How victims rights impact U.S. criminal justice
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ก.พ. 2025
- The criminal justice system’s attention to victims was born of the victim’s rights movement. In 1982, President Ronald Reagan convened a task force on crime victims that urged states to pass a wide range of more protections, like the right to be heard.
✍️: Beth Schwartzapfel & 🎥: Chris Vazquez / The Marshall Project
That reminds me of how Norway's prison time system works. The terrorist who bombed a building in Oslo and then went on a gun spree on an island full of kids was sentenced to the maximum of 21 years. That's crazy, right? No, because every time he has served 21 years, court will then have full authority to decide whether or not he is safe to release into society. In other words he will be re-sentenced every 21 years until he dies. He's never getting out.
im more so disgusted bu the way he is treated in prison, it is crazy it is hard to even call a punishment
@snipergangdrob5940 Sure. We don't really do "punishment" for prisons though. They aren't built for it. They're built with the purpose of keeping dangerous people away from the public, and if possible, reform the person entirely back to an upstanding citizen. To the system's credit, there is a high success rate and a low re-offense rate. People very often leave wanting to be good people and turn things around. In a lot of cases they are desperate to put more good into the world than they did wrong. But there are also people who can never change. It's very unfortunate.
@@TheInstinctWithinV2 yeah but at what point is it obviously never going to happen.
@@snipergangdrob5940what isn't gpnna happen. In nordics countries repeat offending is one Of The smallest, cause we don't only punish, but rehabilate
@@snipergangdrob5940just because the American prison system sucks doesn’t mean all of them do, don’t act brainwashed
My experience with the courts is that they really like the Victims Rights idea until the victim goes against what the prosecution wants. I got robbed a few years ago, and they were in contact with me about making a statement and possibly speaking at the trial. When I said I didn’t think they should go to prison I never heard back from anyone again.
Coward
Well if they don’t have a chance of going to jail then it’s a civil issue, screwed yourself bud
@@cheesedoesgaming6088That’s not how any of that works.
@@pardontheopinion8679Yep.
that's not how the law works. It's very black and white. Your impact statement is ONLY to help increase a sentence not decrease it or dismiss it. That would leave all victims of crime open to blackmail by their perpetrator.
I support victims rights but unfortunately the system just uses it to support the prosecution and doesn’t actually listen to victims families insights into the case. When victims families want the killer released or not executed because that’s what their loved one would want or they know the context was complicated, the course never listen to them then.
Indeed
If I were a victim I would want 20% of their forced labor money that the prisons are profiting from.
And that's a good thing. No same person would want a murderer to roam the streets again.
@@thotslayer6946 way to screw around every possible nuance you could have taken into account
@@mckennadevore8692 So you want murderers to face no punishment for their actions? Actually, let me rephrase that, because being given free food, water, shelter, and clothes isn't a punishment. You want a murderer to come back into society? Why? Do you want more people to be murdered, because that's the only logical reason you would want them to be released.
My grandparents were murdered by the armed boyfriend of a relative who came to freeload from out of state and got mad when they were asked to leave. Another 15yo relative had also been with them and was charged and convicted for helping to hide their bodies afterwards.
WTF was a 15yo supposed to do in that situation????? I have kids that age now, all I would want is for them to survive. Who the hell expected this kid to stand up to an armed adult? Their murderer should have also faced child abuse charges.
This. You'd think the law would understand people being scared for their life, but no. Unfortunately it often doesn't. There's a very famous case of a poor young girl who was sex trafficked, abuses and assaulted by God knows how many men, and to get away she killed her kidnapper. SHE is the one who went to jail..... that's the moment I lost faith in the system. Like you said, they're just thinking about how to survive :(
Sorry for your loss. I feel bad that something that happened for a short time when he was 15, scared for his life, cost him the rest of his life
What the law would expect is for the 15 year old to contact the police when it would be safe for them to do so. I'm guessing that didn't happen.
Police would probably do the wrong thing anyway.
@@heehoopeanut420where did this occur
Also i assume she either didnt have a even decent lawyer or self incriminated herself alot
Why do they always pick the absolute worst examples for this?
Why is it always "Dude just randomly murdered him in his sleep" Or "Dude was found weeks later with a body in pieces in his fridge"
Honestly, I don't even know what they're trying to say with this video. The ending makes zero sense no matter how much I think about it.
@@seigeengine, and yet you comment, a lot. Next time, don't spam me.
Because the government that put that policy into place wants us to think about it and come to the same conclusion as that government
The victim impact statement happens after a verdict on guilt. So if they are making a statement, it's because the defendant is already guilty.
No, it is because they were ruled guilty. It doesn’t mean they actually are.
I was in an accident caused by a drunk truck driver and was asked to make a statement about sentencing. I told them that it was too difficult for me. He was lucky as hell that somehow my family and I did not die or sustain any serious injuries and that he should be punished as much as if he had actually killed someone. At the same time, I knew that I had too much anger and rage and that it was the judge's job to decide what the proper penalty would be to bring about justice.
The issue is that you shouldn't be allowed to make any statement of the sort.
Even if one might argue the victim's opinions may give some amount of insight in some cases, that doesn't apply to being hit by a drunk truck driver.
@@seigeengine I have no idea what you are trying to say. And perhaps you also might not know. I am simply saying that as a victim of a crime who was asked by the District Attorney to make a statement to the court about the sentencing after the conviction I wish that I really have mixed feelings and don't think that for me it was particularly helpful.
The thing about victims rights is that the existing systems should be taking their choice and experiences into account, but they don't want to. Making it legally mandatory to do so it's the only way to get these systems to actually work the way they're supposed to.
You don't get it, do you? You can't legislate away crime. As long as there are people there will be crimes. Punishment work some time, but not all the time.
@@krane15 Capital punishment prevents recidivism 100% of the time.
@@theodoremccarthy4438 In reality it makes crime worse. Because juries convict less often if the death penalty is the punishment t
No they shouldnt. The law ia the law. What the victim thinks doesnt have bearing really.
@@jhoughjr1 are you ancient chinese perhaps? Cause you worship the law like those thousand years ago old bones do.
The uncomfortable tone she had when she had to acknowledge ronald reagan lol.
The millisecond of pause was hilarious
???? That’s how you speak?????? She was pausing at a comma????
Exceedingly rare Reagan W. Even then this is almost always used to increase punishments. If the victim wants less punishment it is almost always ignored
@@gavintantleffHe's talking about after "by"
@@alexthewrecker4666probably his only one
If the prison system actually rehabilitated people, maybe more people wouldn't be adverse to letting someone out
That's the prisoners responsibility. You can't rehabilitate people that don't want to be rehabilitated.
