Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura
I guess my main issue is the severity of the sentence for murder essentially condemning a teen long before he even became an adult. If serial killers can manage to get the possibility for parole, then why not Lotts? If Lotts doesn't get that option, then why would older serial killers have much more hope of rehabilitation?
Irrelevant. The system is designed to take a certain number of sets of rules and apply them individually to each case, with some wiggle-room for the DAs to make deals, etc. You can't look at another case and try to retrofit facts from this case to it.
Other serial killers may have done their crimes in different places, that had different laws about life without parole.
Other serial killers may have done their crimes in a time where the laws were differently written about how parole rights are given.
Originally Posted by HK-42
Any account why he took his brothers life? Could he have been threatened, tormented all his life by him, etc.
I'm sure that would have been taken into account when he was sentenced
(or else this would be in the realm of miscarriage of justice, but we have no reason to suspect that).
Sorry if this is incoherent... I just woke up and now I'm posting in Kavar's