should get an adult level punishment"

I understand that 18 was, in some ways, an arbitrary number that was picked due to general perceptions of when a person is "more adult than child" for "most people".

But I think this case is an interesting one and perhaps challenges some conceptions/perceptions on both sides.

 

[BPPLEE]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/09/us/michigan-oxford-shooting-sentence-judge-historic/index.html

CNN —
More than two years after Michigan’s deadliest school shooting, a judge imposed a historic sentence – and the harshest possible penalty – for the teenage gunman.

Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Kwamé Rowe sentenced Ethan Crumbley, 17, on Friday to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the November 2021 shooting that left four students dead at Oxford High School. Six other students and a teacher were also wounded in the attack.

It’s a punishment that has become both rare and a point of contention over concerns about sentencing a minor to die in a cell before they reach full maturity.

Crumbley, who was 15 at the time of the shooting, became the first minor to receive an original sentence of life without the possibility of parole in more than a decade since the US Supreme Court in 2012 banned mandatory life sentences for juveniles and ruled courts should consider the circumstances of each defendant and their maturity before such punishments are handed down.


This does raise a series of questions and ideological debates around a variety of topics surrounding when we consider someone to be an adult and capable of making their own independent decisions.

If a person committing a lethal crime at 15 can result in a life sentence because "they were old enough to understand the gravity of their actions"... how can we say a 15 year old isn't old enough to join the military, open a credit card, or get a tattoo?

Looked at from a different vantage point, if society is going to say we need to provide extra layers of protections for minors to account for their impulses that could very well change (that ties into some of the other hot button issues being debated today, and I think we all know the issues I'm talking about), then should we be giving such harsh sentences to minors?

It's a conundrum..."15 year olds shouldn't be making such life altering decisions" doesn't gel with "a crime committed at 15 should get an adult level punishment"

I understand that 18 was, in some ways, an arbitrary number that was picked due to general perceptions of when a person is "more adult than child" for "most people".

But I think this case is an interesting one and perhaps challenges some conceptions/perceptions on both sides.

Rather than deciding if a 15 year old understands the consequences of his actions the question should be “Does this person present a danger to society?”

 

[Bradskii]

Rather than deciding if a 15 year old understands the consequences of his actions the question should be “Does this person present a danger to society?”

This seems pertinent:

 

[RileyG]

When will school shootings ever end?

I was three when Columbine happened. I was a junior in high school when Sandy Hook happened and remember that day very vividly. It seems to get worse each year.

Breaks my heart.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Rather than deciding if a 15 year old understands the consequences of his actions the question should be “Does this person present a danger to society?”

It should, but the reason why kids get different treatment by the legal system vs. adults is based on an understanding of actions.

For instance, if a 34 year old man picks a gun up off of a table and shoots another person, they understand what they're doing and the consequences.

If there's a gun haphazardly left on a table, and a 4 year old picks up and pulls the trigger and kills someone, we don't charge them with murder and lock them up. (because they don't understand what they're doing, and they danger they pose is the result of someone else's negligent actions on not their own)

So while we'd all agree that charging a 34 year old is reasonable, and charging a 4 year old is absurd...that raises the question "okay, what is the reasonable age?"...and if that age represents the age of accountability, should people of that age be getting denied rights and privileges?

For instance, I don't think 15 year olds should vote or buy beer...but it'd be hard to make that case if I simultaneously said that 15 year olds should be tried as adults and sentenced to life in prison for crimes they commit.

 

[Bradskii]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/09/us/michigan-oxford-shooting-sentence-judge-historic/index.html

CNN —
More than two years after Michigan’s deadliest school shooting, a judge imposed a historic sentence – and the harshest possible penalty – for the teenage gunman.

Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Kwamé Rowe sentenced Ethan Crumbley, 17, on Friday to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the November 2021 shooting that left four students dead at Oxford High School. Six other students and a teacher were also wounded in the attack.

It’s a punishment that has become both rare and a point of contention over concerns about sentencing a minor to die in a cell before they reach full maturity.

