Look at the length of the sentence Robert Chambers just got. Then look at the length of the sentence he got for killing Jennifer Levin. Anyone else think something seems out of whack? It's not surprising, but that sort of makes it all the worse.
Posted by armand at August 12, 2008 11:02 AM | TrackBack | Posted to Law and the CourtsThe article doesn't connect the two, however, and in fairness it should. Implicit in the article and the sentence are factors that absolutely played in to his sentencing: the fact of a prior violent conviction and disciplinary problems behind bars, including issues with drug dealing in jail. His sentence is aggravated to the extent that it is because he's now a habitual criminal. Moreover, 15 years was unusually short for murder, 15 years as the max anyway, and they must have credited significant mitigation evidence in assigning him the limited degree of culpability that sentence reflects.
I'm no fan of our ridiculous drug policies, even after the invalidation of the sentencing guidelines, but it's telling that his girlfriend, who it sounds like is guilty of the same offense he is, basically got treatment and an opportunity to take a non-drug hit with probation at the end of said treatment. Would that more drug offenders got that, but the fact remains, the principal difference between the two appears to be their respective histories.
Posted by: moon at August 12, 2008 01:31 PM | PERMALINK