A controversial sentencing in Michigan has many asking was justice served? Nathaniel Abraham became the poster boy for the debate over the way this country treats violent children when he was charged as an adult and convicted of murder for a crime he committed when he was just 11.

Judge EUGENE MOORE: We as a community have failed you, but you have failed yourself.

Ms. NICOLE GREENE (Victim's Sister): It don't matter when they say he was 11 at the time he gunned down my brother. That age don't matter. What matters is that--is that he be punished for taking my brother's life.

FORD: (VO) But in the end the judge said juvenile time is enough. When Nathaniel turns 21, he'll be a free man. As the victim's family wept, Nathaniel looked very much like a boy who didn't quite understand.

Ms. DESIREE COOPER (Detroit Free Press): Nathaniel was visibly dismayed, even irritated by the verdict. I think that in--in talking to people afterwards, Nathaniel had an expectation that he was going home.

FORD: Geoffrey Fieger is Nathaniel's attorney. He joins us this morning from Detroit.

Mr. Fieger, good morning.

Mr. GEOFFREY FIEGER (Nathaniel Abraham's Attorney): Good morning. How are you?

FORD: Good. Does Nathaniel, in fact, understand the consequences of--of his conduct in terms of the impact on the victim's family, and the impact on his own life?

Mr. FIEGER: Well, he wasn't shooting up the neighborhood. He was playing with a gun. He was unsupervised, and--and at worst, an unfortunate accident happened. But he certainly doesn't understand these adult proceedings. The attempts to put juveniles, young people, into adult prisons is this quick fix solution suggested by politicians who have no idea what's really going on.

FORD: If I can ask you about the sentence yesterday. Understanding that your job is to be an advocate on behalf of your client, the judge could have said, 'Here's what we're going to do, I'm going to send you to a juvenile facility until the age of 21, and then I'll reserve the right to see if you've, indeed, become rehabilitated. If you have, you're back in society, if not, we can hold you longer.' From society's point of view, what would have been wrong with that sentence?

Mr. FIEGER: It would--that would be something out of Kafka. We don't do that in a civilized society. First of all, you either get a sentence that you can appeal or you don't, and Judge Moore correctly pointed out the absurdity of that, because, by the way, he might not be there till he's 21. But if he'd been there till he's 21 he would have been in custody 10 years and you couldn't sentence him to an adult prison because he would have served over two years longer than--than the sentence would have been under the circumstances. This is all politics here. They've built prisons, they want to put children in them. Now they want to de-fund juvenile health, which actually has a much higher success rate, as Judge Moore pointed out. Much higher, much lower resitivism, much higher success, and the way to deal with it is the way Judge Moore suggests.

FORD: Geoffrey Fieger, thank you for joining us this morning. We appreciate your time. Also joining us to discuss this debate from Grand Rapids, Michigan, is Bill Van Regenmorter, a state senator who led the drive for Michigan's tougher crime bill.

Senator, good morning. Thank you for joining us also.

Senator BILL VAN REGENMORTER (Republican, Michigan): Good morning, Jack, thank you.

FORD: What was your reaction to yesterday's sentence?

Sen. VAN REGENMORTER: Well, I think that it--it is a reasonable sentence. However, it left out one very important element, and you mentioned that element. A better sentence would have been a blended sentence. Under the sentencing that was given yesterday by the judge at age 21, he is free to go, regardless of how much danger he imposes. If he's still viewed as a killer, he's still going to be released and no continuing hold upon him. The blended sentence that you accurately described, Jack, is better. That says he goes into the juvenile rehabilitation system until age 21, then the judge reviews him. If he is rehabilitated, he's free. If he is still a dangerous killer, he can be continued in confinement at the judge's option.

FORD: Senator, during the course of the sentencing, the sentencing judge, Judge Eugene Moore, was fairly critical of the legislature and the legislators for this law. Let's take a look for a moment at something that he had to say, and I want to ask you for your reaction to it.

Sen. REGENMORTER: Sure.

Judge MOORE: I ask the legislature to learn to lean toward the prison resources and programs within the juvenile justice system rather than averting more youth into an already failed adult system.

FORD: The judge essentially said that you folks were not really doing your job here, that you should be focusing more on rehabilitation than the notion of just saying we're going to take these young people and throw them into jail with adults where they can become, according to the judge, even more dangerous criminals. What's your reaction to that?

Sen. VAN REGENMORTER: Well, at that particular moment, the judge's concern was misplaced. They're all concerned about prevention. Prevention makes a lot of sense, and Michigan is a leader in prevention and early prevention. However, we're dealing here with a killer, a dangerous killer with a nasty police record in addition to this second degree murder. And the focus should have been on protecting society. In fact, the law that he describes specifically gives him that standard, the best interest of the public must be served by the sentence that he gives. I'm not absolutely certain that that--that that prevailed. It looks as if his concern for the defendant may have prevailed over his concern for the best interests of the public.

FORD: Senator, we have about 30 seconds left, if I can ask you one quick question here. One of the criticisms of this law has been as long as you have prosecutors who are elected and responsible to the public in that fashion, there's always going to be pressure on them to say, 'We're going to go after this young man as an adult, no matter what the circumstances were.' How do you deal with that?

Sen. VAN REGENMORTER: We've had a prosecutors discretionary waiver since 1988. It has never been misused by prosecutors. It's--that's a turf matter. Judges and prosecutors sort of vie for whose turf we're going to be upheld.

FORD: All right, Senator Bill Van Regenmorter, thank you for joining us this morning.

Sen. VAN REGENMORTER: Thank you.

GOOD MORNING AMERICA - January 14, 2000