I have a hard enough time accepting this ruling and he didn't kill my family. I cannot imagine the pain and suffering that this decision will do to the relatives of the Bramblett's. It's like having to go through the loss all over again.
This happens every day in America. Shameful, to be sure, but our justice system is horribly flawed.No words. I have no words.
When (not if) he harms someone else, I hope the judge will address his logic.
I see it differently, Dub. So I’m curious...why do you think youthful offender status is the right treatment in this case?Youthful offender status is appropriate here. The main problem with it is that judges apply it arbitrarily and capriciously.
This is, IMO, the exact scenario for which the statue needs to exist. He was 16 and is only 18 now. Yeah, he's a screw up, sheltered from the consequences of his actions by his affluence and the like, as many kids from families with means are, but it's not too late. We can either cast him aside or we can hope he is rehabilitated.I see it differently, Dub. So I’m curious...why do you think youthful offender status is the right treatment in this case?
If that statute is not automatically applied to all youthful offenders, it shouldn't exist. If my son had done this he would be charged as an adult. That I can guarantee.This is, IMO, the exact scenario for which the statue needs to exist. He was 16 and is only 18 now. Yeah, he's a screw up, sheltered from the consequences of his actions by his affluence and the like, as many kids from families with means are, but it's not too late. We can either cast him aside or we can hope he is rehabilitated.
The problem with the statute, is again, arbitrary and capricious application. It isn't applied enough. Not to get too political, but the stats are pretty clear. Boys are more likely to be tried as adults than girls, poor kids are more likely to be tried as adults than rich kids, random kids are more likely to be tried as adults than kids from influential families and minority kids are more likely to be tried as adults than white kids. He gets the benefit of a doubt that other kids that don't share his background should.
Let’s compromise: we will start mandatory youthful offender AFTER we throw this kid under the bus.This is, IMO, the exact scenario for which the statue needs to exist. He was 16 and is only 18 now. Yeah, he's a screw up, sheltered from the consequences of his actions by his affluence and the like, as many kids from families with means are, but it's not too late. We can either cast him aside or we can hope he is rehabilitated.
The problem with the statute, is again, arbitrary and capricious application. It isn't applied enough. Not to get too political, but the stats are pretty clear. Boys are more likely to be tried as adults than girls, poor kids are more likely to be tried as adults than rich kids, random kids are more likely to be tried as adults than kids from influential families and minority kids are more likely to be tried as adults than white kids. He gets the benefit of a doubt that other kids that don't share his background should.
Well, I see your point on uneven application, but would offer a different solution. Your solution would be to give YO status to everybody under 18, or whatever the age cutoff is.This is, IMO, the exact scenario for which the statue needs to exist. He was 16 and is only 18 now. Yeah, he's a screw up, sheltered from the consequences of his actions by his affluence and the like, as many kids from families with means are, but it's not too late. We can either cast him aside or we can hope he is rehabilitated.
The problem with the statute, is again, arbitrary and capricious application. It isn't applied enough. Not to get too political, but the stats are pretty clear. Boys are more likely to be tried as adults than girls, poor kids are more likely to be tried as adults than rich kids, random kids are more likely to be tried as adults than kids from influential families and minority kids are more likely to be tried as adults than white kids. He gets the benefit of a doubt that other kids that don't share his background should.
There's a reason it was this retired judge from Dale county and not someone from the Lee county circuit. All of the Lee county judges recused themselves to avoid even the slightest appearance of conflict of interest.I would like to see this judge’s history with YO rulings.
Why was it a retired judge? Why not simply change the venue? That's actually a thing in the criminal justice system.There's a reason it was this retired judge from Dale county and not someone from the Lee county circuit. All of the Lee county judges recused themselves to avoid even the slightest appearance of conflict of interest.
Not that this is not a serious subject, but I wanted to inquire as to why this thread is still in the football forum. The last several post have nothing to do with football.
It started here, involves people who were part of the AU football program, and it's the off-season, when we're typically a bit more lax about these things...Should be moved to the NS Board...
I don't get the issue with it being on the football board. As CA said, it started here and the Brambletts were a part of the AU football program. It isn't hard to scroll past to other topics. I have been around long enough to know that this board is top notch and ran very well. The Mods are the Sabans of message boards. Trust their process.Not that this is not a serious subject, but I wanted to inquire as to why this thread is still in the football forum. The last several post have nothing to do with football.
ETA: I am not implying anything or attacking you. I am just saying they would have moved it if they felt it needed moved. Roll Tide.I don't get the issue with it being on the football board. As CA said, it started here and the Brambletts were a part of the AU football program. It isn't hard to scroll past to other topics. I have been around long enough to know that this board is top notch and ran very well. The Mods are the Sabans of message boards. Trust their process.
Youthful offender status can go up to age 21. It certainly should be applied to all young people 18 or younger. Ages 19 to 21 would require judgement.This is, IMO, the exact scenario for which the statue needs to exist. He was 16 and is only 18 now. Yeah, he's a screw up, sheltered from the consequences of his actions by his affluence and the like, as many kids from families with means are, but it's not too late. We can either cast him aside or we can hope he is rehabilitated.
The problem with the statute, is again, arbitrary and capricious application. It isn't applied enough. Not to get too political, but the stats are pretty clear. Boys are more likely to be tried as adults than girls, poor kids are more likely to be tried as adults than rich kids, random kids are more likely to be tried as adults than kids from influential families and minority kids are more likely to be tried as adults than white kids. He gets the benefit of a doubt that other kids that don't share his background should.