@@curiouser-and-curiouserthe prison system is designed to create reoffenders, rehabilitation is a myth in a nation with for profit prisons
@@paleoleft No it isn't.
As soon as certain people stop breaking the law, they will manage to stay out of jail.
@@teebob21 the prison system isolates an individual even after their sentence ends. primarily via employment discrimination, which causes ex cons to require illegal income to survive. The reoffender rate is artificially inflated by the unnecessary additional trials we put recovering convicts through
Idk why people defend for profit prisons so much the fact that they purposely make the food bad so they are more likely to buy food from the commissary is just insane so more people need to work for ¢25 an hour
The parole board literally disregarded the victim's family and paroled Jake Wideman. So, how is this an issue with victims' rights?
Failed to point out that after Wideman got out after 30 years, he hired a PI to track down the family of his victim.
The sole point of the trial is to demonstrate the state has sufficient cause to oppress the rights of the accused. Anything that distracts from that is prejudice against the defendant. The prosecution doesn’t need nor should receive any kind of advantage, it already has the unlimited resources of the state.
The victim is only a party in so far as they are a fact witness, or an evidentiary entry. Their rights are not in danger and require no protection.
Victims voice has a place, and its at sentancing. The jury's responsibility is to determine what happened not how bad what happened was
Parole boards are complicated bc you have both the determination of fact, is the person in an appropriate state to be realeased, and what the ounishment should be moving forward
These two aspects should be segregated and the victims voice should only be heard in the latter
@@daniwalmsley611 well said.
@@daniwalmsley611 it really shouldn't. You don't want to make it dependent on how forgiving the victim feels that day
@@anna-flora999 I get that, but in order to give a fair sentence you need to account for the physical and emotional damage caused. And parole is a reduction in sentence, and the impact on the victim also matters here too, it's essentially sentancing 2.0
How forgiving a vicitim is, is directly linked to the criminals actions. You do something horrific but had an understandable motive the victim is more likely to be forgiving
Finally, part of a paroles board job is to judge risk/harm to the community by releasing a prisoner early, traumatising the victim(s) more is undoubtedly harm to the community and should be ccconsidered.
How much weight the victims opinions should be guven is a different conversation and if they should be allowed to advocate for a specifc sentance or only talk about their experiences is again a different question
@@daniwalmsley611 how forgiving the victim is is only partially dependent on the crime. You could have an extremely forgiving person surviving a heinous crime and still advocate mercy, and you could have someone be the victim of a way less serious crime but demand the worst retribution possible.
And if we're talking about causing damage to the community just by granting parole because of emotional damage to the victim, then we'd also have to consider emotional damage caused to the family of the criminal, too. They are (most likely) also innocent, so why should be force them to endure more pain for the sake of someone else?
Finally, the emotional and other damage caused to the victim is supposed to be taken care of in civil trials by suing for damages beyond the basic aspect of criminal punishment. A parole board's job is to judge risk/harm to the community and public at large, not specifically towards the victims, unless they determine the criminal would actively seek to cause further damage.
Victims' rights should be about things like if newspapers or similar publications are allowed to publish the names of the victims. For example, my personal stance is that they should not unless extreme circumstances make it neccesary. The same goes for criminals, though
I was thinking that the “victims rights” would be things like having personal medical information redacted and sealed not getting to demand their revenge fantasies
You can review sentencing orders from many jurisdictions online for free. Most identify the same “theories of punishment” that underpin US criminal justice: (1) General deterrence, (2) specific deterrence, (3) incapacitation, and (4) retribution-often referred to by judges as “just punishment.” Victim impact statements fall squarely into category 4, with some associations with categories 1 and 2.
Victim statements can be useful in assessing the severity of a crime, as factual findings at trial often focus squarely on proving culpability and rarely on impact. Impact isn’t necessary, and can easily be too prejudicial for a jury to fairly assess at the culpability stage. With this understanding, it’s difficult to see how victim statements are “revenge fantasies.” Juries ultimately assess culpability, often without hearing any unduly prejudicial info, and judges ultimately determine sentences based on all 4 theories I outlined above. Victim statements can help judges make better decisions based on pertinent info, VR reforms do not otherwise incorporate victims’ preferences into the process.
Ya reconciliation is difficult when it comes to murder. A murderer always has a non-zero possibility of living outside of a prison again, their victim doesn't have a non-zero possibility of not being dead.
Ya reconciliation is always possible. People make mistakes and seeking revenge will never bring the victim back to life.
@@BadgerOfTheSea Your so wrong, that opinion itself should be regarded as complicit and criminal
@@BadgerOfTheSea it’s not about bringing people back, it’s about justice
Actions have consequences
Our court system all too often protects criminals and punishes victims.
All cheered on by people like you
@@BadgerOfTheSeaJacob killed Eric in his sleep. Witnesses had claimed that he was seen sharpening the hunting knife he used to stab Eric to death multiple days before the murder. After killing Eric, he ran.
@@joestendel1111 I personally don't think our prisons should operate as state mandated revenge facilities. Also, if you knew anything about the American justice system, then you'd know that criminals and even ex convicts are treated terribly, and have to claw and scratch for any amount of protection.
Jacob Wideman stabbed Eric Kane multiple times in his sleep, for no reason. He was already given the chance of parole, but he violated said parole in less than 6 months. The only reason anyone care about this particular case is that Jacob has a famous Dad, John Edgar Wideman.
Maybe next time, try to cover all of the facts.
If they were honest then people would not agree with them. Sort of defeats their purpose. It's propaganda, not education, get with the program.
@@karatosYou sound like someone who has only just found out what propoganda is
That doesn't change anything about what they said though. The point they are making is that the victim's parent's shouldn't have final say on future parole. Also, who tf is John Edgar Wideman? Literally never heard of him but ok he is the only reason I know about this apparently lol.
@@BadgerOfTheSea " the victim's parent's shouldn't have final say on future parole." And they don't. Just because they are allowed to be there and talk doesn't mean they have a final say at all.
@@BadgerOfTheSeathe victims and their family should have a say. The criminals don’t owe the debt to society they owe it to their victims plain and simple.
The change in her tone when she said Ronald Reagan's name. 😂
It's clearly included because people who are very conservative what assume that a liberal would have come up with such a thing when it's really important to point out that it was the conservatives who came up with that themselves. Ie, they used to care.
