The Parkland jury’s decision on a life sentence sheds light on what lies ahead for the death penalty. NBC 6’s Ari Odzer reports
The stunning jury decision to spare the Parkland mass murderer’s life is still reverberating among the victims and throughout the legal community, especially after everyone saw the visceral outrage from the families Thursday.
“It’s just unbelievable, we’re shocked, and we’re devastated,” said Max Schachter, who lost his son, Alex, in the massacre.
Watch NBC6 free wherever you are
>
The devastation Schachter mentioned is forever. The Parkland families thought the killer of their loved ones would get the ultimate punishment.
“Someone killed 17 people, attempted to kill another 17, and we let them get away with it,” said Ann Ramsay, whose daughter, Helena, was among the 17 murder victims.
Get local news you need to know to start your day with NBC 6's News Headlines newsletter.
>
“I was very sad, I was very, very upset that a jury would not put the life of the victims ahead of a mass murderer,” said Gail Levine, a retired prosecutor. “Because he deserved the ultimate punishment, he’s the worst of the worst, he is exactly what the death penalty is for.”
Levine served 35 years at the Miami-Dade County State Attorney’s Office and prosecuted 15 death penalty cases. She knows family members are hoping the shooter won’t last in prison.
“The anger’s always gonna be here and I never thought that I could be so ugly inside but I wait and welcome the day that I get that call that tells me that murderer was murdered in prison,” said Linda Beigel, whose son, teacher Scott Beigel, was shot as he held his classroom door open for students to escape the killer.
The reality of prison life, general population versus death row, is different, according to Levine.
“In general population, you get visitation, you can get a job in the prison, you can have relationships, you can have people come and visit you,” she explained.
“This jury failed our families today,” Fred Guttenberg, who lost his daughter, Jaime, said Thursday.
FIU law professor Hannah Gorman has a different view of capital punishment, even in this case.
“The law did what it should have done, however, that is not going to satisfy or bring any closure to those family members,” Gorman said.
Gorman teaches death penalty law and personally opposes capital punishment, even though she had an uncle who was murdered.
“So within the confinements of the system and the law that we have right now, the outcome that I personally would’ve liked to have seen is the one that we have received, which is a life without possibility of parole,” Gorman said.
She believes, as the jury did, that the mitigating factor that the killer was allegedly brain damaged outweighed the obvious, overwhelming facts of the crime. Guttenberg said he believed the defense case fell apart under cross examination, but the jury obviously found it compelling.
“This verdict, to me, what it says to me, what it says to my family, what it says to the other families is his life meant more than the 17 who were murdered and the 17 who were shot,” said Debbi Hixon yesterday.
Hixon’s husband, Chris Hixon, was gunned down as he tried to confront the gunman.
Levine said by dodging the death penalty, the shooter wins.
“This man was a thinking, knowing, knowledgeable person that had a plan, finished it, and got what he wanted, life in prison, three hots and a cot,” Levine said.
That is precisely why the families wanted the murderer to receive the death penalty, because life on death row is a much more difficult existence and would largely deprive him of the notoriety he seeks.
