Begging The Question

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Compare and Contrast
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

  • Compare and Contrast
  • Getting an early start on next year's Pulitzer rac...
  • Problem Solved
  • Book Review: Mysteries of the Middle Ages
  • A Tribute
  • Where the elite meet to tweet
  • ...he said
  • Conservatives are from Mars, Liberals are from Ven...
  • Legislating Prosecutorial Discretion
  • Random Thought of the Day


  • 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
    Chuck Klosterman IV: A Decade of Curious People and Dangerous Ideas

    The Men Who Stare at Goats
    The Men Who Stare at Goats

    O.C.M.S.O.C.M.S.



    Site Feeds

    Subscribe with myFeedster
    Subscribe with Bloglines
    Subscribe with Feed Burner
    Subscribe with Blogstreet

    Search
    Google
    Web BTQ
    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

    Powered by Blogger
    FeedBurner.com

    Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com

    Listed on Blogwise
    Blogarama - The Blog Directory
    Creative Commons License
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.



    < A Legally Inclined Weblog >