Pensacola News Journal 5/8/03
Travesty of justice
I'm curious as to why our state's attorney believes that 12 years in prison is a proper
sentence for young Daniel Carter, even while admitting that Daniel may have acted in
self-defense and the state may not have a decent case against him?
The King boys murdered their father, then burned their house to cover up the crime, yet
they will only spend seven years in prison. Is it because they were such "angelic
looking" children, rather than "scruffy looking," as the newspaper recently
described Daniel?
From all accounts of the crime, Daniel tried to avoid his uncle - he called a friend,
hoping to get away from the house before his uncle came over. While being beaten by his
uncle, he tried to call 911 for help, and the uncle ripped the phone out of the wall. The
knife used in the "killing" was underneath Daniel's TV set, and was only
available to him after his uncle violently picked up the TV and threw it to the floor.
Offering this boy a 12-year plea bargain is a travesty of justice - he should have gone
free months ago. - Linda Enterkin, Pensacola
JUDGES SHOULD DECIDE CHARGES AGAINST JUVENILES"
Let me get this straight, did our legislative officials vote by majority that local
prosecutors can decide how to charge the children in this state? Good grief, who fluffed
whose pillow on that vote? Leaving the fate of children in the hands of power-hungry
prosecutors to decide at will is a huge problem, as we have witnessed in the Daniel Carter
case.
Daniel Carter defended himself in his own home from a vicious attacker and the state
attorney charges the child for first-degree murder? The News Journal reported that Daniel
has a defense that even prosecutor David Rimmer concedes could work in a jury trial,
prompting Rimmer to offer a plea bargain of 12 years in adult prison. What? The child is
15 years old!
It's time that the judges in Florida were given back the decision of what to charge
children with in criminal cases, not prosecutors. Did I miss the chapter in school that
says children have no right to defend themselves from abusers?