Anonymous wrote:Kids who know him from McLean report that he’s actually serving the year under house arrest, not in a detention center

Is he still playing travel baseball?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This family is clearly loaded. I hope that did not have anything to do with the outcome.

Of course it did. They persuaded the judge to give an even lower sentence. Effective advocacy isn’t cheap. Although the prosecutor’s actions were disgraceful, rich people who commit DUI homicide get away with this everywhere.

The judge decided the sentencing, not the CA.

The CA decided to try to him as minor. That was her decision alone.

Good. Either you're a minor or you're not, and I think people should be tried as minors until they have reached the voting age. You want to lower the age at which someone can be tried as an adult? Fine, lower the voting age.

And again, for the people who don't seem to get it: the CA asked for a longer sentence than the judge gave.

The Meade family is suffering now and will be suffering for years to come. You don't have to deny that to think that they shouldn't be the ones determining the punishment.

There was a great episode of the You're Wrong About poscast recently titled "What even is justice?" which makes the point that our desire for vengeance is linked to our inability to acknowledge and validate grief.

Exactly. I was sympathetic for the Meade family until becoming aware of the toxic way they and their coterie of attack dogs are now behaving. They are the last people I’d want making sentencing decisions.

Anonymous wrote:17 vs. 18 has never been and should never be a bright line for homicide crimes. The penalties for minors are plainly insufficient here—the driver likely is getting one year of home arrest in a $2 million mansion. That’s why we give prosecutors discretion to charge as adults. The judge can still consider the driver’s youth and give him a lower sentence than a 30 year old repeat offender would get.

This isn’t about vengeance; it’s about deterring this behavior through meaningful punishment. The reason (some) wealthy families let their kids engage in this behavior is because they know the consequences of causing an accident—even a death—are not severe. That needs to change.

You're assuming that once someone turns 18, they will be participating in a system that doesn't have one set of rules for the privileged and one set of rules for those who aren't.

And again, why no bright line for some things and a bright line for others?

17 vs. 18 has never been and should never be a bright line for homicide crimes. The penalties for minors are plainly insufficient here—the driver likely is getting one year of home arrest in a $2 million mansion. That’s why we give prosecutors discretion to charge as adults. The judge can still consider the driver’s youth and give him a lower sentence than a 30 year old repeat offender would get.

This isn’t about vengeance; it’s about deterring this behavior through meaningful punishment. The reason (some) wealthy families let their kids engage in this behavior is because they know the consequences of causing an accident—even a death—are not severe. That needs to change.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This family is clearly loaded. I hope that did not have anything to do with the outcome.

Of course it did. They persuaded the judge to give an even lower sentence. Effective advocacy isn’t cheap. Although the prosecutor’s actions were disgraceful, rich people who commit DUI homicide get away with this everywhere.

The judge decided the sentencing, not the CA.

The CA decided to try to him as minor. That was her decision alone.

Good. Either you're a minor or you're not, and I think people should be tried as minors until they have reached the voting age. You want to lower the age at which someone can be tried as an adult? Fine, lower the voting age.

And again, for the people who don't seem to get it: the CA asked for a longer sentence than the judge gave.

The Meade family is suffering now and will be suffering for years to come. You don't have to deny that to think that they shouldn't be the ones determining the punishment.

There was a great episode of the You're Wrong About poscast recently titled "What even is justice?" which makes the point that our desire for vengeance is linked to our inability to acknowledge and validate grief.

This is one of the dumbest things I’ve read here. The Meade’s grief is 100% valid and many of us are acknowledging it. We can also expect that serious crimes come with serious consequences, and the law does allow for juveniles to be tried as adults so you’re whole bright line rule about being a minor or not is bunk.

What absolute drivel from apologists for rich kids committing serious crimes.

No one is doing that, though, except the people who wrote the law and the judge who decided to minimize the sentence.

I do think it's BS to declare that someone can be an adult for some things and not for others. Should a 17.8 year old be able to enter into a binding contract?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This family is clearly loaded. I hope that did not have anything to do with the outcome.

Of course it did. They persuaded the judge to give an even lower sentence. Effective advocacy isn’t cheap. Although the prosecutor’s actions were disgraceful, rich people who commit DUI homicide get away with this everywhere.

The judge decided the sentencing, not the CA.

The CA decided to try to him as minor. That was her decision alone.

Good. Either you're a minor or you're not, and I think people should be tried as minors until they have reached the voting age. You want to lower the age at which someone can be tried as an adult? Fine, lower the voting age.

And again, for the people who don't seem to get it: the CA asked for a longer sentence than the judge gave.

The Meade family is suffering now and will be suffering for years to come. You don't have to deny that to think that they shouldn't be the ones determining the punishment.

There was a great episode of the You're Wrong About poscast recently titled "What even is justice?" which makes the point that our desire for vengeance is linked to our inability to acknowledge and validate grief.