@@DembaiVT It's not about caring, it's about increasing punishment. A classic conservative tactic to appeal to the sort of people who vote for them. It's dressed up as being about helping victims, but as others have said here, they're only interested in victims who want incarceration, not forgiveness.
They've never cared, about anything but cynical and manipulative ways of getting votes, while still serving the rich and powerful at the expense of the common man. They can't appeal to the common man by spending money on society's needs, so they increase the fear of crime, even as crime has fallen historically, then tell voters that only they can save them from this tide of anarchy and lawlessness.
Of course, there's also the enormous private prison industry. They lobby for things like this simply because more people in prison = more money, better share price.
@@DembaiVT neither side of the political spectrum cares. They’re both full of people who just tried to pander to one side or the other other.
@@dragon44048 Except one side is courting white supremacists and the other is not.
@@greenaum Kinda sounds like you are projecting. Dems dress up their pandering as compassion. They PRETEND like they care but they never do. They use tragedies as a way to manipulate people into helping them win elections. To put it another way, they lie and drum up "hot topics" and then take the side they think sounds good and then declares they will fix this injustice. Proof? Any place where Dems are allowed to proliferate is a hell hole. I give you Commifornia and New York, places where they said they would clean up crime and homelessness and make schools better. I think we all know that was never going to happen.
From experience if the victims are at the parole hearing and don’t want them to get parole .. it’s getting denied 100%
Justice should be about the victims of the crime.
Incorrect.
I listened to the entirety of Violation and oh my god. It was the most insane thing I have ever listened to. From the inconsistency’s in court and the inconsistency’s in stories the whole case is crazy from top to bottom. I would 100% check out that podcast if your a fan of true crime podcasts and looking in depth at one story at a time similar to Serial. Have a great day!
A child shouldn't have to spend their entire life in prison unless there is some sort of intractable violent psychopathy. Our punitive justice system does little to help anyone.
And even then there should be at least an attempt at rehabilitation in psych ward if it’s something like this
@@ShiloLasVegas87hahahahha you think that that's monstrous? How sheltered you must be. He was a kid too, and people don't tend to commit crimes for no reason. So long as he pays the time he is due, there is no reason why he shouldn't be rehabilitated and integrated into society. It's serial offenders that we need to be more concerned about.
@@ShiloLasVegas87when also a child himself. Rarely are things so clear cut without analysis of how and why he did what he did. And even if he did what he did, how decades behind bars or with proper psychological analysis or care would change that individual.
@@otaku3OBSESSION that is monstrous, just because there is worst it does not change that. How native can you you be? Well the problem with your argument how do we truly know someone is “rehabilitated”? Who lives are u willing to risk to test that out? And who decide what times is “due” for example the current life sentence term is 20 years..in your mind is that what the victims value only worth? It’s just not that simple.
@@tomjeff1866 the value of a victim’s life doesn’t matter at all, what matters is stopping things like that from happening again, which is why we have to rehabilitate people and not seek revenge like cavemen
Long story short, don’t kill people.
It's don't get caught actually
Also don't value others people's stuff more than your own life . Assume every home is occupied and armed.
I mean, that has nothing to do with what we're discussing, but sure.
@@seigeengine, actually, it does. Do you know what the case in question is about?
@@seigeengine ppl complaining that he spent to damn long in prison, while the victim family will never have their son back. As this man misses a lot in life so does the victim and his family. To me it’s fair. So long story short, don’t kill people. It doesn’t just take the life of another but from yourself as well.
The irony of this short is that Jake Wideman _was_ set free by a parole board! It was his _violation of parole_ that got him sent back to prison!
So, how is this about "victims' rights"? It should be about "parole violations".
Wow a criminal commits more crime when free ? Call me dumbfounded 😂
@@HeHasRisen. , right! These apologists are insane.
Possibly because this is a video about victims rights? You appear to be struggling to understand the obvious.
@@seigeengine, did you _watch_ the video? Did you _comprehend_ what they said? They are blaming "victims' rights" for the ordeal that Jake Wideman put _himself_ into.
Try to keep up, dummy.
@@seigeengine, explain how you think "victims' rights" apply to this situation.
He was _not_ prevented from getting paroled, _in spite of_ the requests by the parents of the dead child. With this in mind, go on...
Doesn’t the concept of “victims’ rights” go against the concept of an impartial jury? Why would people advocate for that?
The idea of an impartial jury is that the jury doesn’t have any conflicts of interest in the case to begin with. How dumb do you have to be to think that we would want jurors to be impartial through the whole trial?
@@frankdevo5715 because we do want them to be impartial throughout. They're supposed to decide based on the facts of the case, not emotional appeals, or who they like more.
@@frankdevo5715 explain why having victims be part of the prosecution or sentencing of a defendant is not a conflict of interest
@@han090 This is particularly hilarious in reference to this particular case because of the overwhelming evidence and guilty plea.
There was never even a jury in this case because this little psychopath plead guilty.
@@frankdevo5715 this isn’t about the particular case, stop deflecting
Just because the victims have a voice doesn't mean it's always obeyed. It's important that they have one though.
Why tho?
Why have a fundamental bias voice introduced into what ideally should be a fair an impartial legal system? The legal system should not be about getting revenge for the victims
I'm probably too sensitive about this, but my uncle was murdered when he was nineteen. The pain never goes away for the family. It's enraging to know that a person decided to steal his life from him just because he thought my uncle was annoying.
I wouldn't spit on that man if he was on fire. I sometimes find myself honestly hoping something devastating happens to the murderer.
I don't believe you can reconcile or make amends when you've chosen to take someone's life from them. Your upset because your in prison for the rest of your life and feel like it's been taken from you? At least your still alive.
My uncle will never get to laugh again, smile again, love again.
He'll never get to play and bond with his nieces and nephews.
He'll never get to fall in love or have kids of his own.
He'll never get to be an actual adult with a job and home.
He'll never get to go to a concert again. He'll never play basketball again.
He'll never hang out with his siblings again.
He'll never listen to Free Bird again.
He'll never get to eat his favorite food again.
He'll never got to do ANYTHING ever again.
I dont know what to say, it's not okay that your uncle was killed, and it never will be. But he is dead, he can never suffer ever again. But the killer is a real live human person. And you don't have to give a shit whether he lives or dies, but punishing him will never bring justice, only more pain to him which does nothing but force others to be in a situation where they have to be cruel to him and others for no real positive outcome.
