Trouble in Sumner home boiled before double slayings

Originally Posted October 21st The Tennessean

Crosses mark the bottom of the driveway of Gary and Tammy Moore, who were killed Oct. 14 at their Cottontown house. Their 17-year-old son is charged in their deaths. / SANFORD MYERS / THE TENNESSEAN

Tennessee was supposed to change everything for the 17-year-old boy.

Leaving the small town of Scottsville, Ky., was meant to be a step in the right direction — away from the neighborhood where he saw his parents fall into debt, divorce and then reconcile; out of the school where, friends say, he was mercilessly bullied; and beyond his run-ins with police, who were called to the family’s house multiple times, once because his mother told them her son was “out of control.”

“The move to Tennessee was supposed to make (his) life better, to get away from everything,” said his older brother Justin Moore, 27. “It just doesn’t make any sense."

But the trouble escalated when the teenager and his parents, Gary and Tammy Moore, moved into a small rental house on Highway 25 in Sumner County.

Public records document the private turmoil simmering in the Moore home, arguments so intense that just last month the shouting woke Tammy Moore. She walked into the room to see her son — high on drugs — pointing a compound bow at his father. The son was arrested, for the second time this year.

The third time the Sumner County deputies went to the Moores’ Cottontown home, on Oct. 10, they found the couple shot to death. The son and a 21-year-old friend, Chase Vinson of Cross Plains, stand charged with two counts each of first-degree murder, aggravated arson and theft exceeding $10,000. Vinson’s brother Chad, 38, is charged with accessory after the fact to first-degree murder after, authorities say, he helped hide weapons and a stolen truck.

Prosecutors want the case transferred out of juvenile court to criminal court, where the teen can be tried as an adult. If convicted in juvenile court, he would serve a maximum of 19 years. If convicted in adult court, he could be sentenced to life in prison or life without parole.

A judge will make that decision after he hears the results of a psychiatric evaluation he ordered performed on the teenager. The Tennessean does not identify teenagers charged with crimes until they are transferred to adult court.

Deadly combinationPolice, friends and family say that although the Moore family may have struggled at times, they treated one another well. Justin Moore said the family would take frequent vacations to Barren River State Park to camp and boat. He said they’d take trips to Panama City Beach and theme parks. They gathered at the family dinner table to eat nearly every night. And, even though Gary, 54, and Tammy Moore, 51, divorced nearly a decade ago, the couple reconciled and moved back in together about a year later.

“We went camping, we did vacations, we did it all,” Justin Moore said. “It was unbelievable that something like this would happen.”
And yet, he said that his younger brother constantly got into trouble and didn’t respond to his parents’ discipline. Records show a growing anger with his family and a drug problem that developed.

“So, you have domestic issues, robbery and drugs involved,” said Maj. Don Linzy, with the Sumner County Sheriff’s Office. “It mixed to a deadly combination.”

The teen grew up in Scottsville, Ky., in rural Allen County, population about 20,000, just 60 miles northeast of Nashville. There the teen lived with his parents and three older siblings — two brothers and a sister.

Gary Moore worked as a driver for USF-Holland, a Michigan-based trucking company that has offices in Nashville. The company declined to answer questions about what kind of an employee he had been, but he had been driving for the company at least since 2003, court records show.
Tammy Moore didn’t work and often suffered with bouts of depression, Justin Moore said.

Around 2001, Justin Moore said, his parents ended their marriage in what he described as a cordial split, and Gary Moore moved out. About a year later, the two reconciled. Gary moved back in and life resumed as normal, but the couple never remarried.

“They still slept in the same bed and still lived in the same house,” Justin said. “I think it was more or less knowing that they weren’t married that they got along so well. When they got divorced, they were happy as can be. Dad loved Mom.”

In fact, though their marriage was troubled, Gary Moore wanted to keep his wife on his insurance plan so she could get treatment for her depression.

