Denzel Horne
An attorney who wishes to remain anonymous forwarded to Village 14 two documents Wednesday related to Denzel Horne, the 21-year-old former Newton North student who was sentenced last month to one year imprisonment after being found guilty of a bomb threat at North in 2007.
There’s been quite a bit of discussion about this already on this blog.
The person who sent this to me was not involved in the matter and does not know Horne. I’m borrowing heavily from an email that person sent to us from here on….
As you’ll see from the case history, Denzel Horne was first arraigned in April 2010 (almost 2 years after he graduated) and a mistrial occurred a year later in April 2011.
As indicated by the statutes that he was charged under, Horne could have gotten up to 20 years in a state prison or up to 2-1/2 years in a house of correction, a $10,000 fine, or both a fine an imprisonment, on the first charge of making a bomb threat.
On the second charge of causing evacuation of a school by a bomb threat, the minimum sentence is 3 years and 20 years maximum in state prison (e.g., MCI Concord) or 6 months minimum and 2-1/2 years maximum in a house of correction (e.g., Billerica House of Correction), a minimum $1,000 fine and a maximum of $50,000, or both fine and imprisonment.
As it was, on the first charge, Horne got a 2-1/2 year sentence, with 1 year to be served in a house of correction and the balance of his sentence suspended for 5 years (in other words, if after getting out of prison, he does not reoffend for a period of 5 years, he does not have to serve any additional time, but if he reoffends, he has to serve the remainder of his sentence).
On the second charge – the more serious one–all Horne got was 5 years probation to run concurrently with his sentence on the first charge. Horne was also ordered to do community service as part of probation and to stay away from Newton North Principal Jennifer Price.
BTW, the 30 days for filing an appeal from his conviction has not yet expired. Ironically, the lawyer who has been disciplined by the bar was also the one who apparently got him a mistrial.
Someone already pointed out that 17 year olds are treated as adults by the Massachusetts criminal justice system.
Admittedly, I don’t fully understand what this means, so I’ll just ask the question…
Does this mean it took two and a half years to solve the case? That seems almost inconceivable.
On day 1 of the first trial, his lawyer (first lawyer, Donaldson) was suspended from practice for various ethics violations. See this ruling from Apr-4 2011: http://www.mass.gov/obcbbo/bd10-110.pdf
It seems to me that the letter he left on the door of the school must have made some direct threats to the principal. That is why he needs to stay away from her indefinetely.
What I am confused about is did he live in Newton or Boston? The link provided seems to list a Boston Address and also some mention of living with an aunt in Pennsylvania? Did his family move out of Newton?
I really feel based on how many years he could have gotten he got off with a minimum sentence based on the sentencing guidelines.
@Greg – Thanks for digging up the new info. It seems to explain a few things. It sounds like he was allowed to graduate because he hadn’t been caught by then.
Like Mike its hard for me to imagine a bomb scare at a high school being solved two years later. Typically something like that is solved in the first hour or never. There must be a good story there and I did notice from the court docket that fingerprints were involved.
@Jerry. The thanks don’t go to me but to the person who sent them. I’ve made a few minor tweaks since posting at that person’s recommendation.
@Hoss: Attaboy
In the City of Newton children are endangered: any of them may go to prison because of a childish prank or be exposed to a child pornographer or the homosexual psychology neglecting the reproduction – as a result, the people are leaving this city.
I need to ask this question again, just to be sure. Can someone confirm that the fact Denzel was arraigned almost two and a half years after the crime mean definitively that it took investigators that long to solve the case???
If the above supposition is accurate, that raises another set of questions entirely. I won’t go there until I understand the relationship between the date of the crime and the date of the arraignment.
I will say, regardless of the length of time it took to solve the case, it does not change the fact that Denzel was 17 years old when he committed the crime, the sentence [in my opinion] is unjust, and the case handled unlike other similar cases right here in Newton. I do understand that 17 year olds are tried in adult court in Massachusetts, however they are not considered adults under the law. That point in and of itself is disturbing.
