well given how he was charged with three part of the actual intent to kill it has to be his objective purpose to try and kill her but given the circumstances i would say that since he's under gunpoint and he's saying that it can be inferred from the circumstances so compulsion can be consider as a factor to see you know what was going to state of mind here and he was acting i believe under the threat of imminent harm considering that he's at  on to sensing despite changes ruling the fact that he's a secondary player james got a maximum of sixty years he just turned seventeen and he'll be seventy seven when he's released this which is basically the rest of his life and he would argue that this sentence is excessive for several reasons first of all given his youth just ten days prior to turn seventeen and also it's excessive given in light of his role in the series i discussed he was a secondary player this was not his idea and he was operating basically underground and again it also existed because of his strong potential for rehabilitation here surely given his young age on we believe that he could still be restored to be productive member of society given that he was just seventeen at the time but not only was the sentence here excessive it was also problematic sixty your recommendation is just that it's a recommendation so the judge still has discretion if you want to impose a lesser sentence and the problem here is that there were none of them indicating character for consider and the camp no good either say i'd consider your recommendation i'd like to hear more both in their vision and medication or the judge can say under the circumstances with the dismissal of other counts that's reasonable and i will go along with that why wouldn't the judge have the discretion to either way the judge does have discretion to go either way but with this case if th that particular state and the fact that the trial the trial counsel basically don't want him in his thought was good the best deal he could work out o found james guilty and the right now at the sentencing portion and so given that at that point the charges are in been reduced to the one count right i don't think that i mean at that point i think it would have i'm my point is that e mandatory sentences that were discussed by the supreme court where a juvenile is mandatorily sentenced to turn without any options in the sentencing court and in the illinois of course we have four seventeen year olds acting now eighteen year olds a mandatory if an individual eighteen or younger is charged with theft over three hundred dollars that person is going to get automatically transferred to the criminal justice court or the circuit court is that my understanding you have under explicit jurisdiction basically if you are seventeen years old and charged with felony that you will court i mean is there any this is advantage to the individual who is sent automatically to a criminal court as opposed to staying in the juvenile court where the judge has automatically sent there without any sort of consideration as there you are it's a kind of characteristics and the supreme court's pointed out children are just constitutionally different than adults in many regards to just their disadvantages to sentencing procedurally is there criminal procedure that would be prejudicial to an individual who's an automatic plea transferred to the criminal court they could think of i mean they still get their miranda rights they may not have a juvenile the suppressant ok and something like that is there any difference procedurally that you can probably rape the largest difference sentencing than it is who are charging who charge somebody if we charge them with a felony over three hundred dollars and i'm just taking a minor felony for example and the max but you have to have all these other considerations so i'm trying in my head to figure out why do we draw a distinction between the charging phase and the sentencing phase  and so which was they recognize that juveniles especially older juveniles and especially charged with the most heinous of crimes  a constitutional right i mean we're now we're now saying there is some constitutional basis for making sure that these factors are man was going to be convicted of all these charges sixty years is better than natural  there wasn't the door was already unlocked probably a matter of seconds before the others who were in the house he actually lives with carl i think he's at this point terrified mind that he has a gun you know what he's capable of it's not