THE TRIAL OF KIPLAND KINKEL: A REVIEW OF THE SENTENCING OF JUVENILES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jason Nienhaus

Junior Morality, Mr. Sciuto

April 13, 2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was the twenty-first of May in 1998 when fifteen-year old Kip Kinkel left his home carrying three guns that he had recently acquired and headed off to school. Security cameras monitored his entrance as he walked into the building and made his way down the hall to the cafeteria. Shooting students as he came across them, Kip burst into the cafeteria and opened fire from a semi-automatic .22 caliber rifle and a 9mm Glock. Eventually, five students had wrestled him to the ground, but not before he had killed two students and injured twenty-five others[1]. Police arrived shortly after and apprehended him. When they arrived at the station and led him to an interrogation room, however, they discovered that Kinkel had not finished his destructive behavior as he attacked one of the officers with a concealed hunting knife that had been strapped to his leg. After again pinning him down and handcuffing him to the chair, the questioned Kinkel only to discover that he had also murdered his parents the day before[2]. After sending a unit to the Kinkel house and confirming this, Kinkel was charged with four accounts of aggravated murder and twenty-six accounts of aggravated attempted murder, and had his case sent to court[3].

            Several months later as Kinkel’s case reached court, Judge Jack Mattison had multiple dilemmas on his hands as he took in the information. The first of these was to decide whether or not Kinkel had been mentally unstable during the events. If the conclusion was that he had been, then Kinkel would receive his sentence in a mental hospital rather than jail. During his taped confession, Kip had broken down and barely been able to recount the things he had done. When asked about his parents, he reported that there were voices in his head telling him to pull the trigger. Also, before killing his mother, he supposedly told her how much he loved her but that he could not control himself[4]. Other information obtained from interviews with his classmates revealed that Kinkel had calmly talked about retaliation on the people that had angered him throughout his life. Likewise, he often talked about making homemade bombs, a hobby that was confirmed when police investigated his house. Kinkel had even been suspended the day before for having a stolen gun on the school grounds[5] .When the time came for Kinkel to make his plea, however, Kinkel pleaded guilty, which under Oregon state law would have a reduced term than claiming insanity and being found guilty, and took full responsibility for his actions[6].

            Now the decision that had to be made by Judge Mattison was whether or not Kinkel’s crimes were violent enough to have him be tried as an adult. According to Oregon state law, he would have to serve twenty-five years in prison for each murder account and seven and a half for each attempted murder. Even though Kinkel was technically still a juvenile, Mattison eventually came to the decision that due to the violent nature of the crime, Kinkel would be tried as an adult, another part of Oregon law[7]. The judge, however, could choose to have the sentences served concurrently, meaning that he could serve all of his terms at the same time and spend twenty-five years in prison. If not, Kinkel would have to face a sentence of up to 220 years in prison without parole[8].

            When the State presented its case for convicting Kinkel, they brought in many eyewitnesses from the shooting and officers who had arrived on the scene at Kinkel’s house. When police had entered the house, they would not have noticed anything was out of place without prior knowledge. Kinkel had cleaned up after both of the shootings and even had a bowl of cereal which was still on the counter. According to the state’s case, this was hardly the work of a mentally unstable killer. His reaction was calm and calculating. Although not used in the investigation, they had also spoken with a psychiatrist, Dr. Jeffrey Hicks, who had seen Kinkel regularly who described Kinkel to be in a “satisfactory mental state”[9].

            On the other hand, the defense tried to establish the image that Kip was lost and needed help getting back on the right track, not a heartless criminal killing out of his own desires that deserved such cruel and unusual punishment. His sister, Kristin, told the court that their parents were, “extraordinary people” who had provided an “average childhood.” What really separated Kinkel from the rest of the world were his differences from both his family and his peers. Whereas his father had been a star tennis player and his sister an excellent high school athlete, Kip was clumsy and lacked confidence. In a family steeped in academics, Kinkel was dyslexic. In addition to all of this, Kinkel had also been on several drugs including Prozac, a drug that has been linked to increased violent behavior and severe depression, to treat him[10]. The defense suggested that such an environment may have seemed hostile to the young Kinkel and caused him to feel alone and cause some violent outbursts.

            After all of this had been set before the court, the sentence was read before Kinkel. Since he had waived the chance to plead insanity, the jury decided that he had consciously chosen to commit the actions that he had and that these actions were criminal[11]. He had purposefully chosen to shoot his father “execution-style”, kill his mother, and wait until he knew the cafeteria would be filled with students[12]. With all of these aspects in mind, the jury recommended the full sentence of 220 years without parole. Judge Mattison, however, sentenced him to 111, a sentence that he felt acted in the best interests of protecting society. Kip Kinkel is the first juvenile in the state of Oregon to face a life sentence[13].

            With the delivering of this sentence comes the controversy of how to sentence juveniles. On the one hand there are those that feel that because the child commits an act that is serious and violent in nature, he/she should be tried as an adult so that they cannot simply have the records expunged and continue to live as if they had never done anything. After Kinkel’s sentence was read, several students that had been at school during the shootings gave their reactions. One boy, Jacob Ryker, told the court that he felt a life sentence was too good for Kip; that he should have to suffer like everyone that he had injured. Another student, Betinna Lynn, described how the events had haunted her life and that she could not get the images out of her head[14]. In addition to this, Kip’s personal journals reveal dark and violent tendencies where he often expressed how lonely he was and how he desired to hurt others. Some people think that all of this evidence points to the fact that Kinkel was a seriously dangerous boy without hope of rehabilitating him. The other side of the argument, however, says exactly the opposite; that by imprisoning an individual for life without the chance of parole denies them a second chance at reclaiming their life[15]. Even if he/she managed to get out of prison then they would still have that criminal record following them for the rest of their life, a practice which many feel is unfair to adolescents who have committed wrongs in their lives.

            One extremely interesting fact is that the United States is one of two civilized societies that has imprisoned their young offenders for life[16]. Whereas almost every other country in the world, excluding Israel, has laws in place stating that juveniles shall not endure criminal records from their actions, the United States seems to have a very subjective way of dealing with them. In most cases, such as Kip’s, the final decision is not up to any law or statute defining what actions would subject a juvenile to criminal charges, but it is up to the presiding judge. Also, these cases often only look at the nature of the crimes and not at the individuals involved. They don’t look for any surrounding information, such as the environment that the child has been in or their mental state, and simply pass judgements resulting in the imprisonment of juveniles. They also disregard the fact that juveniles cannot, “have achieved the same level of mental development as an adult”[17]. Fifty-one percent of these accounts are first-time offenders as well[18]. Even though this is often the case, many of these juveniles will not receive any second chance at life.

            Kipland Kinkel is now twenty-six years old and still serving his sentence in an Oregon state prison and is still a center of controversy of how juvenile criminals should be treated.