@@christiangrant2931Well one way to punish him is to restrict his freedom so that he never ends another life the same way.
Then that should have been in the original sentence, the family should have zero say in parole
@@1Celebrindor Why not? Why should the aggrieved party not have some say in the punishment? What even justice is it if the victims are irrelevant?
I ain’t reading all that
The problem is, the defense lawyer would dig up every bad thing the victim did, while getting every bad thing the criminal did, suppressed.
Thats their job it is the states job to do the opposite
A good lawyer will get anything not related to the current case thrown out before the jury ever hears it. Once again, money gets you justice, not the law.
And the prosecution does the opposite, so what's the problem?
The victim cannot get a parole hearing and come back to life.
punishment for a crime, should not be about revenge.
The guy killed another young man for absolutely no reason, while the victim was asleep and unable to defend himself, stole a car and money, then fled.
Even today, he can't say why he stabbed the kid twice in the chest while the kid was asleep...
And you want sympathy for the killer?
If he couldn't help stabbing someone innocent in their sleep, then he is a monster.
It wasn't a mistake, an accident or a heat of the moment incident... It was cold, cruel and pointless... The family has every reason not to want someone capable of that released into society.
Unless there is an indication that they’d do it again I see no reason for them not to be let back into society
They were both kids.
@turkleton4783 being a kid does not excuses murder, this is not South Korea l.
@@kylerook no one is excusing murder
@@gamakujira64e23Well he was released on parole in 2023 and then evaded psychologist meetings and was sent directly back to prison.
We dont let the victims decide punishment for a reason. They shouldnt be involved with deciding if someone gets paroled
He stabbed a 16 year old in the chest while he was sleeping and looted his corpse to take his money and car keys, I don't care how sorry he feels, imagine how painful it is for the family to know their son didn't even make it to 18.
@@drillbit6532 youre ignoring he was also 16, you dont expect a litteral child to act rational, he most likely commited this because of how he was raised but that can change, no one deserves to have to live all their life in prison for what they did when they litteraly didnt even have a fully formed brain
@@drillbit6532And keeping him in prison won’t bring their son back. If he’s genuinely not a danger to society, keeping him in prison on the taxpayers dime for something he hid as a teenager is bad for everyone except the victims parents feelings. I don’t know the details of this case and how much the parents of the victim have actually influenced the outcome of parole hearings. But there does need to be a limit to how much one family can influence the sentencing of a case.
@@drillbit6532Yes, and he deserves punishment. The appropriate punishment should be decided by an impartial third party (ideally a jury of his peers), based on the facts of the case, not by a hysterical couple grieving the loss of their child.
@@drillbit6532this is just a loophole for unequal application of the law. Any other person whose family is capable of forgiving would be given parole, but because of this family’s feelings he doesn’t get it?
Revenge shouldn't dictate justice, parole should be based on the legal process.
Justice and revenge are the same thing One just legal and are only way of getting revenge
Someone took my kids life from me and I didn't get it watch them grow up didn't sure as shit I'm going to make sure that they don't get a life either if I have to drive All the way across the United States to where they put him in prison just to make sure he doesn't get out bet your ass I would
You can let him out when the victim lives
Leniency on criminals is cruelty to the victims.
No, it's just good public policy. Criminal justice should be able PREVENTION and REHABILITATION, not revenge. We should focus on turning criminals into better people, not making them suffer.
@@ajm5007 That's honestly the part people just ignore. Most people in prison...get out. Maybe try to improve their lives instead of making it worse so when they inevitably get out, they don't make society worse?
But undo cruelty to the criminal is not justice for the victim, either. I'm not saying that he shouldn't be in jail, just that it's not going to bring the deceased back. And if we're going to pretend we want rehabilitative justice then we have to create policies that allow for someone to be rehabilitated
@@ajm5007, prison is punishment for the crime, not prevention and rehabilitation. Maybe we _should_ change it to that.
Factually incorrect.
What specific qualities of a murderer's life make it worth more than the person they killed?
He took someone's right to exist. He has that.
He also still has his own existence. He has both.
On top of that, he somehow deserves the freedom that comes with parole?
Regardless of how his parole hearing goes, his life is much richer than the unfortunate life he took.
Why are you trying to compare the value of people's lives? That literally has nothing to do with anything.
@@seigeengine, why doesn't it matter? Do you have a point? Why are you commenting on every post? Are you trying to fight all the comments?
He was released to house arrest, broke his parole, and was sent back to prison. Arguing for this guy is insane, he killed a teenager in cold blood. The parents of the victim deserve justice.
To be fair, his breaking parole was just him refusing to get therapy. It’s not like he did something like break the law or do something violent.
I’m not saying that that shouldn’t have gotten him back in prison; I’m just adding some detail and nuance that some might consider important and relevant regarding the potential for future parole.
@@brianhull2407 Smaller infractions are worse. It should be simple to meet parole obligations like sobreity, housing, or in this case therapy.
Justice is subjective.
Is it just for someone to be locked away for their entire life due to an action they made at an age where most people barely know what they're doing socially ( let alone life wise which constantly changes).
Is it Just that they lose any chance at normalcy not because of their actions, but because the parents of the victim just want him to suffer and never find improvement outside of superficial knowledge.
You know the creator didn't say this guy *should* go free, just that people (like Jake) are less likely to get out of prison and rejoin society as a result of victim's rights.
If punitive justice is your cup of tea, then this is all good news to you, you've just been informed on how it works.
Personally though, I believe people can change, and we should change our justice system to better facilitate that. From that lens, our current understanding of victims rights is one of many barriers, and may keep people locked away for far longer than necessary.
You realize "breaking your parole" can include things like getting a drink at a bar right? Also most people age out of violent crimes. Your acting like this guy got out of prison and then immediately killed someone else.
I listened to that podcast from beginning to end. It was absolutely riveting and now I know the face behind it.
I have very conflicting feelings about Jake. I found him a bit. Narcissistic but again, that's through a podcast. I've never met the guy.
The fact that they violated him on nothing more than a therapist not calling back in time, that is not okay. The canes should have absolutely no sway over a therapist inability to call back on time. He spent months on the outside walking a very narrow line and did absolutely nothing wrong, while on parole.
Fascinating story. I really hope that he gets another opportunity soon. He's been back in for at least 4 years because a therapist didn't call him back in time.
You know how you avoid having someone speak at your parole hearing? Don’t murder a kid.
They're right. You can't serve enough time in prison to reconcile murder.
The point of putting people in prison isn't to reconcile their offense.