Crumbley, who was 15 at the time of the shooting, became the first minor to receive an original sentence of life without the possibility of parole in more than a decade since the US Supreme Court in 2012 banned mandatory life sentences for juveniles and ruled courts should consider the circumstances of each defendant and their maturity before such punishments are handed down.


This does raise a series of questions and ideological debates around a variety of topics surrounding when we consider someone to be an adult and capable of making their own independent decisions.

If a person committing a lethal crime at 15 can result in a life sentence because "they were old enough to understand the gravity of their actions"... how can we say a 15 year old isn't old enough to join the military, open a credit card, or get a tattoo?

Looked at from a different vantage point, if society is going to say we need to provide extra layers of protections for minors to account for their impulses that could very well change (that ties into some of the other hot button issues being debated today, and I think we all know the issues I'm talking about), then should we be giving such harsh sentences to minors?

It's a conundrum..."15 year olds shouldn't be making such life altering decisions" doesn't gel with "a crime committed at 15 should get an adult level punishment"

I understand that 18 was, in some ways, an arbitrary number that was picked due to general perceptions of when a person is "more adult than child" for "most people".

But I think this case is an interesting one and perhaps challenges some conceptions/perceptions on both sides.

You've raised some good points.

A jail sentence is meant to serve three purposes. A deterrent to others who might commit the same crime. Protection of the public for someone who is a danger to others. And simply as a punishment. As retribution.

It was often said that the death penalty was a dangerous option because if someone committed a crime that would warrant it, the the perpetrator was left with nothing to lose. He may as well go down fighting and take others with him rather than book an appointment with the hangman. I think the same argument is applicable here. And in cases like this I don't see it being a deterrent.

Protection of the public? Well, I guess the kid is still a danger. But he's still a kid. And we know that the male brain doesn't fully develop until the mid twenties. So he is literally not going to be the same person in ten years time. Certainly not in 60. See Red's monogue above. It's not possible to say that he will be a danger in the future. Which is exactly why we have the parole system. So if it's punishment without parole then all we are left with is retribution.

And I have a serious problem with a lifetime sentence as a punishment considering the age of the offender.

 

[zippy2006]

It should, but the reason why kids get different treatment by the legal system vs. adults is based on an understanding of actions.

I don't know much about the case, but given the Supreme Court ruling of 2012 it would appear that minors are treated differently. Mandatory life sentences for minors are not allowed, and therefore a life sentence effectively has to be an exception to, or particular application of, the laws, based on circumstances. So effectively they are looking at this case and claiming that it is an exceptional case, with an exceptional punishment.

Granted, your points still hold weight, but I would interpret our legal age of adulthood as a kind of immunity from the responsibilities of adulthood, not a burden or penalty. "He got a life sentence therefore I deserve a tattoo," is therefore not a great argument. The law is there to protect minors, and in this exceptional case we deemed that the minor does not deserve the protection that the law usually affords. Again, I do not know the specifics of this case or the Supreme Court ruling.

how can we say a 15 year old isn't old enough to join the military, open a credit card, or get a tattoo?

They may be, but the point isn't to grant every individual minor the maximal responsibility (and liability!) possible at their age, or to assess them all individually according to circumstance. An exception need not change a rule (of law).

For instance, I don't think 15 year olds should vote or buy beer...but it'd be hard to make that case if I simultaneously said that 15 year olds should be tried as adults and sentenced to life in prison for crimes they commit.

Your argument would work much better if there were a mandatory life-sentence law for minors; but there is not, as this is not allowed. It is not allowed for the same reason minors cannot vote or buy beer: because they are not adults. Law is not the application of logical necessity.

The problem I see is that the articles reflect little to no consideration of his age. The victims are angry and are demanding a maximum sentence. This is a paradigmatic case of sin (hatred). The perpetrator should be punished according to his deserts, not according to his victims' anger. No one deserves a "maximum sentence," if "maximum sentence" is an unknown quantity. We always deserve a particular sentence; never "the most you can possibly mete out!" So this looks like more mob rule in the U.S., which may be becoming more common after George Floyd.

