An attorney general has criticized a prosecutor for testifying that a man should not be put to death because the gunman in the killings was spared.
read more digg story
The facts of this story are both bizarre and not unusual. The actual killer (assuming the he is legally guilty) was not eligible for a death sentence after the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roper v. Simmons. Yet the state attorney general still believes that the juvenile should be executed, regardless of the law of the land. The prosecuting attorney thinks that the co-defendant, who never fired a shot but was eligible for a death sentence because he was 18 at the time of the shooting., should now receive a lesser sentence. Isn't this position in line with the concept of culpability?
We also learn that the prosecutor and the attorney general are not on the same page politically. The AG is okay with the practice of killing for votes, but the prosecutor has to actually be a part of the death penalty process. At least in this one instance, the prosecutor may be thinking and acting on the principle of justice.