A sentence stands.

Byline: The Register-Guard

This week's decision by the Oregon Supreme Court to let stand the 112-year sentence given to Kip Kinkel for the 1998 murder of his parents and his Thurston High School shooting rampage was greeted with sad, subdued satisfaction by Kinkel's victims.

The reactions of the victims and their families speak for many in a community that will never be the same after that grim May morning in 1998 when Kinkel, one day after slaying his two parents, killed Mikael Nickolauson, 17, and Ben Walker, 16, and wounded 25 other students at Thurston High School.

"We would rather have had Mikael here with us celebrating his 22nd birthday than hearing about the state Supreme Court upholding his murder sentence," said Mikael's parents, Michael and Dawna Nickolauson.

So it is that there was no joy, no enthusiasm, no applause for the high court's decision. The tragedy of that day was too great and the impacts too penetrating for anything other than a nod of approval and a pause to hope that Kinkel's legal journey has reached its end.

The justices refused without comment to review an October state Court of Appeals ruling that upheld the sentence imposed by Lane County Circuit Judge Jack Mattison. Before Kinkel's trial was scheduled to begin in the fall of 1999, Kinkel dropped his insanity defense and pleaded guilty to four counts of aggravated murder. The prosecution and defense agreed to a deal that gave Kinkel a 25-year prison term and left to Mattison the sentences for 26 remaining attempted murder charges.

After a protracted, wrenching sentencing hearing attended by shooting victims and their family members, Mattison stunned the defense by adding another 87 years to Kinkel's term. As justification, the judge cited a 1996 amendment to the state constitution that he said was a "clear statement that the protection of society in general was to be of more importance than the possible reformation or rehabilitation of any individual defendant."

It was a tough but justifiable sentence, one that reflected the horrific nature of Kinkel's crimes and the need to protect future victims and the community from future acts of violence. The appeals court wisely rejected the flimsy argument of Kinkel's lawyer that Mattison had misinterpreted the 1996 amendment by failing to give balanced consideration to each of the four sentencing principles that it contained: protection of society, personal responsibility, accountability for one's actions and reformation. In rejecting that appeal, the court said the sentencing criteria were not intended as an impersonal "mathematical formula" and that protecting society should be the primary function of any justice system.

The Appeals Court ruling, and the Supreme Court's decision to let it stand, also provide much-needed reinforcement of the important role that judges can and should play in determining penalties - a role that has been dangerously weakened in the Measure 11 era.

Hopefully, the Supreme Court's decision will be the final word on this case. While Kinkel's attorneys could attempt to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court or wage other challenges in Oregon's courts, it's hard to imagine what arguments could still be made that haven't already been made - and rejected.

This week's statement by the Nickolausons ended with an exhortation to the community, one that serves as a fitting postscript to the court's decision:

"We ask that everyone not only pray for the victims and survivors of the shootings and their families, but also for Kip and his family."