But again, I’d appreciate if anyone could clarify for me the relationship between date of crime and date of arraignment.
The date of the crime was 12/12/07. According to the documents, on 2/23/10 there was an “indictment returned” and the arraignment was 4/15/10. So it sounds like there was a grand jury proceeding leading to indictment, a process that can take a considerable amount of time.
@Mike — Why does it matter how long they took to solve the case or when Horne was arraigned, if it was within the statute of limitations and the investigation proved Mr. Horne guilty? That does not raise another set of questions whatsoever, aside from maybe those regarding the efficiency of the investigation. Without the necessary pieces of the puzzle, you insinuate that your preference is for the pieces to line up in such a manner suggesting that the authorities pursued the Horne case for a longer period of time than they would if the suspect was white. Your want to cry race, and are searching for every avenue by which to do so. That’s ridiculous and nonsensical.
I’m curious as to why you can’t accept that a potentially dangerous nuisance to the neighborhood is behind bars, hopefully to emerge having learned from his mistakes.
@Dan– First point… We have two threads going on this case. I’d appreciate your bouncing back to the other thread to read my comment and questions for you, so I don’t have to repeat them here.
You’re jumping to the wrong conclusion as to what that other set of questions might be, that I was referring to above. I was not “insinuating” anything having to do with race.
Glad to continue the dialogue with you here, after you’ve had a chance to read the other thread and respond.
Greg: Great job! This information essentially answers most of the questions I had about this case.
This story should be widely-publicized. Clearly, the Commonwealth does not consider bomb threats to be a “prank.”
Mike, I agree with you that in some instances, incarceration of youth is a societal cop out and carries little utility. I do not believe this to be one of those situations. I suppose we can agree to disagree on that one.
While we do not have any insight as to what Horne’s priors may be, we know that he has stains on his record. He was, after all, already in the fingerprint database. His attorney referenced “blotches” as well, though he refused to go into detail.
Particularly given the direct threat at Jennifer Price (though I too, am not a fan), I think we can safely assume that Horne both posed a threat and was a general nuisance to the neighborhood. Threatening the school and principal does not show any positive signs of growth following prior run-ins with the law. This doesn’t reflect positively on his character.
Knowing right from wrong, he consciously did what he did. Now he faces the consequences.
As a side note, it goes without saying that I too appreciate the running dialogue regarding this case. Great opinions and moral/legal debate here. Posters have done a tremendous job uncovering the facts of this case.
Since we know nothing about any prior convictions, I suggest we leave those out of this debate, at least until the accusation is accompanied by factual information. Let’s deal with the merits of this case and whether Denzel was treated in a just manner by the justice system.
In my opinion, given the age of the perpetrator at the time of the crime, and the fact that no physical injury resulted, this sentence is extraordinarily harsh. For anyone thinking this sentence is fair, I would ask you to explain why Denzel should serve prison time for this charge, while a 2006 case involving an actual fake bomb device at Newton South was dealt with as an internal disciplinary matter? I would also ask if you would be in favor of prosecuting those individuals involved in the South incident?
I would think that the key to this case is to find out what he wrote in the note.
And the law is very clear about Bombs or bomb threats. I really do think he got off with a light sentence based on the guidelines posted.
If anything the schools should use this as a teaching tool of what can happen when you make a bomb threat especially since a High schooler might consider it just a High School Prank.
Mike – do you know why the NSHS issue was dealt with Internally?
Joanne– I completely agree with your point about using this situation as a teaching tool. Perhaps we could not only avoid such incidents in the future, but also address the rampant problem and consequences of false fire alarms. I also agree that Denzel could have received a harsher sentence under the sentencing guidelines associated with the statute under which he was charged. Given the circumstances of this case however, I think it was the wrong charge.
I do not know why the bomb threat at South was handled so differently. But I believe that the prosecution and outcome of Denzel’s case was effected by race and the lack of financial resources to adequately defend himself against the charges. For now, I’ll leave it to others to draw their own conclusions about why these cases might have been dealt with in such a different manner by school administrators.
