The CP Edit: When kids kill

American jurisprudence has long taken a different view of crimes committed by children. The young brain is not yet fully developed, the argument goes, and therefore juveniles are less culpable than adults who commit the same offense, up to and including violent acts like murder. It is also thought that young offenders are more likely to be rehabilitated. These principles have been recognized in Michigan’s legal system since at least 1915, when the state legislature first established 14 as the minimum age at which a minor could be tried as an adult.

The U.S. Supreme Court has frequently weighed in on the subject, striking down mandatory life sentences for juveniles in 2012, then making the ruling retroactive in a 2016 case, which prompted state authorities across the nation to resentence juvenile lifers. Here in Lansing, two such cases were resentenced, leading to the parole of Calvin Wilson and Robert Whitfield, both of whom were convicted of murders committed when they were minors. Last month, with a new conservative majority in place, the nation’s high court moved in the opposite direction, ruling that juveniles could be sentenced to mandatory life in prison at the discretion of state legislatures, prosecutors, judges and juries.

Which brings us to the case of Jesus Mora, a Lansing man who was convicted of second-degree murder in 2000 for killing Isaac Rivera, a family friend. Both were 15 when Mora killed Rivera the year before. Mora and his accomplice claimed that Rivera had sexually assaulted Mora’s sister. If they are to be believed, Rivera’s killing was a brutal act of revenge that sprang from the twisted sense of justice living inside the heads of two angry teenagers.

It was deeply and tragically wrong, of course, but the question now turns on what justice looks like for a 37-year-old incarcerated man who says he is no longer the same person he was then. Is it fair to keep Jesus Mora in prison? Does a teenage killer deserve a second chance?

Although he didn’t receive a life sentence, Mora was tried as an adult and sentenced to 40 to 60 years for Rivera’s murder. He has spent more than half his life behind bars and is not eligible for parole until 2039, when he will be in his 50s — as would have Rivera. His codefendant, who was 19 at the time of the murder, was sentenced to a minimum of 25 years and will be eligible for parole in 2024. Mora — who fired the fatal shot after he and his accomplice tortured Rivera with at least 16 others — and his supporters are asking Gov. Gretchen Whitmer to commute his sentence, which isn’t likely to happen any time soon. We believe Mora’s request should be heard, but we’re not convinced he should be released, at least not yet. His request for clemency should be judged on the basis of the severity of his crime, his record in prison, whether he has demonstrated genuine remorse for his actions, and his potential for rehabilitation.

Mora appears to be remorseful and seems to have a thoughtful, mature understanding of the pain he caused to so many. Yet this is what we would expect from someone who has spent the last 20 years behind bars. Mora has had plenty of time to think about why he is incarcerated and to polish his justification for clemency. His lack of a prior criminal record and apparent good behavior in prison also appear to be positive indicators of his prospects for rehabilitation. On the other side of the coin, Mora’s crime was particularly brutal, which argues for a lengthy sentence regardless of how much remorse he feels or how well he has behaved behind bars.It is important to note that Rivera’s family has never forgiven Mora. Few things are more traumatic and have a more lasting impact for survivors than a young life tragically cut short by senseless violence. Rivera’s relatives will always be left to wonder what kind of man Isaac would have become, the family he might have raised, and the love he would have shared with them. Their opposition to Mora’s request for clemency is perfectly understandable and should be a significant factor in any decision made by the governor or the state parole board.

City Pulse is also aware that the Rivera family is deeply unhappy with the story we published on this case in last week’s edition, in part because only one member of the family was contacted prior to publication to share their thoughts and feelings. Some family members expressed outrage that we would publish the unproven allegation that Rivera had sexually assaulted Mora’s sister prior to the murder. Family members also say they resent the fact that City Pulse would write a story at all about a man who stole the life and future of their loved one. 

On the first point, our reporter spoke to Isaac Rivera’s older half-sister, Ixchel Esquivel, six days before publication and offered to interview other family members if they were willing to talk. City Pulse did not hear back from any other members of the family prior to our deadline for publication. Nonetheless, we regret that we were not more diligent in locating and interviewing additional family members. As to their second concern, we decided to include the sexual assault allegation in our story not because it justifies Mora’s heinous actions, but because — whether true or not — it is central to Mora’s claimed motive for the killing. On the family’s third point, we respectfully disagree: Our story about Jesus Mora helps to illuminate the very difficult questions surrounding juvenile crime and punishment. That’s what newspapers do. And that’s why City Pulse will continue to report on issues that matter, even when they are unpopular or upsetting to some.