Jacob Ind, 15 years old, murdered his mom and stepfather. It was reported from his brother that his parents were abusing him most of his life. One day Jacob snapped and couldn’t take it anymore and killed both of them He was charged with 1st degree murder, I believe that is was right to charge him with murder. However, I think he should have gotten charged with voluntary manslaughter. Jacob was acting out of the fact that he had been abused his whole life. “Voluntary manslaughter is intentionally killing another person in the heat of passion and in response to adequate provocation” (Manslaughter, n.d.). I believe that Jacob was provoked by the abuse, and that is what caused him to murder him. I think the court was quick to judge, and didn’t…show more content… However, since Jacob was already sentenced I think they should retry the case, to see if voluntary manslaughter is an option. If it was ruled to a smaller degrees, then sentence should be commuted. I think that sometimes courts over-sentence cases, and if that is the case then they should reduce it. That being said, he did commit murder and should be charged for that, he should get off free. In the case of Graham v. Florida, Graham was caught committing a robbery while still on parole from his last robbery. However, when his case was held the state of florida had abolished the parole system. So Graham was tired as an adult, and was sentenced life without the possibility of parole. Graham tried to fight it, and took it to the U.S. Supreme court. The court decided that a life sentence for a non-homicide case was unconstitutional. A similar case is the one of Miller v. Alabama. Miller beat Cole Cannon with a baseball bat then left Cannon in his trailer, which he then burned down. He was then tried as an adult and was sentenced to life without parole. Miller tired to appeal it and made it to the U.S. Supreme court, who decided that because he was a juvenile it was unconstitutional to sentence with to life without
