Kirita Laumua

Criminal Justice 1010

Professor Renckert
November 26, 2014
Punishment and Sentencing
I touched briefly on sentencing in my last paper and I want to focus on that again, but I
want to go more in-depth on this subject. Due to past experiences with the law I have always
wondered what steps and procedures need to be followed when someone is being sentenced. The
textbook states the two reasons why people are sentenced, the deserved inflicted of suffering on
evil doers and the prevention of crime. (Larry K. Gaines, 2013) I agree with why we sentence
people for their crimes, I just dont agree with how we sentence them. I know there needs to set
guide lines and procedures for something this big, but I also know that it is very rare for there to
be multiple cases that are exactly the same, so why wouldnt we have thousands and thousands
of different steps that we follow?
Think of it like a list that branches off, say you committed murder, the judge would look
at the chart for murder. They would then follow each branch on the chart that pertains to this
crime. I in vision this chart to have just about every possible aspects a crime could have. This
would help bring each criminal an accurate sentencing. I believe that some people get sentenced
wrong because our sentencing procedures do not have a structure that has enough variation. In
some cases people who have committed the same crime get sentenced differently because of
small aspects that made the crime committed different.

Im no expert on criminal justice but I just feel like we would have more accurate
sentencing, the crime would most definitely fit the time in this case. By no means am I trying to
say that the people behind our justice system dont know how to do their jobs, because I dont
think that I could do what they do for one second, I just think it would greatly improve
everything about crimes. In my imaginary world this chart would help put the actual bad guys
away for a really long time and maybe even help lower crime rates because criminals would
know that there is a break down and punishment for every little crime a person can committee.
We already have classification for crimes, such as the different types of felonies, different
classes of misdemeanors, and the different types of murders. It is those that I have such a hard
time agreeing with. I understand that there needs to be different actions taken when someone
truly does accidently kill someone, but when someone deliberately kills another person why do
we classify it so many different ways and given the more fortunate people a low charge? I
understand that my argument may seem like Im back tracking and doesnt make sense with my
idea of the branch table I mentioned earlier, but what Im trying to say it that certain crimes
should always have a set minimum sentence if the crime was not a true accident.
If we really were able to have such a table as the branching off one, I would want it to
have a very high minimum sentence for people who purposely kill innocent people. We have
laws that are beneficial to those criminals that do not deserve it. As I have talked about before,
my boyfriends nephew Carter was a victim that did not truly get justice. Jeremey will have a life
after he does his time, Carter never will. We will be celebrating our third Thanksgiving without
Carter tomorrow, and in a few years Jeremy will be out of prison celebrating with his family
while we have yet another holiday without our precious nephew, son, and grandson Where is the
justice in that?

It makes me so angry when I think about how easy Jeremy got off for killing his own
child. Whitney, Carters mom did not have the money to get a lawyer so she had a state appointed
lawyer. She truly believes that he got off so easy because both her and Jeremys lawyer were sick
of how long the trials were taking. Luckily for Jeremy that meant a deal for him, what I dont
understand though is how someone who committed a crime can cut a deal for a lower sentence
and not have to admit to what he had actually done. To this day none of us have ever actually
heard the truth about what happened to Carter. We got bits and pieces from Jeremys initial
statement and from the medical examiner, but not the truth. The worst part about not knowing is
thinking of all of the horrible things that might have happened, I know Whitney plays different
scenarios over and over in her head about what might have happened.
Due to the hardship of losing Carter, she has had an overwhelming sense of fear about
leaving her children with anyone, including family. Whitneys second son, Kayson is about a
year and a half and she is just now getting a job that isnt a stay at home job. How can the courts
not see the injustice here? Carters injuries were horrific, no adult should ever have to sustain the
injuries this four month old baby did. What charge did Jeremy finally get for his inhumane
crime? Involuntary manslaughter.
Involuntary manslaughter covers incidents in which the offenders acts may have been
carless, but she or he had no intent to kill. (Larry K. Gaines, 2013) When you shake, throw, or
hit a baby one time it could be justified as an accident or not having the intent to harm or kill the
child. But when you do it on multiple occasions to the point where the child that has only been
alive for four months has injuries that are healing and nearly healed, how can you say that you
had no intention to harm or kill him? That is what makes me hate how people can be sentenced
so lightly.

I have seen in the news on a number of occasions, someone who was in possession of
drugs get an equal or even longer charge than Jeremy. The textbook has a section about Jeanette
Lawrence, who was a day care owner that had an eight-teen-month-old girl die while in her care.
The little girl had been unsupervised and had gotten her neck caught in between the wooden slats
of a fence, she suffocated. Anytime a child dies its a tragedy, but in this case I do not think
Jeanette was responsible, she was in the wrong for not watching this little girl but she was not the
ultimate cause of this little girls death, which is why I think involuntary manslaughter was the
right charge for her. (Larry K. Gaines, 2013)
Jeremy was Carters sole care giver while Whitney worked during the day, she went to
work each day without a worry in her mind about leaving Carter with Jeremy. Why would she
have a doubt? She was leaving her child with his father, what could possibly go wrong. Later we
learned that just about everything that could go wrong, just about did. You name it and Carter
probably had that injury. His injuries varied all over his body, but they were all internal so
naturally Whitney could not see them when they started to happen. Carters worst injuries were
to his brain, head, and eyes, followed by minor injuries to his ribs.
I want you to now read over these different stories, Avas and Carters, and then I want
you to try to find any reason as to how these two very different cases ended up with the same
sentence. Their crimes were not even the slightest bit similar besides the fact that both resulted in
the loss of a childs life. Jeanette and Jeremy were both reckless with these childrens lives, but
from the facts you can clearly see who deserved the longer sentence.
Murder in the first degree occurs under two circumstances:

1. When the crime is premeditated, or considered (contemplated) beforehand by the

offender, instead of being a spontaneous act of violence.
2. When the crime is deliberate, meaning that it was planned and decided on after a process
of decision making. Deliberate does not require a lengthy planning process. A person can
be found guilty of first degree murder even if she or he made the decision to murder only
seconds before committing the crime. (Larry K. Gaines, 2013)
As I read that all I thought of was Jeremy, he knew each time he hit, shook, and threw
Carter what he was doing to him. If he tried to say he didnt know his actions would end
up killing Carter he was without a doubt lying. All of his actions seem like a
premeditated murder to the T in my eyes. What did the judge see? Why didnt Carters
lawyer fight a little harder?
These are questions I know everyone in my boyfriends family will ask
themselves until the day they die. I wish I could say it gets easier as each day passes
without him, but it doesnt. We all just learn how to better deal with the pain of life
without Carter. Kayson wakes up each day from his naps and points to his brothers
picture and smiles as he yells his name. Whitney has to find a way to explain to her son
that he has an older brother, but he wont ever get the chance to meet him. Where is the
justice in that? We were sentenced to life without Carter, while Jeremy was sentenced to
five to fifteen years. Our family sees this as the courts as only valuing Carters life as five
to fifteen years. Where is our justice.