a court shouldn’t be considering things they haven’t been convicted for unless it’s part of the matter before the court.

They didn’t consider it in the trial to determine his innocence or guilt, which carries a reasonable doubt standard. They considered it at sentencing, which falls under a an abuse of discretion standard. Basically anything can be relevant at sentencing. It’s up the the judge to weigh the evidence, and the judge must give appropriate weight to uncharged crimes (probably not much, certainly not as much as convicted crimes). Ever read a pre sentencing report? It’s the convict’s entire life story. All of it gets considered. Should the court not consider whether someone has a family or deep community ties because they weren’t convicted have having a family or deep community ties?

A rigid sentencing rubric that allows no discretion, to me, is the fascist approach to sentencing.

This sentence seems long for the kid’s age, but that’s Alabama. Vote.