Andrew Tran

ENGL-117

Mr. Shackett

July 15, 2019

Richard’s Sentencing

During a cool evening on November 4, 2013, Oakland witnessed one of the most

appalling attacks against the LGBT community in its history. At 5 o’clock, a black Oakland High

School student, Richard Thomas, set fire to an agender individual, Sasha Fleischman. News of

the 57 bus fire caught the nation by storm, eventually reaching international headlines. The

district attorney, Nancy O’Malley, intended to sentence Richard for the charges of mayhem,

assault, as well as a hate crime; she also wanted to try him as an adult instead of a juvenile.

Personally, I disagree with O’Malley’s intentions and her sentence for Richard. Even though

Richard’s actions were horrendous and stupid, I still believe that he is a good person and he did

not mean for his behavior to cause bodily harm to another individual; therefore, I conclude that

Richard should be given a lighter sentence. To deal with Richard, I would try him as a juvenile

for the charges of assault and mayhem; after being found guilty of setting Sasha’s skirt on fire

and causing great injury, I would sentence him to three years in Juvenile Detention Center

(JDC), but if he completed a session of restorative justice with Sasha’s party, then I would

decrease the sentence to 2 years in JDC.

One reason that Richard is still a good person and should not be given a harsh

punishment like O’Malley’s is because there is a difference between the brain structure and

thought process of adolescents and adults. One difference is that juveniles tend to be more
“trigger-happy” and acting without thinking about the consequences of the act. Similar to what

the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California (ACLUNC) felt in their letter to

Nancy O’Malley, I think Richard should be tried as a juvenile instead of an adult. ACLUNC

claimed “When juvenile impulsivity and poor judgement produce dire consequences, it does not

make sense to craft a response intended for adults … it is important to remember that children

are different from adults” (171). In other words, adolescents have a tendency to act without fully

understanding the consequences that follow it because they are wired differently in the brain;

therefore, Richard should be charged as a kid instead of an adult because he is still a kid and it’s

important to remember that they are two different types of people. O’Malley’s attempt to identify

him as an adult should definitely be seen as unjust and Richard should receive a lighter sentence

because he is still a kid.

Additionally, even though teens can be as knowledgeable and reasonable as adults, this is

the age where they tend to be more sensitive to stimulus. Similar to what Dashka Slater believes,

I think that this increased sensitivity to stimulus reveals a glaring difference between adults and

adolescents. Slater states “Many people have observed that adolescents tend to be more reckless,

impulsive, and vulnerable to peer pressure than adults … judgement can be fairly awful when

they are feeling intense emotions or stress … making it more likely that teens will seek out risk

and short term reward without pausing to consider the consequences” (173). Her point is that

teens are audacious and hasty because of the structure of their teenage brain and stress as well as

peers can intensify their poor judgement. The limbic system reacts to the stimuli, making teens

more emotional and excited for new adventures; myelin, a fatty sheath, also accelerates their

reactions to stimuli by insulating the brain’s neural circuits. Reminiscing on my childhood, I

could remember always getting in trouble for things that could be easily avoided. For example,

when I was in 9th grade, I got into an argument with another kid over some small thing, but it led

to us starting a tussle in the commons. Afterward, we got sent to the office and had to report back

for a lunch detention. In that moment, my teen brain was sensitive to stimuli, making me very

emotional and aggressive as well as not thinking about the consequences of the tussle. O’Malley

misjudged Richard’s intentions and failed to recognize that Richard is still a kid and has time to

grow up and develop a matured brain. With this in mind, I believe Richard is still a good person

because he acted with his teenage brain, which is still undeveloped, and deserves a lighter

sentence which takes into account that he is still a juvenile and what he did on the bus was not

meant to inflict harm on another person.