But in 2003, the Moore family filed for bankruptcy, citing more than $131,000 in debt, including medical bills and credit cards, according to federal court records. Justin Moore said the medical bills were related to his mother’s mental health.

That same year, their daughter, Shannon Moore, requested a restraining order against her father, saying he threatened to physically drag her away if she didn’t get home one night when he found her out late with friends. She was 18 at the time. A judge signed the order, warning Gary Moore not to threaten or abuse his daughter, but it was in place only a month before it expired.

Justin Moore laughed when asked about the order, saying it was just a way of trying to “push back” against authority. Linzy agreed, saying that after talking to Shannon Moore, “I think she would say she did the wrong thing.”

Shannon, now 26, could not be reached for comment.

In 2005, her youngest brother had his first encounter with the law.

Scottsville police spotted him in a “carload of intoxicated teens,” according to police records. He was 11 at the time.

Four years later, Tammy Moore called police on her son, saying he stole $5,000 from a lockbox in the house and ran away. It’s unclear from records whether he was arrested in either of those incidents.

Four months later, records show, she called police on him again, saying he was “out of control.”

Wes Vandyke lived next to the teen in Kentucky and befriended him about 11 years ago. He said the Moores were nice and treated him like family.

But as the teen entered high school, trouble started. Vandyke said the teen was continually bullied.

“He said everyone treated him bad but me,” said Vandyke, 21.

Daniel Turner, 22, another friend from high school, said the teen wouldn’t fight back, so he protected him, intervening when someone caused trouble. He also remembered him talking about quitting school and never wanting to go home.

“He just said he didn’t like it,” Turner said. “He would never go into any detail.”

Friend's dad uneasy

After arriving in Tennessee, the teenager befriended Chase Vinson.

Vinson’s father, Dwight, said the teen liked to play martial arts video games with his son, but the father was uneasy about their friendship.

“On his second or third visit, I told my son that he needed to stay away from him, that there was something wrong with him,” said Vinson, 65, of Cross Plains. “Every time the subject of his mom and dad came up, he would shut down. It was like he didn’t want to go home. You could tell that they didn’t get along in some way.”

Vinson’s instincts were right.

In January, Tammy Moore called 911 on her son after an argument in which Gary Moore slapped the teen, which led to a scuffle on the ground. Sumner County deputies arrested the teen on a simple battery charge.

On Sept. 19, Tammy Moore called 911 again on her son. She woke up to arguing and came downstairs to see he “had a compound bow with an arrow in place aimed at her husband.” Deputies said the teen was delusional, “talking about people were out to get him,” and had injected heroin before the incident. Deputies again arrested him, this time on an aggravated battery charge.

The cases were pending when the Moores were killed.

The teen’s Kentucky friend Vandyke said that he still talked with the teen on occasion and that the last time the two talked was Oct. 10, the day the couple were found slain.

“He said, ‘Me and my friends want to come over and hang out,’” he said. “He wanted my help for something.”

But Vandyke said the teenager never told him what he wanted.

Vandyke agreed to let the teen visit, but he never showed up. The next day, Vandyke saw news reports that said Gary and Tammy Moore had been shot to death and set on fire in an attempt to cover up the crime.

The teenager remains jailed awaiting his next court hearing. A judge set a $1 million bond for Chase Vinson, and his brother Chad Vinson remains jailed without bond.

Staff writer Nicole Young contributed to this report. Contact Brian Haas at 615-726-8968 or bhaas@tennessean.com

Flawed objections to juvenile law reform

Originally Posted October 5, 2011 boston.com by James Alan Fox

The response to my last blog post--a call to abolish life without parole sentences for juvenile murderers in Massachusetts--was lively and contentious. While many readers concurred with the goal of better aligning our state with the rest of the nation, some would have Massachusetts remain one of the harshest and most punitive when it comes to sentencing youth.

