|
Begging The Question
|
||||
|
Thursday, May 14, 2009
When Terrance Graham was sixteen years old, he was charged with armed burglary and assault and battery arising out of a restaurant robbery where an accomplice hit a victim with a pipe. He was sent to a juvenile detention facility for a year and given a probation term after that. During the probation term he committed another armed robbery. A judge revoked the probation and sentenced Graham to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
When Joe Sullivan was thirteen years old, he and some friends burglarized the home of a 72-year-old woman. The woman was also raped, although Sullivan denied committing that crime. He was tried as an adult, convicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. When Daniel Hood was thirteen years old, he and a seventeen-year-old friend kidnapped Hood's fourteen-year-old cousin. They covered her eyes and mouth with duct tape, wrapped duct tape around her wrists and ankles, and threw her on Hood's bed, using more tape to bind her down. While Hood held her down, his friend raped the girl with a toilet plunger. They eventually let her go. The friend, tried as an adult, is serving a ten-year prison sentence. Hood spent some time in a juvenile detention facility, but was later admitted to a private Catholic high school. There, he excelled as a student and athlete. By all accounts, he has truly reformed himself. The principal of the school said he would stake his school's reputation on Hood. Even the victim of his earlier crime has written letters on his behalf. A few weeks ago, the University of Tennessee offered Hood a football scholarship. The Supreme Court recently agreed to hear appeals of Graham and Sullivan's sentences. Prof. Berman has written about the cases extensively. Hood's case received some coverage in the sports media -- for example, here, here, here, and here. I'm not saying that these cases are indistinguishable. Even the two cases the Supreme Court took seem to have important distinctions. Maybe Graham and Sullivan don't deserve a second (or third) chance. And maybe Hood didn't either. But in considering the cases of Graham and Sullivan, maybe we should keep Hood's case in mind. |
Recent Posts Milbarge's links
How Appealing
Volokh Conspiracy Crescat Sententia Sugar, Mr. Poon? SCOTUSblog E. McPan Southern Appeal Stay of Execution S.W. Va. Law Blog CrimLaw Sentencing L&P Begging to Differ Prettier Than Napoleon Favorable Dicta The Yin Blog De Novo PG: HtSoM Centinel Hot Librarian Blonde Justice Althouse PrawfsBlawg Concurring Opinions Crime & Federalism Orin Kerr Is That Legal? Prof. Bainbridge Frolics & Detours AppellateLaw&Practice Right Coast Abstract Appeal Clearly Erroneous Fresh Pepper? Side Salad The Wishbone Jeremy Blachman Overheard/Office Naked Drinking Coffee Legally Blonde Legal Underground WSJ Law Blog The Slog Trivial Pusuits Still Angry Crooked Timber The Conglomerate Heldman: Ignatz Don't Let's Start Screaming Bean Heidi Bond Stag Blog Legal Quandary Divine Angst ObsessiveLawStudent Things Thrown The Imbroglio Signifying Nothing Stuart Buck Legal Fiction Under. Robes NRO's Corner New Republic Balkinization Election Law Blog Legal Theory Blog Legal Ethics Forum Ernie the Attorney Intel Dump Disability Law Bag & Baggage Between Lawyers Becker-Posner Lessig Blog Crim Prof Blog White Collar Crime Tax Prof Blog Grits for Breakfast All Deliberate Speed Adventures of Chester College Basketball Blog College Football News Nomination Nation Inter Alia Stateline The Note Wonkette The Onion Slate Atlantic RJYH: Fanopticon Freakonomics Vice Squad Indiana Law Blog Field of Schemes Questionable Content Dilbert Blog Toothpaste for Dinner Pathetic Geek Stories AIM: milbargebtq Yahoo: btqmilbarge Milbarge Recommends ![]() Chuck Klosterman IV: A Decade of Curious People and Dangerous Ideas
Site Feeds
Search
Disclaimer The views presented here are personal and in no way reflect the view of my employer. In addition, while legal issues are discussed here from time to time, what you read at BTQ is not legal advice. I am a lawyer, but I am not your lawyer. If you need legal advice, then go see another lawyer. Furthermore, I reserve (and exercise) the right to edit or delete comments without provocation or warning. And just so we're clear, the third-party comments on this blog do not represent my views, nor does the existence of a comments section imply that said comments are endorsed by me. Technical Stuff
| |||