I read the article, " 'Good kid' gets 25 years for killing," twice to make sure I understood the situation as well as possible.
Young Joseph Chambers, the "good kid," and his sister, after suffering under an abusive father, began to suffer under their mother's less than ideal boyfriend, Jumal Wells.
The sheriff's office was called out one night after some sort of altercation between the mother and boyfriend. The two children said they begged the deputies to make Wells leave, but the deputies were "assured" the dispute was settled. So, mom doesn't make a good decision to have them remove Wells, and the deputies make the wrong decision about removing Wells. The perfect storm was created.
Minutes later, deputies return to the home after Chambers shoots and kills Wells. And, even with a plea deal, the young man gets 25 years in prison. I have no way of knowing what all went on during the deputies' first visit, but wouldn't it have been prudent to simply remove Wells, even if for one night? We're told that young Joseph Chambers was trying to escape the mean streets of north Baton Rouge and had plans to one day open a barbershop after completing high school. But what we have now is one dead man, a devastated daughter and mother and a 21-year-old "good kid" who, after he serves up to 25 years in prison, will reenter the world much worse off than when he went in. There are no winners in this story; everyone suffered a loss.
It would appear a better decision from the Sheriff's Office could have changed the trajectory of this sad story. And, in my opinion, the court could have been more compassionate towards a kid who may have felt like the system had just failed him.
JOHN SINGLETON
Baton Rouge