That's it? That's the prison sentence? She has to suffer for the rest of her life and so does her family and that's all they get? Wow.

I remember when some a-hole was doing that in L.A. on one of the freeways that was under construction. It was very scary. They should get life.

I agree. And, if judges are that easily fooled, then shame on us for electing them.

'It's hard to look at their faces and not feel bad for them".

Really? How about looking at HER face? How about looking at the faces of her husband and her children that now have to look at her face every day and be reminded of that horror.

If someone did that to ME, I could never feel sorry for them.

flan

The victim actually gets a say. What you think is not more important or "right" than what she thinks.

Neither is it much of a deterrent for society if some thugs can literally bash someone's skull in and get nothing but a few months in prison.

I know but we don't operate our criminal justice system purely on what the victims want or feel. That would be chaos.

I agree. It should be attempted murder. And, what does the rest of her family think? Yes, she is the victim but she was also left brain damaged as a result. And, maybe her way of handling this is to forgive and she should handle it however works for her. But that doesn't get the criminal justice system off the hook to enact the appropriate level of punishment for such misdeeds.

ed11563 wrote:

---

These thugs are like the thugs in Brooklyn and other places who have been "playing the Knock Out Game."

We punish people for two reasons,

(1) to keep THEM from doing it again anytime soon, and

(2) to convince other potential thugs that they will pay a high price for having a little "fun" at someone else's expense.

 

How was this not "attempted murder"?

---

 They were certainly old enough to know what they were doing.

flan

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

But why do you think you are more right than the judge? He heard everything and spoke to everyone. Why is YOUR opinion of what justice is more right that hers or the judge's?

---

OK, so you think someone bashing in someone's skull with a boulder is worthy of a few months in prison?  Wow. 

---

 The kid who actually threw the rock got a minimum of 4.5 years.  That's more than a few months.  There are actual murderers who get less based on "manslaughter" pleas.

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

The victim actually gets a say. What you think is not more important or "right" than what she thinks.

---

But that should NOT, by far, be an overriding factor.  Society at large has to be protected--both from these guys doing it again (which is unlikely, I grant), but also from those who might commit similar crimes in the future. 

 

We've heard of many cases where a family "forgives" someone who murders a loved one of theirs--but their forgiveness doesn't mean society doesn't still have an interest in harsh punishment for such crimes.

 

'While I don't think they should have gotten life in prison--which is normally reserved for heinous murders--but I don't think 5-10 years would have been at all out of line.

---

 And that's about what the kid that threw the rock got.  He's been in jail for the past year and was sentenced to a MINIMUM of 4.5 years. 

This story takes place near my home town. The boys' maximum sentences are 20 years. So yes, they could be in prison for 20 years.

They had a difficult time proving the boys were attempting to murder that night. Yes, they were insanely stupid. But they didn't set out to murder anyone - that's why the sentences and the charges are reduced. I am not supporting what the boys did - I think they are incredible idiots who deserve what the justice system throws at them. I also know that my DH graduated high school with a group of boys who met up with a classmate at a bar, dragged him out into the parking lot and beat him to death. They were all 21 at the time and they spent less than 10 years in prison. All were out by age 30 at the latest. That was more premeditated and violent and they didn't spend 20 years in jail.

It was a large rock, not a boulder. They didn't TRY to hit the windshield, that just happened to be where it hit the car. Cars speeding by on a major highway would be almost impossible to target specifically, and no one would be able to aim the rock for a particular part of the car. The speed limit on that road was 70 last time I drove it. The best they were hoping for was just to hit a car, somewhere.

They got 20 years maximum. People have brutally raped babies and got less time. People have murdered and got less time.

Mellow Momma wrote:

---

It was a large rock, not a boulder. They didn't TRY to hit the windshield, that just happened to be where it hit the car. Cars speeding by on a major highway would be almost impossible to target specifically, and no one would be able to aim the rock for a particular part of the car. The speed limit on that road was 70 last time I drove it. The best they were hoping for was just to hit a car, somewhere.

They got 20 years maximum. People have brutally raped babies and got less time. People have murdered and got less time.

---

 Wow.  Those poor boys, the judge is being so unfair to them. You wouldn't be saying this if it was someone you loved.

 

sweet tooth wrote:

---

Mellow Momma wrote:

---

It was a large rock, not a boulder. They didn't TRY to hit the windshield, that just happened to be where it hit the car. Cars speeding by on a major highway would be almost impossible to target specifically, and no one would be able to aim the rock for a particular part of the car. The speed limit on that road was 70 last time I drove it. The best they were hoping for was just to hit a car, somewhere.

