Post by vomisacaasi on May 27, 2017 0:16:17 GMT
Most of you will not recognize that name. He is the young man, 17 at the time, who with his mothers former boyfriend terrorized the Washington D.C. area for 3 weeks in 2002. He was convicted of murder and other charges in 2003. He was subsequently sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Recently Federal judge ruled that juveniles, those under that age of 18 at the time of their crimes, can not be sentenced to mandatory life sentences as it would be unconstitutional. Falling under the cruel and unusual clause of the of the 8th amendment to the constitution of the United States.
This does not mean that Malvo, now 32, will be released it just means that the state of Virginia will either have to seek a new sentencing hearing or remove the without parole part of his sentence. The Attorney General of Virginia has said they will seek a new hearing and will ask for life in prison. There is a possibility that a jury would not go along with that sentence but it is unlikely.
So a question for you: Considering the heinousness of the crime did the judge to the right thing by throwing out the sentence?
Should someone who is under the age of majority be subject to adult consequences in these situations?
Recently Federal judge ruled that juveniles, those under that age of 18 at the time of their crimes, can not be sentenced to mandatory life sentences as it would be unconstitutional. Falling under the cruel and unusual clause of the of the 8th amendment to the constitution of the United States.
This does not mean that Malvo, now 32, will be released it just means that the state of Virginia will either have to seek a new sentencing hearing or remove the without parole part of his sentence. The Attorney General of Virginia has said they will seek a new hearing and will ask for life in prison. There is a possibility that a jury would not go along with that sentence but it is unlikely.
So a question for you: Considering the heinousness of the crime did the judge to the right thing by throwing out the sentence?
Should someone who is under the age of majority be subject to adult consequences in these situations?