Ellington

In one of those nonsensical editorials today we all know and dread—there they go sticking their finger in the wind again—The Clarion-Ledger asks: "Banyard: Why Does Justice Take So Long?" They are talking about the 13-year-old who killed the pizza delivery man, and now is going to prison for life without parole. He is 17 now. They then answer their own question of what it took for four years:

The case has been delayed coming to trial for several legitimate reasons. There were questions on whether to try Banyard as an adult. Circuit Judge Tomie Green had ordered a study to look at Banyard's mental stability. Attorneys also sought delays to provide more time to prepare for trial.

If this were the only case with delays, that might be understandable, but this is more the norm than the exception.

This is a cardinal sin in journalism. You use a case to make a point that it does not make. Really stupid. Meantime, where have all their editorials been about how Cedric Willis rotted in jail for 12 years as those wheels of justice turned so slowly?

I've said it before: worst newspaper in the country. And we're stuck with the damn thing.

Previous Comments

ID

107214

Comment

Why the hell is someone who committed a murder at 13 going to jail for life without parole anyway? What the hell is that supposed to accomplish? We won't fund public school programs teaching 13-year-olds how to use birth control because they're too young to hear such things, but we're willing to lock them in prison for the rest of their lives? I've chosen the wrong planet. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-07-28T19:54:57-06:00

ID

107215

Comment

And agreed on the idiot who wrote this op-ed. The Clarion-Ledger has some great people writing for it who are being smeared by association with these clowns. I wish someone would offer Ronnie Agnew some lucrative gig with a suburban society-pages rag--say, a well-paying New England answer to the Northside Sun--and let him be replaced by somebody who cares about the people of Jackson. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-07-28T19:57:41-06:00

ID

107216

Comment

The whole thing is just sad. I wonder how long he would be in jail if he was Rob Lotsabucks from Eastover.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2006-07-28T21:12:02-06:00

ID

107217

Comment

you are right Tom. Someone who kills someone on a dare should be turned loose on society again. You go from opposing the death penalty to allowing someone who killed someone in cold blood back on the street. Want to know why some people favor the death penalty? Because of the sneaking suspicion that some death penalty opponents don't believe in life without parole for murderers.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-07-28T22:41:59-06:00

ID

107218

Comment

Because he killed someone, Tom. He took a dare and shot someone, dead. The dead man did leave behind a small girl, who was barely alive when her Dad was shot down. She never gets a chance to know her father. He'll be a photo to her. He was pressured, possibly. But he still took the gun and made the choice. He got what a jury felt he deserved. He's earned his punishment. Do you want him to walk free? Does the life of that pizza guy mean that little? The four years his family has had to wait for justice? You can't just forget something like that, Tom. We spend years bringing murders to justice because it matters. We complain about the slow pace of the judicial system because it matters. We want better from Frankie-boy because it matters. He made his choice, he'll do the time he earned.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-07-28T23:20:48-06:00

ID

107219

Comment

What does it mean to say that he earned his time? Noting that a jury of 12 decides his fate denotes a degree of subjective implementation of justice. If he had been given 15 years without opportunity for parole, would it be appropriate to say that he should have gotten death...he earned death? Justice must not be hastily sped up because we feel some sense of vindication in anothers punishment. There is no real personal growth from the punishment of another. Would it matter if the pizza guy forgave the boy...would society demand "justice"...whatever that meant to each person? One must seriously ask themselves how much blame should be shared by the culture when a child of thirteen years kills another human being. Killing that child is not solving the problem that brought that child to us. Not solving that problem is irresponsible and an invitation to more injustice perpetrated by the impressionable and unstable. What kind of judicial system are we supporting when we don't think even a child incarcerated from thirteen can become a healthy member of society one day?

Author

daniel johnson

Date

2006-07-29T00:52:23-06:00

ID

107220

Comment

Someone who shoots somebody else in cold blood is a murderer. This idea of feeling sorry for this kid doesn't make sense to me. I feel sorry that he didn't get the kind of legal defense that a wealthier individual would have. But I would still want a wealthy 13 year old cold-blooded killer in jail for life. I don't believe someone who can do that deserves to be out in the world. I used to feel differently but I got held up at gunpoint & had some relatives get broken into and beaten up by criminals. One broke my 64 year old relative's ankle with a crow bar. This shit isn't funny & I don't feel sad for the people who do this. I feel very very angry. does anyone know much about other countries who have tried different methods, rehabilitation, etc. and potentially achieved significantly better success? I agree our penal system isn't doing so hot here.

Author

Izzy

Date

2006-07-29T10:30:40-06:00

ID

107221

Comment

LW, last time I checked the punk who was 13 and murdered Giles Bryant is still in jail so your barb about class does not work.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-07-29T11:20:03-06:00

ID

107222

Comment

Right. And let's not forget that the Grayhead gang, and Batman, none of whom were rich white boys or angels, were acquitted of murder. And most of the rich white boys from Eastover aren't going out shooting pizza delivery drivers in cold blood for $20. They have better things to do with their time, like buying crystal meth from Pearl. The system worked in this case, and I'm not worried a bit about this kid spending the rest of his life behind bars. He should have thought a little harder about consequences before taking a life.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2006-07-29T12:12:19-06:00

ID

107223

Comment

ejeff, I don't know if there are any more rich white boys in Eastover. I think they are all 40 now and living in Madison.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-07-29T12:14:03-06:00