Mike – do you know if in the South incident there were any threats made against specific people? If not, that could explain a lot of the difference.
Haha… That’s me laughing at myself for letting my passion run faster than my brains ability to process information. Denzel’s case could not have been dealt with as a school disciplinary matter, because he graduated before he was caught.
What’s no laughing matter though, is the severity of the punishment in this case. And I truly believe if Denzel were white and had more financial resources, the punishment would have been very different. A year in the House of Correction strikes me as grossly out of balance with a crime committed by a minor in which no one was physically harmed. That is what I’ll continue to focus on.
In the meantime, I did not in any way mean to minimize the crime that Denzel apparently committed. [I say apparently, because he will likely use his appeal, and I won’t presume the outcome. Especially since the first trial ended in a hung jury]. Anyway, I think one or two of my comments on this matter may have been unfair to Principal Price, who was clearly a victim in this case. It’s unnerving to have someone threaten your life or threaten physical harm, as appears to have taken place. I’ve had that type of experience myself, and it’s jarring.
The irony of this is, [if truly guilty], Denzel did himself no favor by evading identification for so long. Had he been caught right away, this case might have been dealt with in the same way as the case at South. I don’t really believe it would have been. But I have to give administrators the benefit of the doubt. If they didn’t know he did it, they never had a chance to deal with it. The legal system took over after that.
As to why it took so long to identify Denzel as the perpetrator, that’s really a mystery. He spent another 5 months in school after the bomb scare incident. All I can say is that the kids at North must be very different from the kids at South. Because if something like this happened at South, most of the students and half of the parents would have known who did it by noon the next day. So I don’t know whether to be impressed that investigators and prosecutors stuck with this case so long, or appalled that it took so long to solve it.
In any event, I continue to feel the outcome here is unjust. The punishment too severe. I’ll continue to advocate for Denzel, because I think that’s the right thing to do.
“Therefore, justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.” U.S. Supreme Court, Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11 (1954).
The punishment in this case does not have appearance of the just one, therefore the Middlesex Superior Court was not able to satisfy the justice requirement of the U.S. Supreme Court, therefore this case was the miscarriage of justice.
@Mike — I was a senior at South when the fake bomb device incident occurred. I don’t remember who the perpetrator was, nor do I remember anyone getting caught and disciplined. With that said, I would be wholly in favor of prosecuting whoever did it. However, I am not sure that prosecution would necessarily result in jail time if the perp did not have any priors on his record.
In an effort to show consistency in my stance regarding these matters, I’ll remind everyone here that when I was elected President of South Senate, we had a serial fire alarm puller on the loose. He must have been responsible for a half dozen incidents within a few weeks. One of my campaign promises delivered in a speech to the entire school was to bring justice to those responsible for disrupting order. I found it insulting that the alarm puller was intentionally creating a longer school day for everyone else while he was likely skipping out. The response from the same self-righteous students lambasting me on this message board was overwhelmingly positive at the time. Funny how things change.
Lastly, as I’ve speculated before, I believe that Denzel would have gotten off without jail time had he turned himself in or entered a plea bargain. He clearly exercised poor judgement, and received poor legal advice. Like you, I am also quite interested in knowing what exactly Denzel’s priors were. Wish his attorney would afford us some guidance. We are in agreement that this is an important factor in the sentencing.
Mike Strair — Recalling that once you had a issue with the way Principal Price treated a former black student, I’m delighted you clarified your statements to say you don’t want to be unfair to Price, a victim. Where you say
it took time to identify Horne, that may not be true. When the Hoffman matter happened, I asked a Newton sergeant when we might see an arraignment. He said that might be a year or more. From that I interpreted that the state makes a case first, then fits the charges to that case. The frustrating part about this is we don’t have the two trial briefs in front of us. If a lawyer here can help with that by doing a search — that would help all involved in these assumptions.
@Hoss: You don’t need a lawyer (or a journalist) to get court documents. Any citizen willing to take a trip to the courthouse is entitled to review it.
