Replies

I don't doubt that he's a scumbag; however, he should only have been sentenced for and served time for things he's actually been convicted of.

The law that existed at the time he was convicted allowed for a life sentence. Once the criminal has been convicted the judge or jury can take lots of other information into account when sentencing. The fact that this wasn't his first conviction was probably a pretty big consideration in getting the maximum sentence.

I'm sure that if the same crime had been committed today he would have been convicted of attempted capital murder and DNA evidence would have been used to prove he was the one who assalted the 87 year old woman. I bet the prosecutor didn't want to have to put her on the witness stand. I see no reason why his sentence should have been lowered especially considering his behavior in prison.

But the fact is that he wasn't convicted of assault, let alone attempted murder. (And he certainly shouldn't be convicted on the basis of what a witness might have said.) He was convicted of 2nd degree burglary. If the sentence for that crime has since been reduced, then his sentence should have been reduced. What he did in prison is irrelevant. He wouldn't have been in prison to have all of those behavioral problems had the sentence been reduced.