The point being that the jury felt that was the appropriate sentence after hearing all the facts about the crime and the circumstances surrounding the defendant. Sixteen years, in the jury's opinion, was enough. I'm certainly not going to argue with them. And if 12 folks believe that 16 years was enough in that case, it would be wrong in my opinion for the government to change the law to take away the jury's discretion in such case and impose mandatory life sentence. With sixteen years being an appropriate sentence in at least one case involving a child molester, I would bet that at least one jury in the future will find that an equivalent amount of time is the just sentence for a person convicted of operating a drug lab.
Every case is different.
Some factual scenarios have mitigating circumstances, others do not. Of course, a life sentence may be appropriate in some circumstances when a drug lab is involved. If a jury of twelve citizens, who have heard all the evidence, wish to impose that sentence, then so be it. Promoting mandatory life sentence for those who operate drug labs will get you a headline. Barry Green is the District Attorney for the 271st Judicial District.