JENNIFER'S CASE HAS A CASE FOR A PRESIDENTIAL PARDON


 

Jennifer Mee's case needs to be reviewed

Jennifer Mee was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole after being convicted of first degree murder in 2010. She was 19 at the time. 

The case

Jennifer set up a date with a young man whom she had contacted on Facebook but with the intention of robbing him. Her two male friends carried out the robbery and it was during this process that one of them shot the victim. Jennifer did not ever intend for this to happen.

There are three factors that need to be considered in cases involving murder because not all cases are the same. There are factors which need to be considered are determining factors in sentencing. I have come up with a list:

1. Was it premeditated/intentional?

2. Was any malice involved?

3. Was revenge a factor?

The answer to these questions in Jennifer's case is, "No."

Another question is, "Who's responsible for the discharge of a firearm?"

Is it the person who is in possession of the firearm or his/her accomplices?

When a drunk driver kills someone then who is responsible for the deaths, the driver or the passengers in the vehicle?

Jennifer's situation is similar.

When one considers all of the facts how could anyone justify the sentence Jennifer received of life without the possibility of parole?ntly kill 

Then there is the question of the definition of murder. According to the dictionary, murder is when your intent was to kill someone. 

If you accidently kill someone, you have committed manslaughter according to any dictionary.

Jennifer never at any stage intended to kill the victim, never discharged the firearm, had no hostility toward the victim, and had no previous criminal convictions so how could it ever be justified that she had received a sentence of life without parole?

These are the main facts as I understand them to be; one thing I do not know is the exact location of Jennifer. That is what I have been attempting to find out but it does not change the other facts.

Many people on her facebook page have made mention of the fact that she was beaten up by an ex-boyfriend and had such and such done to her when she was younger. I personally believe that this should never be mentioned in court because it gives everyone the impression that she has not taken responsibility for her part in this crime after all. People from her past are not responsible for her choices.

There was an appeal against Jennifer's sentence in 2015 but this failed. 

What now?

I believe that applying for a Presidential Pardon may be worth a try on the following grounds:

1. Jennifer's sentence is out of proportion to her level of involvement in the murder.

2. There was no premeditation in the murder.

3. Jennifer was led astray by her two male companions.

4. The definition of murder des not apply to Jennifer's involvement.

THere is a facebook page dedicated to assisting Jennifer; someone from America is the administrator. She also has a website www.jmeefree.com

I have my own blog with my thoughts on Jennifer's case which I have published; it is:

www.freejennifer.blogspot.com

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

SOCIAL STATUS & AMERICAN SENTENCING

Image
Sentencing based on social standing At high school when someone got the cane or strap, the other kids would make fun of the person if they were not that popular but if they were popular among their peers then after getting the strap or cane it would always  be, "Mr so and so is a w*****. It is the same in real life where people get treated according to their personality, attractiveness, and their social status.  As far as the American justice system is concerned, I think it would be extremely simplistic to say "Everyone is treated the same way," and the various sentences handed down by judges reflects this. The sentencing of Jennifer Mee is a prime example. She was convicted of first degree murder. What was her crime? She participated in a fatal robbery and all those who took part in a robbery where someone dies are equally guilty of murder whether were directly or indirectly involved in the death. As far as Jennifer's situation is concerned, it app
Read more

Life without parole unjust for under 21 Year olds...

Image
Life without parole unjust for under 21 Year olds... According to the Supreme Court in Massachusetts sending under 21 year olds to prison for life without the possibility of parole is unjust. The State's highest court ruled that anyone under the age of 21 cannot be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, raising it from under 18.  There was a 4-3 ruling in favour of the ban, describing life without parole sentences for those under 21 as cruel and unusual under the Massachusetts Constitution. At the centre of this case was the finding which confirms that the brains of emerging adults are similar to that of juveniles. In 2013 the court ruled that defendants under 18 could not be sentenced to life without parole based on the fact that "it is not possible to prove that a juvenile is irretrievably depraved," thus under these circumstances such a severe sentence is unjustified." This ruling took place in the Commonwealth V. Sheldon Mattis case, whi
Read more

Jennifer needs your help

Image
Written by R. A. Stewart Jennifer Mee was convicted of first degree murder but it was a murder she did not carry out herself or one which there was no intent or premeditation involved. How is this so you may be wondering. In Florida if someone dies as a result of another crime such as robbery then all participants are equally guilty of the death irrespective of the part they played. Here is a summary of the case: In 2010 Jennifer, then aged 19, agreed to go out on a date with a young man she had contacted on Facebook. Jennifer’s motive was robbery, not romance, and with the help of two male friends she tried to rob her date, however, in the struggle he was fatally shot. Under Florida law, all participants in a fatal robbery are equally guilty of first degree murder. This is known as the “Felony rule.” There is no room for discretion in the application of this rule. One is either guilty of it or not.  Intent or lack of it is not taken into consideration as it should be which means someo
Read more