ID

107224

Comment

You are probably right, Kingfish. lol

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2006-07-29T12:27:27-06:00

ID

107225

Comment

Kingfish writes: you are right Tom. Someone who kills someone on a dare should be turned loose on society again. Uhm, he was 13. You go from opposing the death penalty to allowing someone who killed someone in cold blood back on the street. Someone who was 13 at the time he committed the murder. Do you really believe this would make him a danger at 30 or 40? Are you the same person you were at 13? Want to know why some people favor the death penalty? Because of the sneaking suspicion that some death penalty opponents don't believe in life without parole for murderers. Then some people are mighty dim, because banning the death penalty would obviously increase the number of life-without-parole sentences. But life without parole for a 13-year-old?! Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-07-29T13:29:30-06:00

ID

107226

Comment

The truth is that the U.S. is one of only a couple of countries in the world that tries teenagers as adults. We really want to have it both ways. On the one hand, teenagers are so immature that we fret over letting them drive. We control what they wear to school, when they can be outside, their sex lives (we try to, anyway), their access to abortion, and on and on and on. Why? Because they are not yet adults. Volumes of research show that teenagers' brains are still very much in development--they literally do not have the sense of judgment that adults have. But when it comes to crime, we are eager to treat teenagers as adults. Does this mean that Banyard deserves a pass for what he did? Of course not. But why was it necessary to sentence him to life without even the possibility of parole? So if, in the year 2040, when Banyard is 51 years old, let's say that he has become a model prisoner. He is deeply religious. He has turned around dozens of young men, who went in scared and angry, just the way he did. Now he would like to go out into the world and help kids who are at risk of making the same sorts of horrible mistakes he did when he was 13. What does it accomplish to keep him behind bars? Him helping other kids won't bring back the victim, but neither will locking Banyard up for life.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-07-29T14:08:42-06:00

ID

107227

Comment

What is the alternative here, then? If locking him away for life isn't an answer, and death surely isn't, what level of punishment do you gentlemen recommend for this 13 year old? Do we pat him on the head? Slap his hand? Perhaps a paddling? We have to send a message to criminals of any age. What message would excusing this kids murderous intent send?

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-07-29T14:36:15-06:00

ID

107228

Comment

Iron, you're being silly. Our choices are not between locking the kid away for life and slapping him on the wrist. No one is talking about "excusing" this kid's "murderous intent," so please pack up the straw man. Is 25 to life, with the possiblity of parole, not tough enough? The question is, how much "intent" did the kid have? He did not have "adult intent," that's for certain. One point here is that deterrence doesn't really work on teenagers. In other words, the difference between 20 years in prison and life in prison makes little sense to most teenagers. I think it's very difficult to argue with a straight face that this sentence serves a "practical" purpose. It is, as you wrote, about sending a message. Furthermore, it's so draconian to say that a 13-year-old is a "criminal" as if it's that simple. He's just a criminal, an enemy, so throw him to the wolves. No. He was 13. He committed a horrible crime. He should be punished. But are we to take no consideration of the fact that he was 13?

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-07-29T14:59:36-06:00

ID

107229

Comment

It could also be argued that the victim (remember him?) might have become one day become a pastor who could have led hundreds to a religious path. But that possibility was cut short when a group of kids decided his life wasn't worth anything. And there are people who would argue that we should be sympathetic to the shooter because he made a choice to take a life, without considering the pain he has inflicted on the victim's family, who I'm sure would love to have a "parole" to see their dead relative again.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2006-07-29T15:06:35-06:00

ID

107230

Comment

I'm not interested in sending a message to other youths as a deterrent, just in getting justice for the victim's family and the larger society.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2006-07-29T15:11:26-06:00

ID

107231

Comment

And I hope this young man does find the Lord while in jail. Hopefully he could share his message within the prison ministry.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2006-07-29T15:20:37-06:00

ID

107232

Comment

Is it justice? We have a very cowboy notion about justice in this country, such that "justice" usually means hang 'em high, but justice requires wisdom and proportionality. And let's be careful playing the victim card, because more often than not, invoking the victim is a way to shut down thinking. I am entirely sympathetic to the victim's family. There is nothing any of us can do to bring back their loved one. However, in the case of Cedric Willis, "victim's advocates" helped whip the public into a frenzy for his swift prosecution. We want justice, they screamed, and an innocent man went to jail. Of course, this is an entirely different case, and it does not seem that the young man's guilt is in question. But when we speak of justice, this must mean more than revenge. That is the difference in how we must think of the victim and Banyard. Banyard killed this man. We can talk about the "causes," i.e. urban poverty, broken families, the ready availability of handguns, but always and ultimately, this is something Banyard did. The question that faces us is what do we do with this young man? That is our responsibility, and we must take it seriously. The reason why we do not entrust "justice" to victims is because they cannot administer it. They can only administer revenge.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-07-29T16:07:51-06:00

ID

107233

Comment

And in this case, the justice delivered was proportionate, in my opinion. I would not have wanted the death penalty, as I'm not a fan of state sponsored execution except in extreme cases. And in Willis' case, just as in this case, the justice system offers plenty of oppurtunities for appeals and reversals. So this case isn't really over. It is unfortunate that in our judicial system that sometimes innocent people end up being sent to prison, but until there is a foolproof way to judge someone's involvement in criminal activities, that is the best we can offer. And while we do not entrust sentencing to victims for the reasons you stated, we do empower attorneys, juries and judges to act on their behalf and to administer sentences to send the message that society takes crime seriously enough to hold criminals responsible and punish them severely, especially murder cases.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2006-07-29T16:25:31-06:00