Thornton's fate was almost preordained by a system that treated him like a number. Prosecutors charged him as an adult with two counts of vehicular homicide and offered no plea deal. His public defender concluded, without investigating the case on his own, that Thornton would lose at trial and encouraged him to plead no contest and put his fate in the hands of Judge Ric Howard, who is known for handing down harsh punishments, especially to young offenders.

Thornton was in no position to know whether he could win a trial without an investigation of the facts. Jurors easily sympathize with drivers who are careless but who intend no harm. Most jurors recall a stop sign or red light that they've missed. Without reconstructing the accident, using an engineer to calculate a range of speeds at which the cars may have been moving, the possible locations of the impact, and other details of the collision, it's impossible to evaluate the risks and benefits of a trial. It isn't enough to rely on the prosecutor's version of the accident: the government's "expert" is often a traffic cop who went through a two week training program.

As the linked editorial opines, Thornton's 30 year sentence lacks "a sense of proportion and justice." Fortunately, new counsel have entered the case on Thornton's behalf. They'll be asking to vacate Thornton's guilty plea so that Thornton will have the chance to make an intelligent decision about whether to have a trial. For Thornton's sake, let's hope the court grants that motion.