The negative tenor of certain reader comments was unsurprising, not because introducing parole eligibility for juvenile murderers is in any way a radical idea. Rather the unwillingness of some folks to consider he reforms proposed in S. 672 and H. 1346 (An Act Relative to the Sentencing of Children), is based on an array of misconceptions and falsehoods about juvenile justice.

A group of responders, thinking perhaps with their pocketbook in mind, argued for restoring the death penalty in Massachusetts. Aside from the fact that the death penalty costs more, not less, than long term incarceration, a return to capital punishment would not-- and could not--apply to juveniles. The U.S. Supreme Court already decided that executing those whose crimes were committed before their 18th birthday is unconstitutional.

In Roper v. Simmons (2005), the Court ruled that the former practice in many states of executing juvenile murderers was cruel and unusual: cruel because it was contrary to evolving standards of decency and unusual because the U.S. was virtually alone in this regard. Moreover, the Court was persuaded by scientific evidence that youngsters are different. No matter how heinous the crime, juveniles should not be held to the same standard of responsibility as adults.

Undoubtedly, as several of my critics argued, juveniles are fully aware of the wrongfulness of killing. However because of their transitional stage of cognitive and emotional development, their ability to think long term and to grasp fully the enormous impact of their crimes is limited. They fail to appreciate the profound consequences of taking someone’s life--not for their victim or even for themselves. They don’t imagine what it would be like growing up and growing old in prison, never marrying, and never having kids or a career. Indeed, what is the significance of life from the perspective of someone who has lived only 14 years?

This lack of foresight helps to explain why, according to a study by the Children’s Law Center of Massachusetts, nearly half of the offenders serving life without parole for juvenile murder had rejected a plea bargain offered by the prosecution in favor of a jury trial. They end up paying with their lives for a bad decision on legal strategy. If the prosecutor thought that 15 years (parole eligibility for second-degree murder) was just punishment, is it right that the juvenile should instead spend the remainder of his life in prison?

Besides having poor judgment, juveniles are especially susceptible to external forces, including the approval and disapproval of peers. They do terrible things on a dare, often commit crimes in groups, and are easily pressured by older teens or adults.

Juveniles behave impulsively. Simply put, teenagers may look like adults, dress like adults and even kill like adults, but they reason and deliberate as juveniles. A harsh punishment will not make someone think twice, when they don’t really think once before acting.

Other commenters to my blog focused more on the need to keep extremely dangerous offenders away from society for extended periods of time, even life. Names like Eddie O’Brien and Daniel LaPlante were mentioned by a couple of outraged readers. However, the proposal to give juvenile murderers parole eligibility does not necessarily grant them parole release. The proposed change in law appropriately provides for lifetime incarceration in the case of individuals who cannot be safely returned to society. But this decision is best made down the road, not at time of sentencing.

A few indignant readers reminded me of the simple fact that the there is no parole for the victims of first-degree murder from their fate. For them, regardless of the perpetrator’s age and level of maturity, there can be no second chances. Of course, this sad truth holds for victims of second-degree murder, manslaughter, and vehicular homicide--all crimes for which the perpetrator does have the possibility of returning back to society even while the victim remains buried in the grave.

In general, punishments should fit the crime. But they should also fit the criminal. Murderers are not all the same in terms of culpability and dangerousness to society. With sufficient time, most juvenile offenders will mature, develop better judgment and foresight, and earn the opportunity for a second chance. Life without parole is a walking death sentence.

Dissenting readers based their objections while contemplating repeat, chronic, ruthless hoodlums. However, 40% of juveniles sentenced to life without parole in Massachusetts were first-time offenders. Contrary to the claims posted by several of my critics, many of these juvenile offenders are or will someday be excellent parole risks.

Also quite different from the common stereotype are youngsters who were convicted under the felony-murder rule, representing as many as 20% of those serving life without parole in Massachusetts for juvenile homicide. By law, all parties involved in the commission of a felony during which someone is killed are considered responsible, regardless of how the death occurred, who caused it, or whether it was intentional.

