provide greater protection eleven years old and at the age of fourteen she used rape and then she a couple months later she was kidnapped she was held at gunpoint drugged and forcibly prostitute affirm that she also had substance and alcohol abuse issues this you know everybody everybody's in it in on it they each think about so at the behest of mine or she could provide a car at one time and there was no d n a or no blood or anything found on her answer on her shoes showing that she she didn't really essential so there is there is support for applying lower to not only juvenile sentences but adult statutorily mandated sentence with an ark movies evolving standards he's now in the past fifteen years we've seen the evolution of these standards of decency in our community in the united states supreme court and  that her two male accomplices actually committed the defendant was present for the planning of the crime she lured the victim to the crime scene which was the home of the fourth conspirator she attempted to arrange with the disposal of bodies she session had no minimum age limit on mandatory life sentences for multiple murders then it was eighteen at the time of the murders of the prohibition against mandatory life sentences for juveniles does not apply to her  was particularly harsh in a constitutionally disproportionate in that it shot the moral sense of the community under the orson welles clause in the first district and wonders held that no one does not apply to a defendant who was eighteen at the time of the did not get to speed in the plane the crimes are defendant did and he acted as a lookout while the crime was committed got out of the of course these murders were took place out of the view of our defendant but then she went further and took the proceeds of the crime she also tried to hide the bodies that it knows i'm with she had the opportunity to leave this whole situation go to the police she did she came back to the crime scene and continued in the in the whole procedure  victims to death and an attempted murder of other individuals in he was sentenced to a mandatory because of mandatory firearms in hansen's he got a total of seventy six years which was according to the court a defacto life sentence in the the illinois supreme court case of thompson regarding the evolving science on on juvenile children bring sciences but a recent case following here is also when the first district of the contacted you also reject the defense as by challenge section five hundred one in the first defendant's mandatory life sentence in the specific facts of this case and that that majority applies at eighteen years old and stated that if if the facts if the evidence potentially could be proper show the degree of culpability and the person's brain development to show that this person should not receive a sentence as if he was over the eighteen because the brain was sufficiently developed in harris that's what harris was talking about it said thompson opened the door to this issue and what has this talking about is that thompson open age twenty eight or twenty nine bills if you've got twenty five year old did you make one and it just puts into question all of this mandatory sentencing business you know mental life sentences harrison house come down on this one stock stating that these are you have greater protections here in illinois so they applied in those cases in those particular cases based on those facts and the eighteen and nineteen year old and it's an avatar challenge so that they are all together the planning the robbery there's no indication that anybody planned a murder this is these guys were upstairs when they decided to kill the other two guys other girls were downstairs at that time so there's no but under that as applied challenge it's her degree of participation that's important for this or she did not act with actively participate homicides and there's no indication that she intended these guys that these guys be murdered there's no indication there was any any discussion