They got 20 years maximum. People have brutally raped babies and got less time. People have murdered and got less time.

---

 Wow.  Those poor boys, the judge is being so unfair to them. You wouldn't be saying this if it was someone you loved.

 

---

Yup! 

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

Sooo, if someone gets LESS time for murdering and raping a baby, then that makes this OK? Is that the standard?

---

 I am saying that overall, criminals get less time than what the lay person would think they do. Unless it's a drug crime, in which case you get 30 years to life. Violent crimes get less prison time than what the general person walking down the street would think is appropriate. It's the way our system works - they plead down. In this case, the judge heard from both parties and this is the decision he made. The sentnces listed in the OP are the minimums. Their sentences have maximums that are in the exact range all of you are demanding. So I really don't get it. They could very well do 20 years. 

And people DO change. The boys my DH graduated with who beat a man to death - they all left prison changed people. They went to college, got decent jobs and became family men. Two of them travel to high schools and colleges and talk about the dangers of drinking to excess and about ways to resolve conflict without violence.  One heinous act as a young person does not need to define you if you don't let it. 

I don't know where you are getting 20 years. The longest sentence I see for any of them is 4 and 1/2 years.

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

I really don't care if people "change". So what? Look what they did to that poor woman.

---

 They scarred her for life and destroyed her ability to work in her profession. They committed a disgusting act and they are being punished for it. Do you want them to eventually become productive members of society or do you want them to rot in prison until they become institutionalized and are unable to be a part of society?! It's about punishment not revenge. 

Mellow Momma wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

I don't know where you are getting 20 years. The longest sentence I see for any of them is 4 and 1/2 years.

---

 That is their minimum sentence. Their maximum sentence is 20 years. The one who was sentenced to 4.5 years, has a max sentence of 20 years. 

---

No way he's serving that long. Not a chance. 

Momala wrote:

---

I think the Judge should have ordered restitution, as well. All three idiots should be held financially responsible for all her surgeries, including reconstructive plastic surgery. She was a beautiful woman (look at the picture with her son) - she should be able to look like that again.

---

 He did. One of them has been paying her $250 a month. It might not be much, but at 18 or 19 it might be all he has to give her right now. 

"It was a large rock,"

If it had MISSED a windshield and landed in the traffic lane, very likely someone's front wheel would have hit it.

That driver would likely have lost control and run into another vehicle or run off the road with a broken front wheel.

Could have caused multiple fatalities on a 70 mph highway.

 

 

sweet tooth wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

sweet tooth wrote:

---

Mellow Momma wrote:

---

It was a large rock, not a boulder. They didn't TRY to hit the windshield, that just happened to be where it hit the car. Cars speeding by on a major highway would be almost impossible to target specifically, and no one would be able to aim the rock for a particular part of the car. The speed limit on that road was 70 last time I drove it. The best they were hoping for was just to hit a car, somewhere.

They got 20 years maximum. People have brutally raped babies and got less time. People have murdered and got less time.

---

 Wow.  Those poor boys, the judge is being so unfair to them. You wouldn't be saying this if it was someone you loved.

 

---

 Actually - no one said that. 

---

Maybe she didn't say it, but it sure sounds like she is implying that what the boys did wasn't so bad, and that the punishment is too severe for the crime. Especially when she says "They didn't TRY to hit the windshield, that just happened to be where it hit the car."

---

 I think the punishment fit the crime perfectly, I do NOT think their sentences are too harsh at all. My point in saying they didn't try to hit the windshield was they should not have been charged with anything more severe because they did not set out to kill someone. They set out to cause harm for sure, and caused way more than they ever thought they would, I am guessing. I am betting they had no idea that what they were doing would result in such a terrible outcome. They were ignorant. And they are being punished for it. 

You really should look into the criminal justice system and the punishments handed out. This is not out of the ordinary, it's pretty typical. Again, I know people who murdered a man by beating him to death - on purpose - and they got out in less than 10 years. One of them served 5 years. This story isn't unique. 

Mellow Momma wrote:

---

And you must not read my posts. Because in each one I have said that what they did was heinous and awful. You have to read ALL of what people say in order to get the full meaning.

I think that at 18 or 19, a lot of boys do a lot of stupid stuff. Most boys are damn lucky it doesn't turn out to be the "worst case scenario" because they would all be in front of a judge.

---

Well, that's life.  Most teens do stupid crap and nothing bad happens.  But, when it does, you are responsible.  So, if you hurt someone out of your stupidity, then sorry you have to pay the price for that.  That is how it works.