Another reason my sentencing is better compatible to the case compared to O’Malley’s is

because it includes restorative justice. ​Restorative justice is an approach where the response to a

crime is a meeting between the victim and the offender, sometimes with representatives of the

wider community, to heal the harms created by the crime through understanding, not

institutionalization. Without this process, Richard would just go into jail and do not come back

out any better; it teaches him a lesson for the crime he committed but not for the crime against

the person.​ Similar to what Dashka Slater felt, I think restorative justice will be a beneficial part

for Richard during his sentence because it will allow him to understand the other side of the 57

bus fire and help him realize his faults so he can start to rebuild relationships between the victim

and the community. Slater illustrates “Restorative justice is more interested in relationships. A

crime is not an act against a rule, it’s an act against a person. When you harm somebody, you

owe it to them to make things right. By making things right, you begin to heal your relationship
with the community.” (238). In other words, restorative justice helps the people involved

understand each other, which is then turned into a new, strong relationship. All these layers of

understanding heals the harm caused by the crime and strengthens the community. In my

sociology class, I have participated in a restorative justice circle with my classmates. Going into

the session, I thought it was it was boring and stupid, but as everyone talked about how they felt,

we started to learn things about each other we never knew about before. Through restorative

justice, my classmates and I were able to heal relationships and create new friendships. With

restorative justice in the sentence, Richard will be able to rebuild a relationship of understanding

with Sasha and their community, as well as reform Richard into a better person; this would not

be possible with O’Malley’s 5-7 year in jail sentence.

Even though I believe this is how we should deal with Richard, we all have our own

personal opinions on various topics, so it is important for us to identify any assumptions and

biases to our audience. For me, there were various assumptions and biases that made me charge

Richard as a juvenile for mayhem and assault and give Richard a lighter sentence, compared to

O’Malley’s harsh punishment. One assumption I have is that restorative justice is going to help

reform Richard into a productive member of society and a shortened sentence is long enough to

teach him a lesson. Through my experience in a restorative justice circle and reading regarding

that topic, I believe that it helps people get to know each other and how they felt, which benefits

each other’s relationships and better oneself. Similarly, a bias I obtain is that I am not too fond of

individuals from the LGBT. This does not mean I am homophobic and desire to inflict harm on

them, but it means that I still find that being gay is weird and often find myself double-taking

whenever I see those people, like many other Americans. My strict cultural and religious
background plays a role in this awkwardness around people from the LGBT community. I

always taught that God had made two types of humans––male and female. Another bias that I

acquire is that I lived in Oakland for a few years and had witnessed all of the things Richard

talked about––drugs, crime, and violence. I know what he went through and what he felt at those

points in his life, so it caused me to develop a soft side for Richard. It was hard growing up

Oakland for me and I know it was the same for him as well, especially because of his ethnicity.

While I believe Richard is still a good person and deserves a light sentence for his crime,

many people, such as district attorney Nancy O’Malley, would disagree with my claim. When

deciding Richard’s sentence of 5-7 years in jail, O’Malley believes that her heart was in the right

place by punishing him for his actions against an agender person. However, the district attorney

never had the time to get to know Richard; she only knew him from the case, where a guy set

someone on fire in broad daylight, and that he had a previous record. Like O’Malley, other

people in society don’t know Richard or his intentions so they believe that what he did on the bus

was on purpose and desired to inflict harm on a gay individual. On the other hand, I learned

about Richard’s bleak past and his intentions on the night of the fire from the book. Therefore, I

have a better insight into the offender’s life and the incident and am able to give a fairer

judgement. Even if they knew Richard did not have harmful intentions, O’Malley and others

would argue that the kid is old enough to know that lighting someone’s skirt on fire is bad and he

should be punished as an adult due to the severity of the crime. However, like I stated before, the

brain structure and thought process of adolescents are completely different than adults. Overall,

O’Malley’s harsh punishment of 5-7 years in state jail and an attempt to charge Richard as an

adult and a hate crime is unjustified for the circumstances of the incident. With this in mind, my
approach to dealing with Richard (a lighter sentence and a chance for restorative justice) would

be a better option to reform Richard and make him into a beneficial part of society.

Ultimately, the act Richard committed that evening on the 57 bus is not to be taken

lightly––it was horrendous as well as stupid. However, I still do not agree with the sentence

Nancy O’Malley gave Richard for his actions. I believe that Richard is a good person and can be

salvaged from this incident, so he deserves a lighter sentence. To deal with Richard, I would

charge him as a juvenile for mayhem as well as assault, and sentence him to 3 years in Juvenile

Detention, but with a possibility of only 2 years if he completes restorative justice. Richard

should have this sentence, compared to O’Malley’s harsh 5-7 year punishment, because of three

reasons: adolescent’s brain works differently than an adult's brain, Richard intentions and his

background shows that the act was not intentional but a result of a dumb decision, and restorative

justice will help reform Richard and heal his relationship with Sasha and the community.