Do you believe that James’ sentence, the result of a plea deal, is just? If not, what would be a just sentence?
Well, like Roy Hinton, James’s got a lousy deal in just how the police investigated and how his attorney didn’t defend him well. I think even though he might have overkilled Snake with all those extra shots, his belief in self-defense had a ring of truth. Of course, this was the 80s and crime was a big focus and James was black so that meant he must have been bad, so conviction was more important than truth. I think rather than murder a good defense might have been manslaughter with a less sentence.
Life in prison without parole is tough. And with some of the ‘trumped-up’ charges the plea deal was necessary. His White attorney, Gary, was such a jerk but what does one expect when there is free (public defender). James should have never written in his journal he wanted to kill Black Snake. Premeditation! Maybe he could have gotten off as ‘self-defense’. James set himself for failure.
I think that had James gone to trial, he absolutely would have been found guilty and been imprisoned for life without parole. Given the evidence against him, I can’t imagine the public defender truly had a lot of leverage.
I do not think it was just. They really did not believe the true situation. Also James is black. Thirty years to life for such someone his age was a bit harsh.
I agree with Kim. There are still many inequities in the justice system, and crimes in the 80s that involved guns had almost no chance for discretion.
Nor did his public defender have much experience. It’s likely a jury would have convicted him and the sentence would have been for life….if not the death penalty (in some states.)
The deck was loaded against James at his trial. His journal/diary showed premeditation. The shooting death of Spike by Black Snake was never considered evidence as the dogs’s corpse was for some reason never found and therefore never considered as evidence. James shot Black Snake in the mouth three times. And yes, James was Black. Put all this evidence together, adding the context of the gang ridden community of Oakland, the outcome would never be good for James. Was it Just? Based on the admissable evidence yes. Based on reality of the crime? No.
Is it just maybe, the cards were indeed stacked against him. His journal entries, his color, the community where he lived. All of these played a part in the plea. Even though I have finished the book’s last page, I still wonder why wasn’t Spike and his death include in the police report? Was a simple error on the part of the Oakland police or was it on purpose? Perhaps the author was trying to point out why the Oakland Police have been under investigation for such a long period of time?
I agree with John_B1. Based on the evidence that was admissable, it is somewhat understandable how they came to that conclusion. Based on the reality of the crime, it should not have been such a harsh sentence.
James did murder a man in a fit of anger. It wasn’t premeditated, but it was murder in an awful way, not just shooting him but putting the gun in his mouth and firing three times. I think the plea deal was the best he could hope for. I do agree that there was no real investigation of the circumstances. How much that would have made a difference, I’m not sure. The true facts may have made a difference at the parol hearing. I do think he’s paid his dues and should have been paroled.
I think perhaps the question is are the sentencing guidelines just? My feeling was that he was doomed to life without parole if he went to trial, so pleading out for 30+ years with possibility of parole was a better choice in his situation with the evidence stacked against him. My understanding is US sentencing for crimes are much longer than other countries, and black men get longer sentences on the whole than white men.
1 Like
John_B1
I like your separation from the admissible evidence vs reality of the crime. I agree, a jury would look at the evidence presented and they would have convicted.
1 Like
Unfortunately, James was a victim of poor representation. His description of the dog being killed and his anger that resulted were not shared by those supposedly helping him through the judicial process.
I totally agree with everything you said, and James did receive a lousy deal. In today’s society the fact that Snake first killed Jame’s dog, people would have a different reaction. Animal cruelty is now playing a in playing a bigger role in the legal system