@@seigeengine, tell us what _you_ think putting someone into prison is for.
#YouAreAFuckingRetard
@@seigeengine You can call it discipline, reform, atonement, whatever you like. There's a lot of names for it in criminal justice theory. And none of them actually work.
@@frag_g You could, but you'd be wrong.
The point of putting people in prison is to remove someone deemed too dangerous to be in the general public from the general public.
There are basically two cases: a private vs public state.
In a "private state" the function of society is to produce wealth for the ruler class to extract. In such a society, imprisoning people is far more desirable as a tool of power, and possibly a tool of productivity, such as via slave labor. See: soviet gulags. Private states also have only a modest desire to reduce crime, unless the crime threatens the extraction of the wealth for the rulers, so taking measures to prevent crime is not a priority. These societies often make it harder for criminals to become upstanding members of society.
In a "public state" the function of society is to maximize it's own well-being. In such a society, imprisoning people is bad, because it costs resources, decreases the available workforce, and because concentrating criminals tends to make minor criminals into major criminals. In such a state, you'd want to avoid putting people in prison unless absolutely necessary, and you'd want to engineer your prison system to transform criminals into upstanding members of society as quickly and permanently as possible. You'd also prioritize effective crime prevention and integration back into society.
@@seigeengine The text book answer is retribution, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and restoration.
Move along.
YOU KILLED A 16 YEAR OLD why tf should you be let free? This isn’t I robbed a store or commuted insurance fraud you robbed them of life, memories, and everything else that a potential future holds no amount of apologies or amends will make up for that!
Nobody is saying that he should be let free, this is just an example, a clear cut one. But there are more gray and not as clear cut situations out there
@@Irreverent_Radiation but it’s presented as this guy wants to get out but keeps being denied Because of victim impact statements. I understand there’s more gray areas but those are usually when cops fail to properly investigate and they have the wrong guy on the stand to begin with. I don’t see many “grey” cases whose outcome was tied directly to victim impact statements. Because they’re not read until sentencing.
@@Bear38-u7l I agree this is an absolutely terrible example. A better one would be a guy that got sentenced to 20 years for stealing a car, even though the victim said it was excessive, I believe.
@@Irreverent_Radiation yes I agree. There is defiantly a proportion of cases where if the victim statements are for support of a lighter sentences they’re ignored. I don’t think that’s an issue with the concept itself so much as sentencing mandated and judges.
@@Bear38-u7l I agree with that as well
"Oh no. It's the consequences of my actions."
"Oh no. I'm a vapid drone and am only capable of making sassy comments using stock lines instead of engaging meaningfully and earnestly with anything."
@@seigeengine what is there to engage? Scumbags should be held accountable for their crimes and habitual liars shouldn't be given the opportunity to weasel their way out of paying for their crimes so they can get out and commit new ones.
@@redclayscholar620, he's a troll. What's funny is he asked me to "not spam him" when he dropped 100+ comments on the thread.
@@seigeengine, you are a vapid drone who has no real input. Thank you for this admission.
It’s a complex problem, one that means the totality has to be examined and that can disappoint the victim and or the offender. Everything needs to come into play, victim statements, conduct in custody, the offender’s statement and his family’s statements. No matter what the decision is hard
That's why we should not change victims' rights.
Welcome to the realities of the system we live in. Read the fine print, write the living truth, speak kindly to your neighbors, walk softly, and always remember to carry that big stick my friends.
Also saying "sentencing a minor to death for cold-blooded murder is unconstitutional" is total bs
There is no reconciliation for murdering a child. There is no making amends. He stole a life he stole legacy, and he stole any semblance of joy. Those people were to ever know.
Yup, the problem appears when the prosecution decides to ignore the victim's voice because they believe the punishment is way too severe, like 20 years from attempting to steal a car.
Note how the fascists want to call the victim a child while ignoring the victimizer was the same age.
@@seigeengine, you mean the sociopathic murderer? Yes, the sociopathic murderer was the same age as his victim. He should rot in prison, since he won't get death.
Sorry, but nah. Legacy means shit and there's plenty of joy to be had outside of having a kid.
@@bluedragonfly8139, WTF are you saying? You think that someone who murdered a teen in his sleep should be set free?
moral high horse behavior. Guaranteed neither of these people would be talking like this is they had to go through it
God help us.
So, a little background on the horrible treatment of Jacob
The Judge on the case recommended that he not be paroled
The only reason he did not get the death penalty is that he plead guilty
He was also convicted of two counts of theft
And in laramie wyoming, he was also charged with the first degree murder of 23yo shelli wiley, who he also stabbed before setting fire to her apartment
He set fire to an apartment, putting more lives at risk.
And his uncle was serving life sentence for murder at the time of his conviction.
He can stay in prison.
If you take somebody's son and their parents don't feel like forgiving you, then tough shit you stay in prison.
The government should not be denying people's rights based upon individual's emotions.
Not sure what brain damage caused you to think otherwise.
@@seigeengine, that's not what is going on here. Have you read the "Victims' Bill of Rights"? Do you even know what happened in this specific case?
The answer is that you have no clue. GFY!
@@seigeengineok, so we also shouldn’t be lowering punishments based on their feelings either.
@@topherkrock Yes.
I don't care. The law is not about individual cases.
@@vondas1480 Nonsense. There are no punishments before the government is denying you your rights.
The exercise of the law leads to the conclusion that it serves society to deny some people some of their rights for some time with consideration of the clear and proven harm they have and may continue to cause other members of society.
People should not be being denied rights over people's feelings. You either agree, or you are confessing what you desire is tyranny, not order.
Absolutely meaningless now that the criminal don't even get held anymore 😢
Poor guy, guess he shouldn't have committed murder then. I feel so bad for him.
Why should friends and family by at the parole hearings? Because they can speak for the victim.
IDK, I have lots of religious family who'd probably insist that I wanted my murderer to be forgiven when that is 100% not what I'd want, just because it's what *they* want. They're not speaking for the victim, they're speaking for *themselves*.
Ngl I support the Kanes’ choices, that was their son, and this monster robbed the world of him
Nobody is blaming them for it, the issue appears in more nuanced cases, for example someone that steals a car and gets 20 years, despite the victim saying that it was excessive.
Prosecution picks and chooses when the victim's voice matters, it's another symptom of a terrible system.
@@Irreverent_Radiation, stop using that busted analogy! *We are talking about pre-meditated murder, not shoplifting.*
Jake is still alive, isn't he? So, then he was treated with more mercy than he gave his victim.