An accomplice can be convicted of first-degree murder without having dealt the fatal blow, or any blow for that matter. In such cases, the prosecution need not prove the intent to kill, nor is such intent even required for conviction.

By far the biggest myth is the notion that Massachusetts is soft on violent juveniles. To the contrary, the state stands as one of the very toughest. In Massachusetts, all defendants as young as 14 who are accused of murder are tried as adults--no exceptions. Other states also permit trying such youngsters as adults, but make it discretionary depending on the circumstances. Moreover, in Massachusetts anyone 14 or older who is convicted of first-degree murder, including felony murder and joint ventures, are automatically given life sentences without the possibility of parole.

Massachusetts trial judges have expressed discomfort and regret as they send a teenager away for life without parole. However, the Commonwealth gives them no other option. Other states employ life without parole, but allow exceptions given mitigating factors.

The problem with the current law is not so much in its toughness, but in its rigidity. The law was passed in the wake of the Eddie O’Brien murder case and was designed to put such offenders away for life. O’Brien may represent the worst case, but is hardly the typical case. Of course, laws need to accommodate worst case situations, but at the same time allow for more measured responses for less extreme crimes.

For second-degree murder (i.e., murderous intent without premeditation), Massachusetts grants parole eligibility after 15 years. Given what we know about the immaturity and impulsivity of juveniles, shouldn’t they have the same opportunity? Even then, those believed to pose too much of a threat to public safety can, and should, be held longer. Under the proposed amendments, juvenile murderers canbe incarcerated for their entire lives if the parole board determines that they are at risk of reoffending.

I hope you put aside your preconceptions of liberal Massachusetts, one of only two states that employs life without parole for someone as young as 14. I hope you will consider the fairness of giving juveniles--those who are truly deserving--the possibility for a second chance at freedom. For a teenage offender, a sentence of fifteen years, at the minimum, is hardly a slap on the wrist or in any respects an insult to the victim.

Author's note: You can follow me on twitter at @jamesalanfox or Facebook at Professor James Alan Fox for notifications of new blog postings. Also, you can find me on the Web at www.jamesalanfox.com or contact me by e-mail at j.fox@neu.edu.

The Importance of Evidenced-Based Research in Establishing Juvenile Justice Policy

Originally Published September 16th Juvenile Justice Information Exchange

By John Lash

Over the last few decades politicians have advocated for stricter sentencing guidelines and for trying more juveniles as adults. These decisions have been largely driven by public fear and a desire by elected officials to be seen as “tough on crime.”

They do not rely on evidence-based research, one of the least used methods for determining juvenile justice policy.

Some of these attitudes seem to be changing though. Over the last few years, research has generated data that are beginning to be acknowledged by policy makers. One such study is Pathways to Desistance, sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in partnership with many other groups interested in effective juvenile justice practices. The study followed 1,354 serious juvenile offenders between the ages of 14 and 18 for seven years following their conviction.

Several interesting conclusions have been drawn from the study, as outlined in an OJJDP fact sheet prepared by Edward P. Mulvey, the lead researcher. According to the fact sheet, “Most youth who commit felonies greatly reduce their offending over time, regardless of the intervention.” This seems to point to the idea that as people mature they tend to make better decisions. This applies even to those who commit terrible crimes.

Another conclusion of the study is that longer stays in juvenile facilities do not lower the risk of reoffending when compared to placing the youths on probation. In fact, the group with the lowest level of offending actually tended to increase their criminality the longer they were kept in confinement. A better approach was community based supervision, which increased participation in school and work, and which led to lower rates of involvement with the juvenile system. Increasing the time that the juvenile spent in community based supervision led to even lower rates of reoffending.

The study also supports the efficacy of substance-abuse treatment. Even when taking into account the types of offenses, race and socioeconomic status, treatment that included strong family involvement led to a decrease in criminal behavior. One finding of the study is that the prevalence of drug use among juvenile offenders is three to four times higher than in the general population. Thirty seven percent of the males had been diagnosed with a substance abuse disorder. Dr. Mulvey suggests that joining substance abuse treatment with community-based supervision may lead to greater reduction in offending over the short and long term.

The OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book says that in 2007 (the last year listed) 86,927 juveniles were in detention. According to Models for Change, a website devoted to juvenile justice reform, seventy percent of these are held in state-run facilities, at an average cost of $240.99 a day to house. States are looking for ways to save money, and evidenced-based policies can help meet that goal. They are certainly a better choice than programs that are ineffective and that may actually increase crime.

I hope that studies like this will be taken into account when new policies are being decided. Juvenile life without parole, automatically trying juveniles as adults, and imposition of mandatory minimums on young offenders should all be revisited in light of studies such as Pathways to Desistance. Along with the latest research in adolescent brain development these real world studies point to a new way of approaching juvenile crime. Perhaps we can begin to salvage these kids instead of throwing them away.

John Lash

John Lash served nearly 25 years in Georgia prisons. He was released in December 2009. While in, he began to practice Zen meditation and other approaches to studying consciousness. He later became interested in interpersonal communication and group processes. He studied and taught nonviolent communication and restorative practices in prison where he also got his BS in human resources management from Mercer University. He is a participant in Compassionate Leadership, a non-violent communication training program, and is a student in the Master of Conflict Management program at Kennesaw State University.

Abolish juvenile life without parole in Mass.

Originally Posted September 21st 2011 boston.com

By James Alan Fox, Crime and Punishment

The existing Massachusetts law for trying and punishing juveniles charged with murder, arguably the stiffest in the United States in terms of breadth and rigidity, was enacted amidst a climate of fear fueled by wide-ranging media hype about juvenile violence. Not only was the 1996 statute crafted in the wake of a particularly heinous juvenile murder case locally, but lawmakers around the country responded to warnings about the increasing numbers of the young and the ruthless.

As it happened, the early 1990s spike in juvenile homicide did not persist, but vanished as the new millennium approached. The 1990s drop in juvenile murder has been linked to smarter policing, crack-downs on illegal gun trafficking, increased anti-gang efforts, successful crime prevention programming, demographic trends, and especially shifting drug markets, but not to changes in the way in which juveniles were prosecuted.

It may be tempting to suggest that the 1996 statute was responsible for the diminished problem of youth homicide locally over the past decade and a half. However, as should be clear in the figure below, the welcome decline in juvenile murder started years prior to 1996. In addition, juvenile murder rates declined nationally, not just in Massachusetts with our particularly harsh approach to punishing juveniles and not just in other states that have juvenile life without parole laws on the books. The rate of juvenile murder declined in states that did not take such extreme measures.

Of course, the proof of the pudding is in the data. I have analyzed juvenile murder trends state-by-state in order to estimate the effect of the 1996 statute on juvenile homicide rates here in the Commonwealth. I can report that current law, requiring that all juveniles as young as 14 be tried as adults and sentenced to life without parole if convicted of first-degree murder, has not reduced the rate of juvenile murder whatsoever.

The statute’s lack of impact reflects on two factors. First, juvenile life without parole has no greater deterrent effect than, say, a  15- or 20-year prison sentence, which was the law in Massachusetts prior to the 1996 statute. Given their relatively immature level of cognitive and emotional development, adolescents are much more influenced by present day incentives for committing crime than by future consequences should they be caught. In addition to the failure of deterrence, the dozens of juveniles currently serving life without parole in Massachusetts under existing law would still be incarcerated today had the 1996 statute never been passed. That is, a 15-year minimum penalty for juvenile murder, which was prescribed under the previous law and is included among the reforms proposed in S. 672 and H. 1346 (An Act Relative to the Sentencing of Children), currenly being considered by the Joint Committee on the Judicary, would still have these convicted murderers behind bars.