@ Greg Reibman: “Any citizen willing to take a trip to the courthouse is entitled to review it.”
Entitled? – Yes. But in the current reality it does not mean that any citizen will be allowed to see the court documents, because of so-called “judicial code of silence”.
Also, there is “blue code of silence” (by Police officers) and “street code of silence” (by some of the people) etc.
In all, there were 62 homicides in Boston in 2011, only 23 (37%) were solved, whereas 60% is the national level.
RE: I know you’re big on conspiracy theories but really there shouldn’t be any code standing between you and the public file. Hop in your car and let us know what you find.
Re — Let’s go together. There obviously won’t be a line of news writers
@Dan– You keep repeating that Denzel had priors with absolutely no knowledge of that being true. Even if true, you would have to know the nature of a prior conviction in order to determine it’s applicability or impact during the sentencing process. As the judge sentenced Denzel to the low end of the statute under which he was charged [I would say, overcharged], if your going to assume anything about “priors,” you should assume they played no role in his sentencing. I do wish you’d stop repeating the accusation though, without any facts to back it up.
Same thing with your repeated suggestion that Denzel should have accepted a plea bargain. Unless you know factually that he was offered a plea bargain, you should stop suggesting that he rejected one. Additionally, every defendant is entitled to a trial if that’s the route they choose. It’s the governments obligation to PROVE their case. No one is required to accept a plea bargain. And no person found guilty of a crime should receive a harsher sentence simply because they exercised their legal right to a trial.
I am glad to see you equate Denzel’s crime with the incredibly disruptive plague of fire alarms at South. My argument from the beginning has been that the results of the bomb scare were comparable to a false fire alarm, and should be prosecuted in the same way. Admittedly though, the threat against Ms. Price clearly upped the ante in Denzel’s case. Personally, I don’t think it raised the level of this crime high enough to justify what I consider to be an exceptionally harsh punishment.
Lastly, it strikes me from your comments about the South bomb scare that you are quick to use incarceration as a remedy for these types of minor crimes. I say minor, because no one was physically hurt in either the bomb scares or false fire alarms. It leads me to believe you have little understanding or appreciation for the reality and impact of spending time in prison. I’m curious… Have you ever visited a prison before? Prison should be the last resort, and reserved for serial offenders, those who have caused physical harm, or those who pose an actual danger to others.
@ Greg Reibman and Hoss.
I am serious and at the first opportunity I will invite you to see and hear interesting things, of course without any obligation on your side – just see and hear.
Mike, you call these bomb scares and false fire alarms “minor” because no one was physically hurt. But every time police and fire have to respond to one of these things – especially a bomb scare, which requires multiple agencies – they are less able to respond to other emergencies, putting the rest of the community at risk. First responders rushing to one of these false alarms could be injured or killed, as could an innocent bystander. Evacuating 1000+ people from a building is also not without risk. These are serious matters, and should be treated as such to deter people from stupid pranks that could have serious consequences. That said, I don’t know enough of the details in this case to know whether this particular sentence is egregiously harsh, but I wouldn’t call the crime “minor”.
Tricia– Fair points. I’m only using that term to distinguish incidents where no one is physically injured, and the threat was not carried out. Had anyone [including an emergency responder] been physically injured as a result of this crime, I would not view it in the same way, or refer to it as minor.
@Mike– When I refer to Denzel’s priors, I am referring to the fact stated by his attorney that there were spots on his record. Admittedly, this could be anything from possession of a class D to murder– we don’t know. However, having “multiple blotches” on his record is ultimately a sign of poor judgement regardless of what they may be.
As for your reference to bomb threats and personal threats as “minor scares” because “they do not hurt anyone,” I must disagree. For example, traditionally white collar crimes such as embezzlement and fraud do not physically “hurt” anyone– but they do cause monetary damage and carry a hefty penalty. I highly doubt that you believed Bernie Madoff or Jack Abramoff should be walking the streets following their convictions– because they shouldn’t. The only difference with those crimes is that the damage affects private individuals or institutions directly, as opposed to a municipality in this case. Just because the monetary damage is spread across a wider population and we subsequently feel the effects less as individuals, does not make it a “minor crime.” Further, I do not find it unreasonable for someone to classify Mr. Horne as possibly dangerous, and his threats as legitimate. It is offensive and irresponsible for folks on this message board to continue classifying Horne’s threats as “a prank,” without any knowledge of the motives or his personal history.
