Carroll: Is plea deal for juvenile fair? - The Denver Post

Carroll: Is plea deal for juvenile fair? - The Denver Post

When 13th Judicial District Attorney Bob Watson got up before the press on Friday to announce that a 12-year-old killer would likely spend only seven years in juvenile detention based upon a plea agreement he'd reached with the Colorado Public Defender's Office, he blamed the remarkably unsatisfying prospect on state law.

"This is not an easy decision, nor one that I am entirely happy with," Watson said of the deal involving a Burlington boy accused of killing both parents and seriously wounding two siblings. "But unfortunately the current status of Colorado law forces us to choose either an unacceptably light juvenile sentence or an unnecessarily harsh lifetime sentence."

Wally Long, the boy's uncle, echoed these sentiments in a public statement, saying he felt "betrayed by the system."

"The juvenile code in Colorado does not allow for any middle ground," Long added. "It's either juvenile court and the resulting short sentence or adult court and a lengthy or life sentence. There should be some middle ground. Some combination of juvenile and adult sentencing that would do justice to the crime, provide greater protection and peace of mind for the victims and allow the one convicted to get the proper treatment .... I urge the legislators and the governor in Colorado to do something about changing the law . . . ."

Few would argue with the prosecutor's and uncle's lament that a seven-year sentence is too light — and hardly adequate to ensure public safety, let alone fulfill a normal understanding of justice.

Watson explained that he'd been seeking "some type of middle ground in this case," yet apparently couldn't find it. If the boy had been tried as an adult and convicted of first-degree murder, he'd have to serve 40 years before earning a chance at parole under a law passed in 2006.

The "middle ground," you'd suppose, would mean perhaps 12 to 20 years (although whether Watson would agree is another question).

But let's not get carried away with the indictment of state law. While it certainly should provide additional options, prosecutors often do have a middle ground available in juvenile cases — and the main thing that may have worked against it in this case was the boy's unusual youth.

Watson apparently thought he had little chance of persuading a judge to allow him to file adult charges, after which he might have tried to strike a deal for a lesser charge than first-degree murder.

When 13th Judicial District Attorney Bob Watson got up before the press on Friday to announce that a 12-year-old killer would likely spend only seven years in juvenile detention based upon a plea agreement he'd reached with the Colorado Public Defender's Office, he blamed the remarkably unsatisfying prospect on state law.

"This is not an easy decision, nor one that I am entirely happy with," Watson said of the deal involving a Burlington boy accused of killing both parents and seriously wounding two siblings. "But unfortunately the current status of Colorado law forces us to choose either an unacceptably light juvenile sentence or an unnecessarily harsh lifetime sentence."

Wally Long, the boy's uncle, echoed these sentiments in a public statement, saying he felt "betrayed by the system."

"The juvenile code in Colorado does not allow for any middle ground," Long added. "It's either juvenile court and the resulting short sentence or adult court and a lengthy or life sentence. There should be some middle ground. Some combination of juvenile and adult sentencing that would do justice to the crime, provide greater protection and peace of mind for the victims and allow the one convicted to get the proper treatment .... I urge the legislators and the governor in Colorado to do something about changing the law . . . ."

Few would argue with the prosecutor's and uncle's lament that a seven-year sentence is too light — and hardly adequate to ensure public safety, let alone fulfill a normal understanding of justice.

Watson explained that he'd been seeking "some type of middle ground in this case," yet apparently couldn't find it. If the boy had been tried as an adult and convicted of first-degree murder, he'd have to serve 40 years before earning a chance at parole under a law passed in 2006.

The "middle ground," you'd suppose, would mean perhaps 12 to 20 years (although whether Watson would agree is another question).

But let's not get carried away with the indictment of state law. While it certainly should provide additional options, prosecutors often do have a middle ground available in juvenile cases — and the main thing that may have worked against it in this case was the boy's unusual youth.

Watson apparently thought he had little chance of persuading a judge to allow him to file adult charges, after which he might have tried to strike a deal for a lesser charge than first-degree murder.