@@topherkrock And I'm talking about the other cases where severe punishment occurs despite the victim's wishes.
@@Irreverent_Radiation, then that has nothing to do with victim impact statements, does it?
@@topherkrock Yes it does, because sometimes victims ask for lesser punishment but they aren't allowed to speak
Both quilt and sentences should be based on neutral court not victim's opinion and even if victim had some power to ask for lenience that would not apply in murder as victim would be dead and family's opinion is the family's not the victim's.
That's what happens, this is about parole
@@TheBathulk10, victim's family should always show up in the murder cases, because the victim is still dead.
Can we talk about how criminals are sitting in jail waiting for trial living off taxes but when us as victims need help to make it to trial its crickets
Seeing many comments like the idea, but it's always "If the prosecution limes what the family says, we'll give them the mic"
I remember a story of how someone was imprisoned for statutory rape because he went to a club, saw a pretty girl and had sex with her. Her parents didn't like that and pressed charges to the guy who had sex with their 16 (or 14) year old daughter. The guy's defence was simple: "If I see a girl in a club where there is alcohol, everyone is gonna assume she's 21+. The girl had a fake Id and she got in a club where she is prohibited from." So why? The judge said that the guy did no mistakes, but still gotta go to prison and be called a child rapist for the rest of his life.
The victims family should absolutely get a say on whether the person who destroyed their entire life gets out of prison! We focus way too much on the perpetrator and not on the innocent victims who lead shattered lives because of these crimes. It doesnt matter that he was 16 when he threw his life away, 16 is plenty old enough to know right from wrong.
The victims family do not own the life of their loved ones. They lost a loved one but they are at most tangentially related and deserve no say in the treatment of the criminal they aren’t even the victim how can it be victims rights when you were not the victim?
Even for the victim I couldn’t care less what they think. The point of justice is not to get revenge for the victim ideally it is to reform to criminal and at worst meant as a just punishment. In no way should the wants of the victim influence length or severity of sentence by definition they are unreliable and incapable of being neutral.
The legal system is not nor should it ever be a means of getting revenge against someone who hurt you and that’s what these so called victims “rights” do.
Now rights about being informed on when they are y or etc are reasonable and I have no problem with them but I’m sick of this idea that the legal system can and should be used as a means of getting revenge for the victim.
We just shouldn't release murders
Hilariously, it's not conservatives doing that.
@@ClockworkGearhead Daniel Perry? The guy convicted of murder? You know, the guy that told people he was going to kill someone? Called Black folk monkeys? Said he wanted to hunt down Muslims? That he'd kill his daughter if she dated a Black person? That guy? Yeah, he was literally just pardoned by Abbott.
I mean the guy does deserve to rot in prison
Unless you looked in to the specifics of his case it's pretty bold to say that. He was 16. The point of prison is not to trap criminals forever so they can't commit any crimes ever again. It's to punish the crime with the goal of rehabilitation. So they can rejoin society and make up for what they did. At least, it's supposed to, and in other countries it does. Just not the U.S. where prisons are for profit and the more people inside, the more money you make. They don't want rehabilitation, they want recidivism.
The law is there to protect the victim. Imagine if a victims opinion mattered as far as sentencing went. It would take 0.1 of a second before victims were being press ganged into asking for lighter sentences for their attackers by their attackers or their family or gang.
Witness intimidation is very much already a thing victims face. This would just be another type of it.
How come all our GREAT PRESIDENTS were NOT CAREER POLITICIANS?!?! RON was an actor
Like Washington was a General, Lincoln a Wrestler, Trump a Businessman, Ron an Actor, And Nixon? That mans a career crook 💀
Some people out here are really justifying that this man should be let go. He literally took someone's life away. He shouldn't get to live his life while someone else literally cant. If you want to argue for this there are much better cases in which people sent to jail for stealing and then are kept in jail as a result of the victims advocating for them staying in jail
Weird, I mostly see screechers like you going on about a position almost nobody seems to be taking.
@@seigeengine, you seem to project a lot.
Victim trumps offender. Sorry, that is how things should always be. Just because you want to make amends doesn't mean it's possible to do so.
Let me pose a contrasting sentiment for you.
What the victims feel is irrelevant. The purpose of the justice system isn't to pander to the victim's feelings. It's to address the danger posed to society.
The significance of whether someone wants to seek amends is in it's implications for the future threat potential of the criminal.
@@seigeengine, let's not pretend that criminals get the last say. Let's not be fucking stupid pricks that think victims don't get a voice.
#DontSpamMeAndThenComplain
The entire point of the CJS is to separate the victim from the act of reciprocal vengeance.
Basically, the system is the arbitrator of justice. By allowing the victim to have undue influence, it undermines the process of rehabilitation.
Well, if Reagan did it, it was probably truly awful.
@@jnothanks yea just like no fault divorce
@@whyarewehere420 they already have a voice. The accusation.
The VIS is a double dip.
@@whyarewehere420 no. You assess the facts and determine the appropriate statute violation.
A person should not face an increased punishment than another simply because of how you feel about it versus the other victim.
That is why we have predetermined legal punishments, arrived at through reasoned debate and discussion.
@@whyarewehere420 don't start getting insulting. I have shown you respect. I expect the same. Even if we disagree.
The range allows for variations in the facts of individual cases provided at trial.
Sounds like Jake should stay in jail.
So gross. Imagine devoting your time to getting a murderer out of prison. 🤮
Imagine devoting your time to advertising that you failed to develop empathy on social media.
@@seigeengine Empathy for whom? 🤣 For a murderer? No, I’m not able to put myself in a child-murderers shoes because I’m not a fuckin’ psychopath. You’re absolutely disgusting.
Favor the victims
Won't somebody please think of the murderers??
Welcome to the concept of a justice system, where everyone has rights, and the purpose of action is to discern the facts and to minimize harm to society, not to deny people rights based on your feelings.
@@seigeengine, no rights were denied based on feelings. If you knew how to fucking listen, then you would know that the moron got himself thrown back in prison by violating his parole.
Victims' rights are not the issue here.
Mercy to the guilty is cruelty towards the innocent.
Warhammer 40k edgelord type quote
"He who allows the xeno to live shares in the crime of its existence"
The victim does not decide the punishment because the victim is not impartial. Justice is blind, victims are not
@@NepotisticNeanderthal-mh8cg "Wont somebody think of the pedophiles, rapists and murderers. 😢"
-You
Our justice system is a joke in liberal hell holes. More willing to punish woman for defending herself from a rapist than the rapist himself.