Lastly, regarding your assertion that I have not been to a prison and insinuation that I lead a sheltered life– it is simply not true. My father has worked his whole life in criminal justice (though not as an attorney), and I have been inside prisons and around convicts with him on occasion. It is certainly not a pleasant experience, but also a reason why I lead my life in such a manner that I will never end up in that position. Like you, I believe strongly in initiatives to foster responsibility and growth in at-risk youth. Frankly, it sucks that I currently don’t have time in my day to volunteer for such programs. Incarceration should be reserved for criminals, and resources are certainly better utilized in prevention initiatives/education. Unfortunately, Denzel made a dumb decision and was convicted. Maybe now he will understand the consequences of his actions, and learn from his mistakes. Sometimes it takes a wake up call.
As a side note, if you ever want to visit Mr. Horne, I would welcome the opportunity to tag along. I wouldn’t mind getting to know the young man and hearing what he has to say about his experience, as well as offer words of encouragement.
Dan– I’ll quote a former president who I’m sure is a favorite of yours… “There you go again!”
This time not only suggesting Denzel had prior convictions, but raising the possibility that what his attorney referred to as “minor blotches”, might include anything up to murder. If you’re going to use the attorney’s words to support your contention of priors, I think you also have to accept the characterization of them [“minor”] as being accurate. Do you really think a “minor blotch” on someone’s record should be the difference between freedom or jail?
Also, you misquoted me above. I did not say “they do not hurt anyone”, in reference to either bomb threats or fire alarms. I’m making a distinction between a crime where someone is physically injured, versus one where no physical injury occurs. And I’m certainly not suggesting no harm comes from those crimes.
Honestly, I don’t even know what to say about your comparison of this case to the Bernie Madoff case. But I am pretty sure that if Denzel had Bernie Madoff’s lawyer, he’d be home watching TV right now.
Hopefully bringing this phase of the conversation to a merciful conclusion, I’ll confess to being surprised by your prison experiences. Unfortunately, having now been made aware of them, I’ve gone from being mildly bemused by your level of intolerance, to downright perplexed as to what might make someone as young and articulate as you, also so compassionless.
I agree with Mike, Dan. You are simultaneously saying it is “offensive and irresponsible for folks on this message board to continue classifying Horne’s threats as “a prank,” without any knowledge of the motives or his personal history” while making equally presumptuous assumptions about his priors. You have no idea what his priors are, and have already stated that, yet are speaking of them like you know what they are. Isn’t that equally offensive and irresponsible?
In today’s Boston Globe’s Ideas section there’s an article called “Where American criminal justice went wrong“. It’s about a new book written by William Stuntz, a fairly conservative Harvard law professor. In the last two years of his life, after being diagnosed with terminal cancer he wrote this treatise about the serious problems he sees in the American justice system.
The article made me think of the discussion here on the blog about the Denzel Horne case. As Stuntz describes, about 40 years ago there was a series of Supreme Court decisions that set off a chain reaction of unintended consequences in the justice system. Defendents rights got codified (Miranda rights, etc). Cases got thrown out of court based on violation of those rights. The public and politicians reacted by passing much more onerous penalties for crimes and mandatory sentences. After 40 years we’ve ended up with an accidental new system where:
* much of the power resides with the prosecutors rather than the courts.
* The overwhelming majority of cases are plea bargained because the prosecutors can wield a threat of far greater penalties should you decide to go to trial.
* the constitutional right to a trial has been undermined since exercising that right now comes with far stiffer penalties should you lose.