There is also the interesting non sequitur from the judge:

The judge dismissed last-minute pleas by Crumbley’s attorney who stated the teen’s life was salvageable. Rowe noted the “defendant in his own words” told the court, “This is nobody’s fault but his own.”​

​

If, say, an 8 year-old does something atrocious, the atrocious effect would very likely be "Nobody's fault but his own." This in no way implies that the culpability of an adult is in place.

The case also reminds me of C.S. Lewis' "The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment," because the parties are acting less like judges applying law, and more like humanitarian therapists, making forecasts about whether the kid is "salvageable" or likely to recidivate. It's like they're at the junkyard deciding which cars are worth keeping.

 

[zippy2006]

Rather than deciding if a 15 year old understands the consequences of his actions the question should be “Does this person present a danger to society?”

That question is obvious and foregone. He carried out the premeditated murder of his peers. Obviously he is a danger.

 

[IceJad]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/09/us/michigan-oxford-shooting-sentence-judge-historic/index.html

CNN —
More than two years after Michigan’s deadliest school shooting, a judge imposed a historic sentence – and the harshest possible penalty – for the teenage gunman.

Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Kwamé Rowe sentenced Ethan Crumbley, 17, on Friday to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the November 2021 shooting that left four students dead at Oxford High School. Six other students and a teacher were also wounded in the attack.

It’s a punishment that has become both rare and a point of contention over concerns about sentencing a minor to die in a cell before they reach full maturity.

Crumbley, who was 15 at the time of the shooting, became the first minor to receive an original sentence of life without the possibility of parole in more than a decade since the US Supreme Court in 2012 banned mandatory life sentences for juveniles and ruled courts should consider the circumstances of each defendant and their maturity before such punishments are handed down.


This does raise a series of questions and ideological debates around a variety of topics surrounding when we consider someone to be an adult and capable of making their own independent decisions.

If a person committing a lethal crime at 15 can result in a life sentence because "they were old enough to understand the gravity of their actions"... how can we say a 15 year old isn't old enough to join the military, open a credit card, or get a tattoo?

Looked at from a different vantage point, if society is going to say we need to provide extra layers of protections for minors to account for their impulses that could very well change (that ties into some of the other hot button issues being debated today, and I think we all know the issues I'm talking about), then should we be giving such harsh sentences to minors?

It's a conundrum..."15 year olds shouldn't be making such life altering decisions" doesn't gel with "a crime committed at 15 should get an adult level punishment"

I understand that 18 was, in some ways, an arbitrary number that was picked due to general perceptions of when a person is "more adult than child" for "most people".

But I think this case is an interesting one and perhaps challenges some conceptions/perceptions on both sides.

This is a joke as in the American justice system is a joke. You have advocate groups bailing out known threats to society and saying it's social justice. You have DA who refuse to prosecute known criminals because of some personal ideology. Yet here we debate a 15 year old killer is considered an adult because he knows what he is doing. Criminal adults treated with kid gloves and kids treated with adult whips. Is there a basis here to work on?

For what it is worth as long as he is less than legal adult age he should be treated as such. Even if you feel it is unfair. Else change the legal adult age.

 

[Bradskii]

That question is obvious and foregone. He carried out the premeditated murder of his peers. Obviously he is a danger.

I'd assume so as well. But surely there may be a time when he is considered not to be so.

 

[BPPLEE]

It should, but the reason why kids get different treatment by the legal system vs. adults is based on an understanding of actions.

For instance, if a 34 year old man picks a gun up off of a table and shoots another person, they understand what they're doing and the consequences.

If there's a gun haphazardly left on a table, and a 4 year old picks up and pulls the trigger and kills someone, we don't charge them with murder and lock them up. (because they don't understand what they're doing, and they danger they pose is the result of someone else's negligent actions on not their own)

So while we'd all agree that charging a 34 year old is reasonable, and charging a 4 year old is absurd...that raises the question "okay, what is the reasonable age?"...and if that age represents the age of accountability, should people of that age be getting denied rights and privileges?