@@ehtresih9540 How dare they punish that poor innocent rapist.
- Litterally your oppinion.
@@ehtresih9540 It's not edgy, it's just true, you're the one making genestealer cult propaganda over here.
That's been true forever. We have a system of Justice, not a revenge system. That's why we don't let the victim or their parents choose the sentencing nor do they have a say in the trial. The Revenge system would make murders out of lots of innocent but angry people.🤔
That is how anglo saxon justice works. The harmed party is permitted to pursue punishment up to the ascribed levels. To the extent that the parents in this case have an obligation to ensure that the murderer is killed.Otherwise we have a system now where the state actively works to shelter criminals from those who seek righteous justice.
The justice system is a farce and a far cry from the ideal system of eye for an eye and life for life.
@@mickeygraeme2201 the issue is when they effect parole hearings. They're directly effecting the punishment at that point. Even if the person has been rehabilitated, became a priest, or has no capacity to ever commit the same crime again, there are those that would rather see them dead than ever allow them a moment.
@@NepotisticNeanderthal-mh8cg Yeah because they are the aggrieved party. The state is containing violence by both preventing the family from seeking justice but by also deciding to not enact justice. The families wishes are the only thing containing a state that loves criminals.
@@NepotisticNeanderthal-mh8cg There is no form of rehabilitation that makes someone who _has_ committed a murder into someone who hasn't.
The victims are the reason that there is a law in the first place and in the event of a murder of a family member the family does have a right to Justice
It’s almost as though some crimes are unforgivable, and that’s why they carry a life sentence 🤔
Forgiveness is an act of incredible mercy and grace to the undeserving.
It is not an entitlement
The function of the justice system isn't to forgive people of their crimes in the first place, so you're essentially spewing nonsense.
You are not entitled to control society just because you're upset.
Seems like you are advocating for the perpetrators, instead of the victims. In this case, Wideman violated his parole and was sent back to prison for it. When Eric Kane was murdered, at least two witnesses saw Wideman obsessively sharpening his knife in the days before, indicating he either planned to kill Kane or another person, or at a minimum, was mentally unwell. The judge made the right call. He had already been denied parole 6 times for a reason. Wideman is a menace to society and reinstating his life sentence was justified. Stop trying to erase the actual victim, Eric Kane, and create a false narrative that Wideman is the true victim. He’s not.
And all of those reasons are definitely a valid reason to deny parole
The victims family saying "but we don't want him to get parole though" is not.
@@anna-flora999 We now live in an era where liberals are "pro-punishment" and applaud medieval revenge and sound like 80s conservatives.
I'm not even sure this script-flipping even has a name.
@@anna-flora999, however, if the victim's family puts forth a compelling case, then they should be heard, and he should stay in jail.
If you don't like the sentence, don't do the crime.
How about this, Jake can get out of jail and go back to a normal life just as soon as Eric can go back to a normal life.
100%
Maybe instead of condemning a man to prison for life for something that happened decades ago, you could acknowledge that the current system could be improved to better help those who have changed and improved as individuals and wish to make amends and become a functioning part of society.
or we could just create more prisons utilizing billions of tax payers money and give everyone a life sentence 🤪
And luckily you're not the one making this decision.
@@CheezyPotatoez1if you want to talk money, consider how much would be saved if the death penalty was legal
A 16 year old kid kills his sleeping friend by stabbing him in the chest. And looting his corpse.
Y’all are showing compassion for the wrong kid.
Nobody is saying that he should go free. This is just a clear example, but there are more nuanced situations.
And you swallowed the propaganda. This is obviously framing. Now examine situations where it backfired.
You won't. Thinking for yourself is impossible, and you definitely don't care if _your_ actions cause really societal harm so long as your _immediate feelings are satisfied._
Looking at the 2 commenters above and the rest of the comment section, you see a lot of people simpin' for this DB who should rot in prison forever. It's quite a sorry state of affairs.
@@topherkrock And there are people online saying that you should drink fermented piss to cure migranes, what's your point?
Eliminate parole, your sentence should be you sentence
No 🥰
The more I read about our prison system, our court system, our police system, and all the little systems in between, the more I see victims on all sides of it, and people need ways to leave early.
For high level crimes maybe but you have to take into account wrongful prosecutions.
Yeah, no.
@@RashidMBey Here is a way to leave early. Leave without serving any of your sentence actually. How about not committing crimes?
@@RashidMBey, or maybe they shouldn't commit the crimes.
The murder victim won't get parole. Attempting to make a victim out of a murderer? This video is in poor taste.
a much more common issue is that the “victim” will be a woman who was abused by her husband, but she will testify that such a thing never happened
This actually works because, believe it or not, this dude killed a guy. He is suffering from the consequences of his actions and has earned his lot in life by the blood, sweat and tears of his victim and their family in their last moments on this earth.
Forgiveness is not something you are entitled to, and not everyone gets it even if they work hard for it.
Thank you, someone with more brains than a hardon for criminals in this comment section.
Likewise, vengeance isn't something you're entitled to, either. So let's leave out the feelings altogether, huh?
@@ClockworkGearhead No.
@ClockworkGearhead you are not the brightest. He took someone's life away, therefore the consequences of his actions are his life being taken away. That's pretty much it. Really bad case to try and show why this is bad
@@rampart5631 It's exactly why it's bad, though. You've basically said, "It's okay to be emotional because we're emotional." Guilt wasn't even the argument here, but rather, your calls for vindication through additional punishment. That's the opposite of lawfulness, that's just vendetta.
The point of parole is to rehabilitate criminals. The court sentenced him to life *with parole*. A court sentence should not be influenced by a family's willingness to forgive.
It's a reminder that this child was a real person and not a mere statistic
@@grantflippin7808 so that's why the parents have the right to take away the life of another child?
@@GTAmaniac1 no, but they have the right to be present during parole hearings.
@@grantflippin7808 during the sentencing process, yes, during parole hearings, they should only be allowed to watch. Parole hearings are to determine if the convict is ready to reenter society, in other words the only people who should be allowed input are society (represented by the state) and the convict themselves plus people who have actively been trained and have actively kept an eye on the convict.
@@GTAmaniac1 I can see where you're coming from, but I feel like that same clinical approach to the issue leaves parole boards prone to glossing over the actual crimes committed
Yeah there is no true reconciliation for murdering someone. Nor will there ever be in this universe.
By that logic there is no true reconciliation for anything. Everything you do is permanent and irreversible.
