A Prison Lifer Comes Home
The article leaves out some facts. While Fennell’s participation in the attack (at the age of 17) was sufficient to convict him for murder, regardless of who ultimately delivered the killing blow, the jury may not have convicted him for murder (or a judge may have later commuted his sentence) had he testified against the man who directly killed the victim: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.newspapers.com&#x2F;image&#x2F;?clipping_id=19706704&amp;fcfToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJmcmVlLXZpZXctaWQiOjE4NjcxMTY0NywiaWF0IjoxNTY5Njg5OTAzLCJleHAiOjE1Njk3NzYzMDN9.P6iYNFC9X467ToUvyEFIQcNcmzzPKi8kco-0XMKEpiM" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.newspapers.com&#x2F;image&#x2F;?clipping_id=19706704&amp;fcfTo...</a>. He refused to testify even though he provided a statement to the police at the time of his arrest stating who had performed the stabbing.<p>My beef with articles like this one is not that I think a 17 year old should get life in prison for a stabbing. I think nobody should. Our murder laws produce sentences vastly longer than Europe, where 15-20 years is a typical maximum sentence for murder, and longer sentences are reserved for people who are active threats.<p>Rather, my problem is the attempt to draw lines between more or less egregious conduct that don’t make any sense. Someone who along with three other young men tries to rob and ends up killing a man is among the most dangerous and culpable of criminals. Such premeditated group violence is the greatest threat to social order. Being 17 or acting as part of a group don’t make you less culpable.