How about a follow up piece about how the lives of the victim's families were destroyed by the crimes committed?

Powerful piece. It shows so very well how the world into which one is born impacts outcome despite any innate gifts. It should be a rebuke to those who want to maintain that in this 'land of opportunity' we all have the same chance to make something of ourselves. Likely, though, they either wouldn't read a piece like this or wouldn't get that some folks simply have too many strikes against them to start with.

In many states (including NJ where I grew up), if one participates in a crime and someone is murdered, that person can be charged with murder even it he didn't pull the trigger. There was an armed robbery of a jewelry store in my home town (Verona) years ago. They hijacked a UPS truck; kidnapped the driver; put on his uniform, and held up the store. In the courses of the crime the police shot and killed one of the robbers. The others were charged with a variety of crimes including murder (the only one killed was the one of them the cops shot).

That said, it seems that this man is at least attempting to do something meaningful from where he finds himself. I applaud him for that. It seems he has matured. Too bad he didn't get better legal advice and take the deal.

For those who are arguing that he was not innocent, of course he wasn't. He took part of a crime that ended fatally. However, that's not the purpose of this piece. It aims to show you the bigger spectrum of what these crimes constitute: the lives they touch, the pain, the complexity that they hold in itself.

He went to an ATM with a gun to rob people and someone got killed. Of course he belongs on death row. This is comical. A serial sociopath who should be put to death.

I would like to read the words, not be told in comics form about this subject.

I find this article particularly offensive. This is the story of a habitual criminal who acknowledged multiple violent offenses using a gun, breaking in to houses, and selling drugs. He and a friend went to rob a person with a gun. They chose go rob another human being with a gun. Then his partner killed the person. There is not such thing as a robbery gone wrong. You take a gun on a violent crime and you directly participate in shooting the person. He was not a 10 year old and unaware of his actions. He was an adult and I am absolutely certain he knew what crime and punishment were. It was his profession. Instead of even a brief moment telling the story of the victim, the Nytimes and author choose to ignore the lifetime of pain he and his partner created. He snuffed out a life. He killed a mother/sister/brother/father (Nytimes efforts to whitewash this). Their (parents, siblings, spouse, children) will live every birthday and holiday with the renewed and perpetual pain of imagining the last moments of fear experienced by their child/sibling/parent. The pain and sorrow will never cease. I'm sure that this person's regret is a function of getting caught and not because he participated in a violent crime or he would have stopped after his first violent criminal act. He should never be let out and society does not owe him a life in prison.

Pity these reporters and cartoonists didn't interview the families of the victims. That would at least give this series a little bit of balance and credibility. This episode does not even mention the name of the man Goodwin and Reams murdered. It's Gary Turner.

That measly $50 or $60 Alford needed took two lives on May 5th, 1993, and one was hidden away.

I love the "something went wrong" terminology that actually describes the murder of an innocent person just stopping to use an ATM. 'Something went wrong' indeed. But may I be so critical as to observe that 'something went wrong' when Reams and Goodwin "were set to rob this ATM with a .32 pistol"? Everything/anything that followed that decision is on Mr. Reams, not the 'system'.

This is bizarre - The author seems to inhabit some parallel universe and actually believe that this individual has been wronged? At least one person is dead because of his actions and by the way he describes his life, others may have dies as well, this guy should be locked up forever or dead. Period, end of story. Only this newspaper could find this a worthy cause.

"And they do it to each other."

When "they" (your word, not mine) commit crimes like armed robbery and murder, it would be better if "they" did it to others?
"They" seem stupid and prone to committing criminal acts.

The only victim in this story was the unfortunate soul who took a bullet because Mr. Chappette and his friend wanted "$50 or $60." I'm not even a supporter of the death penalty, but the callous nature of the crime and Mr. Chappette's disturbing lack of remorse and inability to shoulder any responsibility for his role in the murder of another human being suggest that behind bars is exactly where he ought to be.

I would like Mr. Chappette to do a follow-up piece on the aftermath and effects of the murder on the victim's family. Does he even realize how impersonally this article treats the person who was killed and his or her family? Did the viciim have a spouse? Chiildren? If he or she had children, were they forced to drop out of school because there was nobody to help pay. How were their lives damaged because of this person's decision to go with his friend, armed and dangerous, to rob somebody at an ATM. I, for one, have no sympathy. He chose to go rob somebody at an ATM, knowing full well his friend was armed with a deadly weapon and someone was likely to be hurt or killed. He chose to refuse to admit his guilt and accept responsibility for his conduct, hoping a jury would feel sorry for him. He made his choices. Now he is sorry that they were bad choices, but I notice, never says he is sorry for taking a life and destroying someone else's family. Boo Hoo for him

I am against the death penalty, and I support the felony murder rule.

Mr. Chappatte has the moral compass of an eager-to-please tween in Williamsburg.

He is not innocent. Innocent means you did not take place in a crime. I would not execute him but to describe him as innocent is a grotesque misuse of the term. That term should be reserved for the victim of his robbery, a man who lost his life in part because of his actions. That deserves to be on his conscience (if he has one) forever.

So, Mr. Chappette, you have a problem with the felony-murder rule? That's the rule which holds all felons acting together equally responsible if any one of them murders another human being. Juries don't have to waste their time figuring out who is responsible for a shooting death like the one you describe, while 2 criminals point the finger at each other and say "He did it, not me." Sorry, that's not a legal defense.

There is a sound public policy reason for this rule: the degree of culpability is the same. If 2 guys rob a bank and one of them shoots a guard or a teller, the non-shooter was perfectly happy to go along with that, until caught, of course. The shooting helped them get the money, or facilitated their escape.

So, Mr. Chappette, it's impossible to feel sorry for a criminal whose actions contributed to the death of an innocent person. You are free to believe otherwise, but society has wisely declared that joint venturers in criminal enterprises will share the risks, as well as the rewards, of their common illegal actions.