@@seigeengine, not really, though.You "pay" for your crimes by going to prison. Murder should be life in prison or death. There shouldn't be parole for murder. Ever.
@@topherkrock The world is a lot more nuanced than your small brain can understand.
Good, don't murder anyone.
There is and never has been a "right to reconcile." Reconciliation is desirable by society but any party has the right to refuse.
I hope you are not advocating to ignore the victims
Quite the opposite, sometimes victims argue for less punishment, specially for lesser crimes unlike this one, but their opinions are discarded by the prosecution.
TorricRoma, she is.
@@topherkrock no
@@Irreverent_Radiation, "no" is not a valid response. Good day!
@@topherkrock OK. Bad day!
Victims rights cannot be used to Lower the punishment of a crime. You can argue in a court of law for the minimum punishment but no less and they don't have to listen to you.
On the other hand things like not having the possibility of parole are only available For certain crimes when the victim asks for it. There is only the option to raise the punishment.
It's kind of ridiculous. The law was always supposed to State the punishments as a compromise between what the victims think the defendant deserves and what the defendant thinks so they deserve, and of course, what they actually deserve. Criminals don't deserve worse punishment just because the victim hates them. Yes, we know you hate your perpetrator but Those considerations were already made when the law was made. If we make special exceptions, just because you really really hate them That's usually just a recipe for racism and sexism And the crimes of passion to have worse punishments.
On the other hand if I'm robbed by a starving man, Attacked by a psychiatric patient I am trying to treat, Or otherwise think that somebody Can be forgiven and a harsh prison sentence will only make things worse for everyone then my 2 options are to seek Justice through an injustice system or to just not tell the police that i'm a victim of a crime at all. But that's not Part of victims rights. Victims don't have the right to forgive the crimes commited against them. Victims only have the right to be tough on crime because Regan made the law.
Seriously, there is an organization called MVFFHR meaning "murder victims families for human rights" comprised entirely of people who are the victims of crimes and guess what, they are against American Victim's Rights laws.
Must have hurt you saying Ronald Reagan, a Republican President....Democrat don't do anything
Reageconomics single handedly destroyed america
It's not that he's Republican....it's that he's Ronald Reagan.
Yeah, Reagan... a president who.... committed genocide on Americans, and actively betrayed his country.
@@seigeengine, well that's fucking stupid, but what did we expect from you?
Why would you reconcile with a murderer who only claimed repentance after being convicted? What social good is produced by releasing murderers?
...16 year olds don't have the brain development to understand future consequences... we don't let them vote but do sentence them to life?
I guess if you don’t want to spend your life in prison being denied parole, don’t kill anyone.
That should help a lot.
Yes, if you kill one of my kids, I should absolutely be able to speak for them when you’re trying to get out of prison still able to remember who you are.
If you brutally murdered somebody's kid crying "But it's been soooo looong!" Doesn't really sound compelling.
Which murder victim’s families DONT want the murdered to rot in prison?
Fr lol why did she say that, so out of pocket and unnecessary
@@IgorBogdanoffs like, unless you’re planning on killing the guy yourself, I can’t think of a single reason
Are you literal children?
@@seigeengine, you are.
Hi I'm sorry to reply to an old comment but there are very rare cases where the victim's family do forgive the murderers and accept their release from prison. For example the relatives of Ruben Cotton, Botham Jean, and Liam Ashley.
He doesn't deserve to get out, he took someone else's life, he doesn't deserve his
The worst mistake you can make is treat a criminal like a victim.
I don’t really have good context on what went down. But unless it was self-defense, I could see why the parents are like no you can rot.
This channel isn't covering all the facts, they're purposfully leaving out important details like the fact that jake killed the teenager in his sleep for NO REASON, and has violated parole before. Why are they defending this man in specific while conveniently leaving out all the important information? This just feels like propaganda.
It is. Look up the case, and you'll see that ALL the coverage of it is done by this Marshall Project. Nobody cares outside that group of people, there's no "Victim's Rights controversy".
If you don't want to spend the rest of your life in prison, either do not do the crime or just support the death penalty
Back in the '80's, I spent 4 years in prison in Florida. Florida has the death penalty.
I talked to a lot of murderers, and not one of them reported thinking twice about their crime because of the death penalty. None would have thought twice even if the execution would be carried out on the same day they were convicted.
The death penalty does nothing to deter crime.
It only deters trials.
Take the death penalty off the table and they'll plead guilty.
Other than that, it doesn't do s**t for the community.
@@glenbateman5960That’s anecdotal, you talked to some murders in one jail, and obviously you couldn’t ask those who actually faced the penalty. For all you know they only say that because we make the process so long and they’ve seen that, if it were applied rapidly like it is in some 3rd world countries they’d change their attitude.
And you even admit the alternative is they just plead guilty, but these are people who have either accepted prison or will soon be paroled.
No the death penalty is great.
Hey just to thought if you don't want to stay in prison for the rest of your life.Maybe don't kill people.
Right on!
Revenge isn't justice.
Yes it is
@@frankdevo5715 no it’s not
@@gamakujira64e23 Yes it is and these parents have every right to protest and lobby the government to keep this animal in prison
@@frankdevo5715it still isn’t no matter how many times you say so
@@frankdevo5715an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind
So if no one loved me they only have to do like 2 years for murdering me.
Yeah if you kill my child at summer camp, unless it’s really like an accident or my kid was trying to kill you, your staying in jail for life and if you get out ima make sure you don’t last. If I have to go to jail for that, that’s fine.
Its clear most people in these comments have never been a victim of violence
Of course. It's like the liberals laughing at Trump's wall but live in gated communities. Democrats hate guns but love that their bodyguards have them. Don't call them "illegals" call them "undocumented" until their in our cities then call them "gtfo".
The people that think murderers should get off with a slap on the wrist are the same people who would suggest SAW style torture to someone who misgendered them.
Nobody is saying that the victims should be ignored, simply that in more nuanced and less cruel cases, the voices of victims that want a lesser punishment aren't heard.
@@Irreverent_Radiation That's funny, because this channel intentionally left out the part where "jake" killed this kid in his sleep for no reason at all, AND violated parole previously. They're making him seem better than he is, and it's a disgusting display of terrible "journalism"
Would you be willing to bet your life on that asumption?
@@homelessalcoholic2716 Again, in other more nuanced cases or lesser crimes. For example a guy in Florida I believe got 20 years after attempting to steal a car, and the victim said that it was too much, but they were ignored.