Charles J. Keech has been in prison for thirty-three years. He was initially convicted for two counts of first degree murder, which were committed in Jacksonville—although he was not the one who committed the murders themselves. He and a group of three other men were committing a burglary in Jacksonville when the stabbings occurred, and as a result of the realities of the American penal code, Keech was tried and convicted of these two murders. His first chance for parole is not until August 17, 2034, but he is scheduled to see the parole examiner in February of 2018 to determine his ability to stand for parole.
Keech is not the one who committed the murders, but any death that occurs during the commission of a felony—like burglary—can result in a murder conviction, even if the individual committing the felony did not touch the weapon and never knew the murder or murders occurred (Maguire, Morgan and Reiner). This is one of the strictest legal standards in the United States, and has been used to send many individuals who were not violent to prison for murder (Maguire, Morgan and Reiner). For this reason, this legal standard is one that is considered highly controversial to this day, and many oppose the existence of the law on the basis of unfair application for certain defendants (Ogloff et al.). Keech is one of the people who was charged under this legal structure: even though he himself was not violent and never intended to be violent, his crime resulted in the death of two victims, and he is in prison serving two sentences as a result.
In some ways, Keech is a sympathetic figure. He grew up in a very poor family, and he claims that he felt little to no attachment from his mother and his father. When he committed the crime, he did not know what he was doing, according to interviews; he claims that his failure to feel a part of a family led directly to his involvement with the type of people that eventually ended up committing the murders. Despite this, he also claims that he never really had any intention to hurt anyone, and his past history indicates that he did not have the intention to hurt anyone as well. He had a history of abuse in his childhood, which Lutnick et al. associate with later potential for criminal activity in males, particularly when past abuse exists in a poverty-stricken home environment.
Keech claims that he was tired, homesick, young, and hungry, and this is why he became a criminal; he felt he had to become a criminal to be able to survive in the wider world. Because he never had a family to rely on, he had to rely on the people he surrounded himself with, and he recognizes now that he surrounded himself with the wrong people. Surrounding oneself with the wrong people is common for individuals who grow up in an environment of poverty, especially when there is gang activity in the region. The gang can quickly become a surrogate for the family of the affected individual (Taylor, Walton and Young). This is quite sad and occurs far too often with children of all different racial groups.
Sociology suggests that there might be any number of reasons why people turn to crime as a solution in the face of difficult times. Differential reinforcement of crime can occur when individuals teach other individuals how to become criminal through the way certain behaviors are both reinforced and punished. In the case of Keech, he relied on his family and was punished for this reliance. However, when he relied on his group of friends, he was able to eat and live securely until they participated in a violent crime—and his ability to function in society was removed (Maguire, Morgan and Reiner; Taylor, Walton and Young). Taylor, Walton and Young suggest that crime is more likely to occur when it is infrequently punished and frequently rewarded.
However, Taylor, Walton and Young also suggest that there are some sociological theories that suggest that individuals around the target group or individual can also teach beliefs that encourage criminal activity. For instance, white collar workers who engage in money laundering are surrounded by others who believe this kind of behavior is ethically acceptable; as a result, this kind of behavior becomes normalized within the group.
For Keech, the reality is probably somewhere in the middle of these two theories. Keech never had good guidance from anyone inside or outside his family, so he never really knew what was right or wrong; in addition, once he became old enough to know what society thought was right and wrong, he had already experienced so much trauma and punishment that it seemed more logical and beneficial to engage in deviant and alternative behavior like criminal behavior (Taylor, Walton and Young).
Keech also probably felt quite isolated from society as a whole. He was never protected by his parents or the people who were supposed to protect him, and this lack of protection can have a very detrimental effect on children as a whole. However, his trauma in his young life does not excuse the bad things that he did when he was younger. It is important to ask whether or not two murder sentences were appropriate for Keech. Because he was never violent and never participated in violence, it is possible that his current attitude could have some benefit to society. Instead, he is sitting in a prison cell, likely for the rest of his life.
He has stated that one of his goals is to interact with children, teaching them how to make better decisions than he made. This can be a very important mentorship role for ex-convicts to play, particularly when they themselves were so poorly treated as children (Taylor, Walton and Young). These types of individuals can be extremely powerful in the movement to turn children away from drugs and gang activity, and encourage them to engage in positive behaviors in society, rather than destructive ones. There are no good excuses for committing a murder. However, there are ways to explain behavior without excusing it, and Keech faced significant struggles in his life. However, just because he made mistakes does not mean that he cannot ever make a positive difference in the world. Although he has faced very real struggles, he has the potential to be an excellent positive role model for children in similar situations to his in the future.
Works Cited
Lutnick, Alexandra, et al. "Examining the associations between sex trade involvement, rape, and symptomatology of sexual abuse trauma." Journal of interpersonal violence 30.11 (2015): 1847-1863.
Maguire, Mike, Rod Morgan, and Robert Reiner. The Oxford handbook of criminology. Oxford University Press, 2012.
Ogloff, James RP, et al. "Child sexual abuse and subsequent offending and victimisation: A 45 year follow-up study." Trends and issues in crime and criminal justice 440 (2012): 1.
Taylor, Ian, Paul Walton, and Jock Young. The new criminology: For a social theory of deviance. Routledge, 2013.