Here’s where I think it all intersects with the Horne case. Some of us on the blog (including myself) think the penalty in this case were excessive. Others on the blog think it was a reasonable penalty and point to the range of the sentencing guidelines and the fact that he was on the light end of that spectrum.
What the author points out is that the range of penalties for those convicted in a trial only applies to a very small portion of those who have committed a specific crime. On that basis, Horne had a light sentence. Because of the way the justice system now works though these represent only a very small fraction of similar cases. If you take all of the cases that don’t come to trial into account then the Horne penalties are at the extremely high end of the spectrum.
Rather than the courts deciding what the penalties for a given crime are, that decision now rests largely with the prospectors . That’s not how the system was originally intended to work and is a relatively recent phenomenon.
It explains how in this blog thread different people can have such different ideas of how the Horne sentence relates to the norm.
Thanks for pointing to that column and for the comment Jerry. I’m actually stunned by many people have a well-defined opinion on Horne’s sentencing, given how few facts are known — and how little reporting there has been on the matter.
@Jerry– Thanks for calling our attention to that Globe Ideas article. I’ll be sure to read it.
@Greg– I understand your point, but people can only deal with the facts they have. Most of us get those facts from the media, and I think we’d both agree that this story deserves more media attention. Meanwhile, a young man is facing prison time. I’m not about to hold my opinion while waiting for Gathouse to increase the Tab’s budget so they can cover the story.
Greg puts up a picture of a black man, an unheard of sentence (by responders) for such an act, and a call from a respected member of Newton that a good person he knows has likely has been mistreated and Greg is stunned that readers would react given lack of research. BULL SHIT! Press does this to fluff personal ego that we would take notice without regard to any other matter. Was Greg certain that the man in the facebook picture was the accused? Unlikely. Burn reputations from bkacl men in pictures, law enforcement and judges just to peak interest…
I do doubt great knew anyone many would react as they have given he clearly doesn’t respect the, man, Mr Strair, who he (Reibman) fitted with a coon hat during a campaign. Fair enough, but post facebook pics of young men and assume it’s the right actor?
@Hoss: What? I’ve been pretty careful over two-plus decades in journalism that when I publish a photo I’m confident it is the right person. It’s not that I couldn’t — or haven’t — made mistakes, but none of the people who know Horne have said this is not him.
So what EXACTLY is your beef? And when you explain yourself, please do it without swearing.
Beef being that threads you command are not news threads, clearly as you say. They are some insignificant revenue for click threads…. right? You didn’t attempt to respond to http://village14.com/netwon-ma/2012/02/former-newton-north-student-sentenced-to-a-year-in-prison-for-bomb-threat/#comment-1697 at top right? Not any attempt to say you found people that say that man in pic is the accused. Now you want to say after pointed comments to me that responders to the thread should do research?? Bull. Further, you have in your former Tab posts stated that you skim paste Mike Strair posts. Well, coon cap and all ,you can'[t be “stunned” that your attention to his opinion has resulted in comments here.
So why the site downtime?
@Hoss: OK, I just read what you wrote three times and still have no idea what you’re talking about or what the photo on this thread has to do with Mike’s hat or “skim paste”?
I did vaguely follow the part about not responding to you. But the truth is, I often skip over and/or ignore your comments for the reason I just stated above: You don’t always make sense. I don’t recall reading the earlier comment that you just linked to but since no one other than you has suggested that’s not him (if that indeed is what you are saying), I still have no idea what your complaint is.
I will add however that participating and clicking here is voluntary. It’s a big internet. You decide.
“I’m actually stunned by many people have a well-defined opinion on Horne’s sentencing, given how few facts are known — and how little reporting there has been on the matter.” (Reidman)
OK. Well I agree with that!
2007 — long ago, far away. Pubitcher agrees w dat.
Hoss– Greg and I got past the raccoon hat thing years ago. I have nothing but respect for him, and find his treatment of me to be completely respectful. I enjoy interacting with him on this blog, as I enjoy and appreciate interacting with you.
