This week, Philadelphia authorities arrested William Barnes, charging him with the murder of a rookie police officer he shot in 1966. Sound like justice?

   Late at night Nov. 27, 1966, Barnes walked into a Philadelphia beauty shop to burglarize it. When the alarm sounded, rookie officer William T. Barclay responded. At 23 years old, he had served on the police force for a year and a half.

   Barnes shot Barclay several times in the confrontation. The bullets splintered his spine and left Barclay a paraplegic for the rest of his life. Barnes was arrested, tried and convicted of attempted murder. He served 15 years of a 10-20 year sentence before receiving parole.

   Barclay’s life was never the same again; not only could he not walk, but he suffered great pain for the remainder of his life. According to Barclay’s sister, he endured bed sores, pneumonia and recurrent infections as the result of what Barnes did to him.

   For his part, prison did not reform Barnes. He spent the better part of his life in and out of lock up. A typical story, sure, but Barclay lived many years more, and Barnes served his time for attempted murder. So where does this new charge come in?

   Barclay died early this week as a result of a urinary tract infection. Paralyzed individuals typically have problems with UTI’s. His death certificate, however, reads "homicide."

   When the decision was made to charge Barnes for the death, the man they encountered was substantially different than the man from 1966. Barnes has spent the last few years living in a half-way house and working at a local supermarket. Apparently remorseful, the 71-year-old man talks often of the choices he made and how they affected others.

   The prosecutor stands firm, however, saying since the shooting caused the paralysis, and the UTI resulted from that paralysis, then Barnes is responsible for him dying of the UTI. It’s known as the "but for test." This is the sole legal rationale behind the current murder charge. But is it just?

   As reported by CNN, District Attorney Lynne Abraham claims her actions are fair.

   "It's not to please anybody or to make nice on somebody or to do something that somebody wants me to do," the prosecutor said. "When you set in motion a chain of events, a perpetrator of a crime is responsible for every single thing that follows from that chain of events no matter how distant."

   On the face of it, this stance might make sense. Of course, we all feel for the young man doomed to life in a wheelchair. Who can deny the sadness of such a loss of quality of life? But can we base justice on sympathy for the victim?

   Perhaps you answer that, "but he killed him." I must argue back that he did not; the officer lived another 40 years, regardless of how he died. Barnes did pay for his actions regardless of future crimes this career-criminal committed. Barnes first spent 15 years paying for the suffering he inflicted on Barclay. Yet, it seems this is not enough. .

   To charge this man with murder is insane. In essence, he is being told he should face double jeopardy. "We’re going to throw you in prison for shooting that cop and again when he dies 41 years later," it says.

   Supporters of this decision defend their opinion by pointing out it is not uncommon for a criminal to receive numerous charges stemming for the same criminal incident. For instance, a rape occurring in the process of a robbery is two distinctively different crimes.

   But, I assert that in this case, attempted murder and murder are substantively the same crime. How can we differentiate the two? If Barclay was convicted of attempted murder because the officer did not die, then we cannot say 40 years later, "Now he’s dead. Now you are going to prison for murder." He has already paid for what he did.

   I also must insist that 40 years is too long to establish such a "but-for." Even non-paralyzed people get urinary tract infections. Who can say he is directly responsible? If Barclay had died in a house fire because he could not get out of bed and into his chair fast enough, would that be murder? Remember, "but-for."

   Indeed, I believe this is politics and social elitism at work. I can not conceive this would have happened if the victim had been a nobody. It has never even been tried until now. We must wonder why there is no such precedent.

   If the authorities succeed in this travesty of justice, the future implications could be terrifying. Any individual targeted for political or social reasons could be charged with and pay for the same crime – shooting a cop in this case, even if it was 40 years after the crime before he died. If 15 years is a typical murder sentence, has he not paid? Surely the Supreme Court will see this.

   So I ask you, who is the victim? Was it murder? Is this how America defines justice?

   I know the answer.