It's not the implication of tragedy, it's this:
> They were designing sentences not for people but for a thing: the aggregate level of crime. They wanted to reduce that level, regardless of what constituted justice for any individual involved. The target of Michael’s sentence was not a bright fifteen-year-old boy with a mild proclivity for theft but the thousands of carjackings that occurred in Los Angeles.
I guess it's just the overall tone that Michael is a victim of circumstances and the light treatment of the underlying fact that he paid for the consequences of his own actions.
i agree that the author does himself a disservice by assiduously minimizing Michael's crimes.
But I think it makes sense to see Michael as a victim of circumstance, to a certain extent. We can do something about those circumstances.
Agreed on the minimization. Michael instigated an armed hold up and was shot in the struggle when the victim grabbed for the weapon. Luckily Smith, the victim, did not kill Michael. Luckily Michael did not kill Smith.
Not a lot separates the experiences of the two cousins, at least at first. By the time of his cousins' conviction and release, there is a much wider gulf.
So the tone is tragic-- that seems justified. Isn't this a tragedy?