The pending legislation does not  not propose a return to the antiquated system in place prior to the 1990s whereby youngsters charged with murder were retained in the juvenile court unless selectively transferred for criminal prosecution. Rather, the proposed bill would have juvenile murderers incarcerated for 15 years at the very least, thereby keeping them off the streets through their violence-prone years, and even longer should the parole board consider them to be a continuing threat to public safety. But for those whose criminal history is indeed history, keeping them incarcerated for life, well past the point of dangerousness, makes little policy sense. Not only does it use up scarce prison space, but it fails to recognize that people can change and sometimes a second chance is in order.

Over the past decade, many states around the country have reconsidered their approach to punishing juveniles, repealing some the harsh approaches implemented during the 1990s hype and hysteria. Even the state of Texas abolished life without parole for juveniles. It is time for Massachusetts to do the same.

* * *

Note; This is an expanded version of my testimony on September 20, 2011 before the Massachusetts Senate and House Joint Committee on the Judiciary.

Author's note: You can follow me on twitter at @jamesalanfox or Facebook at Professor James Alan Fox for notifications of new blog postings. Also, you can find me on the Web at www.jamesalanfox.com or contact me by e-mail at j.fox@neu.edu.

Appeals court allows life sentences for juveniles

Originally Published September 7th Associated Press

By GREG BLUESTEIN Associated Press

ATLANTA (AP) -- A federal appeals court on Wednesday held that juveniles convicted of murder can be sentenced to life in prison without parole, seeking to settle a lingering debate over how the courts punish minors who commit serious offenses.

The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that juveniles cannot be sentenced to death and that they also can't be sentenced to life in prison without parole for rape and other non-homicide offenses. The ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday, though, upheld life sentences for juveniles convicted of murder.

The decision came in the case against Kenneth Loggins, who was convicted in Alabama of killing a hitchhiker in 1994 and originally sentenced to die. He was 17 at the time of the killing, so his punishment was reduced to life without parole because the Supreme Court banned such executions in 2005.

His attorneys had urged the three-judge panel to broaden a 2010 Supreme Court by including murders as an offense that can't carry a life sentence. That 5-4 ruling held that juveniles cannot be sentenced to life in prison without parole if they haven't killed anyone, and ordered the courts to allow them a "meaningful opportunity to obtain release."

But prosecutors argued that the high court took pains to specify the ruling only applied in non-homicide cases, and the 11th Circuit said it found no reason to toss out Loggins' prison sentence.

The decision, written by Circuit Judge Ed Carnes, said "there's nothing in law or logic" to support the argument that a state shouldn't be allowed to impose the next most severe punishment if a death penalty sentence is banned.

The 11th Circuit has jurisdiction over federal cases in Georgia, Alabama and Florida, but lawyers in other areas will likely use the opinion to back up their own arguments.

Carnes had been the head of Alabama's capital punishment unit before he joined the court in 1992. He also wrote that the state shouldn't be blocked from imposing the prison sentence because it "lacked the clairvoyance to know that the Supreme Court would do an about-face and rule out death sentences for seventeen-year-old murderers."

In the decision, he said only a few jurisdictions have repealed laws permitting life without parole sentences for homicides committed by juveniles, and that the national consensus seems to be in favor of keeping those laws on the books.

"The long-term national trend is not away from life without parole sentences for homicides committed by juveniles but toward them," he said.
The ruling comes in a case involving the gruesome murder of Vickie Deblieux, who was picked up by Loggins and three other teens and taken to a secluded rural area as she was traveling to her mother's home in Louisiana.

One of the men hit Deblieux in the head with a beer bottle and then tackled her when she tried to run away, and all four savagely kicked her, the court said. When they realized she was still alive after the vicious beating, Loggins stood on her throat until she died, the ruling said.

Loggins and two others later mutilated the body by cutting off her fingers and thumbs and removing part of a lung. They were arrested after one of the teens was reported to have been showing one of the victim's severed fingers to friends.

The three others - who were 19, 17 and 16 at the time of the killing - were also convicted of the slaying and sentenced to either death or life in prison.