This is one of the dumbest things I’ve read here. The Meade’s grief is 100% valid and many of us are acknowledging it. We can also expect that serious crimes come with serious consequences, and the law does allow for juveniles to be tried as adults so you’re whole bright line rule about being a minor or not is bunk.

What absolute drivel from apologists for rich kids committing serious crimes.

Anonymous wrote:We have a distinction between children and adults in our society. The family is in pain. How is trying him as an adult going to make their pain go away? How many years sentence is supposed to make their pain go away? I feel for this family, but, I also think it is important to make a distinction between children and adults in our criminal justice system.

Nothing will make the family’s pain go away, but giving a joke of a sentence certainly must contribute to it. And even if you don’t really give a crap about any sort of justice for the victim, there are other reasons a harsher sentence was warranted.

For one, we all preach to our teens what a big deal DUI is in the hopes they’ll be scared of the consequences. But then they see a peer chill out in his parents’ big, nice home for a year after killing someone. Sort of sends some mixed messages about the seriousness of the crime.

It also doesn’t really teach a lesson. There is absolutely no reason to believe the killer won’t just go right back to doing what he was doing before once his time is up. DUIs have a huge recidivism rate. Locking him up for longer could save other people’s lives. There is also the community that elects its prosecutors expecting that crimes will be appropriately punished. I’d say a good portion of the public doesn’t feel crime has been appropriately handled in this case. 1 year of an at home sentence is what you give a teen who got caught selling their ADHD meds at school or something. Not someone who recklessly killed somebody.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This family is clearly loaded. I hope that did not have anything to do with the outcome.

Of course it did. They persuaded the judge to give an even lower sentence. Effective advocacy isn’t cheap. Although the prosecutor’s actions were disgraceful, rich people who commit DUI homicide get away with this everywhere.

The judge decided the sentencing, not the CA.

The CA decided to try to him as minor. That was her decision alone.

Good. Either you're a minor or you're not, and I think people should be tried as minors until they have reached the voting age. You want to lower the age at which someone can be tried as an adult? Fine, lower the voting age.

And again, for the people who don't seem to get it: the CA asked for a longer sentence than the judge gave.

The Meade family is suffering now and will be suffering for years to come. You don't have to deny that to think that they shouldn't be the ones determining the punishment.

There was a great episode of the You're Wrong About poscast recently titled "What even is justice?" which makes the point that our desire for vengeance is linked to our inability to acknowledge and validate grief.

Anonymous wrote:Kids who know him from McLean report that he’s actually serving the year under house arrest, not in a detention center

Oh this keeps getting worse. He doesn’t even have to live in a jail cell for a year? I feel so bad for Braylon’s family. Losing a child is already horrible, but this is salt in the wound.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This family is clearly loaded. I hope that did not have anything to do with the outcome.

Of course it did. They persuaded the judge to give an even lower sentence. Effective advocacy isn’t cheap. Although the prosecutor’s actions were disgraceful, rich people who commit DUI homicide get away with this everywhere.

The judge decided the sentencing, not the CA.

The CA decided to try to him as minor. That was her decision alone.

We have a distinction between children and adults in our society. The family is in pain. How is trying him as an adult going to make their pain go away? How many years sentence is supposed to make their pain go away? I feel for this family, but, I also think it is important to make a distinction between children and adults in our criminal justice system.

Kids who know him from McLean report that he’s actually serving the year under house arrest, not in a detention center

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This family is clearly loaded. I hope that did not have anything to do with the outcome.

Of course it did. They persuaded the judge to give an even lower sentence. Effective advocacy isn’t cheap. Although the prosecutor’s actions were disgraceful, rich people who commit DUI homicide get away with this everywhere.

The judge decided the sentencing, not the CA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This family is clearly loaded. I hope that did not have anything to do with the outcome.

Of course it did. They persuaded the judge to give an even lower sentence. Effective advocacy isn’t cheap. Although the prosecutor’s actions were disgraceful, rich people who commit DUI homicide get away with this everywhere.

+1

If he was some poor immigrant from a low income family, I truly don’t think the outcome would be the same. I’m sure the defense played into the Brock Turner style argument about how the defendant is just “a good kid” who made a poor choice. He has his whole life ahead of him. Sports, college, etc. Look what a “nice family” he comes from yada yada. It’s so gross.

And wow to the quote about the CA not even showing up for sentencing. Shows how little she regards victims and their families during the process. Not surprising considering she was a public defender and her sympathies clearly lie with the criminals.

Anonymous wrote:This family is clearly loaded. I hope that did not have anything to do with the outcome.

Of course it did. They persuaded the judge to give an even lower sentence. Effective advocacy isn’t cheap. Although the prosecutor’s actions were disgraceful, rich people who commit DUI homicide get away with this everywhere.