What in the world is LWOP and why isn't LWOP really LWOP in one case???
LWOP is an acronym for Life WithOut Parole, usually used by law enforcement personnel. As for when is LWOP not LWOP, that is in the case of convicted murderer Sandy Marie Shaw.
Ms Shaw, who is a prisoner in the Nevada state prison system was turned down for parole, but she can apply again in 2007. This is in direct contradiction to the Life Without Parole sentence imposed upon her at the tender age of 15 when she was convicted of murdering James Cotton Kelly in one of the most gruesome killings in the history of the Las Vegas Valley.
What made this killing so gruesome? Was it the six shots that were pumped into the face of the victim, James Kelly at the desert site he was lured to for the purpose of robbing and killing him? No, not by itself. It was the fact that for the next six days, while the body lay there undiscovered, Sandy Marie Shaw and her two accomplices returned to the scene of the crime several times with friends in tow for the purpose of showing off what they had done. The media, which I was part of at the time, immediately dubbed this the "Show and Tell Murder" and it was front page news from the day the body was discovered until the day Ms Shaw was convicted and sentenced to LWOP. The other two who were involved, Troy Kell, who is now believed by many to be the triggerman is on Death Row in Utah after killing another inmate there, while Billy Merritt who got a lighter sentence in return for implicating Shaw has subsequently returned to prison on other felony charges.
Then, in what appears to be one of the most gross miscarriages of justice I can imagine, for some reason the Nevada State Board of Pardons voted 5 to 3 in November of 2004 to commute Ms Shaw's sentence to make her eligible for parole. Why, I have no idea? While she may have earned a high school diploma and associates degree during her time in prison, and even have counselled other inmates, that doesn't change the fact that she brutally took another person's life. This is not a moment to debate the death penalty, but when one commits murder in the first degree, that person must forfeit their right to be a member of society for the remainder of their days. That is why it is murder in the first degree. Had she been convicted of a lesser offense, parole would have been permitted as part of her original sentencing. There was no reason for the Board of Pardons to be second-guessing the judge. Nothing that Ms Shaw did or does while behind bars will ever "make-up" for the heinous act in the desert that took the life of James Cotton Kelly. That is, if it was murder in the first degree.
At her parole hearing, Ms Shaw claimed that she did not fire the shots that killed the victim and that she only arranged to have her two accomplices "beat Kelly up". According to the brother of the victim, the court transcripts tell a different story and the parole board listened to him. But was he right? Was he telling the truth about those transcripts? Las Vegas Review-Journal columnist John L. Smith wrote a column on Sandy Shaw in April of 2001 that raises doubts about Shaw's role in the murder. She was involved in bringing Kelly out to the desert location where he was killed, but she may well not have been part of the plan to take his life and IF that is true, then she does deserve parole consideration. Especially if as Smith wrote, she was unaware of the intent of Kell to kill the victim.
Raphael Stavale, a friend who attended Shaw's parole hearing in December, was appalled by the decision.
"The damn parole commissioners do not judge her for who she is today, but the lost teen she was in 1986," he said. "What more does she has to do to prove herself? You tell me and her mother what she has to do to convince the board she is good and worthy of her freedom?"
The answer here is simple. Convince the board that she didn't pull the trigger. Convince the board that she was not aware of Kell's intent to kill James Cotton Kelly. If that is truly what is in the transcripts of the trial, then drag them to the hearing and quote from them. Diffuse the brother's testimony before he has a chance to testify.
Ms Shaw, who is a prisoner in the Nevada state prison system was turned down for parole, but she can apply again in 2007. This is in direct contradiction to the Life Without Parole sentence imposed upon her at the tender age of 15 when she was convicted of murdering James Cotton Kelly in one of the most gruesome killings in the history of the Las Vegas Valley.
What made this killing so gruesome? Was it the six shots that were pumped into the face of the victim, James Kelly at the desert site he was lured to for the purpose of robbing and killing him? No, not by itself. It was the fact that for the next six days, while the body lay there undiscovered, Sandy Marie Shaw and her two accomplices returned to the scene of the crime several times with friends in tow for the purpose of showing off what they had done. The media, which I was part of at the time, immediately dubbed this the "Show and Tell Murder" and it was front page news from the day the body was discovered until the day Ms Shaw was convicted and sentenced to LWOP. The other two who were involved, Troy Kell, who is now believed by many to be the triggerman is on Death Row in Utah after killing another inmate there, while Billy Merritt who got a lighter sentence in return for implicating Shaw has subsequently returned to prison on other felony charges.
Then, in what appears to be one of the most gross miscarriages of justice I can imagine, for some reason the Nevada State Board of Pardons voted 5 to 3 in November of 2004 to commute Ms Shaw's sentence to make her eligible for parole. Why, I have no idea? While she may have earned a high school diploma and associates degree during her time in prison, and even have counselled other inmates, that doesn't change the fact that she brutally took another person's life. This is not a moment to debate the death penalty, but when one commits murder in the first degree, that person must forfeit their right to be a member of society for the remainder of their days. That is why it is murder in the first degree. Had she been convicted of a lesser offense, parole would have been permitted as part of her original sentencing. There was no reason for the Board of Pardons to be second-guessing the judge. Nothing that Ms Shaw did or does while behind bars will ever "make-up" for the heinous act in the desert that took the life of James Cotton Kelly. That is, if it was murder in the first degree.
At her parole hearing, Ms Shaw claimed that she did not fire the shots that killed the victim and that she only arranged to have her two accomplices "beat Kelly up". According to the brother of the victim, the court transcripts tell a different story and the parole board listened to him. But was he right? Was he telling the truth about those transcripts? Las Vegas Review-Journal columnist John L. Smith wrote a column on Sandy Shaw in April of 2001 that raises doubts about Shaw's role in the murder. She was involved in bringing Kelly out to the desert location where he was killed, but she may well not have been part of the plan to take his life and IF that is true, then she does deserve parole consideration. Especially if as Smith wrote, she was unaware of the intent of Kell to kill the victim.
Raphael Stavale, a friend who attended Shaw's parole hearing in December, was appalled by the decision.
"The damn parole commissioners do not judge her for who she is today, but the lost teen she was in 1986," he said. "What more does she has to do to prove herself? You tell me and her mother what she has to do to convince the board she is good and worthy of her freedom?"
The answer here is simple. Convince the board that she didn't pull the trigger. Convince the board that she was not aware of Kell's intent to kill James Cotton Kelly. If that is truly what is in the transcripts of the trial, then drag them to the hearing and quote from them. Diffuse the brother's testimony before he has a chance to testify.
posted by me at 9:43 PM
