what it currently is legally in that jurisdiction, what it was in 1991, and if either of those punishments holistically help or harm a productive society
what you write suggests that you view the state as unquestionable - and that its acceptable enough that they did an "almost right" thing given the circumstances - when they do arbitrary things even our constitution tried to deter.
As far as what the appropriate punishment would be, I would think an appropriate punishment for driving your body guard to a crime scene and giving them a murder weapon should be the same as the punishment for murder. I'm no lawyer though, that's just my intuitive assessment.
And I don't think the 'Innocence Project' or any exoneration efforts should be based on how empathetic people are to the convict.
Let's continue highlighting the wide discretion the prosecutors are able to use even when technically prohibited, and the lack of incentives for the state to undermine its monopoly on authority and investigate itself.
Let's make these 'tiny administrative offenses' so intolerable and egregious that there is selective evolution towards better investigations and better evidence collection. Real consequences for operating outside of those bounds. Easier remedies for the people accused and convicted. THE ACTUAL MURDERER BEING OFF THE STREET if anyone's pooled resources are going to be used by this public entity at all, what a concept.
Those are my perspectives.
And that's where I think the perspective is messed up. Sentencing guidelines are codified in law. This man received and served a non-trivial portion of a sentence that he did not deserve. In my opinion, there is no ambiguity here: he is a victim of a failure of the legal system. As a victim his damages amount to at least 12 years of his life.
Note that this makes him less of a criminal for the crimes he did commit.
Not really relevant to our conversation, but where did you get this "body guard" quote?
From the ESPN link.
2. There's more to this case than most of the responders seem to believe.
I don't understand. He served 27 years. You say he should have served up to 15. The difference is 12 years that the justice system has to answer for.
>2. There's more to this case than most of the responders seem to believe.
Unless you have something substantive to reference you're just muddying the waters with this statement.
Substantive points:
* Dixon is innocent of shooting Jackson.
* There was significant prosecutorial malfeasance in his prosecution, along with limited defense competence.
* According to Scott in the ESPN article, Dixon did supply the weapon and drove the two of them to the location.
* According to the prosecutor, Scott worked for Dixon, who was admittedly dealing drugs.
* Dixon was also convicted of supplying the illegal weapon with which Jackson was shot. He was not innocent.
"What kind of person sends an innocent man to prison just to score a win in a case?" -- fjcp
"The prosecutors will not face any real consequences for ruining an innocent man's life." -- gizmo
"They clearly knew that this guy wasn't guilty of murder since somebody else confessed to the murder yet they let the innocent guy behind bars probably thinking "i got no hard feelings, that guy would have ended up killing someone one day"." -- onemoresoop
This is not the case of someone saying "He's a bad guy, so he deserved to be in jail anyway".
edit: To expand, if he were given a proper sentence for the things he actually did, he would have had a chance to reform and go on with his life. Being denied that is injustice.