He underwent child abuse from both parents. His father was physically abusive while his mother was emotionally abusive. He committed the offence because of the dissonance and social disorganization at home. Ind talked of repeated sexual molestation by his father in the bathroom, while his mother had bad moods that made her punish them for the slightest offense, such as watching the wrong TV station. Based on the social bond story, there was no social bond between Ind’s family structures; they were simply dysfunctional (Hirschi 58). The lack of social bond and weakening of the family structure caused his actions.
The criminal justice responded by giving him life a life sentence without parole. The jury convicted him of two counts of first-degree murder as the bizarre incident meant his trial was as an adult. The judge argued that he was not old enough for the death penalty. Most people believe that a poor defense, lack of preparation, and the inability of Ind to take the stand to defend him, were major reasons for his conviction. Even so, there are pundits who believe that he was a disobedient boy in need of more freedom from his parents, and in consequence, deserves his punishment, and even worse, the death penalty. Although he says he is comfortable in his cell, he is still in search of an appeal and a new trial.
In the main, and based on the social environment Ind existed in, the punishment was unjust. It is a vindictive and bizarre punishment for a teenager to go through a life sentence without parole for an offense done as a way out of abuse. The wealth of characteristics and circumstances that surround the offense is persuasive enough for a lesser sentence by the judge. The life sentence without parole was an ill-fated sentence for the young Jacob Ind. the death penalty and life sentences of imprisonment are both undesirable disciplinary measures because the