For instance, I don't think 15 year olds should vote or buy beer...but it'd be hard to make that case if I simultaneously said that 15 year olds should be tried as adults and sentenced to life in prison for crimes they commit.

That’s very thoughtful but I think the emphasis should be on protecting the public, not just finding the appropriate punishment.

 

[Estrid]

This is a joke as in the American justice system is a joke. You have advocate groups bailing out known threats to society and saying it's social justice. You have DA who refuse to prosecute known criminals because of some personal ideology. Yet here we debate a 15 year old killer is considered an adult because he knows what he is doing. Criminal adults treated with kid gloves and kids treated with adult whips. Is there a basis here to work on?

For what it is worth as long as he is less than legal adult age he should be treated as such. Even if you feel it is unfair. Else change the legal adult age.

No doubt you know just how to fix it.

And the education system too.

 

[dzheremi]

It seems to me this could be resolved if he were given a long sentence with the possibility of parole after a significant number of years. Having the possibility of parole could give him reason to consider what he has done and how he might change to reflect a mature understanding of the gravity of his actions that he is probably not capable of possessing now due to his age and the malevolence of his present personality which caused him to commit this crime in the first place. Also, having the possibility of parole does not mean actually being paroled if the parole board is not satisfied with the progress (or lack thereof) that they see. We should hope they don't just rubber stamp things either way. At any rate, it is a difficult case, to be sure, but I can see a way that this could be handled slightly differently that would be more in keeping with striking a balance between the competing drives involved in sentencing.

 

[IceJad]

No doubt you know just how to fix it.

And the education system too.

I don't need to. All the foundations are already there in the system. It is just Americans have no will to follow it. They rather go for ideology and emotions than the system.

Take this case for example. The basis for argument is the cognizance level of the child offender not the age. Then you have to ask yourself why is there an arbitrary legal adult age in law? The answer is simple. In general people below that age are not in the same legal state as those who are above it. Why is there a distinction then in the law? Another simple answer. It is based on the biological development of humans. In this case the mental maturity of a person. So those who make the law have to set an acceptable threshold that encompasses a majority of the population. There will be those who would defy this threshold. Some younger people who mentally matured faster and some older who don't. However that would be hard to gauge by individual. Therefore the arbitrary 18 is set. This is a modern convention by the way. In older times the age is as low as 14 in some regions of the world. Now that you have a standard, the standard should be enforced. If you willy-nilly break it due to some perception of injustice then what is the point of an age limit?

If the case is not murder many here wouldn't bet an eyelid about a minor being trialed as a minor. Should this case be about underage sex between a legal adult say 18 and a minor say 15 many there would have insisted that regardless of circumstances the adult would have been guilty and the minor innocent. Or should this case be about an adult trapping a minor in a legal contract, many here would think the same - adult guilty minor innocent. Because minor don't have the mental capacity to consent. Which is RIGHTLY so. However realistically speaking you honestly think a 15 year old doesn't know about consent or about sexual intercourse? The law just treats them as not because of the age limit. Now because this case is murder then the conditions changed to cognizance not age? Explain that.

 

[BPPLEE]

I don't need to. All the foundations are already there in the system. It is just Americans have no will to follow it. They rather go for ideology and emotions than the system.

Take this case for example. The basis for argument is the cognizance level of the child offender not the age. Then you have to ask yourself why is there an arbitrary legal adult age in law? The answer is simple. In general people below that age are not in the same legal state as those who are above it. Why is there a distinction then in the law? Another simple answer. It is based on the biological development of humans. In this case the mental maturity of a person. So those who make the law have to set an acceptable threshold that encompasses a majority of the population. There will be those who would defy this threshold. Some younger people who mentally matured faster and some older who don't. However that would be hard to gauge by individual. Therefore the arbitrary 18 is set. This is a modern convention by the way. In older times the age is as low as 14 in some regions of the world. Now that you have a standard, the standard should be enforced. If you willy-nilly break it due to some perception of injustice then what is the point of an age limit?