Also, I can tell you that the primary photo used on the two threads is in fact of Denzel. I believe you’re referring to the photo on his Facebook page, which Greg linked to the previous thread. That photo shows an apparently young, obviously tattooed male from the back. The photo does not show his face. I’m not sure if that’s Denzel. And I believe that’s the point you were trying to make. But I don’t think that Greg was implying it was Denzel. He was simply providing a link to Denzel’s Facebook page.
Here’s what I think…Everyone is feeling a bit frustrated with the Denzel Horne situation. The case has struck a nerve. There’s a young man doing prison time. Maybe he deserves it, or maybe he doesn’t. And therein lies the drama.
The story has gone virtually ignored by the local media, and that’s a large part of the problem. If this story had any kind of mainstream news coverage, we’d probably all feel a lot better about the strength of our respective arguments.
Denzel’s sentence caught us all by surprise. His trial [actually two trials] was over, before we even knew about the case. So we find ourselves on this blog with partial facts and few real resources, wondering if justice has been served. Anytime you have to wonder about justice, it’s bound to leave a queasy feeling in your stomach.
First and foremost, I finally agree with Mike on something all the way through– the lack of local media coverage regarding the Horne case is irresponsible and extremely frustrating. Reminds me of the Baltimore Sun burying stories in season 5 of The Wire (see: name dropping The Wire for credibility in a racially charged debate). Deservedly however, the posters of this message board have been commended for their work in uncovering the facts. Everyone’s work has lent quite a bit of factual credibility to many of the arguments presented. Good stuff.
Jerry also brought up a very interesting article, and I agree with many of the points he cited about the American justice system gone awry. There are many connections between the article and the Horne case. But while our justice system has problems that nobody can deny, I continue having trouble understanding how a majority of you seem to take issue with a potentially dangerous man who lacks rational judgement being placed behind bars. I find it difficult to believe that any of you would let Horne live in your homes, or trust him with your children. That’s a problem, especially when he threatens to blow up a school.
I also can’t believe that Mike berated me as intolerant and compassionless, not because I find it offensive (believe me, I’ve been called worse), but rather because tossing around opinionated judgement terms such as those detracts from the facts of the case that we do know. We can’t compare the Horne case to other cases in which the defendant was “lucky” to get off with a lesser sentence, or wasn’t convicted at all. On the Horne case’s own merits, Horne’s sentence is justified. Clearly it’s not just myself who interprets the law that way– namely a jury of Horne’s peers felt the same way I do. You can argue the morality of the statute all you want, but as it currently stands, Horne deserves to be behind bars. I would like to hear the anyone’s legal reasoning who suggests that Horne’s sentence is unjust. To this point, I’ve only heard morality rhetoric. <— That's a key point here.
The simple fact that there was initial outrage over Horne being tried as an adult, unbeknownst to the fact that 17 is the criminal age of adulthood in MA just goes to show you have quick Newtonites are to cry (insert the blank, in this case race– a common choice). Take the title of this very post, insinuating something fishy regarding the timing of Horne's due process, despite it being well within all statutes of limitations and fully reasonable. Proven wrong by the letter of the law time and time again, everyone here continues to beat their same self-righteous drum. It's incredible. Perhaps they try to assert moral superiority because it can't be quantified or grounded in anything remotely resembling fact? Well, in your world I guess you're just a better person than I am.
Anyway, I don't want to beat my own same drum again and again as to why Horne's sentence is just. Perhaps the bigger issue, which the Horne case certainly brings to the foreground, is that of intense bias and judgement in Newton. If nothing else, Newton is certainly an opinionated city.
A jury of peers, then u have never seen a middlesex jury….. thats a joke, an all white jury with 1 asian and the youngest person being in there mid 30’s, an the average age bein mid 50’s..” peers ” thats a myth , never mind the fact the judge was a NEWTON NORTH GRADUATE … i dont know much about all this but 2 1/2 years, 5 years probation seems like a big jump from the offered plea deal of 2 years probation
PS- the suspects fingerprints were in the system the entire time…it took almost 3 years from them to bring charges because the note had been back logged the whole before them even testing it for fingerprints..so they say