Well folks, we have another murder case, this time it was at a neighborhood barbeque. This even took place in northern California and apparently there had been a feud going on between two families for some time. So rather than talking it out, putting aside differences, signing a peace treaty, 24 year old Orlando Lopez and another guy, 22 year old Paul Braden fire shotguns at the family which kills a four year (Skyler Rapp) old boy and wounds five other individuals including the boy's mother. A mom loses her child, is injured, however, I bet the injury is no where near the pain of losing her child at such a young age. Lopez was handed a 311 year sentence (why not just say life w/o parole?). I don't believe he intentionally killed that child, but I do believe that the motives behind the shooting rampage were probably ridiculous. Now I know some may say the justice system is kind of screwed b/c there are people who kill much more and get a lighter sentence. That's true, and 311 years does seem a bit much when you first hear it. However, I think it's nice that not all judges operate the same and this judge handed a well justified sentence. So why argue about that, the point is a child died, a mom lost her child all because of a feud between two families. What do you think? Was the sentence a bit harsh? Do you think it was justified? Why?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/09/orlando-lopez-sentenced_n_1761067.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003
I think it's important for us to remember that the sentences aren't just for punishment of the crime committed, but also as deterrent against anyone else committing one as well. It's hard to make the punishment fit the crime since each one is separate unto itself.
ReplyDeleteThat's what it sounded like from the article, because the judge said that it was callous as she handed down the sentence. I guess it's a making an example of out him to reduce the likelihood that someone else would do the same thing.
ReplyDelete