If the case is not murder many here wouldn't bet an eyelid about a minor being trialed as a minor. Should this case be about underage sex between a legal adult say 18 and a minor say 15 many there would have insisted that regardless of circumstances the adult would have been guilty and the minor innocent. Or should this case be about an adult trapping a minor in a legal contract, many here would think the same - adult guilty minor innocent. Because minor don't have the mental capacity to consent. Which is RIGHTLY so. However realistically speaking you honestly think a 15 year old doesn't know about consent or about sexual intercourse? The law just treats them as not because of the age limit. Now because this case is murder then the conditions changed to cognizance not age? Explain that.

There have to be exceptions. The law says you can’t have mandatory sentences for minors. It doesn’t say that you can’t impose certain sentences.

 

[Bradskii]

If you willy-nilly break it due to some perception of injustice then what is the point of an age limit?

As a guide. In all criminal cases, a factor to be considered would be the mental capacity of the person in question. Were they able, at the time, to understand that what they were doing was wrong. We can say that generally a twenty eight year old man is capable and an eight year old is generally not. And there's no magic moment when the child wakes up one morning and knows the difference. It's a continuum. We gradually become more aware of the more serious implications of what we do.

If the 28 year old had the mental capacity of an 8 year old then we wouldn't expect a conviction. Because we judge each case on its merits. If the 28 year old had the mental capacity of a 15 year old then we'd likewise expect some consideration to be given to that. Especially as it thought to be another ten years before the male adult brain is fully formed.

Having read about the case it is plainly obvious that the kid had some psychological problems. Which were noted, but nothing was done to remedy them. There were problems at home and the parents were partly culpable as they were charged with manslaughter. The parents know of the problems and did nothing. The school knew of problems and did nothing. The kid definitely needed help and didn't get any.

Now he's in for life?

 

[Pommer]

As a guide. In all criminal cases, a factor to be considered would be the mental capacity of the person in question. Were they able, at the time, to understand that what they were doing was wrong. We can say that generally a twenty eight year old man is capable and an eight year old is generally not. And there's no magic moment when the child wakes up one morning and knows the difference. It's a continuum. We gradually become more aware of the more serious implications of what we do.

If the 28 year old had the mental capacity of an 8 year old then we wouldn't expect a conviction. Because we judge each case on its merits. If the 28 year old had the mental capacity of a 15 year old then we'd likewise expect some consideration to be given to that. Especially as it thought to be another ten years before the male adult brain is fully formed.

Having read about the case it is plainly obvious that the kid had some psychological problems. Which were noted, but nothing was done to remedy them. There were problems at home and the parents were partly culpable as they were charged with manslaughter. The parents know of the problems and did nothing. The school knew of problems and did nothing. The kid definitely needed help and didn't get any.

Now he's in for life?

I can usually find a middle ground in my mind oh these sorts of questions, but on this one I can’t.
If a child is 17 and 364 days old and they commit a crime, then they’re minors.
If they’re 18, they’re an adult (barring mental/emotional conditions); don’t have to be treated as minor, we’re allowed to craft the laws around their capacities to understand and assist in their own defense.

Allowing 15 a year old offender to be housed for life is a sign that the society in which they committed their crime is indifferent to such an injustice and maybe not worthy of surviving?

 

[Ana the Ist]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/09/us/michigan-oxford-shooting-sentence-judge-historic/index.html

CNN —
More than two years after Michigan’s deadliest school shooting, a judge imposed a historic sentence – and the harshest possible penalty – for the teenage gunman.

Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Kwamé Rowe sentenced Ethan Crumbley, 17, on Friday to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the November 2021 shooting that left four students dead at Oxford High School. Six other students and a teacher were also wounded in the attack.

It’s a punishment that has become both rare and a point of contention over concerns about sentencing a minor to die in a cell before they reach full maturity.

Crumbley, who was 15 at the time of the shooting, became the first minor to receive an original sentence of life without the possibility of parole in more than a decade since the US Supreme Court in 2012 banned mandatory life sentences for juveniles and ruled courts should consider the circumstances of each defendant and their maturity before such punishments are handed down.


This does raise a series of questions and ideological debates around a variety of topics surrounding when we consider someone to be an adult and capable of making their own independent decisions.

If a person committing a lethal crime at 15 can result in a life sentence because "they were old enough to understand the gravity of their actions"... how can we say a 15 year old isn't old enough to join the military, open a credit card, or get a tattoo?

I agree it's not a great situation.

If our prisons turned out reformed adults instead of hardened criminals...perhaps we'd be more lenient.

Or perhaps we should make a hard rule without exception....

Or perhaps we should simply accept each situation is different, and there is a punishment aspect to justice. It's not all about fairness.

Looked at from a different vantage point, if society is going to say we need to provide extra layers of protections for minors to account for their impulses that could very well change (that ties into some of the other hot button issues being debated today, and I think we all know the issues I'm talking about), then should we be giving such harsh sentences to minors?

I'm not sure exactly what point you're making? Is it that we shouldn't punish kids who murder if we are sexualizing them in school? Or we shouldn't sexualize them in school? Or were you talking about something else?

Please don't be oblique on the point you're making, I'm not joking in any way, I don't really see what you're trying to say here....

It's a conundrum..."15 year olds shouldn't be making such life altering decisions" doesn't gel with "a crime committed at 15 should get an adult level punishment"

Trans surgery? Was that what you meant?

I understand that 18 was, in some ways, an arbitrary number that was picked due to general perceptions of when a person is "more adult than child" for "most people".

It's an arbitrary number sure. Not having sex with animals but killing and eating them are arbitrary rules as well.

But I think this case is an interesting one and perhaps challenges some conceptions/perceptions on both sides.

It's happened before.

 

[IceJad]

As a guide. In all criminal cases, a factor to be considered would be the mental capacity of the person in question. Were they able, at the time, to understand that what they were doing was wrong. We can say that generally a twenty eight year old man is capable and an eight year old is generally not. And there's no magic moment when the child wakes up one morning and knows the difference. It's a continuum. We gradually become more aware of the more serious implications of what we do.

Hence an agreed upon threshold was set. No one is denying that people mature at a different rate. It is this different rate that makes standardization hard. How can we ensure that one person's assessment of offenders be consistent across all cases? It is near impossible. Some more strict some might be more lenient.

If the 28 year old had the mental capacity of an 8 year old then we wouldn't expect a conviction. Because we judge each case on its merits. If the 28 year old had the mental capacity of a 15 year old then we'd likewise expect some consideration to be given to that. Especially as it thought to be another ten years before the male adult brain is fully formed.

Bar any mental deficiency (medically certified), one cannot feign immaturity after the legal age IMHO. There is no growing from the mentality of a 15 year old in the body of a 28 year old. You're a 28 year old regardless of how you feel internally. The same should apply to minors. You can't say to a 15 year old that he is more mentally matured to face the judgement of a legal adult.

Having read about the case it is plainly obvious that the kid had some psychological problems. Which were noted, but nothing was done to remedy them. There were problems at home and the parents were partly culpable as they were charged with manslaughter. The parents know of the problems and did nothing. The school knew of problems and did nothing. The kid definitely needed help and didn't get any.

Now he's in for life?

In your honest opinion is what the kid is getting equal to the crime given the known circumstances? For me I'm will stick with a minor should get a minor's punishment. This is a miscarriage of justice. Imagine being 17 not given a chance to rehabilitate, no parole and no considerations - to die of old age in prison. I'm not saying what he did was not horrid. But to live only looking forward to death. Might as well just give him the death sentence and be done with it. What he is getting is nothing short of slow torture. Even his victims got a fast death.

 

[FireDragon76]

Rather than deciding if a 15 year old understands the consequences of his actions the question should be “Does this person present a danger to society?”

I agree. But a sentence of life without parole doesn't allow us to re-evaluate risk to society.